Guest JiggyPotamus Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I think that mimicry is a much more plausible hypothesis where sasquatch "speech" is concerned. I just believe that any animals who possessed the intelligence necessary for speech would have developed a higher form of culture than the sasquatch appear to have. Even primitive humans existed within some form of society, often nomad bands or tribes, which eventually progressed to stationary settlements once agriculture was developed, and the need for following animals herds diminished. Trade between various groups also promoted permanent settlements. There is little evidence to suggest that sasquatch form tribes or groups, and the majority of evidence points to them being a mixture of solitary animals and family units. Of course it could be said that very early humans would be a better representation of sasquatch, and that early humans possessed the capacity for speech, but I think that sasquatch have been around for a sufficient length of time. If they had the necessary brain power for developing language I feel they would have reached this point by now. This is by no means a given however. If sasquatch have only been around for 10,000 years or so, this is an evolutionary drop in the bucket. Or perhaps they simply have no need for developing societies. An animal could, theoretically, possess a high level of intelligence, without the same need for societal bonds that man seems to possess. But sasquatch do have some need of society if they form family groups. It is all conjecture. Perhaps I am making a mistake in comparing sasquatch with humans on this issue, because not all animals will follow the same progression. So while I still stand behind my hypothesis, the idea is tentative. I really wish I knew just how much consciousness sasquatch have. Most animals seem to behave based on instinct. I've advanced my hypothesis in the past where sasquatch instinct is concerned, and it is similar to that of humans. Sasquatch are driven by instinct, but they also possess the intelligence necessary to override this instinct when applicable. They are not slaves to their primitive drives. Although they likely have much fewer inhibitions, which is the case with all animals aside from man. And something I forgot to mention earlier is that it's also possible that an animal with the ability to manipulate its environment, if intelligent, would basically build stuff. It could be countered that stick structures, if built by sasquatch, suggests an existence similar to that of very early humans, and thus it could be argued that the bigfoot have some intelligence, thus making speech possible. So their ability to manipulate their environment in a structured and logical manner suggests they have a mind capable of higher functioning. I've been thinking recently, although this is unrelated, of consciousness in general. I was watching a documentary on the Higgs particle, and they were talking about what almost amounted to a sort of perfection upon the universe's creation, with the Higgs essentially breaking this symmetry and allowing the fundamental forces, and even particles themselves, to come into existence. Similar to a drop in energy states I suppose. And for some reason I had this idea that matter does not create consciousness. It just seemed absurd in fact, although not for any logical reason. Instead matter limits, or "traps" consciousness. So essentially consciousness is universal. It exists as part of that fundamental perfection, within the fabric of the universe itself. And as entropy increased, and continues to increase, consciousness becomes limited further. Maybe anyway, lol. And then I was wondering if the human brain is anything special; why is it a structure that could "hold" consciousness in the first place? Anyway, I never reached any real conclusion past these extremely basic points. If such an idea were correct then there are huge implications. And what about non-human animals? We know their brains are quite similar to our own. Are we making a mistake in assuming that non-human animals lack a certain "something?" How conscious are they? Lower life forms, even with human-like brains, do not seem to have the same level of reasoning abilities. But does this really say anything where consciousness is concerned? The increasing order within higher life forms, by my earlier assertions, would imply an increase in consciousness, which might be synonymous with reasoning capacity, or intelligence in general. Higher life forms are developing on earth it seems, while entropy, or disorder, is increasing throughout the universe as a whole. There is not really anything profound in such ideas I suppose, nor is there anything definitive, and as I said it does not relate directly to sasquatch although the ideas themselves would have their implications where sasquatch are concerned. I really think that we could learn quite a bit by analyzing the brain of a sasquatch. Would we find something new, or would we essentially be looking at a larger non-human primate brain? There is a portion of the brain called the ventrolateral frontal cortex which is very important to higher-level functions such as language. There is a major difference between humans and non-human primates where this area is concerned, although there are also many similarities. The main differences, even where other areas of the brain are concerned, seem to be in the "wiring." Two animals can possess the same basic structures, but for whatever reason, probably evolution, these areas can behave differently. So it might be difficult to determine the language capacity of sasquatch based on a physical examination of the brain. Usually what they do with primates is use an MRI machine while the animal is performing various tasks, which will give some insight into the "thinking" process, and will show differences between these animals and humans. So we basically know that some non-human primates have some of the necessary material for developing language, although they might not possess the physical structures necessary. Anyway, the processing of information is different between primates. One mistake that we as a community, and myself especially, might be making is attempting to understand sasquatch behavior based upon comparisons with our own behavior. We say "why would sasquatch do this or that," because certain actions do not seem logical to us. Yet if they process information differently from us, many of their behaviors could vary in comparison with our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodslore Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I have done some other looking and I hear nothing that sounds similar to human to me in the vocal sounds of the apes mention. Well nothing anymore human than a dog or cat sometimes sounds IMO. I wonder if maybe too much is being placed on this before further research can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Rinse and repeat: Gorillas are already (at least Coco) able to use human language. I suggest you look up Coco on youtube to get up to date with the very old current knowledge on ape language ability. Orangs are just a bunch of monkeys; That is, they no talky so good, and anyway, Coco would be the baseline model for human level speech comparison. So, if you add the higher IQ to the squatches, you can easily get close to 'Neanderthal' (limited) level speech, given Neanderthal was speaking, and therefor thinking, like a ''cave man''. There are reports of samuri chatter going back and forth. Abbba gabba jibba wobba? OOba gabba jabba jabba! ika jika jigga jooga? Stuff like that. Some also appear to understand English quite well if you believe the reports. Edited January 17, 2015 by Wag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I have done some other looking and I hear nothing that sounds similar to human to me in the vocal sounds of the apes mention. Well nothing anymore human than a dog or cat sometimes sounds IMO. I wonder if maybe too much is being placed on this before further research can be done. I have to agree with this, what is in the video is a bunch of nothing and I think judging from it that calling this imitated speech is a big stretch. I have heard the "Samurai chatter", and it was coming from a spot the source likely would not be able to detect me at all. Just sounded like a real big man talking so I got down low and got abit closer to hear what he was saying but couldn't tell, thought at the time it was a fisherman or something. Found out later that was impossible and had my first up close and personal bigfoot encounters in that spot later that night. I seriously doubt there is any imitation to it and really think that when people claim it is imitation they are just trying to write it off so they can de-humanize the bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) It's important to realize that this 'tan wasn't speaking like a human (communicating), but rather was exhibiting signs of early language. Hence the 'speak' in quotes. “Lip-smacking†is the scientific term to describe how humans move their lips when they talk. While scientists previously thought this was a phenomenon unique to humans, it looks like our not-so-distant neighbors, the orangutan have also been observed lip-smacking as well." "Research published in the journal Public Library of Science ONE, reveals that orangutans can not only learn new calls, but these calls bare a striking similarity to human words. This development lends itself to the possibility that orangutans are learning to speak in the same way our human ancestors did." http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/orangutans-may-hold-the-key-to-human-language/ The tans won't speak language (like us) until their vocal tract re-configures to allow for quantal vowels and their FOXP2 gene developes a couple more mutations. Those are the prerequisites according to science. Both the physiology and the motor skills have to be present, and I'd say the ability to think outside of the here and now as well. The apes do have the abstract thinking and can sign a message, so they aren't that far away, but I wouldn't compare their sounds to some of the supposed BF recordings, I'd compare the BF recordings to ours. Edited January 18, 2015 by southernyahoo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I have personally heard this strange mumbling or samuri chatter several times. I have a few possible recordings of these sounds, one of witch ( if I can find it ) I and my father personally heard by ear after broadcasting a few calls. It sounds like gibberish being spoken with an emotional intensity or sharpness. I think the reason people reference Japanese language or ,, Samuri chatter ,, is due to a very heavy emotional inflection put into the fast paced speech ( or mumbling ) itself, this range and tone behind the sound is emotional expression for conveying anything from anger to excitement. For example, think of cheesy Kung Fu movie conversations or bad over acting on lines. This is very similar to what we here of in reports and recordings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Cant hear anything remotely human sounding in that clip in the OP. I was thinking the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 18, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 18, 2015 What I heard was not "samurai chatter" like on the Sierra Sounds tapes. Nothing brash, none of the "apes fighting" thing. What I heard was high pitched, giggly / musical mumbling. It sounded like little kids saying words I couldn't quite make out. The source was moving away from me at a fairly high speed, faster than a walk, slower than a sprint. No brush thrashing or branches breaking which is kind of odd. As it was happening I remembered someone telling me that people who follow THOSE voices into the woods don't come back. I don't remember who or why we were having the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodslore Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 As it was happening I remembered someone telling me that people who follow THOSE voices into the woods don't come back. I don't remember who or why we were having the conversation. Those are the best kind of conversations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 What I heard was not "samurai chatter" like on the Sierra Sounds tapes. Nothing brash, none of the "apes fighting" thing. What I heard was high pitched, giggly / musical mumbling. It sounded like little kids saying words I couldn't quite make out. The source was moving away from me at a fairly high speed, faster than a walk, slower than a sprint. No brush thrashing or branches breaking which is kind of odd. As it was happening I remembered someone telling me that people who follow THOSE voices into the woods don't come back. I don't remember who or why we were having the conversation. That sounds like it might be a female. Do you think it was trying to 'lure' you? What were the circumstances in that situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 http://robertsapolskyrocks.weebly.com/language.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 19, 2015 Moderator Share Posted January 19, 2015 Circumstances? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. I went on an early morning general purpose exploring trip. There's a pond I'd never been to. The "trail" is an abandoned, gated off road about 2 miles long. Dept of F&G told me they used to stock it. Since it was deer season, I grabbed my rifle, my hunting pack, threw in my fishing rod, and camera of course, and went for a hike. About 4 miles round trip. I had a near sighting first, then the giggly voices about 25-30 feet father, then later on the way back, about 200 yards back towards the truck, I had a brief sighting. I don't believe it was the same one. No sense of threat in any of it. The whole thing was oddly humorous. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Circumstances? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. I went on an early morning general purpose exploring trip. There's a pond I'd never been to. The "trail" is an abandoned, gated off road about 2 miles long. Dept of F&G told me they used to stock it. Since it was deer season, I grabbed my rifle, my hunting pack, threw in my fishing rod, and camera of course, and went for a hike. About 4 miles round trip. I had a near sighting first, then the giggly voices about 25-30 feet father, then later on the way back, about 200 yards back towards the truck, I had a brief sighting. I don't believe it was the same one. No sense of threat in any of it. The whole thing was oddly humorous. MIB "oddly humorous" has been the way I have seen all of my experiences, I would want the guy who said people disappeared when they followed those voices to elaborate greatly, and I would bet that most of the time when such stories were dug into that they were found to be totally baseless. Sounds like some more of that general public mentality of the wilderness, where everything in the woods is automatically a murderous fiend out to kill you that has to be destroyed and all that they(Most people ime tbh) know about the forest is gotten from B-grade horror movies. Edited January 19, 2015 by Xion Comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The tans won't speak language (like us) until their vocal tract re-configures to allow for quantal vowels and their FOXP2 gene developes a couple more mutations. Those are the prerequisites according to science. In the article I linked, and the section I quoted, showed that in this particular case, science was wrong about the uniqueness of humans being the only creatures to 'lip smack' demonstrating that science still has a some to learn about language. I'm not saying the FOXP2 gene and vocal tract portion of your statement is incorrect, I'm just saying it may not be entirely true. ;-) How's that for a hedged bet? LOL! Edited January 19, 2015 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 In the article I linked, and the section I quoted, showed that in this particular case, science was wrong about the uniqueness of humans being the only creatures to 'lip smack' demonstrating that science still has a some to learn about language. I'm not saying the FOXP2 gene and vocal tract portion of your statement is incorrect, I'm just saying it may not be entirely true. ;-) How's that for a hedged bet? LOL! Scientific consensus has been wrong many times in terms of "animal intelligence". Until Jane Goodall showed her evidence, it was the consensus that chimps didn't use tools and were vegetarians. And that's why we need to be skeptical enough of the consensus to be able to think outside of the consensus box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts