Jump to content
Cryptic Megafauna

What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong?

Recommended Posts

Twist

You do not speak your own language?? Sorry, didn't know you were bilingual  :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

Trying to get a rise?  :derisive:

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Trying to have a little fun, make a few jokes, nothing personal.   :onthequiet:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

Anything trans-personal?   :spiteful:

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

as in an altered state of consciousness ??   :beerhat:

 

....only every time I post here !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

Actually, a main reason our ape cousins cannot speak is because the hyoid bone in the neck is in the wrong place.  The fact that sasquatches seem to have a language, and can mimic other animals so well may be because they are a species of Homo, not Pan like our ape cousins.

Edited by jayjeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

 

There is a body of narratives over centuries, and if one considers these collective narratives, we see a creature who:

 

1. Is primarily adapted to nocturnal activities.  Yes they are seen in daytime, but the weight of narratives indicate significantly more activity starting at sundown.  Only recently developed technology has allowed our own limited abilities to go out at night.  But those technological abilities simultaneously telegraph human approaches from long distances, enabling observation or evasion - whichever they prefer. 

 

2. Has a natural Ghillie suit.  Ideal for breaking up overall shape, many report a flat black appearance that doesn't reflect light, ideal for moving and living in the shadows, hunting by ambush, and while they are very large animals, they can get very small by using this natural camouflage.  It is so easy to hide from humans very nearby, if one can break up his shape, remain motionless, and confuse human eyes by blending with shadows, rocks, and grey bark.

 

3. They have great muscular mass and are extremely powerful.  Those "natural" approaches taken by humans, due to limited strength and capability, are NOT the same natural approaches taken by much more powerful critters.  The ability to leap great distances and run up almost vertical inclines due to apparently a differently hinged ankle enable them to "disappear" very quickly.  

 

4. Animals that can't "talk" seem to be able to use other means to communicate basic concerns to others of their species.  We like to think we alone have a spoken language, and maybe we do - but what if language can be defined as a means to communicate - then there are degrees of language.  There are peoples even today that can't read or write, but they meet their own needs.  Some backward cultures can't do calculus, but neither do they find a need for it.  And yet they are as human as NASA employees.

 

5. I noted especially in the jungle and deep remote forests, you have your daytime players, and come sundown, they become relatively inactive and an entirely new group of players come out to in turn, dominate the night.  Some do split duties.  Some lean more one way than the other, due to their capabilities.  Outdoorsmen know this.

 

Humans and Critters have some similarities.  Likewise, they have many dissimilarities.   Just how many are yet to be determined.

My point being that man evolved my sacrificing robustness (muscle mass, intestinal development, bone thickness) for the advantage of a larger brain. The evolutionary advantage is what defines modern man.

 

The brain is a huge investment of energy and developmental investment so the sacrifice was in the energy of other organic structures requirements.

 

It is how we and a Bigfoot may differ, but does not exclude a Bigfoot from being highly intelligent.

 

They may have the intellectual level of a 12 - 16 year old.

 

They just won't wind up using their mental abilities to model there social behavior on the same level a person would.

 

They wouldn't need to if they live in small groups, it would be a waste of fire power that can be better used to conceal and then out maneuver FarArcher.

 

 

They can already outmaneuver me and not even try.

 

But what I learned to do, and have done, is detailed analysis of key behavioral patterns.

 

One would think that combat ground troops would actually avoid getting into firefights.  Quite the contrary.  After several days of being on edge with every ounce of concentration - it begins to wear on you, and we'd even start fighting among ourselves.  Nerves were on edge 24/7.  It's wearing.

 

Normally, we'd be given a jump off point, and run a patrol to another designated point - simultaneously with other units who were given other points - determined by whoever was in command.  Because this Colonel knew as much about human behavior as he did about nuclear particle physics, the points and patrol lines he drew on the map may look good overall, but like "Finding Bigfoot," I can look at their map points and tell you they're not going to find anything before they ever go out.

 

After several days of finding nothing,  I'd be quietly approached, and asked if I could find the enemy for engagement - to let everyone take their frustrations out on our opponents.  Each time I was allowed, I would find our opponents - that same day.

 

I attained a bit of a reputation for having a "nose" for finding the enemy.  It was no such thing.  I just did my homework.  And no time was wasted looking in wrong areas, just to make nice lines on the map that would look good.

 

Folks clutter up their minds with way too much frivolous, pre-determined beliefs.  They'll hang their expectations entirely on what they'd do rather than what their prey would do.  What may be natural or obvious to you, is maybe counter-intuitive to your opponent.  What may make perfect sense to you, an obvious anticipated line of approach - may be recognized as way too obvious to your opponent, and thus something to be avoided.  Some get so involved in their own plans, they don't take into proper account the plans/habits/needs/preferences of their opponents.

 

Back to "Finding Bigfoot."  They pin sighting locations - past sighting locations - and then pick a spot somewhere nearby where they think would be most productive.  That's just wrong.  Their logic is wrong.  Their planning is wrong.  Their approach is wrong.  Their equipment is wrong.  Their activities are wrong.  

 

Even when they go to a bad location, they violate every single rule of noise, light, and movement discipline in the book - wholesale.  They couldn't put the sneak on a cemetery. 

 

I'm just surprised they can find their way back to the motel. Oh.  That's right.  They have every kind of light known to science to illuminate their way.

Edited by FarArcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

FarArcher~how do you define modulation? My own understanding of it comes from using synthesizers to design sounds where modulation use another wave to effect the tone or other aspects of the sound...sort of like the Tibetan throat singing using upper harmonics created through specific throat/mouth configurations that allow the higher tones to sound through resonances and shape of chamber. Those can be tweeked and shifted some and have a reciprocal effect on the sound of the fundamental tone as it exits the Tibetan.

The birds of paradise, amongst others, do some pretty amazing things with sound, producing tonalities one wouldn't expect to hear coming out of a bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

It's not how I define modulation - that's the exact terminology used by anthropologists who were trying to convey why we could talk and apes couldn't.

 

We have the ability to soften sounds, tone down sounds, and regulate tonal up and down ramps with relative consistency - enabling us to learn to mimic, understand, and then duplicate words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

Actually, a main reason our ape cousins cannot speak is because the hyoid bone in the neck is in the wrong place.  The fact that sasquatches seem to have a language, and can mimic other animals so well may be because they are a species of Homo, not Pan like our ape cousins.

Yay, Jayjeti! Thanks for reiterating these things.  

 

All the things you mentioned are well established.

 

To repeat:

 

-- The hairy guys have their own spoken language. Scott Nelson -- an actual, bona fide linguist who worked AS a linguist for the US Navy for more than 30 years and now teaches the Russian, Spanish, and Persian languages at Wentworth College -- knew immediately, upon hearing a few seconds of "samurai chatter", that the BF had "complex language" (his phrase, not mine). He has spent considerable time and effort studying that complex language, and has never, in the years since that first moment he heard a Sasquatch speak, had any reason to revise his statement that the BF have complex language. 

 

-- The hairy guys speak various human languages, including English. (So yes, FarArcher, the Sasquatch people also have the ability to "learn to mimic, understand, and then duplicate words".) There are many reports of people hearing their names (and much more) called from the brush. Several people on this forum have reported these things. I believe it was Sunflower who said she's heard "mom" called from the woods at times when her kids were at school. There are similar reports in Chris Noel's "Sasquatch Rising". And just in the last few weeks, a member here reported hearing, as a child, their name called from the direction of the person's house while the person was in the woods, and having the parents deny they ever called the person home. Alex MidnightWalker, who speaks Spanish, has recordings of the BF speaking Spanish. Matthew Johnson, among others, have recorded the BF speaking NA language. These are just a few of the many accounts of BF speaking hairless person languages. The evidence is overwhelming that the BF have the ability to speak our languages perfectly, and perfectly intelligibly, and understand what they are saying. The contention that BF "physiology" (ha ha ha!) prevents the BF from forming certain sounds is completely, utterly false. Not only do we not (thank heavens) have the physical specimens to study to allow us to arrive at these conclusions, but the many recordings of language emanating from the darkest of dark forests absolutely do not support these conclusions. 

 

-- The hairy guys can write in English. Joan Ocean is the person most famous for having determined this, but she is not the only one who has received pieces of English language writing. I have, too. And we are not the only ones. 

 

Theories that discount known information about Sasquatch behavior and abilities are no doubt interesting to the creators of those theories, but perhaps should not be of interest to anyone in pursuit of the truth of this matter.  

Edited by LeafTalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

LeafTalker, I've consistently stated I believe these things are hybrids - not ape.  Not man.  Hybrids - something in between.  Maybe what some would call a more primitive version of man.

 

I never heard any talk, but I am convinced they have a whole lot more intelligence than most folks want to afford them.  I've said they have tactical excellence.  I've said I believe they live and hunt in family groups/clans.

 

Those are my personal beliefs only.  

 

Some would suggest that some 10,000 of BF these things across the nation would be too easily detected.  Baloney.  They're clever.  They have skills.  I could hide 10,000 erect dark patio umbrellas across the nation, and they wouldn't be found.  But I won't be hiding them on or near trails nor commonly traversed lines of approach.  If I intend to hide them in plain sight, they'll not be reflective, and not be found.

 

One other thing I'm not so certain of.  I don't believe across North America, all these things are the same species.  Close, maybe, but no cigar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

Yeah, no worries, FarArcher. I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote what I wrote.... I was kind of building on your excellent observations of what was special about US to "sneak in" the evidence that THEY are just as "special". 

 

I think you could easily be right, that there are different species of similar beings hanging out across the continent (and the world). I believe, however, that some of the impetus behind the desire to propose the existence of a number of different species of the beings we call the BF comes from our need to account for what we perceive to be differences in language abilities, with some people hearing guttural sounds coming from the woods, and others hearing distinct, undeniable language.

 

As confident as I am about a lot of things related to BF -- both because of my own experiences, and the experiences of others -- I am not at all confident that the perceived differences in linguistic abilities are rooted in the fact that the individuals making those sounds are different species. Do you see what I'm saying here? It's perfectly possible that, under some circumstances, an individual could make sounds that seemed "guttural" and non-language-based, but in others, make sounds that were more obviously (to our woefully untrained ears) language.

 

In other words, there could be other, as-yet undetermined reasons for the differences in what we're hearing.

 

But the idea that there might be some/many different species of being very similar to us wandering the planet seems completely reasonable, in my view. 

 

Maybe you will help us figure this out. You are a good observer, and you have an open mind. That's really the only thing required here. Rock on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

I want to add that the reason I am not confident that the same individual(s) can't speak perfectly clearly sometimes and less clearly others is because I have experienced both types of vocalizations (and, as I say, written English language communication) in the same area.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

FarArcher~those parameters you listed are found in all sorts of different creature's vocalization patterns&systems, from birds to whales to primates to canids.

I don't know for certain, but such capacities may also be present in geckos and the anurans (frogs and toads) as both groups are known for a variety of chirps, barks, squeaks and other sundry noises.

In the humpback whales, researchers have found that different pods have different songs, songs that are repeated virtually note for note, lasting up to and over 30 minutes(don't quite know how long that is in "whale time") distinct enough that individuals can be identified as to which group they come from by their song. These songs of theirs gradually change over time with new elements added or shifted, yet still remain consistent enough to distinguish/name the group it comes from. This has been considered as demonstrating the presence of something akin to linguistic groupings in humans.

This is thought by some to represent evidence of distinct whale cultures, just as varied forms of tool use in geographically disperate troops of chimps is seen as signs of differentiating cultural forms within that species.

As to the abstract content and meaning, at this point we can't be certain, as we've yet to figure out just what they're saying, an idea that may well apply to a whole host of creatures, maybe even plants for all we currently know, despite what we think we currently know...y'know?

You don't have to go to New Guinea to hear birds doing this...in my backyard there are birds whose sounds demonstrate a format consistency within which variation of tone, sequence, volume, and timbre are present. There are patterns that repeat, so maybe some are like certain sentences or phrases, yet variation does occur, and most likely for a reason, some bird-chosen alteration of sent info in a mode mutually understood by both sender and recipients. The shifts arent just by accident or happenstance, at this stage of development everything is for a reason and intent. There are subtle nuances(articulation..ie modulation)that do repeat, and most likely infer different meanings, lest they would not be there.

Sure, there are calls deemed as a species wide vocalization seen across the range of that species, but often times there is also locale-specific sounds made by different populations, sometimes with areas of transitional interphase between them.

I would think one hard pressed to find many ornithologists or ethologists that will claim that modulation as you describe it is not found in a good number of bird species, maybe not all, but a good number of them.

Perhaps, though, I'm not seeing the distinction or context-specific nature of what you're saying, and I would like to if I'm not! I try not to get too wrapped up in my own hubris, but at times I find myself mired in it before I realize what I'm stepping in!

Edited by guyzonthropus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

I agreed that these critters may represent a hybridization, as do probably all the more closely related hominids to some extent, but at what point do they transition from hybrids to a distinct species? Once interbreeding stops? X number of generations? Once traits stabilize to a relative consistency?

I've seen in reptiles that the F2 generation of hybrids can show the classic 25/50/25 ratios in single clutches, which could manifest as a pretty diverse family in a species that bears offspring one at a time if a similar genetic mix were to come forth.

The chances for a tragically hairless child would be one in four....presuming the trait is determined by a single gene...

"Well...I guess we'll have to leave it to the coyotes, as this will never do..just think of what the Chotaks will say...we'll be the laughing stock of the whole mountain range...I can hear it now.."

"did you see Trae-Ma's and Rakta' s boy, pink as a salmon, as fur-free as frog,

poor things..."

"No, I won't be the subject of their pity nor mockery! To the coyotes it is!"

Leaf Talker~ different linguistic groups don't make a species distinct, it may indicate differentiation, but speciation usually involves morphological differences that breed true.

The idea that species is defined by successful breeding of two individuals resulting in progeny that can then reproduce themselves, and so on is not so concrete...I myself have interbred subspecies(still possible under the definition above) but I know a fellow who has not only hybridized closely related species, but also species of different genera(within the same family, but still, that sameness is two levels above what should be possible!) producing fertile offspring. So wrist have more realistic definition of what makes a species a species, and what distinguishes it from others, unless we're going to rework a good portion of Linnean taxonomy...

Sorry...stepped in it again....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...