How Far Up The Ladder Does Knowledge Of Sasquatch Go?

[Twist]

50 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 Once it was discussed in the Sierra Sounds book, someone,  it had to have been some government agency, went in and destroyed the camp.   Because of its remoteness, it would have taken an aircraft to find it.    It was of no interest to the government until it became associated with BF, causing some agency to search for it and do a lot of work to destroy it.   Why?

 

I was doing a little looking into this and is the following link not the same location spoken of?   Makes it sound like it was just semi recently destroyed via fires.  

 

https://nationalcryptidsociety.org/2018/08/17/california-wildfires-claim-the-site-of-the-sierra-sounds-moorehead-mother-earth-will-recover/

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, cmknight said:

I wouldn't be quite so sure about that, Huntster. They save a lot more of their disposable income than we do. Credit cards are rare, and they always seem to come up with the cash to buy a home, instead of getting a mortgage. Vehicles of choice on the mainland are European ... BMW, Audi, etc ... and they pay cash for them. Most Chinese live very frugally, but they have a crap-ton of money in the bank for retirement.

 

My parents bought their home in Orange County, California, like that; with cash saved up over a 5 year period of time. My parents never borrowed a nickel from anybody, and only got a credit card when they were literally forced to to fly, get lodging, and rent cars well into retirement. They were Depression Era folks, which is likely whete we're going. When our economy crashes, the Chinese will be the next superpower, and precisely for the reasons you cite.

[MIB]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Why?

 

I have some insight into possible reasons.    The area where I grew up was fairly heavily populated (relatively speaking :)) prior to the Great Depression and continuing on up to about WW II or a bit later.    People homesteaded, set up mining claims, and so on.   Eventually they left leaving structures on public land.   USFS and BLM had a lot of trouble with squatters, hippie communes, etc popping up using those old structures, leaving litter, growing dope, and generally being a public nuisance.     One winter we had a ... lets call it a series of anomalous lighting strikes ... and by the next spring, all of those abandoned structures mysteriously burned to the ground yet none which were still legally maintained were damaged.   "Hmmm."  

 

I suspect it to be much the same for the structure that the hunters were using ... it simply was not legal to construct anything even semi-permanent on National Forest or Wilderness lands so once it came to USFS attention, they were required by agency policy to destroy it.  

 

Nothing nefarious was required.    Didn't have anything to do with bigfoot, it was strictly removal of an illegal structure.   

 

The only structure I know of now which is not on a patented, maintained mining claim or on public land under a long term lease to a private individual is, though unmarked and unsigned, on the National Registry of Historic Places.    The rest have been removed ... burned or otherwise destroyed ... by government workers.

 

MIB

 

 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

To learn an unknown language you have to have face to face contact with the subject to get some context to associate with words.      He has found  no direct correlation with any other modern human language,   although its multi-tonal nature seems to be similar to some Asian languages.  

 

Agree ... face to face, with objects to point at and name, actions to mimic and label, etc are necessary for a truly unknown language.   

 

His mention of the very high speed of delivery is interesting to me from an I.T. standpoint.  

 

An acquaintance suggested glyphs she was finding appear similar to those left by ice age humans as they first entered the new world.   Has interesting implications.   A similarly ancient spoken language would as well.   

 

All to be taken with a grain of salt for now.  

[Huntster]

20 minutes ago, MIB said:

........ it simply was not legal to construct anything even semi-permanent on National Forest or Wilderness lands so once it came to USFS attention, they were required by agency policy to destroy it.  

 

Nothing nefarious was required.    Didn't have anything to do with bigfoot, it was strictly removal of an illegal structure........

 

If it was attracting more people or had the potential to, or had the potential to attract more attention of any kind, that may very well have put it higher up on the list for a scheduled lightning strike............written by a former government bolt of lightning...........

[SWWASAS]

21 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Agree ... face to face, with objects to point at and name, actions to mimic and label, etc are necessary for a truly unknown language.   

 

His mention of the very high speed of delivery is interesting to me from an I.T. standpoint.  

 

An acquaintance suggested glyphs she was finding appear similar to those left by ice age humans as they first entered the new world.   Has interesting implications.   A similarly ancient spoken language would as well.   

 

All to be taken with a grain of salt for now.  

I looked at ancient languages relative to glyphs found by me and others I have seen posted.     Some do have some similarities to ancient Hebrew where the  characters are mostly formed by straight lines.   That could be cooincidence or the result of stick arrangements looking like straight lines.    Glyphs are complicated things to decipher without a Rosetta Stone to give you a clue as to meaning.   It took that with Egyptian Heiroglyphs to make any headway. 

[SWWASAS]

22 hours ago, MIB said:

he only structure I know of now which is not on a patented, maintained mining claim or on public land under a long term lease to a private individual is, though unmarked and unsigned, on the National Registry of Historic Places.    The rest have been removed ... burned or otherwise destroyed ... by government workers.

 

MIB

 

 

The same fate befell the Mt St Helens miners cabin.  I find it interesting that an agency that refuses to maintain its own roads when they are degrading to the point where they are dangerous to drive, spends the time and money seeking out structures in very remote places to burn down because they might be hazardous to someone who blunders into them.    On the one hand they are concerned about safety with anything associated with BF but on the other hand they are unconcerned about the safety of those using well traveled forest roads.  

[MIB]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

 I find it interesting that an agency that refuses to maintain its own roads when they are degrading to the point where they are dangerous to drive, spends the time and money seeking out structures in very remote places to burn down because they might be hazardous to someone who blunders into them.

 

Different times.   The buildings in my area were burned prior to 1980.   At that time, USFS was building roads like crazy to access previously inaccessible timber, to do so ahead of wilderness designation which would have blocked the road building, and, because of the presence of roads, block designation as wilderness.

 

It's a different USFS today.   Different political climate, different goals.

 

As you say, today, no budget for road maintenance.   This is mostly because of curtailment of timber harvest on national forest lands.   The roads were paid for with haul-tax money.  No logging, no hauling to tax, so no money to maintain roads nor to build more.   

 

This is truly a problem in some areas that are fire-prone because those old logging roads provide the fire fighting access.   Many of the roads have become so degraded that they can't be restored enough to bring in firefighting equipment quickly enough to suppress fire before it is truly huge.   We saw a good bit of this last summer with the Klondike Fire.   In some places, roads from the previous year's Chetco Bar Fire were still only partially rehabbed / destroyed and could be reactivated quckly, other places, roads had been neglected for decades and for all practical purposes had to be rebuilt from scratch in a hurry.

 

MIB 

[hiflier]

It wouldn't take much to get a definitive answer on the existence of Sasquatch. And yes, I know, those that have seen them don't care about definitive answers beyond their own but there is more than one member here that is not a knower but nonetheless just might like to have that answer. And getting that answer wouldn't be at all hard to do. In fact it would be quite easy. Just send someone an email and simply ask them. No Freedom of Information Act or anything of the sort needed. The WORST that can happen is an email doesn't get a response. Big deal.

 

Just write something like this in the text body:

 

"Hi, there is a lot of debate about the existence of a creature called a Sasquatch or more commonly a Bigfoot. If these creatures do not exist would you please make an official announcement to that effect? It would mean a great deal to an awful lot of people. Thank you."

 

Sign the thing, and call it good. If there is no reply after waiting for a while? No problem, resend the email and keep resending it until someone responds. If eventually someone replies and asks you to stop sending the emails then you know someone has read them. Do one more follow up and ask why the responder is not addressing the Sasquatch existence question. If no answer....resend. Rinse, wash, repeat. If ten people did that? Twenty? It costs nothing to do and it would at least carry the message that it is important to have an definitive, official answer to what is unknown. Does adult here think doing this will create some kind of a problem?

 

If so, please explain.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by hiflier

[Huntster]

It often appears that the government would lie even if the truth sounded better.

[hiflier]

But that's just it there, bud. If they say "no Sasquatches" the quagmire will be just as bad. It will be calling retired forestry and LEO personnel nothing but big liars and anyone else who has claimed to see the beast.

 

Correction: Government won't be calling them liars. We will be. We're the ones who have called witnesses liars so the retirees etc. will just get tossed onto the heap with the rest. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Different times.   The buildings in my area were burned prior to 1980.   At that time, USFS was building roads like crazy to access previously inaccessible timber, to do so ahead of wilderness designation which would have blocked the road building, and, because of the presence of roads, block designation as wilderness.

 

It's a different USFS today.   Different political climate, different goals.

 

As you say, today, no budget for road maintenance.   This is mostly because of curtailment of timber harvest on national forest lands.   The roads were paid for with haul-tax money.  No logging, no hauling to tax, so no money to maintain roads nor to build more.   

 

This is truly a problem in some areas that are fire-prone because those old logging roads provide the fire fighting access.   Many of the roads have become so degraded that they can't be restored enough to bring in firefighting equipment quickly enough to suppress fire before it is truly huge.   We saw a good bit of this last summer with the Klondike Fire.   In some places, roads from the previous year's Chetco Bar Fire were still only partially rehabbed / destroyed and could be reactivated quckly, other places, roads had been neglected for decades and for all practical purposes had to be rebuilt from scratch in a hurry.

 

MIB 

What really bothers me are the perfectly good roads that are barricaded with 4 foot deep ditches and huge boulders.   It would take heavy equipment to fix them to get in fire fighting assets.    Of course when the official policy is to let the forest burn because it is natural why worry about getting in fire fighting equipment in a timely manner.    The bipolar government thinking that fossil fuels are bad for the environment and climate change  but forest fires burning millions of acres of timber with tangible detrimental health affects to humans is not a problem really makes me wonder.   I would like to get an enterprising lawyer to file a class action suit against the government for promoting lung disease in the Western States.   I had emphysema like conditions when the fires were bad last spring and summer.   

Edited January 29, 2019 by SWWASAS

[cmknight]

On 1/27/2019 at 9:52 AM, SWWASAS said:

 Nelson has done a lot of analysis of the BF language but states clearly that he will never be able to translate it.     To learn an unknown language you have to have face to face contact with the subject to get some context to associate with words.      He has found  no direct correlation with any other modern human language,   although its multi-tonal nature seems to be similar to some Asian languages. 

 

I took a look at his "work" a few years ago, and was not too impressed. As far as I'm concerned, there was no need whatsoever for him to "invent" a new phonetic alphabet for Sasquatch, since every sound can be made with the current International Phonetic Alphabet. There are no new sounds that need a new written phonemic representation. He just re-invented the wheel. As for no direct correlation to other modern human languages, |I played the Sierra sounds tapes (the part where Morehead tries to interact, repeating what the creatures were saying) for my students in China, and they instantly recognized the speech as a very fast version of Northeast Mandarin dialect (specific to Jilin and Liaoning provinces), asking "What are you doing?" and "Do you want to fight?". BTW, when I played it for them, I did NOT tell them beforehand, what it was. I also played it for my wife (she is Chinese) under the same circumstances ... no prior information to what was in the recording. She came up with the exact same answers as my students. 

 

I did this experiment before I had even heard of Nelson. I had read that one theory of migration had to do with crossing the Bering Land Bridge, so I figured that if this was to have merit of any kind, there "should" be some similarity at least, in language. The mongoloid race goes back thousands of years, and the language has stayed relatively constant, with very few changes, throughout the millenia. Some of the First Nations people also continue to exhibit some of the Mongoloid facial features, as well, so it wasn't not too hard for me to extrapolate that perhaps Sasquatch and the First Nations migrated here relatively close together in time, give or take a thousand years or so, and spread themselves out over this continent, with First Nations progressing and adapting to their new environments, and Sasquatch staying primitive, and using the land to hide and keep away from others (were they the hunted, perhaps?).

 

I feel there is some merit to Nelson stating that Sasquatch language is similar to some Asian languages, especially if the Bering land bridge theory is true, however, I believe that it may have developed even further from there to be more region specific. For example, New York Sasquatch language could have developed differently from, say, Skunk Ape, or Pacific Sasquatch language (or dialect).

 

Anyhow, I'm kinda getting into a totally different topic here, so I'll shut up now ...

[hiflier]

BUT! To get science involved in order to get a study sanctioned one must first work to blow the lid off existence. I mean these kinds of conversations and discussions regarding language and other things are interesting and all so don't get me wrong. You feel there is merit in what Nelson was getting at and I understand that. However, corroborating studies need to be done and they WON"T be done until the species is recognized by science. Science will move forward in many areas if someone in an official capacity says that the creatures exist. It needs to start there. I have seen much speculation in just about every area of interest but, truly, very little, if any, serious push  to get the truth exposed. Expose the truth of existence first and foremost and EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FALL INTO PLACE.

 

What is stopping anyone from sending out a pile of emails until someone cries 'uncle'? Does anyone think that officials and academia would benefit by seeing support from the Bigfoot community to help them move ahead in this subject? I'll help get things started. Here is Washington State's Department of Natural Resources Commissioner of Public Lands, Hilary S. Franz's, email which is on WADNR's website: cpl@dnr.wa.gov<cpl@dnr.wa.gov Drop her a line sometime. I'd bet she'd even be glad to hear from you. She is an ELECTED official which makes WA residents her constituents. You elected her so talk to her. You don't know where she stands on Sasquatch until you at least ask, RIGHT?

Edited January 29, 2019 by hiflier

[NatFoot]

52 minutes ago, cmknight said:

 

I took a look at his "work" a few years ago, and was not too impressed. As far as I'm concerned, there was no need whatsoever for him to "invent" a new phonetic alphabet for Sasquatch, since every sound can be made with the current International Phonetic Alphabet. There are no new sounds that need a new written phonemic representation. He just re-invented the wheel. As for no direct correlation to other modern human languages, |I played the Sierra sounds tapes (the part where Morehead tries to interact, repeating what the creatures were saying) for my students in China, and they instantly recognized the speech as a very fast version of Northeast Mandarin dialect (specific to Jilin and Liaoning provinces), asking "What are you doing?" and "Do you want to fight?". BTW, when I played it for them, I did NOT tell them beforehand, what it was. I also played it for my wife (she is Chinese) under the same circumstances ... no prior information to what was in the recording. She came up with the exact same answers as my students. 

 

I did this experiment before I had even heard of Nelson. I had read that one theory of migration had to do with crossing the Bering Land Bridge, so I figured that if this was to have merit of any kind, there "should" be some similarity at least, in language. The mongoloid race goes back thousands of years, and the language has stayed relatively constant, with very few changes, throughout the millenia. Some of the First Nations people also continue to exhibit some of the Mongoloid facial features, as well, so it wasn't not too hard for me to extrapolate that perhaps Sasquatch and the First Nations migrated here relatively close together in time, give or take a thousand years or so, and spread themselves out over this continent, with First Nations progressing and adapting to their new environments, and Sasquatch staying primitive, and using the land to hide and keep away from others (were they the hunted, perhaps?).

 

I feel there is some merit to Nelson stating that Sasquatch language is similar to some Asian languages, especially if the Bering land bridge theory is true, however, I believe that it may have developed even further from there to be more region specific. For example, New York Sasquatch language could have developed differently from, say, Skunk Ape, or Pacific Sasquatch language (or dialect).

 

Anyhow, I'm kinda getting into a totally different topic here, so I'll shut up now ...

 

Thanks for that. If I had an upvote left for the day - it would've been yours.

 

Very interesting story you shared and hypothesis as well. Would put them squarely in the human camp.