Jump to content
slabdog

A Closer Look At The Sierra Sounds

Recommended Posts

BFSleuth

Tontar, do you happen to have any of those Taz sounds you are talking about you can post here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

How would someone " remember" any remnant of a language that their ancestors were exposed to thousands of years ago?

In that case NA would still be speaking their native tongue today!

We would never have to be taught how to speak, we would just remember it because mom and dad heard it.... Com'on man!

Just made my top five of ridicules Bigfoot theories!

Cervelo, this is an interesting observation, but one that can easily be explained using your own daily life.

Did you know you speak Latin every day? I'm assuming you haven't learned Latin either at home or in school, but you use Latin words or their derivatives every day. Some examples of directly incorporated Latin words: animal, duplex, senior, stadium, genius, etc...

We learn language at home from our parents, siblings, friends, and for the past hundred years or so from radio and television. The meaning of these words is passed down from generation to generation. These meanings are "culturaly" remembered rather than individually remembered, and thus survive for literally thousands of years.

I see no difference between English speakers using Latin words, and Sasquatch using Asian words (perhaps in corrupted form, i.e. a phonetic remnant passed down in the Sasquatch "home", completely divorced from its original meaning). Assuming, of course, they are using language at all.

Edited by Danrub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Danrub,

Geat points and works perfectly for human beings that use language and interact with other cultures.

But complete fail as it applies to Bigfoot I stand with my previous comment......

C'mon man! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest krakatoa

I think Danrub is making a valid point (and welcome to the BFF, btw), but it suffers in practice from the same thing all bigfoot related theories do:

Until we have a beast that clearly exists and whose behavior is observable, any such theories are purely speculative.

So, to the despair of most objective skeptics, into this knowledge vacuum is poured speculations that run from the prosaic (e.g., Danrub's post above), to the completely fantastical (psychic, telepathic spaceman 'foots who can turn invisible at will).

While it is true that in the absence of empirical fact, anything is possible, it seems that far too many subscribe to the proposition that all things are also equally probable.

I think the likelihood is vanishingly small that a bigfoot, supposedly descended from gigantopithecus, supposedly migrated from ancient China, has a language comprised in no small part by one of ancient China's steadfast foes, the Samurai from ancient Japan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Oh, by the way, I live in Washington. I was in Yakima 3 weeks ago. I took some photos to post here, but it was late and they turned out blurry. In Yakima, you can drive for miles and not see a natural tree anywhere. You can see for miles and miles. That again pops up to bother me. How could there be so many past bigfoot sightings in Yakima when there is no place to hide? I can't just wish hiding places to be there.

But I'm on the west side, and there are supposedly sightings and habituations going on all around me here. And I do go hiking, looking, and I even carry bags of plaster in my pack, believe it or not! But nada, nothing. I hike mostly north of St. Helens, which should be good stomping grounds, at least as far as historical sightings go, old growth forests, and modern sightings suggest. But still nothing. I'll be hiking all summer long too, hoping, looking, all that. I figure I get out reasonably often. I'm out almost every weekend recreating, and splitting off form that to do more intensive bigfoot seeking hikes. Not afraid to go off trail, but I really don't care to go tent camping anymore. besides, more people see them at their houses than around tents, so what;'s the point, eh?

I agree and seem to fall into the same school of thought as you.

I too seem to have a narrow idea I am willing to accept when it comes to this whole mystery. I get out, not to look for Sasquatch, but just because I like to get out into the backcountry in areas where I accept they MAY be able to exist. I want it to be real, I've been interested all my life, but I also have to think logically about what could be and what people claim. I feel my barometer is based on logic. I hear wood knocks from an event or sighting, I dismiss it, just because I'm sketchy on the idea of their tidy place in reports, I could well be wrong, but that is my gut feeling. Anyone with multiple sightings but nothing to show from it, I dismiss also...same goes for someone who is always repeatedly finding tracks or recording something. If it were that easy this mystery would have been put to bed long ago. And it isn't like I just don't want to believe this stuff, I just can't make the leap. I can't help what I believe. I know of a few researchers who have been doing this search for twenty and thirty years and have never had a sighting, and they focus on the Pacific North West on western North America in general. I dismiss everything in the east pretty much, but that is my own opinion, not to **** anyone off, I just don't see it...just like I think the idea of some ancient language is way beyond the realm.

Cheers

Edited by summitwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Indeed krakatoa, you have hit the essential dilemma of cryptozoology... it's all speculation until the real thing is found.

Until then, however, speculation is all we can do. The alternative is to shut down the computer and go watch the next basketball game! LOL.

I think that somewhere between the prosaic and the fantastical, we can engage in logical inference. I think this particular discussion on language lends itself quite well to logical analysis.

Let's assume for a moment that Sasquatch does have limited language abilities (I do not propose this is true, but only a starting point for discussion). That language would have certain characteristics:

1) It has 'history' from which the meaning of the 'words' comes. If it didn't, then each individual sound would have different meaning to different individuals, and communication would be impossible. Developing even limited language would be useless.

2) Meaning has to be imparted to young Sasquatch before they leave the family home. Otherwise, two adult Squatches would meet in the woods and both go "grblblibliglahhh"... One is saying "food over there" and the other "evil men with firesticks over there". No common frame of reference, even if they make the same exact sounds.

3) There has to be enough inter-communication within and between social groups/family groups/regional groups for these meanings to be transmitted, perpetuated, and even modified over time.

The alternative is that Sasquatch has no language, in which case the Sierra Sounds are akin to my cat's meows... having meaning, but not conveying any structured message, only the emotional state of the speaker.

My point is that, lacking individuals or small social groups to study, these theories at least guide the researcher in what to look for. Like any good theory, it will be proved or disproved as the body of knowledge increases. And further, that a logical approach based on the evidence so far is worthy of more consideration than merely 'speculation' and dismissed out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest krakatoa

I don't disagree with any of your 3 points, Danrub.

I get lost on the concept that researchers have any real data to apply based on things like the Sierra Sounds or any other recordings. Until it can be shown that a sound recording is directly attributable to a bigfoot, it seems like an exercise in fancy (and sometimes even vanity) to attempt to find linguistic meaning in the sounds. Merely stating the area was "squatchy" is no basis for claiming any sounds unknown to the recorder are therefore the utterances of 'squatches.

Unfortunately, this is just the standard of evidence we are constantly regaled with; and while it does keep casual interest in the bigfoot phenomena relatively robust, I think in the end it just serves to muddy the waters.

Some members on this very forum have posted sounds the claim is evidence of 'foot, which instead seems quite clearly to be evidence of dogs, coyotes, wolves, elk, deer, owls and even cows. Granted, the general rebuttal is that 'foots are masters of mimicry, but if even that were true and all the sounds were simply aped, it only serves to further destabilize the proposition that there is a language to be deciphered.

What sort of working language theory can one depend on for direction if there is so much chaff in the wheat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×