Sasquatch Coffee

English Language on Bigfoot Audiotape?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 5th, 2008


The Sierra Sounds are a series of disputed audio recordings of the alleged chatter of Bigfoot in the mountains of the American West. Captured on tape by Ron Morehead and Al Berry, at their “Sierra Camp” in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, eastern California, at various times during the first half of the 1970s, they have been the focus of much study.

The well-known Bigfoot tracker Robert W. Morgan has pointed out in the past that he had heard the phrase “You’re not welcome” on the recordings, evidence he felt that the reported Sasquatch were trying to communicate with the humans.

The following is the latest analysis of those tapes, which are being claimed as a “breakthrough” by Morehead, Berry, and their supporter Morgan, among others.

The Berry & Morehead expeditions collected the recordings in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California by hanging a microphone from a tree branch. Meanwhile, inside their shelter, journalist Al Berry of the Sacramento Bee had run a cord from the mic outside to a reel-to-reel audio recording deck inside their rustic log shelter.

The cabin was a large, teepee-shaped log structure built by hunters. The Bigfoot would run away when Berry and Morehead would come out of the structure, and the men could see nothing from inside their shelter. The supposed creatures in the woods were heard but never seen. It is assumed, therefore, they were Bigfoot.

I must point out the obvious, which is that, while the credibility of Morehead, Berry, or even the linguist’s report below may be beyond reproach, there is no firm verification of what creatures, hominoids, or humans are the source of these recordings, per se.

Examples of the Sierra Sounds can be hear here and here.

The following notes, analysis, and long background material on language, in general, is given below:

Dear Al and Ron;

We have verified that these creatures use language, by the human definition of it. The months of hard work that we have put into the study of the Berry/Morehead tapes is finally coming to fruition. The analysis is finished, although I am still working on parts of the final write-up such as frequency count tables, morpheme lists, etc.

I believe that the study of these tapes will never (and should never) end. With the recognition and acceptance that these creatures do indeed speak and understand a complex language, a greater effort will be made to collect voice recordings and our analysis of the language will improve. Now that we have a precedent and techniques established for this study, this process will certainly become easier. Scott Nelson, crypto Linguist.

Characteristics of Human Language
Evident in the Berry/Morehead Tapes

By R. Scott Nelson

The Functions, Properties and Elements of human language as given here are defined by the Department of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences, Brown University:

Functions of Language

Certain functions of language are indistinguishable from language itself, namely; Communication and Thinking. Verbal communication, the conveyance of symbolic meaning through utterance is the very purpose of language. Therefore, any vocalization that contains morphemes, or units of meaning, is indeed serving this purpose.

Thinking is tantamount to how we define ourselves as human beings, the mental process that makes us “sentient” and separates us from “lesser” species. Language as the means by which we communicate our thoughts is inseparable from thinking; when we form thoughts we do so in a certain language. We cannot conceive of an object such as a tree without forming the word “tree” in our minds, and thus the thought and the word become one. The unitary principle of Thought/Language is inherent in our subject/object relationships.

The degree of influence on Western thought patterns as a result of the invention of a phonetic alphabet is open to speculation. Cultures that lack a phonetic alphabet are assumed by many to have retained a more holistic understanding of their environment. What is clear is that Western human thought patterns have become linear, and these patterns have a close correlation to the development and expression of our languages.

All this may be delving a bit too deeply into Psycholinguistics for our purpose, but since the creatures in our study are using language, these speculations may serve to alert us to the homo-centric tendency to classify Bigfoot into one group or another. Is Bigfoot an animal, or is he Human? Is he or is he not sentient? Does he think in linear patterns or more holistically? Here we must not forget the tertium quid that Bigfoot may be very different from any creature ever classified. We cannot assume that he has not developed a graphic system for expressing language, simply because we have not discovered it. In fact, there is much evidence that he uses the forest itself, by means of broken and twisted limbs, to build elaborate communicative formations which humans often mistake for storm damage or dismiss as territorial markers. These formations could be a much more complex form of communication than we imagine. Likewise, we cannot assume that Bigfoot has not developed technology, just because he has not electrified and digitized his world. Again, the forest itself may be his machine, engineered to facilitate his existence. We cannot assume that he is incapable of creating fire; he may simply choose not to. In the end, we must be careful not to assign the language of Bigfoot or his thought patterns to any one humanly contrived pigeonhole, while at the same time analyzing his language by the human definition of it.

Intimidation, as a function of human language, is heard throughout the recordings, specifically on the Berry Tape in what has previously been dubbed “samurai chatter” and which I have come to refer to as “Hostility Assertion”. These are vocalized by a drawn out stream of morphemes, often repeated, which are articulated at high volume in a highly hostile tone (BI-5:32.42 – BI-6:35.60). Several of these Hostility Assertions are articulated as forceful ululations in which the streamed morphemes may not have specific meaning in the sense of being semantically discrete. These ululations have an extremely intimidating effect on the listener and may be utilized solely for this purpose
(BI-7:02.52).

Persuasion and Instruction: If we accept the argument that the creatures are at times speaking in cognatic words and phrases, then persuasive and instructive utterances are found throughout the recordings and can be referenced in the line-by-line analysis of the transcripts. Other than these cognatic phrases, since we are dealing with an unknown language, persuasive and instructive utterances must be inferred from the recognizable inflective modulation of the voice in such utterances. These are also found throughout the recordings.

Emotional Expression: If we presume that Sasquatch possesses similar emotional sensibilities as humans and would express them in a similar fashion, then indeed we find emotional utterances throughout the Berry/Morehead recordings. We can infer much of this from modulations in pitch, tone and degree of agitation in the voice, and from the meaning of presumed cognatic expressions. Since emotion is so often swayed by external environmental stimuli, it is easy to understand why the range of emotions expressed by the creatures during this confrontation between species, would be quite narrow: apprehension, aggravation, and hostility are most common. However, there are many instances where curiosity, wonder and (…). This last instance is also evidentiary to the Entertainment Function of human language.

Ritual, defined as a practice or pattern of behavior regularly performed in a set manner, is another important function of language. There is a great body of evidence, documented by witnesses as well as researchers, of the practice of signal drumming by means of wood knocking or rock bashing. These would certainly constitute a ritualistic form of communication. We can assume that the creatures are not drumming out a coded alphabet such as Morse Code, since the signals are broadcast in set patterns of short duration. However, something is being communicated through this behavior.
Vocally, there are numerous ‘whistles’ and ‘whoops’ expressed on the tapes. I do not presume these have semantic meaning but are ritualistic in nature and could serve any purpose from a mating call to an assertion of dominance over his clan. There is one morpheme stream (or possible word) on the Morehead tape that is of particular interest here. I believe it to have semantic meaning as well as being a ritualistic expression. I infer this on the basis of several factors: it is repeated numerous times by the presumed female creature with an almost song-like quality to her voice; it is given in response by the presumed male in a manner suggestive of ritual; it is used in several morphological variations in combination with other morphemes. Variations of the word include: “VÖ WÄ KÖ,” VÖ WÄ” and “WÄ KÖ” (M-12:48.56 – M-12:13.62 and again at M-20:48.77 – M-22:40.79).

Properties of Language

There are certain properties that are necessary components of human language and are present in any system that utilizes phonemes and morphemes to construct meaningful utterances as evident in the vocalizations on the Berry/Morehead tapes. These properties include:

Lexical and Semantic: Lexical, as a property of language, describes the combining of morphemes into words of infinite variation. Semantics is implicit in any vocal language and defines morphemes and words as minimal units of sound which possess symbolic meaning and are used to communicate thought (see Index of Articulated Morphemes and Index of Possible Words).

Learnable: To be defined as language, it must be a system that is learnable. Any system in which articulated morphemes are presumed to have meaning, must also be presumed to have been assimilated through observation or demonstration by one member of the society to another; such as a parent teaching words to a child.

Conventional: All semantic meaning within a language system must be conventional in the sense that it is based on usage and custom, and is therefore understood by all members of a given society. Any system that practices conversational turns of utterance, as demonstrated by the creatures in our study, must be understood to possess linguistic convention.

Automatized: Speech perception and parsing are generally considered to be automatized mechanisms. These are defined as actions that are carried out unconsciously or at such a rate of speed that they are unable to be modified or interrupted by purposeful intent. Since the vocalized exchanges of the creatures are articulated so rapidly, they easily meet the criteria for an automatized language system.

Arbitrary: A language is considered arbitrary when it possesses words in which the sounds of articulated morphemes bear no relationship to their meaning. This is in opposition to words based on sound symbolism or phonetic imitation of actual sounds, such as “crash” or “bash.” At this point there have been no words or morphemes noted in the creature utterances which have any resemblance to any specific sound in his natural environment. Allowing for the possibility that the creatures may perceive sound in a very different way than humans, and though we cannot presume to know the meanings of any non-cognate words, we must still judge that most of the morphemes collected from the tapes are arbitrary in nature.

Creative: Linguistic creativity refers to the ability to produce and understand an infinitely large number of utterances, whether or not they have been heard before. Because many of the other properties of language are present in the vocalizations and because of the seemingly endless variation by which the creatures combine morphemes to construct utterances, we can conclude that their language is creative as well as hierarchically combinatoric (phonemes are used to construct morphemes, which are used to construct words, which are used to construct utterances, etc.).

Open: Language is dynamic: it changes constantly. It evolves quickly, even from one generation to the next. In this way, language can be seen as a living, evolving entity, open to all the influences of its specific environment. All human language is open in the sense that new words and phrases from a wide variety of sources enter our languages every day. It is here that the most compelling evidence is found for the subject creatures use of language. (…) (the argument for the presence of cognates is found in Analysis of Cognate Words and Phrases).

The various systems of language such as Phonology, Morphology, Semantics, Syntax and Grammar, as they apply to the subject language, cannot yet be described (outside of cognatic utterances) due to the limited volume of creature language collected here. This will certainly change in time. With the recognition and acceptance that the creatures do indeed speak and understand a complex language, a greater effort will be made to collect voice recordings and our analysis of the language will improve.

There is one system of language, however, that must be discussed here since it explains why these vocalizations have never before been recognized as language: the Prosody of utterance. The intonation contour, stress pattern and speed (approximately twice the speed of human speech) at which the vocalizations are delivered makes it impossible for humans to understand. In addition to this, the rate of discourse, or the speed of exchange of conversational turns is such that the creatures are virtually “stepping on” each other in their responses. This also makes it impossible, in real time, to distinguish the utterance of one creature from that of another. The conclusion that must be drawn here is that the creatures mentally process information at a much higher rate than humans do, or at least they are able to communicate their ideas much faster. Some might argue that the creatures are able to do this because their thoughts are much simpler, but I think this would be a very homo-centric way of looking at this issue.

Elements of Language

Since we are dealing with an unknown language, several elements of human language cannot be described by examples found in the tapes. We do not yet know the meanings of any non-cognate words, therefore, phrases, sentences and grammatical categories such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. cannot be known. However, we must assume that similar components are extant in the vocalizations, since we find so many other elements of human language present.

Phoneme: a minimal distinctive sound unit used to form morphemes. Not only are phonemes present in the vocalizations, but they are so phonetically similar to human phonemes that we must conclude they are articulated by the same apparatus as that of humans, i.e. with the tongue, lips and teeth. (see Transcription Key and Frequency Count Table)

Morpheme: a minimal linguistic unit of meaning; a stem, a minimal word or what is commonly referred to as a syllable. Other than ululations, whoops and whistles, human-like morphemes constitute virtually all of the vocalizations collected (see Index of Morphemes).

Word: These are notoriously hard to define in comparing languages of different structural types, but for our purposes: a unit of expression comprised of one or more morphemes which is intuitively recognized by native speakers of a language and which is relatively uninterruptible or with few pauses in pronunciation (see Index of Possible Words).

Utterance: a stream of spoken morphemes or words (evident throughout the recordings, see Line-by-Line Analysis).

Discourse: a spoken utterance of some length or a set of connected utterances (evident throughout the recordings, see Line-by-Line Analysis).

Conversational Turns: alternating utterances that make up a discourse among several speakers. These communicative exchanges take place so rapidly, in real time, that it is difficult to distinguish one speaker from the next (evident throughout the recordings, see Line-by-Line Analysis).

Articulated Phonetic Structures

After the definition of each phonetic term, articulated phonemes are given as transcribed. Note that some phonemes fall under more than one type. For a full list of phonemes and their pronunciation, see Transcription Key.

Bilabials:

Made by pressing both lips together; B, P, M.

Labio-Dentals:

The top teeth meet the bottom lip; F, V.

Alveolars and Dentals:

The tongue-tip is touching the back of, or the ridge behind the top-front teeth; T, D, N.

Interdentals:

The tongue is sticking out between the front teeth; ?, T.

Palato-Alveolars:

The flat part of the tongue is touching behind the alveolar ridge; SJ, TSJ.

Palatals:

The flat part of the tongue is against the hard palate; JÜ.

Velars:

The back of the tongue is pushing up against the soft palate; K, G, KH.

Uvulars:

The back of the tongue is pushing up toward the uvula; Rr.

Pharyngeals:

Made by bringing the walls of the throat closer together; KH.

Glottals or Glottal Stops:

A break between vowels sounds, made by contraction of the diaphragm; ‘.

Orally or Nasally Stopped Articulations:

Completely blocks off air through the mouth; P, T, K, M, N.

Affricates:

When two sounds occur, one right after the other then fricate; DZJ.

Fricatives:

The air is partially blocked so that friction occurs; F, S, H.

Approximates:

The tongue or lips shape the mouth cavity to create some air restriction; L, R, W, Y.

Voiced Articulations:

Caused by vibration of the vocal chords; B, V, D, Z, T.

Voiceless Articulations:

With no vocal chord vibration; P, K, T, F, S.

Aspirated Articulations:

Voiceless with a strong puff of air; P, K, T, ?.

High/Front Vowels:

The tongue is close to the top of the mouth while the front of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ï, I, Ü, U.

Low/Central Vowels:

The tongue is close to the bottom of the mouth while the middle part of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ä.

Low/Back Vowels:

The tongue is close to the bottom of the mouth while the back of the tongue shapes the vowel; A.

Mid/Front Vowels:

The tongue is halfway between the top and bottom of the mouth while the front of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ë, E.

Mid/Back Vowels:

The tongue is halfway between the top and bottom of the mouth while the back of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ö, O.

Scott Nelson Qualifications:

R. Scott Nelson is a retired U.S. Navy Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the Collection, Transcription, Analysis and Reporting of voice communications.

He is a two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School (Russian and Spanish) and has logged thousands of hours of voice transcription in his target languages as well as in Persian. He is currently teaching Russian, Spanish, Persian, Philosophy and Comparative Religions at Wentworth College in Missouri.

His pertinent Curriculum Vitae follows:

R. Scott Nelson
Curriculum Vitae

Eleven years on the Faculty of Philosophy and Languages at Wentworth College,
Lexington, Missouri; teaching Russian, Persian and Spanish as well several Philosophy and Religion courses.

Retired U.S. Navy Cryptologic Technician Interpreter (Crypto-Linguist), worked for Naval Intelligence at the following duty stations: Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Rota, Spain; Naval Security Group Detachment Galeta Island, Panama; NSGA Homestead, Florida; NSGA Edzell, Scotland and aboard the following afloat units: USS Coronado, USS Belknap, USS Deyo, USS Bigelow, USS Sphynx; serving in the Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

Two time graduate of the Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center, Monterey, California (Russian and Spanish).

Two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School at Naval Security Group Detachment (NSGD), San Angelo, Texas (Russian and Spanish).

Graduate of U.S. Navy Communications Intelligence Analysis and Reporting School at NSGD, San Angelo, Texas.

Acquired the Persian Language while assigned to afloat platforms in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. These platforms had Persian as their primary target language.

Logged thousands of hours of collection and transcription of voice communications as a Cryptologic Interpreter for the U.S. Navy.

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


54 Responses to “English Language on Bigfoot Audiotape?”

  1. Axeslinger responds:

    If this is the news in the Bigfoot world, then it shouldn’t be reported. This is almost as ridiculous as the MK Davis escapades. If you want your site to have a professional reputation, then you just can’t post these kinds of stories.

  2. Loren Coleman responds:

    As opposed to Axeslinger’s world view that we all should ignore the fact that this analysis is making the rounds of certain segments of the Bigfoot community, I take it that informing interested researchers and parties about such “news” is a lot more productive. Open discussions, critical thinking and enlightenment about such “findings” is not something that Cryptomundo is afraid to do.

    All I can say, please re-read my introduction to Mr. Nelson’s treatment.

  3. Storfot responds:

    I am a linguist myself (multi-lingual as well) and will listen to the recordings tonight and analyse them for my own pleasure. If I find anything interesting I will post it here.

    Now to my thoughts regarding the text:

    “Semantics is implicit in any vocal language and defines morphemes and words as minimal units of sound which possess symbolic meaning and are used to communicate thought (see Index of Articulated Morphemes and Index of Possible Words).”

    Kind of interesting if we involve the theories around language learning and how we (humans) learn languages. The connectionists argue that “hearing a word brings to mind the object, and seeing the object brings to mind the word or phrase” (Lightbown/Spada p.23 2006). Essentially the connectionists argue that what the children need to know is available to them in the language they are exposed to.

    With this in mind I would argue that the sasquatches must have been exposed to human language to be able to know it (if they do speak human language that is).

    Further, I wonder what the Innatist’s perspective can tell us about this? The Innatist argues that humans have something that is called universal grammar. According to this approach the sasquatch would have to share this UG with humans to be able to learn one of our languages

    There are plenty more theories but I think that these two are interesting and worth considering when talking about sasquatch language. The reason I find them interesting is because one is pro and the other is con (have a guess, he he) sasquatches being able to perform human speech.

    I do not consider the articulated phonetic structures be of great importance in this case for human speech (of course it is important for the pronunciation).

    My next question is whether sasquatch language and human languages have cognates?

  4. Ole Bub responds:

    Agreed Loren….

    Scott Nelson’s linguistic research is ground breaking and very germane to the subject matter. This study is the tip of a very large iceberg…JMHO

    Language articulation is fundamental to culture…long considered a uniquely human characteristic, now attributed to a relict hominid. This study should serve notice to the pro kill camp to reassess their methods and ponder the ramifications…JMHO

    live and let live…

    ole bub and the dawgs

  5. graybear responds:

    It would make a great deal of sense for the Sas to possess some form of language. Other primates, and even some birds, swine and canines, are known to possess specific vocalizations for specific events, though they mostly run to the “I’m here” or “Lookout, it’s a (hawk, snake, other predator, etc.)” mode. To think that an advanced primate like the Sasquatch possesses no form of language at all is simply naive. Why wouldn’t they have language? And please, let’s not get into the whole “If they possess language, then they must be human,” debate. Just because they might have language doesn’t make them human. Equals, maybe, but not the same. In fact, Sas possessing language might very well solve the biggest problem in cryptozoology, namely, why can’t we find them on a reliable basis, like we do with all the other primates?
    If Sasquatch are hominids, as I believe, then they are probably learning from their mothers from the word go, “Stay away from the little guys; they’re dangerous. But you can flash them every now and then; that’s fun. They make the darndest noises when you do!”

  6. Noncentz responds:

    This reminds me when I used to play records backwards and hear Satanic/subliminal messages…

  7. Bob Malarkey responds:

    Whoo…that got complex really fast.

    But, it would make a whole lot of sense and explain some things. I guess it is possible, as previously stated, animals do have a language of sorts. Another thing to think about; if a monkey can do math and play games, why couldnt they have a language secret to themselves?

  8. Richard888 responds:

    I read the article fast due to time constrains but intend to reread it because the topic of human language is of great personal interest.

    Let’s suppose the phrase “you are not welcome” is heard in the recordings. Should we assume that it means what it says? If so, how does one deal with the philosophical problem of Bigfoot associating units of human vocalization with the correct meaning?

    Humans undergo formal training to learn the meaning of words and the ability to put them together into sentences. How did Bigfoot learn to speak English without resorting to paranormal explanations?

  9. Defactor responds:

    It has been obvious to many who have listened to these recordings since their initial release that the sounds were unique, authentic and clearly indicated the use of language. On those recordings there are phrases that are repeated as questions and/or statements. There are some who contend all of the sounds on the recordings were made by humans as part of a hoax. They are not, and even though these nay-sayers have been challenged to reproduce the sounds, they have not done so.

    The truth is that many people in this country have heard these animals speaking, sometimes using very recognizable English words and phrase. There are also other recordings of these sounds which have made public, but which have received nothing but ridicule. In some areas, the animals’ language is a mixture of what sounds like old Native American dialects and ape-like vocalizations. As one who has heard those sounds, and seen the animal producing them, I am pleased that finally others are apparently confirming what many already know; these animals are real, and they are not monsters or apes, but our nearest relatives.

  10. red_pill_junkie responds:

    Interesting that the phrase recognized is “You’re not welcome”. I suppose it would’ve been more believable if instead it were something simpler, like “Go away!”. The former seems to imply a more complex form of reasoning.

    And this idea that Sasquatches can process information more rapidly than humans, just because the sounds they utter are faster than normal human language… I don’t know.

    Of course, the main problem here is that we have yet no way to conclusively connect these sounds with the Sasquatch.

    I will eagerly await any useful input you could add to this story, Storfot.

  11. Goodfoot responds:

    That’s some dense readin’ there, boys! Ol’ Bub, you are right on the mark, as always: Live and Let Live!

    This all comes to no surprise to me, as I’ve heard BF speech, with the same characteristics exactly as the “Sierra Samurai” vocalizations. I heard one (similar to the second one above) where at the end the BF exclaims “Ah’m a BIG WOMAN!” Anyone else ever hear that? Was it edited out of #2 above? They sound alike to me. That cracks me up every time I listen to it. I downloaded a copy, but it’s on my Mac, which is down for the time being. Or maybe forever.

  12. alcalde responds:

    “They are not, and even though these nay-sayers have been challenged to reproduce the sounds, they have not done so.”

    Did you listen to the second sound link that Mr. Coleman provided, the one referred to as “Samurai Chatter” on the linked-to webpage? I was able to reproduce this fairly accurately. I simply did a web search for the words “Belushi” and “Samurai Delicatessen” and found a video clip that came pretty close. :-) :-)

    “There are also other recordings of these sounds which have made public, but which have received nothing but ridicule.”

    Actually, as a point of correction, I believe all of these recordings have received nothing but ridicule.

    “In some areas, the animals’ language is a mixture of what sounds like old Native American dialects and ape-like vocalizations.”

    The more obvious conclusion here is that it is the work of hoaxers, who looking for something sounding like apes and language, used Native American dialects and monkey sounds. If it DIDN’T sound significantly like another language (or imitation of language by a non-speaker, per the “Samurai” clip), that would make it a wee bit more credible.

    Also, if I recall correctly, apes don’t have the vocal chord formations to produce human language.

    “As one who has heard those sounds, and seen the animal producing them, I am pleased that finally others are apparently confirming what many already know”

    I’d be more pleased if the next time you see a talking ape-man, you GRAB IT. That would eliminate the need for discussions like this. ;-)

    “these animals are real, and they are not monsters or apes, but our nearest relatives.”

    Our nearest relatives died out many thousands of years ago, and while they could pass for us in a subway, we’re not even sure if THEY could talk.

    “Another thing to think about; if a monkey can do math and play games, why couldnt they have a language secret to themselves?”

    Per above, the vocal chord situation and I believe there are brain differences, but those I don’t have sufficient recall to elaborate upon. I ran across an article this week that mentioned a brain chemical related to long-term memory that other animals, including apes, do not possess (the author was sure it would not be too long before a chimp was genetically engineered to produce this substance and see what happens) but I can’t find it now.

    All this talk has made me flash back to a 1983 U.S. television series called “Mr. Smith”, that centered around an orangatan with a 256 IQ who could talk and has a job as a political advisor in Washington, D.C. (It’s not that the political advisor is a talking ape in a suit, but that the political advisor has a 256 IQ, that makes it fantasy for me). The few people who know his secret have to help cover up the fact that “Mr. Smith” is really an orangatan. Shockingly, it only lasted one season.

    R. Scott Nelson is really attempting mental gymnastics to fit the conclusion he prefers (that this is genuine) to the facts. Red Pill Junkie, you DO know regarding this idea. If Bigfoot had the brainpower to engage in spoken language (and seemingly learn other languages, including English and now I hear Native American dialects) he would not be walking around naked and living in the woods; he’d be clearcutting those woods to build condos or vying for Hillary Clinton’s vacant Senate seat. In reality, we’ll only see that in a Mr. Smith sequel.

    I wonder how much money there is in selling “bigfoot albums”… apparently enough to get Jonathan Frakes to narrate.

  13. mystery_man responds:

    Well, I’m not a linguist, but I don’t see any particular biological or physical reason why a sasquatch would not be able to use language. Of course without knowing more about their physiology and psychology, it’s hard to say for sure, but the hypothesis is sound.

    Two things that I would consider when listening to these tapes and weighing in on the possibility of language using ability in sasquatch.

    One, as Loren and others have stated, there is no conclusive proof that I know of to show that what we are hearing is indeed an exchange between sasquatch. Even if they exist, I’m not sure if they are what we are hearing here. This is something I’d like more information on. To what extent has the audio frequency and so on been analyzed? I just think that since sasquatch are such an unknown, it is going to be hard to say for certain that that is what we are hearing on the tapes.

    Two, even if we think they are using language on the tapes, could this not be anthropomorphizing a bit? Is there any chance that we are attributing meaning and language conventions onto sounds that may not be an actual language at all? It seems a fair bit subjective to listen to something like this and say it is indeed a language.

    Also, I think it is perfectly possible to listen to sounds like this and think that perhaps you heard an English phrase. Humans can subjectively find patterns sometimes where none exist. For example, there are animal noises that you could listen too and think that you heard English, but that doesn’t mean it was in fact English. You could also listen to a foreign language and think you heard English when in fact it wasn’t. There are a lot of situations where I think if you really wanted to hear English, you would pick out a word or phrase that you think sounded like that, even if it wasn’t. To me, it is similar to seeing what one wants to see in a blobsquatch photo, only in this case with sounds. Is it not possible that someone listening to tapes like this could think they were hearing English where there was none? Could a German person or Japanese person likewise listen to chattering like this and think they heard their own language? Again, it seems subjective.

    I’m not saying that this is definitely what is going on in this case, but is it really so impossible that what we are hearing here are not sasquatch? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that perhaps the English that some think they are hearing is in fact not English at all?

    It seems like something worth thinking about.

  14. Haley Fisher responds:

    I watched an interesting documentary on television once about how the human brain is able to listen to words out of a jumbled mess of sound when it specifically wants to hear something. I wish I could remember what the program was called, but it provided a really good example: When rock and roll first came out, a lot of religious icons claimed that it was the music of the devil, and when you played a rock and roll record backwards, you could hear words that worshipped satan. I listened to it for myself, and at first the narrator played the music backwards without subtitles and I couldn’t hear a thing; just noise. Then, it played the exact same thing only provided subtitles with words that worshipped satan, and I was blown away at how suddenly, even though it was the same thing I listened to moments before, I could hear the words that the subtitles were telling me I was listening to. This exercise was to demonstrate how the mind can create what it wants to hear.

    I am not saying that is what happened in this Bigfoot audio tape, but it is interesting to that it may explain what is happening here.

  15. DWA responds:

    See, to me, this is just like alleged sasquatch tracks, or the P/G film, and almost – but not quite – like disappearing and reappearing sasquatch.

    What we have been doing with tracks, for decades, is poring over them and poring over them, with no animal to connect them to. Without the animal, the tracks are evidence, of something, but nowhere near close to proof, of anything. Something is making them. I can argue – and have – that there are too many of them to comfortably dismiss that something in the way that scofftics do. But they are still not proof.

    We have done the same thing with the film. And I could almost repeat the above paragraph. In the case of the film, it is the sheer difficulty of producing such a thing, and the sheer unlikelihood that it was done. But still, with no animal, scoffers can scoff, with impunity, and do, and have, and will continue to do so.

    Huddling around this three-decades-old set of recordings hasn’t gotten sas research anywhere. And I’m not seeing a sign, anywhere in the above, that it is going to.

    Although I’d certainly love to be enlightened.

    (Although, unlike reappearing and disappearing sas, the recordings do exist, and are, well, something.)

    Another wish (consider it a Christmas wish): that we stop comparing these animals (should they exist) to us. It diminishes them.

  16. Storfot responds:

    Richard888:

    See read my coment for some theories around langugae learning (in humans).

    In my opinion they do not make any utterances that resembles human speech more than perhaps auditory.
    When I think about cognates (words that are similar in two or more languages) In English, German and Swedish there are many cognates. For example, house, haus and hus. They sound similar and have the same meaning. Perhaps we must seperate meaning and sound. What if you try to speak some kind of made up Chinese? I am sure that sooner or late you would actually produce a few utterances that would be Chinese. Thus an intelligible word to the Chinese speaker but not to yourself. Also, when you listen to a language you can not understand you seek to understand it, find logical patterns and meaning in it. Simplu due to the fact that we are “programmed” to respond to speech. When we hear a new language we try to “decode” it and look for patterns and words we can understand.
    Robert W. Morgan have tried to find logical meanings in the samurai chatter and finally he found utterances that to him sounds like English. I am sure if I try hard enough I can make out some Japanese and German from the chatter as well.

    Of course I discuss this from the perspective of a believer.
    I might take it from the non-believer perspective as well.

    (Not said that I believe it is genuine or fake).

  17. korollocke responds:

    Wow, Ummm did it cross your minds it’s a hoax, the men who set up the mic in the tree may have been set up unknownly and they really wanted to find and record something bigfootish. Just a thought is all.

  18. sausage1 responds:

    If you listen to the recording and watch ‘The Wizard of Oz’ at the same time … well, perhaps not.

    Just to clear up, what distinguishes human language from animal language is its recursiveness. Theoretically, there is an infinite number of sentences possible in any human language because of such constructs as imbedded clauses, as well as connectives such as ‘and’ and ‘but.’ That is why human language is so rich, except amongst politicians and footballers.

    This recursiveness is a major feature of UG, which Chomsky says is an innate endowment, and that is why creatures who have learned simple language skills, as well as math etc, do not progress in them, or even lose the skills – they do not have the innate endowment, and they are subject to instinctive drift. Read the classic study ‘The Misbehaviour of Organisms’ by Keller Breland and Marian Breland (1961).

    There is no reason why an undiscovered primate should NOT have the innate UG mentioned, but even if it did the creature would need to be exposed to a given language to acquire it (I’m assuming sas does not run evening classes in Modern Foreign Languages for the didactic imparting of human tongues). I have UG but cannot speak Zulu because I have not been exposed to it.

    One possibility is that Sasquatch mimics sounds in the manner of parrots. I can imagine someone saying ‘you’re not welcome’ to a sasquatch in a confrontation, although a more choice Cockney phrase springs to mind. Even the context would be similar (territorial threat etc). However, all reports and the other recorded cries suggest that sasquatch has perfectly good methods of moving people on without resorting to repartee. ‘You’re not welcome’ would engage me in conversation about my right to be there – one of those screams would have me vacating toute suite for a change of underwear and a bevvy of bevies!

  19. Uriah responds:

    The idea that a Sasquatch would speak English is ridiculous. However, the idea that they would be intelligent and perhaps have a language of some kind is not.

  20. cryptidsrus responds:

    Richard888:
    “Humans undergo formal training to learn the meaning of words and the ability to put them together into sentences. How did Bigfoot learn to speak English without resorting to paranormal explanations?”

    Unless Ole Hairy is a mimic, which I doubt, I guess one can simply (or safely) countenance the “paranormal” explanation among others; but I’m not even going near that because I don’t want to open another massive “yes it is, not it’s not, maybe, can’t be, what if” discussion here on Cryptomundo. It’s been done before and both sides have given eloquent defenses of both viewpoints. Good, good point you made, though,Richard888.

    Like everything else Sasquatch, this will be discussed for a long time to come. I think I’ll leave it up to Yul Brynner in the King and I to sum up my feelings—
    “It…Is…A…Puzzlement!!!” :)

  21. Goodfoot responds:

    Alcalde: Mr. Mayor, be careful of accusing others of “mental gymnastics”. To quote the great Monte Rock III, “dig yourself, baby!”

    Korollocke: No, no one has ever considered that this might be a hoax. You are in virgin territory. Well done.

  22. sschaper responds:

    Most likely is hoax, of course. Another possibility, seeing as to how they never saw the speakers, is that the speakers were human, perhaps had a marijuana plantation in those woods.

  23. norman-uk responds:

    As a Sasquatch enthusiast for many years and probably like most I was thrilled and fascinated when I first heard the Sierra sounds. Howls and woops are something but these complex utterances hallelujah ! They seem to wrap the footprints, the sightings, everything that went before into a real human like creature and at the same time like standing face to face with some powerful natural entity. Including speech like but yet unlike speech noises. Almost like hearing its reeking smell!
    My impression was that the Sasquatch, if that is what it is was an extraordinary mimic, perhaps from native peoples and others and was signalling ownership of territory linked to food or mates or making a threat display. It would have been very effective in the past and I guess it still is, even taking into consideration modern weapons
    Naturally I must now be persuaded by the recent great work done by R Scott Nelson and but still wonder if Sasquatch has a limited word vocabulary but makes up for it by a greater variation in the tone, pitch and volume of expression ect. Humans can make the word NO have so many different meanings by its delivery. But generally we have a subtle word for every occasion or had until COOL came along. Has Sasquatch followed another language path related to its life style and not having a written language (I assume) or developed technical cultures
    What the recent work opens up (already mentioned?) is the possibility, probabilty of talking to Sasquatch!
    NB I thought I heard pourquoi (french- why?) in the clips and number one in english.
    There have been recent developments in the enhancement of photographic material and I am hopeful the labs doing this will tackle the PG film.
    Finally a top Uk music producer I know has created a great piece of music which incorporates Sasquatch sounds, its gathering dust, but I hope I can persuade him to do somthing with it (IMO) it would be very complementry to crypto type programme.

  24. Storfot responds:

    SAUSAGE1:

    “There is no reason why an undiscovered primate should NOT have the innate UG mentioned, but even if it did the creature would need to be exposed to a given language to acquire it (I’m assuming sas does not run evening classes in Modern Foreign Languages for the didactic imparting of human tongues). I have UG but cannot speak Zulu because I have not been exposed to it”.

    -This is the main point of my first comment. Thank you for a more pedagogical description. If some animals do have UG it does not necessarily mean it is the same UG as we have. Further, a language is, to a certain degree, shaped by the culture using it. I am sure that Americans who live in the north part have a bigger vocabulary for winter related things/situations etc than the Americans in Florida.
    The innate ability to learn a human language is present in every human on the planet. Other animals must have the same innate ability to learn the methods of communication within their species. The question I have is whether any animal’s UG is similar to UG of humans? I also come to think of wild animals that grew up with humans and how they lack sufficient skills to be released back into the wild.
    This could be evidence that the UG is in many cases present in animals as well.
    Can we copy the input animals need to acquire their specie’s communicative skills?
    Why would sasquatches need to know English and how would they acquire it when they seem to avoid us as much as possible? Where do they get their comprehensible input from:)?

    “However, all reports and the other recorded cries suggest that sasquatch has perfectly good methods of moving people on without resorting to repartee. ‘You’re not welcome’ would engage me in conversation about my right to be there – one of those screams would have me vacating toute suite for a change of underwear and a bevvy of bevies”.

    I laughed a lot when I read this part. Reminds me of humans. Instead of discussion and sensible debate we tend to turn to less intelligent methods rather soon. Especially on the international level.

  25. sausage1 responds:

    Hello Storfot and others,

    Good blog!

    Thanks for your kind words, and I’m glad you enjoyed reading my contribution.

    The main feature of UG is it’s capacity for potentially unlimited clasues, which scrutiny of animal communications suggests is not a feature of any known creatures capability. Wouldn’t it be great if a species was discovered that had this capability?

    You are correct when you say that human languages are culturally bound, but not as much as your example suggests. For example, you say that northern people will have more vocabulary items for winter related things, and of course this is true to an extent. We in England know what an igloo is, but we have loaned it from northern peoples. However, it is a common misconception that , to carry on the example, Eskimo will have loads of different words for snow and Arabs for sand. This is the strong Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis on culturally bound language, which has not stood up to scrutiny as well as their weak hypothesis (Sheesh this is technical!).

    Any cultural aspect of language and indeed languages themselves are basically localized expressions of UG. That is why linguists spend so much time parsing sentences from obscure languages, to find the common rules that theoretically are innate in all humans.

    It is also the reason why creoles and pidgins are so vital -different cultures and langauges are thrown together and produce a rule governed new language that combines elements from all the contributing factors. The rules are usually imposed by the first generation of mixed culture children. I see this in Bedfordshire, where we have lots of first and second generation Bengalis and Pakistanis side by side with newly arrived Baltic State and Polish citizens, in addtion to West Indians and Italians. To hear the kids speak is amazing!

    It is a common misconception that creoles are debased or less complex than older established tongues – they are not , they are merely subject to prejudice. Some of the most fascinating studies of language acquisition have been done on this topic.

    It makes Storfot’s idea of sas having UG so fascinating. If it did, then theoretically we should be able to communicate with sasquatches, and of course if baby squatch and human babies were raised side by side then the innateness of UG would impose itself, and they would have a common tongue – a human/sas creole! How mouth-wateringly amazing would that be?? But now I’m just dreaming.

    Really enjoying this blog, especially Storfot, who I wish had been blogging when I was doing my Lingusitics and Phil. of Language degree. Would have saved me a lot of work!

  26. norman-uk responds:

    Interesting expression ”you are not welcome”. This is one recommended when you wish to rid your house of an infestation of some kind like ants. Illogically I think it works ! I’ve also heard of it being used to discourage spirits or poltergeists to hang around! Its an easy step to imagine a non-gun toting countryman or women to shout it from some lonely cabin somewhere to a nuisance outside in the dark! A bit new-ageish I know but I think feasible.

    So Sasquatch has had this shouted at him maybe a few times and being a good mimic shouts it back. Not so far fetched because what do Sasquatch researchers do not being great mimics, record a Sasquatch calls and play them back to it! Two species here each in there own environment testing each other as equals.

    What seems likely to me is that Sasquatch has language of its own and like many humans still living as hunter gatherers, naturally good at or having learned mimicking skills.

    Does this UG referred to come in degrees so even a chimp could have some of it an orang-outang maybe a bit more and Sasquatch even more enough to allow it to have a language but not as sophisticated as a human or maybe developed in another direction as referred above more holistic less technical.

    One can speculate but the matter seems to be in good hands and the research should bear fruit eventually, hopefully before human disease and greed destroy the wonder of Sasquatch.

  27. mystery_man responds:

    It’s not even our innate ability to learn language. I’ve lived in Japan and been exposed to Japanese every day of the twelve years I’ve been here, and it has been a lot of hard work to become fluent. That’s despite the fact that I’m a reasonably good mimic. From personal experience, you could talk about innate abilities all you want, but after a certain age, it actually takes a lot of work and practice to become proficient at a foreign language. I am fluent now, but it did not happen over night or from casual exposure to Japanese. I’m trying to raise a bilingual daughter and even that is not as easy as it may seem when one language is used more predominantly than the other.

    It is my honest opinion that a sasquatch who did not grow up hearing English would not have any sort of command of the language unless it had a good deal of exposure to it. So where is it getting this exposure? Is it more like a parrot mimicking? If so, how did it know that “You are not welcome” means what it does? Could we not be just hearing what we want to hear in these recordings?

    Sasquatch may have a language of their own, but I am doubtful their mastery of English would be well developed unless they were seen a whole lot more often and had a good deal more interaction with humans speaking English.

    I still think it needs to be considered that sasquatch may not be what we are hearing on the tape, and even if it is, it might not be English, but something that perhaps under the circumstances sounds like it is English, that is what is being heard. I don’t see how any unbiased analysis of the recordings could rule this out.

  28. raisinsofwrath responds:

    I can see it now, a group of Bigfoots sitting in a semi-circle on the grass in some old mans back yard. They sip lemonade and munch on cookies as their human teacher points to words and phrases on a blackboard. “Sound it out” exclaims the old man to a rather slow witted BF that is having trouble with the word “welcome” as in, “You are not welcome here”.

    Other than that, how and where are they going to learn not only english words but stringing them together to form sentences. Sorry, I don’t buy this one.

  29. jayman responds:

    I have long felt that if BF is real and is a bipedal hominid as reported, it would have a descended larynx and would be capable of producing articulated sounds. This is a result of erect posture, having the head on top of the spine, not in front of it, and the changes in throat and jaw anatomy that result.

    Anthropoid apes are quadrupeds, their larynx does not descend, and they are incapable of making articulate sounds.

    Having language, though, does not necessarily follow from this. I have a hunch that “speech” is older than “language” – that prehumans were able to produce long streams of articulated, modulated sounds, which would have sounded language-like, but lacked specific information content. The information content somehow came along later, so early languages may have been born “full-grown”, so to speak.

    Being good mimics would have been important for this process too.

  30. Storfot responds:

    sausage1:

    So we have more or less the same education:)

    My theory around loaning words is that they are needed. We also use the word igloo in my native language (Swedish). We as well as you need a word to describe the houses the eskimoes live in. I have a friend from Greenland and he has never seen an Igloo:)

    My point here is that words we don’t need we don’t acquire. In the Swedish language we have a very interesting word, lagom. It has a very diffuse meaning but to us it is very clear. There is no equivalent to “lagom” in the English language.

    Google it, it might give you a laugh, especially if I tell you that it also gives a good description of the Swedish people.

    “Any cultural aspect of language and indeed languages themselves are basically localized expressions of UG”.

    -And within each language there are plenty of local cultures and each one of them are representing a variety of dialects. Most people don’t realise that they in general master at least 3-4 versions of their own language. I spoke to my grandmother today and did not use the same Swedish I use with my friends.

    Of course, one can’t help but wonder which Engilsh should be used when communicating with a bigfoot:)

    UG is obviously something “built in” that can’t be argued away easily. Children learn to walk, children learn to speak and they learn to become adults. Not even the fact that we tend to speak with a broken accent when we learn a foreign language after puberty is a strong argue against UG (which I thought about before).

    Creoles are interesting. We have the same here in Sweden. first and second generation immigrants (which it self sounds like they are not accepted as Swedish) speaking in a Swedish I can understand but not relate to. Ignorance is the main problem for creoles being looked down on. No language is easier than another. Chinese is (personal opinion) easy grammatically but the intonations can be a pain in the behind.

    The possibility for a bigfoot to learn and speak English is zero. Imitate and mimic is fully possible. Thus, the bigfoot on the recording (if it is genuine) must have met an angry human who repeated that very phrase over and over.

    I have now listened to the recordings and I have no problem imitating those sounds. The people who analysed it and claims it to be English might have forgotten the fact that different languages produces different sounds.

    We have so many monophtongs, diphtongs and consonant sounds in the Swedish language that most languages are fairly “easy” for us to produce orally. The Grammar of the Swedish language twisted my British friend’s UG:)

    I speak four languages rather fluent and I can’t find any English or Japanese in the samurai chatter. There is a vague a “omai” in the end of the recording. It is the rude version of “you” in Japanese (think yakuza) and if the bogfoot has been to Tokyo and learned the Tokyo accent I’d say there is a fair chance it is a drunk bigfoot speaking Japanese:)

    Mystery man:
    Japanese is an easy language. Simple grammar and very limited oral sounds:) Of course, it depends on how many languages you know before you start learning. The old myth that it is easier to learn a third language is not far from the truth.

  31. Storfot responds:

    norman-uk:

    Sorry for my lazy answer!!

    “Universal grammar is a theory of linguistics postulating principles of grammar shared by all languages, thought to be innate to humans (linguistic nativism). It attempts to explain language acquisition in general, not describe specific languages. Universal grammar proposes a set of rules intended to explain language acquisition in child development”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar)

    Only humans have UG as far as I know. I can’t picture orangutangs having SVO-agreement in their ways of communicating. SVO = Subject Verb Objet. “I play soccer” is a very typical SVO-agreement. Or maybe orangutangs can express “I climb a tree” or I eat banana”?

  32. alcalde responds:

    Maybe they learn their English at IHOP, where they get their beloved pancakes from? I’m going to begin to study these recordings in earnest to see if I can pick up a Bigfoot saying “Rooty Tooty Fresh ‘N Fruity”.

  33. Goodfoot responds:

    Mystery Man: if we were having this discussion forty years ago, I might suggest BF was spending a lot of time near drive-in theaters!
    If anyone knows of one ANYWHERE at the present, I might still …

  34. norman-uk responds:

    In my blog I did not mean to infer Sasquatch understood as language the expression ”you’r nor welcome here” though there is a possibility it might have got some sense of its meaning ie a request for it to leave. Nor do I with my limited knowledge know if a case can be made out for it understanding or speaking english. I didn’t see this proposed in the given analysis. Rather its like me responding for example to deer or owls (with care) not knowing there lingo repeating their calls back to them-and getting a response. I think its rather droll that on one side we may have earnest researchers testing Sasquatch with different calls and bangs and like wise Sasquatch doing the same thing back no doubt having a bit of fun-doesn’t a sense of humour go with a high intelligence?
    I’m not suggesting the expression above is more than a one off but some inferences can be made from it in this context.

  35. red_pill_junkie responds:

    Wow, a lot of good comments in this one!

    All this talk about how we tend to look for recognizable patterns according to our own cultural background reminded me of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”. In that story we also have a large primate uttering unintelligible gibberish that to the many witness seemed like a foreign language, but not one they were fluent in. I suppose it’s the exact opposite of what’s happening here with these recordings.

  36. mystery_man responds:

    Storfoot- The rude Japanese you are referring to is “Omae” おまえ, not “Omai”。The rude form for “you”. Not so easy then. Japanese an easy language? Well, I must not be possessed of your intellect then. With humble forms, honorific forms, and casual forms of varying degrees, many of them with separate vocabulary for the same words, it is almost like learning three languages. And that is just for one regional dialect. The Japanese spoken in Tokyo is quite a bit different than that spoken in Osaka, for instance. Also, there are many similar sounding words, and don’t get me started on the writing systems. The grammar is very difficult for English speaking learners, as subject/object/verb order is almost completely reversed. How could you say that is easy to grasp for the average learner? It isn’t.

    I am a fluent speaker of Japanese, and I will tell anyone, it is not an easy language. I’ve spoken to many people learning it that share this opinion. I spent a lot of work and continuous exposure to it to get to the level I am at, and I don’t believe I am a stupid person. I find it interesting how you patly threw that out there about how easy it is, yet you made a mistake with it in your post.

    I also think you entirely missed my point about a Japanese speaker hearing Japanese in the chatter. I wasn’t saying that is the case, but rather was trying to illustrate through an example that people can listen to sounds like that and hear what they want to hear. Is that not possibly what is going on when people think they hear “You are not welcome”?

  37. mystery_man responds:

    Storfoot- I think I should also mention that “Omae” is not only used by yakuza either. It is used quite commonly in everyday Japanese (albeit in gruff circumstances), and is even used among friends in a joking manner, affectionately rude. Anyway, the things I find difficult are the word order of Japanese, subject/object/verb. It is difficult for a native English (Subject/verb/object) speaker to master. Also, the levels of Japanese “keigo,” or polite speech, with their different words and different verb conjugations based on whether it is a “masu” verb (polite) or the casual dictionary form of the verb, are difficult to grasp for many. Not only must one learn them, but knowing the cultural conventions of when and how to use these “keigo” forms is important as well. Regional dialects are hard too. I live in Tokyo, but my wife is originally from Osaka, so her family uses very different Japanese that I also had to pick up. Far from easy.

    I don’t think “easy” is the word I would use to describe Japanese. At least not for someone whose native tongue is English or for someone who wants to go beyond just basic conversational survival. That’s not any sort of linguistics degree talking, that’s just my own experience.

    Anyway, my point with all of this is that language can be difficult to learn for some when trying to study it as an adult, even with regular exposure. It takes work, even if the language is considered “easy” by some. The possibility that Bigfoot is having the kind of exposure to English to facilitate its correct usage is very unlikely in my opinion. Mimicking is possible, but even with that idea, if it was really saying “You are not welcome,” that would suggest to me that it understands at least some idea of the meaning behind the words.

  38. mystery_man responds:

    Storfot- I have to say that no matter whether I disagree on Japanese being an “easy” language, and regardless of the sasquatch learning language, the linguistic information you and sausage1 have been giving here is excellent.

    I am at a level of Japanese where I would consider myself bilingual, with my second language (Japanese) not being my native tongue, so linguistics is something I am interested in learning more about. You have given a lot of great information here along these lines, and I appreciate it. I also appreciate sausage1’s contributions on the topic.

    Anyway, I only speak two languages now, so I hope you are right that the third will be easier. I gather that you may have a knack for languages, since your English is certainly flawless. Some people pick these things up quickly, but anyone who can learn three or four languages has my respect, it is not an easy process in my opinion. It is interesting what you said about the diversity of sounds in Swedish making it easier to mimic other languages.

    Thanks again for all of the great information and insights on linguistics.

  39. MultipleEncounters responds:

    I think the problem we have here, as with many discussions about sasquatch, is that the paradigm is centered with some preconceived notion that there is no way sasquatch could be anything but some species of extant giant ape. Our religious culture tells us that we are the only people. Our textbooks say this. Our laws are designed around this. Problem is, this ingrained standard limits the mind from exploring what is actually possible, because it sets up a ready-made prejudice against all theories and even evidence. Our DEFINITION of PEOPLE is limited to Homo sapiens. But a PEOPLE, no matter how primitive, can mean many different things that do not fit into our narrow-minded modern representation.

    What if they are indeed a very early from of man? Why so many hair samples and even limited DNA coming up so similar to human? Can some of the doubters here just open up your minds and consider things without falling back to the same safe science? If they were something like Heidelbergensis (as Grover Krantz also speculated), would it be that preposterous that they could indeed speak some english today, or Native language in decades past?

    Here’s a look in the mirror on this field’s paradigm. Most people who have an open mind that sasquatch exists, recognize how mainstream science seems to remain closed-minded about them, right? Well, within the field itself, there is a mainstream that is also bogged in some conventional and unproven theory (paradigm) they are just some giant ape. Yet the vast majority of those individuals have never even seen a sasquatch yet alone knowingly been anywhere near one. I think many people become naturally indoctrinated with this unwarranted and unproven Giganto theory through a continued unchallenged status quo within the field. Yet when those who move forward and have had more interactions with these creatures, ‘our’ mainstream remains so damned dug in and really doesn’t allow the truth to further develop because such claims sound preposterous to the prevailing norm. Maybe that’s the way its meant to be though? It does provide protection of sorts for these sasquatch after all. But I guarantee, they are much more then some giant ape and many others here know this! If you ‘understood’ you would realize how plausible it is that they pick up english. Thing is, understanding doesn’t just happen as a result of it being explained and I couldn’t fill in those gaps either.

    Anyway, a few years ago I corresponded with Ron Morehead, I contacted him initially because my first encounter wasn’t all that far from his, so I was curios to see just how close. At the time, in that rough mountainous region, there really was zero chance of other people being in the woods. He is also sincere in his pursuit just as I am in mine. I can relate to the hundreds/thousands of hours it takes to secure such audio. I personally have never heard a sasquatch speak in the wild or in my own audio recordings, but I have heard other recordings. I did have something happen that unfortunately I won’t discuss publicly. I keep hoping to get lucky though with my own recording efforts. I have heard them howl and whistle like us, and there is NO WAY a person could possibly accomplish the volume. I mean if you hear an African Lion from 100 feet away, you know its no kitty cat! I have gotten a few amazing recordings like one tocking his tongue on the roof of his mouth, and his even blowing through a whistle I left. Each from only a few feet away from the recorder, but of course that is not speech either. The tongue-tocking sounded as though he was ‘contemplating’ what I am up to with my setup, kind of like we tap our fingers or other nervous habit. That spoke volumes as to their mental self being.

    The Sierra Sounds have been analyzed before too, but maybe not in the same manner as the most recent. Here is a link to them for those who didn’t bother looking further. I recall that one of the university professors concluded that there is no way a human could accomplish these sounds. I agree! When you’re close, you know that the diaphragm of what you are dealing with is massive. As I recall there is more to the excerpted conclusions on those pages.

    Most here may need to accept this harsh reality. That many have limited field experience with these creatures, and may lack an insight of how much they actually interact and observe us. Maybe this will help. Knowing just how quietly they can move around in the woods, and that they indeed have excellent hearing, they probably spend a lot of time ‘listening’ to us in the wild, and we are a very noisy vocal animal. Learning language may be easier then many think, assuming they have the cognitive abilities of primitive man. A morning in the life of sasquatch if you will: You sit there hiding in the bushes watching a family of humans. Human dad says to his son. “Johnny, bring me that hammer”. Dad repeatedly uses the word Johnny when addressing his son. Is it that difficult to figure out with visual and auditory observation that the boy’s name is ‘Johnny’ after seeing his reaction/response repeatedly? Maybe he says “bring me” a couple of times for a few other items. So now sasquatch learns what ‘bring me’ infers. The word hammer? Well John brings a hammer and so he learns the word hammer. Maybe another time he was asked the same form of question but instead it was for the tent. And so, what is the affect of years of silent observation of campers talking in the woods with visual support? I guarantee, they are observant too. The question is, what is going on upstairs as they sit there for hours? But of course then there is the very likely telepathy mechanism for learning our language that I won’t expound on further other then to say that could explain everything.

    As I’ve said in past threads, just because they are covered with hair, does NOT mean they are some lesser giant ape. Again, we have as many hair follicles as our chimpanzee relatives, our hairs are just so tiny. Our entire body is covered with hair. Look at any seemingly bare skin on your body (with exception of palms and bottom of feet of course). I think it is WE who may have a recessed hair gene.

    What we all learned in schools was incomplete. OBVIOUSLY, our science teachers, the text books, the history books, etc, did not take sasquatch into account for anything evolutionary or otherwise. Everything we learned about our being a solely unique bipedal species on earth was inaccurate. Science will need to budge from its stubborn position if it is to progress.

  40. DWA responds:

    MultipleEncounters:

    As far as the public ever finding out anything about the sasquatch – other than believers are fun to laugh at, and other than personally meeting one, which of course is not a public experience – “the same safe science” is ALL WE HAVE.

    What you speak of is anecdote – and it is only one anecdote. I take a back seat to no one here in the number of encounter reports I have read. And the gestalt, from all those reads, comes back, in big letters: GIANT APE.

    Scientists cannot afford to just open up their minds, pop, like that. OK, they can – as private individuals, who will say, over beers and off the record: I’m rooting for the bigfoot people, because I think they may be on to something. Don’t ever ask me this question at work, capisch?

    “Ingrained standards,” whether we like them or not, are there for a reason. The reason: to keep science’s money and time running in channels that provide returns. Without returns, science wouldn’t exist; what would its purpose be? Science must have returns to be worth anything to society, never mind to scientists.

    Folks who “know more” due to their field experience have one duty: PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE that will allow scientists to follow your lead. If you don’t have it, you need to compile it. This is the way science has worked – and boy has it worked – since the beginnings of science.

    Until then, anecdotes are only anecdotes. And the vast bulk of that pile says what I said above.

    APE. Interesting features, given the known apes other than us, but generally running true to ape form (especially when you include us, as scientists do).

    You know what the real crippler is? All this talk of sasquatch as people. That is – when wielded by humans – a MOST subjective label, and NOT supported until society, as a whole, KNOWS what this is.

    Science will not, as you put it, “budge from its stubborn position” without clear EVIDENCE that a budge is necessary. And IT SHOULD NOT. That is, “if it is to progress.”

    The lesson of scientific history: PROGRESS DEMANDS EVIDENCE, or it is not progress.

    Chasing everything you are told to chase, including your tail, is not progress.

  41. ksr responds:

    I agree with MultipleEncounters 100%. Just because they are covered with hair, and live in the forests, doesn’t mean they should be thought of as Ape in intelligence. They have managed to avoid being shot, captured, and filmed in any great clarity, that shows that they have some degree of intelligence. I think it may be a possibility that they may surpass us “humans” in some areas of intelligence. Thanks MultipleEncounters for bring this to light!!!

  42. DWA responds:

    Multiple Encounters: other things in your last post deserve comment.

    “Most here may need to accept this harsh reality.”

    No we won’t, not in the absence of evidence; and neither will science. Science is perfectly comfortable with the sasquatch not existing. It can persist in that comfort, in the absence of evidence that it’s too uncomfortable with to safely ignore. Hey, if you have never seen a sasquatch, and have no evidence that works for you that they exist, what’s the skin off yours? You just chuckle at blogs like this, and go back to bush babies. If I have said it once here I have said it a hundred times: sometimes you have to wait for science to catch up with you. Without evidence that moves science to catch up, you better not hold your breath waiting. Many here know that I was frustrated with the lassitude of Science for quite a while. I haven’t gotten over it; but I understand it better and am sure less keyed up about it. They need to see evidence, people; and if the evidence is anecdotal, there better be a ton of it – which is not the case for the topic under discussion here.

    “Everything we learned about our being a solely unique bipedal species on earth was inaccurate.”

    Sure was, from the gitgo. In fact, you should never have learned that. Birds, largely: bipedal. Chimps and gorillas, apes generally: more so than people realize. Tyrannosaurus rex: bipedal (along with lots of other dinosaurs).

    Here’s that bipedalism-on-a-pedestal thing again. Scientists may need to get over the sacred-cowness of things like bipedalism, hands and language. But to elevate this, subjectively, in the discussion isn’t helping. Bipedalism, heck, language while we’re on it, is like the fangs of the sabertooth; the fins of the fish; the wings of the dragonfly; the leaves of poison ivy. That it is anything more than that is what we all need to get over.

  43. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- You are starting to sound a lot like me! :)

    I think I understand what MultipleEncounters is trying to say. I haven’t said at all that it would be impossible for sasquatch to have language, in fact I stated here earlier that I suppose it is perhaps possible, especially if they are strongly related to us. But we don’t know that and because they could have language doesn’t mean they do. The problem is I just haven’t seen any good evidence for it. I certainly haven’t heard any good evidence that they are using English in any meaningful capacity.

    Hey, even if they do have language, I still think it is not necessarily what we are hearing on the various recordings. I can’t see why it seems so unreasonable to some people for me to think that people might be hearing what they want to hear on the tape or maybe anthropomorphizing sasquatch perhaps more than is warranted by the evidence.

    I certainly don’t think sasquatch are stupid, but we don’t really know about the extent of their intelligence and I don’t think we can know whether they have language at this point in time. I’d rather know more than embrace the possibilities as the way things are.

    MultipleEncounters- The assertion that everything we have learned is wrong is off base.

    I’ve said it here before, this stuff was not made up. It is a foundation, what we have gleaned about the natural world from years of study, peer review, and accumulation of knowledge that builds upon what came before it. This is all gained from our best techniques for learning about how the world really operates. If all of this is wrong, it has to be shown why it is wrong. This is NOT being stubborn, and I wish people wouldn’t say that. It just means that for science there is a way of building on that knowledge and we are not at liberty to accept things as real just because they might be possible. Just because having hair doesn’t mean it is an ape, does NOT follow that it in fact is not an ape. These are things we have to learn about further.

    I will say it again, I think science is not out to get you. But you do have to show exactly how what you are saying is really what is happening. I think demanding more to go on in order to be accepted into modern day mainstream scientific consensus is not stubbornness, and is not some concerted effort for science to oppress new information. Nobody is really saying that there is no way there is another fully bipedal creature alive today or that sasquatch are an impossibility. The misunderstanding here is that science is claiming impossibility, when in fact it is is just saying that what we know to be true at present time doesn’t necessarily point that way.

    Saying that science is all wrong because it will not fully accept language in sasquatch shows a misunderstanding about how science works. More is needed to think that this is the case, and science certainly does not progress by accepting any new things at face value or on eyewitness assurances. Many scientists who look for cryptids or advocate language in sasquatch KNOW this, and so they are out there trying to collect this evidence rather than proclaiming science to be wrong or close minded.

    Anyway, what I really want to get across is that absolutely there are going to be additions to our knowledge of the natural world, and science indeed does not know everything yet. I can’t stress enough that scientists DON’T THINK THEY DO KNOW EVERYTHING. That’s why they are trying to learn more about the world through careful means. It could very well be shown that sasquatch exist and even that they have language and that would ADD to what we know based on verifiable, peer checked evidence, it would build on our knowledge.

    The idea that everything we know and have learned about the world is “FALSE” or “inaccurate” is not an accurate way to describe the situation. I think a better way to say it would be that everything we know is “incomplete”.

  44. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Actually Mystery-man, you might re-read the pertinent sentence:

    “What we all learned in schools was incomplete. … Everything we learned about our being a solely unique bipedal species on earth was inaccurate. …”

    Science is supposed to be about investigating new unproven things. To do so effectively, sometimes the rules of engagement also change. Science can’t think that the entire universe follows the laws of earth.

  45. mystery_man responds:

    MultipleEncounters- If I misunderstood what you were trying to say, then I’m sorry. DWA seems to have answered your pertinent sentence anyway.

    I’m not sure what you mean by the universe not following the laws of the earth. The earth is part of the universe, so why would it not follow the same laws? Are you saying there are different laws for the earth and for the universe it is in? How did you come to this conclusion? Is that based on anything other than what you think it must be like? How can we learn about this for sure if not through careful study rather than speculation? Why is science wrong to want to know and find out more?

    I think you are misunderstanding my post. Science is perfectly Ok with amending the rules, but there are certain ways of going about it. Science is a way of learning about the universe, a tool, and I trust it to bring us to the truth a whole lot more than unfounded conjecture. The argument that we should accept these new ideas because “science doesn’t know about the universe,” and so on, is faulty. Science IS trying to figure out the universe and its laws, it DOES want to know more, and it is doing so through means other than saying we should 100% believe such and such because it COULD be true.

    So far, science has been the best, most reliable way to gain new knowledge that we have about the universe. It would be a shame to throw that out and just start taking on all manner of far out ideas that might be true. How do you suggest the rules of engagement change? Who decides what is worthy of study? How do we know what is worth pursuing if not for the evidence and knowledge we do have? What is better than carefully coming to conclusions based on evidence? I just don’t see anything wrong with the way we do things now.

    Anyway, we are talking about language in sasquatch here, on Earth.

    Are you saying it is better for me to accept language in sasquatch based on the idea that the universe doesn’t follow the same laws as the Earth? Or is it perhaps better to come to that conclusion based on evidence that comes up? Which is the better way to come to a reliable conclusion? What change to the rules of engagement do you propose? Do you mean accepting things without adequate evidence, or sometimes even a solid reason for thinking so other than “we don’t know everything”? I am open to many ideas, but I do know that I would rather be sure I was headed towards the truth.

    What is wrong with science other than that it currently won’t look at what you think it should look at based on so little presented evidence? Blindly believing things has never gotten us anywhere. I’m NOT saying the things you propose are not true or are impossible. We don’t know, but I would at least like to find out. If there are mysteries like this out there, I think a scientific approach is a perfectly good way to pursue them. Many of the things we take for granted today were once considered magical or mysterious. What brought them to our knowledge? Yes, science.

    Science is not the problem here, it is a way of reliably arriving at the truth. I think you mean that close minded people are the problem, and this is a big distinction. On that I’d totally agree! :)

  46. DWA responds:

    Mystery_man: I think YOU are starting to sound like ME. Or maybe WE are starting to sound like US. :-D

    Multiple_Encounters: science MUST think that EARTH follows the laws of the entire UNIVERSE, until directed research shows something different. What m_m and I have been saying is: evidence opens minds. I take a back seat to no one in my high dudgeon against scientists who make numbskull pronouncements in areas where they have done zero research (like this one). M_m is pretty much the example I can find, on this site, of what a grounded scientist MUST say when confronted with the unknown: I don’t know, and we won’t, until we follow the evidence to a conclusion.

    So (he would then ask): what is your evidence…?

    It’s a fair question.

  47. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Mystery-man & DWA, naw, I’m not saying that earth isn’t part of the universe or anything like that. But I guess I am referring back to the prior discussion where String Theory and what it proposes, which is not yet even considered plausible in our world by the vast majority of scientists from other fields. For most of the rest of the world, it is considered science fiction. This small arena of scientists however continues pushing the envelope by theorizing what is unbelievable to the rest of us. Yes, they have adapted science to prove something that would be impossible to swallow for the rest. How would you feel when that field of science confirms 100% that there are these alternate universes alongside ours? This conclusion wouldn’t seem to be of our world now would it?

    Anyway, I’m not saying we don’t use science. What I’m saying is that science may have to listen to some of the country bumpkins out there who make claims of continued encounters and what goes on in those encounters. Science needs to ‘humble itself’ a bit in this field because these creatures are a bit more non-conforming to the rules them scientists want to follow. These sasquatch want our respect, they don’t like being tricked, they don’t like being hunted. They appear to even possess some of the abilities that Native Americans have claimed they have all these decades/centuries. But how can modern science possibly conform to Native American beliefs, which are not based on modern science, or the laws of earth as we know them for that matter? Hence we have a division.

    The problem is, science can be so sterile, and yes there are many scientists out there who stubbornly deny things like sasquatch because of various reasons, such as it goes against the laws of this earth. Sasquatch? — Blasphemy! How could there be such a creature on earth, they say. Most scientists would not consider sasquatch to be something that exists on this earth even, so I guess in that way it doesn’t follow their idea of the laws of earth as they know it.

    Nobody is saying science is not needed or that there is anything wrong with science in wanting to know and find out more. But science needs to budge from its high chair when it deals with things that may not follow its rules.

    Yes this is a discussion about sasquatch speaking english so I’d rather not take the discussion any further away from the topic.

    I will give another example however of how they could be learning our languages, just as they probably learned Native American languages. How many reports have you read of sasquatch looking in peoples windows after dark? Well there are plenty FYI, just like similar experiences people have while out camping. And that’s just when they are noticed. But how much time do they really spend listening to conversations without ever being noticed? Are they possibly learning language from long term observation of us?

    What our small little corner of science is going to have to do in order to proceed, is to get off its safe high seat which views sasquatch as just some extant giant ape species. All because of a stinkin jaw and teeth found in China of something that doesn’t even resemble sasquatch in the models. But that’s the only piece of evidence the scientists have to grasp onto. So they remained stuck for a long time on very poor evidence because they didn’t know how to push the envelope. Within archeology, it would be considered professional suicide to propose that we are not the only living Homo whatever species on earth. Our science field is stuck in the mud. Until open up their minds to other non-conventional possibilities, it will be impossible for scientists to fathom how sasquatch could possibly speak language, yet alone english. They will be stuck with trying to rationalize it as mimicry, or that we are only hearing what we want to hear in recordings. For those scientists who consider the possibility that they may indeed be a primitive form of human, then these possibilities of speech become much more plausible.

  48. alcalde responds:

    MultipleEncounters –

    Everything follows “the rules”, or else “the rules” need to be revised. Scientists aren’t stuck “in the mud”, they’re just not tossing out all the collected data without reason. If I told you I have an apple tree in my backyard where the apples fall _upward_ into space rather than down to the ground, would you just blindly accept that tale and throw away all you believe you know about gravity just because I said so, with no evidence? And wouldn’t you demand a lot more evidence than a photo or a blurry YouTube clip before you’d accept it? In fact, you’d probably refuse to believe it without seeing the tree for yourself. And then if I told you that the apples don’t fall upward if strangers are around you’d take your leave of me for sure. Now replace upward apples with bigfoot and you’ll see that science isn’t unreasonable. What is unreasonable is to believe things without any reason for believing them. The sensible thing to do when encountering a claim that goes against “the rules” is to reject the claim without proof, not revise the rules without proof. That’s why the rules are the rules.

    In regards to string theory, it is not only considered implausible by those in other fields, it is increasingly being regarded as so bad it’s “not even wrong” by those within physics. We’ve seen two books so far, including Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble With Physics” that have taken it to task. It’s akin to what you’re arguing for above about “the rules”: it throws away science’s theorizing from observational evidence then creating testable hypotheses, and instead builds wild theories without a shred of observational evidence. Not only that, many ideas it proposes are untestable, and others have failed their tests – yet these new theories contain so many variables untied to observational reality that their values can be changed or new values added to match any result. A theory that can’t be falsified isn’t a theory. I’m not sure how you can be so confident that string theory will be vindicated when there exists no evidence today that points in its direction. Much of physics, particularly cosmology, is heading in this direction, favoring ideas that are mathematically “beautiful”, or replacing observation and experimentation with math entirely, but fortunately some are beginning to pull it back from that slippery slope. It’s confusing the map for the territory. Ten dimensions might make an elegant math theory, but we have no evidence of any spatial dimensions beyond the three we can observe, let alone evidence of other universes within those dimensions.

  49. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Alcalde, well, the apple tree doesn’t have a brain, so no, the apples not falling upwards when someone else is around probably isn’t the best analogy because there is an otherwise tangible controlling factor with sasquatch. Sasquatch has a brain and its behavior is significantly influenced by ours, and that is how and why we must adapt if we are to be on their terms. That’s part of the difference.

    As for String Theory and all the rest of Quantum Physics, tell the thousands of scientists who work at the Hadron Collider which spans two countries and costing several billion dollars and 27 Kilometers that. Then there are the equal number (or more) of scientists in this country who conduct their own similar research. I suspect the ‘vast majority’ of them are trying to prove such Quantum Physics theories with all their investment of time and equipment, not disprove them. I don’t think a few books by some who might even be considered ‘scoftics’ to those who dare to propose new ideas, can be considered a wave of non-support. Hmmm, where have I heard that term before?

    I’m not all that certain that Lee Smolin’s ideas necessarily say these phenomenon don’t exist either, after reading a short summary on him. He may be saying some things may not be provable or observable, but, well I haven’t read much about him either. The Hadron Collider exists to test many of these theories.

  50. DWA responds:

    MultipleEncounters:

    As to “What I’m saying is that science may have to listen to some of the country bumpkins out there who make claims of continued encounters and what goes on in those encounters. Science needs to ‘humble itself’ a bit in this field….”

    Well, yes to the latter (as in scientists need to stop responding with flip answers where they have no expertise just because the media expects them to be experts in everything). Scientists need to admit that they don’t have all the answers…and maybe even save a little face in dong so by going further to chastise others who scoff without having done their homework. “I don’t know whether the sasquatch exists or not; and I’m tired of hearing people go off with unschooled opinions on this, one way or the other. We should all withhold judgment on things we don’t know.” Like that.

    Now the question is how much listening we should expect from scientists to (as you put it) the “country bumpkins.” Again, science needs evidence, or else it’s not proceeding responsibly, neither to colleagues in the lab and in the field nor to the public for whom science is arbiter of what’s real. Science – for good or ill – has left the sasquatch sleuthing to amateurs. Some of these amateurs are excellent, and are trying to cleave to scientific bases for research. Others…not so much. To whom should science listen? My money is on those who are doing research that follows the great bulk of what’s being reported; because long experience tells us that is where the payoff is likeliest to be. It will be hard accepting a fellow, albeit big and hairy, human with language thoughts and dreams similar to ours, when no one’s shown you evidence you can sink your teeth into that even so much as the big and hairy exists. I’d rather focus on the big and hairy first, ‘cause we have metric tons of evidence for that, and more comes in by the week. I would thrust this in science’s face until a critical mass gets needed research under way.

    Cryptidsrus pointed out in another blog that you can find flesh and blood, and go from there to finding things that right now seem woo-woo to us. That would be great. But you have to have the first before you can divine the second. I just want the searchers to focus that way, because, whether they themselves know or not, I WANT TO, and am relying – as is the public, as are the professionals – on them to deliver the goods because I’m not out there looking and won’t see my way clear to be so for a bit yet.

    Now I’d have to disagree on your response to alcalde’s apple tree example. Brains or not makes not a jot of difference because so far as the bulk of the public is (or seems to be) concerned, there is no sasquatch, brains belly or anything. They need to see THAT proof (and the search needs to focus, exclusively, on that, first) which to them is precisely the same as apples falling upward, i.e, don’t happen. I think, therefore, that alcalde’s example is precisely spot on.

    Most people need to see evidence, leading to proof, of (seemingly) absurd no-way-possible things like unicorns, centaurs, up-apple-trees, Nessies, and sasquatch before we can even begin to address the (seemingly) ever further way out there proposition that they’re talking to us, in English.

    How can one prove an animal is speaking in tongues when there is no proof that the tongue allegedly speaking even exists?

  51. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Exactly! Well said. Not much I can add there.

    Alcalde- Good post! Well said! The rules are revised, and paradigms shifted, by evidence. If the rules need to be changed, it has to be shown why the old way was wrong, or why it needs to be amended, not the other way around. The foundation we have was built by hard work and research that has been built upon by other scientists. It is so reliable in fact, that one reason scientists don’t have to start all research from scratch is because they can rest on the solid principles that came before. If we were to doubt the foundation without evidence to suggest why, then everyone would have to do everything from scratch, and that is a somewhat preposterous notion. Anyway, you explained it quite well I think.

    MultipleEncounters- Well, I certainly agree that a somewhat open mind is needed in conjunction with science. Evidence is no good if people refuse to look at it or pursue it, and that is one reason why some paradigms in the past were so slow to change. One could argue that belief without evidence kept us thinking the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the Earth, but in fact the evidence was becoming available and there were those in important positions who refused to accept it. Close mindedness can be detrimental to science and the advance of knowledge in my opinion, and many groundbreaking discoveries were made by those who were thinking outside the box, but there does have to be something to make us suppose something might be true. We can’t let our brains fall out our heads, there are rules and ways of coming to the truth that are reliable. The corner might be small, but it is science that is shining the light out into the dark to see what else is there rather than just guessing about it.

    Anyway, you are absolutely right that it should be about learning more about the universe. That is exactly what science is about, and I’m glad you basically agree that science itself (and not close mindedness) is a good way to do that.

    Thank you for always taking the time to explain your position and discuss these things openly even though we don’t agree on a few points. You always keep a cool head when faced with opposing arguments and I do enjoy hearing your perspectives even though I might not always agree.

    This has been a pretty good discussion by all those involved!

  52. DWA responds:

    I should add this, very quickly, about string theory, the Hadron Collider, et al.

    Sasquatch research would be the biological equivalent. Which is why it should happen.

    It is OK to test even those things that wind up “so bad it’s not even wrong.” (From the evidence, the sasquatch isn’t close to bad, let alone that bad.)

    As long as science plays by the rules that have succeeded – spectacularly – over the generations that science has been in operation.

  53. mystery_man responds:

    I also want to add a little thing.

    For anyone who is frustrated that mainstream science does not accept certain things at this point, I’d say it is nothing to worry about if the phenomena in question is real. Even in mainstream science, new discoveries often come under a lot of fire, there is a process of peer review by which other scientists are going to pick apart the data and research from all angles. This is a good thing, as it helps us come to the truth and lead to a consensus as whatever is left is likely fairly reliable since it has been checked and rechecked by other scientists.

    Coming against disagreement and critical evaluation of one’s research is par for the course in any scientific field. Other scientists can often strongly oppose the findings of another, and anyone who thinks scientists are always in agreement on everything is mistaken. There is a lot of debate and opposition even with mainstream research, let alone revolutionary ideas.

    Anyone proposing new ideas needs to understand that of course it is going to be picked apart, that is actually one of the strengths of science. In the end, the strength of the evidence and how it holds up to scrutiny will be what leads to the truth. So I’d say that if the evidence is out there, sooner or later it is going to come to light as long as there are people willing to follow where it leads.

    You just need people willing to investigate it, and for that to happen, they have to know that what they are looking for is going to stand up to this scrutiny and be convincing enough to warrant funding.

    I’d say don’t get too down because some of these ideas aren’t accepted as of yet. Much knowledge of today wasn’t either at first. In the end, it will be all about the evidence and where it leads, and that is a good thing.

  54. Atka59 responds:

    Nice, there are a lot of intelligent patrons of this site, and in this forum. I do notice examples of a particular zeal displayed by so called skeptics, better described as paradigm enforcers. Usually, they play an important role in keeping us grounded, yet tend to apply much more intellect and force in identifying weaknesses in the claims and positions of others than in observing the lack of solidity of their own claims and beliefs. And example of this is displayed by Alcade above.

    Alcade picks apart Coleman’s statements one by one, and when he can’t say Coleman has not seen a Bigfoot, he attacks him for not grabbing it for proof. Yet, Alcade makes the absolute knowledge claim that our closest relative died out thousands of years ago. How could Alcade possibly know this.

    It seems to me that the aim of many skeptics is to interfere in the process of novel discourse more than it is to keep us grounded in logic and what they term reality. The result of this friction is to reduce the rate of maturation of the human culture, which may be the conscious or not aim of skeptics; to not be left behind.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.