I was reading that at a recent conference they talked about and supported the fact that bf animals have language similar to humans.

I believe that the consensus is that bf don't utilize fire or use tools. Even their so called shelters are insufficient. I can't see how a creature that has language would not have some basic comforts? Wouldn't they talk about those things? "Geeze I'm cold...lets try one of those campfires we saw those campers sitting around? Here, try this sharp piece of metal I found to open that deer." Of course I'm being silly but you see what I mean. Am I missing something? Could a creature with human language skills be able to survive without inventing anything to make their lives easier? Oh yeah I forgot...they figured out how to hit a tree with a limb. The bf who figured that out musta been an Enstien in his circles. lol

t.

Based on what?

...and just how was this supported?

Bigfoot believers gather in Felton
By AUSTIN WALSH
Posted: 10/18/2009 01:30:50 AM PDT

FELTON -- At the third annual Bigfoot Discovery Day in Felton, Michael Rugg had no qualms about his voicing his confidence in Bigfoot's existence.

The founder and curator of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum in Felton organized the event Saturday, which about 100 people attended, in the museum and the town's community hall to spread the word about Bigfoot.

"Our mission at the museum is to educate the people that Bigfoot lives right here is these mountains," said Rugg, dressed in a brown T-shirts with the words "Bigfoot is real" boldly printed across his chest.

Rugg brought Bigfoot educators and enthusiasts to Felton to share stories and evidence in an attempt to show the creature is mythical.

Bigfoot enthusiast Kathy Strain shared her research examining Bigfoot's existence through the perspective of California's native tribes. Strain says there are many similar stories about the creature from tribes across the state which did not communicate with one another, and the widespread commonalities in these tales indicate Bigfoot is real.

Other materials on display at the show meant to prove Bigfoot's existence were video, audio recordings of a whistle-like call and a tooth recovered that is said to belong to the beast.

Linguist Scott Nelson presented his research which he says indicates that Bigfoot not only exists, but has a language similar to humans.

"We have verified that these creatures use language by the human definition of it," said Nelson. "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."

Dave Paulides, author of two books on Bigfoot, spoke to the crowd about his work in exploring Bigfoot's history.

Paulides' books were responsible for converting Jay Bietz from Bigfoot agnostic to believer.

"All the stories about Bigfoot are so similar," said Bietz. "And to simply believe that the tens of thousands of people who say they have seen it are complete liars is insane."

Terry

I won't question that first sentence with the "supported" comment. I think you just used the wrong wording/phrasing.

Now, getting to your question. And these are all just ideas and theories....nothing supported, I'm just guessing. I think they do not use tools because they do not need to. To gut a deer, we need tools, they do not. They just tear it apart. I've heard some theories that their nails are extremely thick and strong. Maybe they use them to some degree? They do not start fires for warmth because they do not need to. They are covered in hair/fur/whatever. Countless animals survive in the winter with fur, maybe Sasquatch has something in between?

I've discussed/said this many times before. They live out there 365 days a year, 24/7. It's their home. They are obviously comfortable out there. I think they do not make more advanced structures because they do not need to. Day bed works just fine. Just laying down is comfort enough.

The language thing. I think they very well may have some sort of language, just not as advanced as some might say. You can command your dog to recognize what- a few dozen commands? That is a sort of language between you and the dog, is it not? Perhaps their language is only as advanced as it needs to be?

I read that quote and the smart-a$$ in me responds with this:

How can you verify a creature has a language without first scientifically verifying the creature exists? Baby steps right? I know the first step in proving it's existence is proving it's existence... but saying they have language, a high level of thought, lasers that shoot out of their armpits should all be secondary to being able to stand in front of the world and say "They do exist"....and then be able to prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

I'm not sayin'... I'm just sayin'.

I saw Scott Nelson's presentation at Honobia a couple of weekends ago. He has taken the Sierra Sounds tapes and painstakenly analyzed them. He is convinced that whatever is making the vocalizations on those tapes is most definitely using a language as defined by humans. He says it is an unknown language, and he has the creditentials, IMO, to make that call. It was a very interesting and well done presentation for which he received the only standing ovation of the conference.

He's working on publishing his work "sometime next year." If anybody gets a chance to see his presentation I highly recommend it.

This topic will always boil down to "to what degree?". It's impossible for something to not communicate. Believe me, I argued with my professor on this popular philosophical term twenty years ago for two weeks and I'm still trying to prove it's wrong. But it's not..... So far.

To what degree can Sas communicate with language? The folks at that conference are saying that they have verified that it's similar to humans. That's a bold statement. There are dozens of theories about BF's attributes but that's more than just a theory. Verification would imply that they have proven facts. I would love to see that study because I'm doubtful about the BF's syntax. I can't wait to see how a BF's deciphered language reads. Maybe we could eventually get a BF to join the forum.

I think people trying to demonstrate that bigfoot has a language are going wayyyy ahead. The sounds they are analyzing arent even confirmed to be from any animal, much less a bigfoot. Its kind of ridiculous to assume so, and on top of it to assume a language. Just think about it for a second. You hear some unknown sounds coming from the woods, and record it. (and the circumstances regarding those recordings, are far from legitimate if you ask me) You then assume its a yet to be discovered animal, and then again assume it to be some type of language. I personally think this guy is reaching really, really far on this one. Sure it plays into the hands of the "believers" out there, but as far as scientific value.... The sounds are not even verified to have come from any bgfoot. Bigfootery at its finest. I've felt for a long time that those sounds are not bigfoot related, and that the story surrounding how they were recorded is very.... hard to take. Have you guys read the details on that whole situation?

I bet hes gonna have a brooklyn accent like the old buggs bunny cartoons, lol

I have. It's a suspicious story on several levels.

I wish this linguist fellow the best of luck with all that, but it's far from any kind of proof. As far as I am concerned ( I have "credentials" too, a Master's in English, which means I have studied other languages and the science of linguistics) what ever made those sounds was using some kind of a language, or pretending to, at least... I'm just not convinced the sounds were made by a clan of Bigfoot.

If it was them, there really isn't enough on the recordings to decode into a comprehensible system of language anyway.

So I read a story once that Bigfoot was thought to herd deer and throw rocks at the deer to make them run into a sort of BF wall that was how they trapped them. Similar to one of the ways that all of our ancestors hunted.

If they do do that then they use tools. Same as an otter useing a rock to crack oysters and clams on it's belly. Same as many reported sightings in all of the data bases all through recorded history of BF throwing rocks to either get attention or show aggression. Even into the past in ancient First nations stories. Were for their habits and likeness they were regarded as people,,,,,but then again the coyote was regarded as a brother to some tribes......Hummmm. But the giants were never spoken of the way that animals were.

Do they speak and have a language, I think that they do. I applaud the people who risk their professional carreers to come out with totally new ideas. Totally unsupported by the majority. Because the truth will not be reached without such people.

As far as them being unproven......I have seen them. I know that they exist. Seeing is believing. I have heard incoherent babble in the night on more than one occassion. I think that it would be great if they could be proven by science as well and that the mystery of them and their habits could be explained. First we have to open our minds to the possibilities and not set life into a mold that says that they can't.


I am not to sure about the Sierra tapes myself. Reminds me of a vocal from years ago that was on the internet. Basicly was a abominable snowman (bugs bunny I will call him George voice) and it sounded in english like it said "Bigfoot appears and pours milk into it" The guy that posted it said or clamed that he recorded it from the tire well of his van or something. It was corny,,,,,,BUT having heard similar incohernt 'language' at night and finding foot prints and broken tree branches and other things like eye shine and the sort I am certain that they do have a somewhat complex language......Although maybe they are just mimmicking the people that walk past them everyday. And none of it ever sounded like the cartoon character.

I am not going to bring up my name either so lets not go there again.

I wasnt making fun of it COwatcher, just trying to lighten the mood, I believe they can talk in their own language, and are a lot smarter than we give them credit for, a whole lot smarter

I would love it to be true. I would love to see the data. I have a feeling if I asked to see the results, I will be told to go whoop whoop garble myself.

Since BF is represented internationally, they must be multi-lingual to boot.

Of course. The Yeti speaks differently than the Yeren, which can't understand a word the Yowie says.

So what's your point?

Don't get me wrong, I think they must have a spoken language too, based on nothing but assumptions I have already made numerous times in other posts.

Me either.


I've seen the data and it's pretty convincing that whatever was making the noises was using language and not imitating or pretending. I'm looking forward to the publication of his analysis.



It reads pretty darn cool, FG. lol Scott read some of it. (Seriously!) He's transcribed everything Ron and Al have recorded. Yes, he created a "Bigfoot Alphabet" and Yes, I know how rediculous that sounds. Of course, it's one of those things you have to have been there to really understand how convincing of a presentation he made. So you'll have to see it all for yourselves. And I hope you get that chance soon.

I have no problem accepting the vocalizations as language. The only thing I do question is apparently he just accepts for fact that whatever beings spoke the language were bigfoot. I don't know how Ron Morehead and Al Berry "know" these are bigfoot. Did they see them (it sounds like three or four of them) or what is the story? I suppose I should use the seach, but it probably won't be tonight.

Click to view attachment

I agree with the baby steps..let's prove that sasquatch really exists before we make any assumptions on what language the creature might possess.

yer anthropomorphizing something that doesnt play by the same rules

Hi

The always complex problems about anything Bigfoot

If it is BF then by trying to understand there language it could be used to unlock the secret of capturing one, Wouldn't it surprise the hell out of them if you could yell back with something they understood,

But by going out and saying it is a BF kinda jumps the gun and puts a hex on the whole thing cause it makes it way to far fetched, like has been said already we should really have the BF first,

I'll keep my interest in just waiting to see if all the research can at least pin point a language of any kind

Peace
Tim

It's a very, very interesting theory, but Why don't we start at point A then we can think about point B?

As far as the use of tools goes In my opoinion which does not mean much in these circles is the use of rocks ,I tend to believe that they use rocks as a tool for hunting and for other things just like they did back in the old times.

As far as the langauge goes I just do not believe that they have a langauge that we can understand ,but maybe have a langauge of thier own that only them can understand .But until one can be observed in its natural enviorment we will never know what they do or how they do it .Just my opionion.One really needs to observe these creatures in thier natural habitat before any human contact can be made with it or them to further understand what they are and how they live.

We have talked about Language a couple of times over the years. I have a different outlook on it then a lot of people.
I believe a lot of animals have some sort of Language that they use and we just do not understand it.\
Who are we to say what a bird is saying to other birds when it is singing in the mornings or what a dog is saying when barking in the night.
Just because we have no clue what they are saying does not mean they do not have a Language that others of their kind or even other species can understand.
We know most animals communicate in some way not only with their own species but others as well at least a little. Who knows that Squirrel chatting at you when your walking threw the woods might be saying, Hey everyone one of them dumb humans is over here so watch out.

I agree. You can certainly tell the difference from a hen mallard "come back" call and a "feed chuckle". Is this language?
Must a sentence or phrase be used, or just a single word? How large a vocabulary is required to constitute language.
I've heard very interesting "two note at the same time" recordings almost harmonics, very similar to budhist monks, the way one voice made
two notes.

The most important thing to me is it must be verified what made the sounds.

Thats all good I was making fun of myself, sorta. I think that we all have to keep a sense of humor and in that be human...

Well even if we had the first breeding pair in the Brooklyn zoo this would be a contentious subject.... How long have we studied cetaceans? The arguments about them possessing a language have gone back and forth for at least 20 years.

There's even argument that the chimps and gorrillas that have been taught to sign are not really, really, using language, but are just performing sophisticated mimicry. So even if you got the big guy to speak pidgin on tape then you'd STILL have an uphill struggle... though it might be easier if it got classified in some homo genus.

Well, seems there is a new upcoming slant in this discussion of Sasquatch language, they are writing a book to spell it all out.

So, if you can't listen to the presentation you can buy or borrow the book.

http://www.bigfootsounds.com/BookFlyer.asp

Too bad these linguistics specialists can't put up a website without typos and spelling mistakes. Sheesh!
Dudlow

Edited to add: There goes the credibility quotient right out the window, which is really not the least bit helpful to their cause.

Yah, I noticed the "spell-check challenged" nature of the promo.......some things you would think would be important enough to do a
work-around. Or, here's a novel idea, have somebody unchallenged do a proof-read.

I don't know....... spelling disability is an equal opportunity lightning bolt, some very creative minds around that can't spell, won't turn me away,
just laziness in this case I think.

Their "cause" is pretty much a huge challenge anyway, spelling notwithstanding!

Maybe I'm trying to put too fine a point on a dull edge, 'bipedalist', but professional linguists are the least likely professionals to be "spell-check challenged" -- it is their professional business to understand, actively promote and demonstrate proper grammar, usage, agreement, spelling, connotation, denotation, etc.; otherwise their credentials appear suspect.

It's like a proclaimed sharpshooter turning up who can't hit the broad side of a barn.

I suspect the non-linguist who put up the website page should have been edited and checked by the professional linguist, which doesn't seem to have been the case. I'm sure it's just a nitpicking, small thing, but it screams credibility issue to me.

But you're right. In the big picture it doesn't make a bit of difference in the end.
Dudlow

Science is tending towards indicating that the origin of what we today would call a language center goes much further back, and predates language itself. That great apes can be taught sign language was one early indicator of this. So it may be that there are other functions that serve language-like functions, or that something else the brain of animals is doing, prepares it in part for that step to language development. Recently there was an article indicating that gestures are processed by the language center, and this might be a place to start.

So, here are some quick points: First, BF appears to be a hominid (other than being a higher primate, the only requirement is currently bipedalism) which makes it likely to be much more closely related to humanity than the apes, so it would not be surprising that this trait is shared as well, or at least some necessary prerequisites. Secondly, even if BF did not evolve language independently, it could learn it from humans, and if its vocal mechanisms are more like ours than the apes it might be able to approximate humans speech. We have little understanding of how or why our vocal tract evolved the way it did. One commonality that BF and humans share but the other primates do not have is the ability to swim, particularly fully submerged, and this may indicate airway similarities. Finally, whatever they are they are not dumb animals (hint: otherwise we would have little trouble putting them in zoos). While I do not believe they function as modern humans do, they are more than intelligent enough to survie, hide, and make monkeys out of humans that look for them. So this implies they may have a somewhat similar ability to learn and apply themselves in a manner atypical to the great apes.