Fringe Radio Show April 21, 2012

Cheers, John…

To:  Sasquatch Research Community

Re:  Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA) (attached)

Since I became involved in Sasquatch research a little over two years ago, I have received dozens of e-mails from around the country involving first-hand witness accounts, many containing recorded audio files, of perceived Sasquatch Language.  Virtually all of these have included an attempt to spell out Sasquatch “words” using Standard English.  This is of little value to the language researcher, since English is notoriously non-phonetic and is subject to widely-varied local dialects.

Since our ultimate goal is the recovery of Sasquatch Language, I have found it necessary to establish a phonetic alphabet and transcription standard (based on the transcription of the Berry/Morehead tapes), by which the contrast and comparison of all future suspected language can be facilitated.

To this end, as an invaluable tool in the future of Sasquatch Language research, I am requesting that the attached standard be published on research web-sites and that it be copied and distributed freely.  With this, I am also requesting that local investigators begin using this alphabet as soon as possible to accurately document any perceived Sasquatch Language.

This standard should not be limited to first-hand witness accounts or recordings from North America, but should be used by investigators world-wide, since most languages have many of the same non-phonetic characteristics as English.  The work is written in the style of a military SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).

It is my belief that there is nothing more important, at this early stage of Sasquatch Language study, than to standardize the documentation of evidence.

With highest regard for all those engaged in the work of Sasquatch recognition;

R. Scott Nelson

20 June 2010

Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet and Transcription Standard

Submitted by R. Scott Nelson

The Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (SPA) will alternately be known by the more formal denomination, Unclassified Hominid Phonetic Alphabet (UHPA), until such time as the subject Being is scientifically classified, or documented linguistic contact has been established.  “Sasquatch” is used here as a generally accepted term for the subject Being.  A variation of the English Reformed Phonetic Alphabet is used, as transcribed from the Berry/Morehead Tapes (BMT).

The existence of the Sasquatch Being is hereby assumed, since any creature must exist before his language.  Any argument for the existence of Sasquatch or his language should be given outside of this standard and outside any transcription endeavor that uses this standard.  Transcripts should stand alone as tools for the language researcher; whereas SPA transcripts and excerpts should be freely used in other works to support linguistic arguments.

The purpose of this is to standardize all future transcription of suspected Sasquatch Language and to facilitate comparison of language articulations by future researchers; the ultimate goal being the recovery of Sasquatch Language.

Sasquatch Language is spoken approximately twice as fast as any known language in most analyzed recordings, therefore it must be slowed down to be transcribed accurately.  50% of real-time will be the standard; transcription at any other speed will be noted, e.g. (75%).  Real-time will be noted as (rt).  Tape-time hacks will be given as minute:second.1/100thsecond, e.g. 17:23.54.

Since this is an unknown language, transcribed for the first time, the grammar and syntax of it, likewise, cannot be known.  Therefore, to differentiate between small and capital letters is useless and misleading.  Sasquatch articulations will be transcribed using capital letters, human voices are to be transcribed by the standards of the language that is spoken (proper English, Russian, etc.).  This eases reading of the transcripts when human and Sasquatch voices are mixed or alternating.  Since words cannot be known, and only suspected in cognates, Sasquatch utterances will be given as individual morphemes (or syllables).  An umlaut (Ä) is used rather than a macron (-) to avoid confusion with the English use of the same symbol.

Small letters within parenthesis will be used, in accordance with military transcription standards, to abbreviate specific notes, e.g. (2-3m) to mean (two or three words or morphemes are missing or inaudible here).   Untranscribable vocalizations such as grunts or screams will be noted with capital letters within parenthesis, e.g. (G) or (SC).  An abbreviation key follows the phonetics key.

Any document using this alphabet should be labeled (SPA) or (UHPA).

Use in first-hand witness accounts:

This alphabet is not intended to be used solely for the transcription of recorded language, but will be highly useful in first-hand witness accounts of Sasquatch phenomena where the witness perceived spoken language.  Researchers, when documenting witness accounts, should endeavor to transcribe each Sasquatch utterance as accurately as possible using this alphabet.  As an invaluable aid to the language researcher, several questions should be asked of the witness to correlate with the utterances of the Sasquatch Being:

What was occurring at the moment of each specific utterance?

How many Sasquatch Beings do you believe were present; how many were speaking?

Did you feel that the Sasquatch Beings were speaking to each other or to you (the witness)?

What do you think the Being was trying to communicate?

What do you feel was the emotional state of the Being (for each specific utterance)?

Was there interrogative inflection in the utterance (did it sound like a question)?

Was there imperative or command inflection in the utterance (did it sound like the Being was telling you or another Sasquatch to do or not do something)?

This alphabet is expected to grow as additional verified recordings of Sasquatch Language are collected and analyzed, and new extra-human articulations are documented.   For example; the well-documented howls, whoops, growls, screams and whistles of Sasquatch may someday be found to have linguistic meaning; wood- and rock-knocking or tooth-popping may be found to be encoded.  It should not be discounted that manipulated tree, limb and stick formations could be graphic expressions of Sasquatch Language, much like runic or pictographic human writing systems.

Since auditory perception is subject to the same limitations of all human perception, review and revision of any transcript by other qualified Crypto-Linguists or voice- transcription experts should be welcomed.  With the recovery of Sasquatch Language being the anticipated outcome, cooperation and consensus between language researchers should be the first rule of this study.

Here is 2 hour radio show Scott did. This is where I first heard about this topic back in 2009. Just been slow in post this information.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bigfoot_quest/2009/03/18/bigfoot-quest

Here is a video that is great too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22zVZUJesCA

The first two pages of Berry Tape I transcription are attached as an example of the prescribed usage of this alphabet.

Phoneme Key

Ä  =  a in father

A  =  a in can

B  =  b in bib

D  =  d in did

Ë  =  a in make

E  =  e in set

F  =  f in fife

G  =  g in gag

H  =  h in ham

Ï  =  i in machine, ee in meet

I  =  i in sit

J  =  y in yes, i in union

K  =  k in kite, c in cut

L  =  l in lull

M  =  m in mom

N  =  n in nine

Ö  =  o in lone

O  =  o in log

P  =  p in pipe

R  =  r in roar

Rr  =  rolled r, as in Spanish or in Scottish Brogue

S  =  s in sister

T  =  t in tight

Ü  =  u in plume, oo in boot

U  =  u in run, o in union

V  =  v in verve

W  =  w in way

Y  =  oo in book

Z  =  z in zebra, s in is

′  =  glottal stop

c  =  tongue click, not evident in BMT

>  =  phoneme drawn out

Compound  Phonemes

ÄÏ  =  i in like, y in my

JÜ  =  as in you, u in fume

KH  =  ch in Scottish loch, x in Spanish Quixote, x in Russian (khah)

SJ  =  sh in shirt

TSJ  =  ch in church

ZJ  =  z in azure, s in treasure

DZJ  =  j in jail, g in age

NG  =  ng in sing

Δ  (Greek Delta)  =  th in then

Θ  (Greek Theta)  =  th in thin

Abbreviation Key

(rt)  =  transcribed at real-time

(75%)  =  transcribed at a speed other than 50%

(h)  =  human vocalization

(1-2m)  =  one or two words or syllables are missing or inaudible here

(int)  =  interrogative inflection

(dr)  =  Inflected as a direct response

(imp)  =  imperative inflection

(w)  =  whispered

(q)  =  very low audibility, quiet, almost imperceptible at normal speeds

(im)  =  human imitating a creature

(ma)  =  possible male Sasquatch Being

(fe)  =  possible female Sasquatch Being

(ju)  =  possible juvenile Sasquatch Being

(G)  =  grunt, growl or grumble, possible language

(W)  =  whistle or squeak, possible language

(SN)  =  snarl, possible language

(SC)  =  scream, possible language

(TP5)  =  tooth pop, number in sequence, possible language, not evident in BMT

(WK3)  =  wood knock, number in sequence, possible language

(RK4)  =  rock knock, number in sequences, possible language

BERRY TAPE I

Transcribed by R. Scott Nelson

Time                                Utterance

0:4.5                 (W) (W)

0:8.62              (W) (W) (W)

0:15.11            RAM HO BÄ RÜ KHÄ HÜ

0:16.70            WAM VO HÜ KHÖ KHU′

0:17.52            NÖ U PLÄ MEN TI KHU

0:18.82            NÄR LÄ

0:20.21            NA GÖ KÜ STEP GÄ KÜ BLEM

0:21.25            Ü KÜ DZJÄ

0:21.76            FRrÄP E KHÜK LE

0:22.65            ÜN Ï KÜ O GÜ AKH  (int)

0:23.85            DÖ WÄÏ NÖ  (dr)

0:24.52            MÜ Ï FWI KÖ PÏ KHU′ SJ?

0:31.43            (ma)  HU Ö NÖ>   KHÄ HÜ

0:32.95            PLEN DÜTSJ TISJ

0:33.61            SÏ DZJAÖ GLÖ PÜ MËKH

0:34.90            PÄ KHÏ KÖ DÜ TÜ SEKSÏ

0:35.88            WA HEP DÜ TSJE DÜ FU HEP

0:36.95            (ma)  FI KÜ ÄÏ>  KHÜ′

0:44.80            FÄ LIP ÄBÄSJ KHU′

0:45.03            NE VER GÖ ? ÖM  KHU′

0:47.03            FÖ WÄ Ï>

0:48.08            WA  KHU? KVÄM

0:49.16            ITS KÄÏM VÄR US FO RI ZIS TENS

0:51.27            MÖ>  FER BÏ KEN JÄ Ä VÄÖN SÏ RYK MI RO GHAP – GÏ GO WYP

0:53.66            MÏ WÄTSJ FYD PLËN FYD NÜ AÖ>  KHE KHU′

0:55.34            NÖ ÄÏ ÄKHSJ  HÜ

0:57.13            (h) Come on, boy.

0:58.04            (h) Come on, let’s eat.

1:00.93            BÏ KAER FYL NAÖ PRÖS GYD

01.87               NÖÄ Ö JA LET KHE

02.99               MÖÏ PISJ FE KHE KHU′

(h) Come on.

1:11.58            KHU BEK

1:12.63            KHËÄ KHU′

1:13.77            Ä LÄF

1:14.46            MÖ VE KHÜ

1:14.86            LAF KHU′

1:15.35            NÖ KHÏÄ

1:16.01            KHÖ VË ÄER ZÏ RÄ KIL WÄ KÜ ′ÜSJ

1:17.49            BÜ GÄ TÄÏSJ KHU′

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.

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 and will be underlined throughout.

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;  Δ, Θ.

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, Θ.

Voiceless Articulations:

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

Aspirated Articulations:

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

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.

 

The Scientific Method

Many of us have an innate curiosity about the world around us.

Goal of Science - Provide explanations for observed phenomina and to establish generalizations that can predict the relationship between these and other phenomina.

We are constantly seeking explanations for what we observe is happening. As we seek to understand, we develops an explanation, hypothesis. In the western world we have formalized this process into what is termed the Scientific Method. The scientific method is a sequences of steps designed to lead to the development of theories, tested explanations, of the phenomenon that we have observed around us.

A hypothesis that can not be disproved becomes a theory; a scientifically acceptable general principle offered to explain phenomina; the analysis of a set of facts in their ideal relations to one another.

A good theory is simple! The 14 th century philosopher William of Occam said,”Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum” (“Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity”). This is referred to as Occam’s razor because it pares a theory to its bare essentials.

At its most basic, the traditional Scientific Method is a five step process. These are:

http://www2.gasou.edu/geol/2.0SM1.html

:

 

1. Definition of the Problem.
2. Gathering of Relevant Data.
3. Formulation of a Hypothesis.
4. Observation or Experimentation to test Hypothesis.
5. Acceptance, Modification, or Rejection of the Hypothesis.

 

As with most things these days, the process has become more defined and, therefore we have advanced methodologies:

Learning The Complete Method of Creative Problem-Solving & Decision-Making SM -14; the 14 Ingredients of the Scientific Method.

 

http://www.scientificmethod.com/

 

Our Proceedure

We start the scientific method with observations. We observe events and seek to explain them. Such an explanation is initially termed a hypothesis. A Hypothesis is:

• A trial idea about the nature of the observation, or the connections between a chain of events, or cause and effect relationships.
  
• The best available approximation to the truth.
  
• It is a straw man- there is nothing sacred about it.
  
• It is used as a framework for posing questions.
  
• It is tested by asking and answering questions.

With more and more thought, it is possible to develop more and more explanations, some more plausible than others. Having developed a family of explanations, hypotheses, it is necessary to test our hypotheses. What we try to do is sequentially show that the hypotheses are wrong.

 

The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. Now, as in a court of law, we may be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; but only by not being able to disprove. Not disproving is not the same as proving, it does not mean that our hypothesis is right, it only means that no one has been able to develop a test which actually disproves our explanations.

Hypotheses which can not be disproved are elevated to the exalted position of a theory. A theory is a working hypothesis, explanation, that is used by the scientific community to continue to expand their knowledge and understanding of the world around us. We can use theories to make predictions about the behavior of observable phenominon.

Testing a hypothesis

The test we use to disprove a hypotheses is called an experiment. The test is designed to answer a question. The question is designed to disprove the hypothesis. Good questions can be answere for or against – yes or no. Therefore, a good test provides us with a definitive answer. For example, if we do the test and obtain a positive result, then we can say we have disproved the hypothesis; then it is necessary to modify or restate the hypothesis. But, what about the converse, if the test is negative, the hypothesis is not disproven and we try to ask other questions to disprove it. If our hypothesis cannot be disproved then it may become a theory. Unfortunately, if the answer is not positive or negative, but somewhere in between, we are left suspendid inthe process and need to restart the process.

Now, we can have multiple hypotheses. We can test a number of these at once, such that the results of the experiment serves to disprove, discredit, a number of these at once. Or we can have mutually exclusive hypotheses such that if one is true, not disproven, the others are false, disproved. However, such convoluted reasoning and testing can be self defeating. That is, if we do not obtain the expected results, we may not be able to say anything about any of the hypotheses; this would be a poor experiment.

Good Science versus Bad Science

Qualities of good science:

1. Not based on authority
2. Testable
3. Repeatable
4. Universal
5. Measurable (Tangible)
6. Observable
7. Narrow (Occam’s razor)/Simple

 

Designing an Experiment

 

• Method of Agreement – All people suffering beriberi have diets low in thiamine.
• Method of Differences – Control group and an Experimental group.
• Method of Concomitant variations – the more (or less) of a variable given the more (or less) the response.
• Statistical Significance, i.e., not just a matter of chance – repeatable.

 

A good experiment is difficult to design. It is best to keep experiments simple, to pare them down to the least number of elements possible, and to design it to produce definitive results, which can be unequivocally interpreted. In reality, it is frequently better to run a series of tests, experiments, rather than performing only one. The reason is we are frequently seeking to identify what happens when we do something; we want to know what will happen if we make a single change, all other factors held constant.

That change we are making is called a variable; the constant portion is called the control. We would prefer to only change one variable at a time; because, if we make a whole bunch of changes, it is difficult to determine a direct cause and effect. We are frequently better off making a small change, observing the result, making a little bigger change, observing the result, and then evaluating this sequence of events.

Basing your research on solid theories will allow you to adjust your methods of finding Bigfoot to help get better results. Now I’m not saying you need to be a full blown scientist when conducting your research but I do believe incorporating at least a little bit from what we learned here in the way you collect data and conduct yourself out in the field could be very beneficial. Anyway… there’s my little bit of science for the day!

Oh… another thing that can be done is to keep a log of the activity you get when you are out looking for Bigfoot. Just a simple what happened, what the time was, what the conditions were like outside (temperature, is it cloudy etc.), how many people were you with and so forth. That would help you to look back at past activity and recognize patterns of consistent behavior and conditions that got you activity. That way you know from past experience what worked and what didn’t, what got you results and what got you little to nothing and you have the data to back it up. It can be bad to get caught up in thinking you know something when in fact you have incorrect facts or information that isn’t tested and therefore you don’t know for sure if it’s true. I don’t know about you but I would like to know if a theory has been tested. Also don’t over look the data. If you’ve collected data on locations, theories etc, let that have a bearing on your decisions. If you get results from a location, look at the evidence or what had happened and formulate a hypothesis as to why you got the activity you did. Then you’ll always have access to the hypothesis for future trips so you can test/disprove it. Like the article said if you can’t disprove it then it becomes a theory. Okay enough of my ramblings and good luck in your search for Bigfoot

Joshua Salmond…

Cheers,

John…

Cryptozoologists are not funded by the government or universities like mainstream anthropologists are. They have to fund their own research or get someone to sponsor them. A good example of a sponsor would be the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO). This organization is sponsored by a multimillionaire named Wally. Then there are others like the late Grover Krantz, a physical anthropologist at Washington State University, who invested over $50,000 for a light aircraft, infrared heat detector and other expensive gear in a decades-long search for Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest.  Some of these scientists have paid for their research in more than money. Roy Mackal, a dedicated chaser of Nessie and mokele-mbembe, an aquatic dinosaur that supposedly lives in the Congo basin, was kicked out of the department of biology at the University of Chicago. Other scientists endure snide remarks from fellow colleagues, some a loss of credibility, and even academic isolation (Laurance, 2011).

There are quite a few scientists who have some actual credibility in the scientific world, such as tropical ecologist David Bickford of the National University of Singapore and Aaron Bauer, and evolutionary biologist and herpetologist at Villanova University in Pennsylvania. Bickford has discovered a number of previously unknown species, including a bizarre lungless frog that lives only beneath waterfalls in Borneo.  Laurance also found that tropical biologist commonly find that half or more of the insect species they capture in the rainforest canopy are new to science. Undiscovered fish and other species are frequently found in the deep sea. Up to half of the plant species in the Amazon are still scientifically undocumented. Not all discovers are so minute or obscure. The Mindoro fruit bat, discovered in the Philippines in 2007, has a 1-meter wingspan. The same year saw the discovery of a venomous snake in Australia and a large electric ray in South Africa. There are many species that have been thought to be extinct that are being rediscovered. In 1951, the Bermuda petrel had not been seen by scientists for 330 years. The Javan elephant, okapi, coelacanth, mountain pygmy possum, venomous Cuban solenodon and giant terror skink were also thought to have been extinct. The Laotian rock rat, rediscovered in 1996, is now the sole known representative of a rodent family that was thought to have gone extinct 11 million years ago. The Wollemi pine, the only known survivor of a 200 million year old plant family, was discovered in 1994 just a stone’s throw from Sydney, Australia (Laurance, 2011).

So you see from this cyrptozoologist are more than crazy loony bins that live in a reality filled with Nessie and Bigfoot and vampire bats, but are legitimate scientists who actually contribute to scientific society. They can be quirky and can definitely dream big, but they have made amazing discoveries and amazing rediscoveries all over the planet. If a giant fruit bat can be discovered who is to say that there aren’t thousands more were they came from. There could be millions of species that have yet to be discovered, and it is going to be the crazy loony bins that do it.

Amanda Salmond….

References:

Laurance, W. (2011). In praise of the weird. New Scientist, volume210 (issue 2817).

“Situational awareness” is a skill that isn’t taught much any more, except in specific lines of work, but it can come in very handy not only while squatching, but while camping, shopping, and even going about your regular daily activities.

“Jeff” Cooper (1920 – 2006), one of the 20th century’s foremost experts on the use and history of small arms, came up with what he called the “combat mindset” and went into some detail about it in his book, Principles of Personal Defense. In his book he argues that the most important means of surviving a confrontation is, essentially, situational awareness. To help convey his theory, Cooper developed the “Cooper Color Code”.

The color code refers to a person’s state of mind, and the “degree of peril” in which that person may be. That makes it sound somewhat ominous, but we’re not talking about “peril” per se in this article. Instead, I advocate using the color code to understand “default” human mentality, and how you and I can use it as a learning tool to help advance our situational awareness.

Condition White

A person in Condition White is unaware of their surroundings, and by extension they’re unprepared to deal with things that may happen upon that person.

Take purse-snatching, for example. A person in Condition White isn’t aware that they’re being stalked by a thief, and is taken by surprise when said thief grabs their purse or bag and runs off. What’s more, they aren’t prepared to handle the “what do I do now?” question that inevitably follows.

In the woods, Condition White is being unaware of your surroundings. Unaware of the animals that may be lurking in the woods, the people in the next camp-site over, or even the fact that you camped in a low-spot and there is rain in the forecast.

People who are asleep are justifiably in Condition White. If a person is awake and in Condition White, they’re a “sheep” and just following the “herd”.

Condition Yellow

A person in Condition Yellow is on what’s referred to as “Relaxed Alert”. There isn’t any specific threat, but that person is fully aware that the world is a potentially unfriendly place, and are on the look out for potential threats.

These threats might be a car pulling out of a blind driveway, a driver texting on their phone and crossing into your lane (or blowing through a red light). That threat could be the purse-snatcher we talked about in our previous example.

While in the woods, a person in Condition Yellow knows what the forecast says the weather should be, has carefully selected their camp site, and is prepared for even the worst of conditions — even when they’re just on a “short” day hike. This person has done their research and knows if they’re likely to find cougars or bears where they’re camping, and has prepared themself accordingly (bear spray, etc.).

Additionally, while in camp or hiking, a person in Condition Yellow is aware of everything around them. Sounds, smells, premonitions. This person is ready to escalate into Condition Orange, should they identify something that warrants extra scrutiny.

Condition Orange

A person in Condition Orange has alerted to something specific — or multiple specific things. Something isn’t quite “right” or is out of place. Going back to our purse-snatcher, you may have picked up on the fact that there is a person paralleling your movement several steps back and to the side of you. This person may be fidgety, or might keep glancing in your direction. You shift your primary focus to the source of your alert so you can determine if there is an actual threat.

A person in Condition Orange sets a mental trigger: “If that person does this-that-or-the-other, I will have to do this-and-such”. However, you cannot fixate on this one potential threat! You must continue to “sweep” the area. This person might not be the purse-snatcher, they may be a decoy, or working with others in a team. Be ready and able to identify multiple threats.

In the woods, you might alert on hunters or someone coming down the trail on a mountain bike. You may even become alerted to a big cat stalking you, or a bear foraging just off the trail.

Condition Red

Condition Red means “fight”. Your mental trigger has been tripped and action is now required. That purse-snatcher has acted and is coming at you, you put your mental plan into action.

In the woods, that might mean stopping on the trail until the cat or bear has moved on, or making a lot of noise so the hunters know you’re people, not prey. It might mean that you pull your bear spray out and unload it into the bear’s face.

Condition Black

Condition Black means one thing: you’re unable to act. I can be caused because you’re dead, or because you’re “scared stiff”. Condition Black details a total breakdown of mental and physical performance and is more likely to happen when you jump from Condition White… you’re taken totally by surprise without any warning or plan of action.

Condition Black is terrifying. You never want to be in Condition Black. In Condition Black you will mostly likely become a victim.

Squatching

There is some level of danger associated with squatching. Typically you’ll be in the woods, in unfamiliar territory, sometimes with poor lighting, and wild animals (and hunters) lurking about. Even if you’re entirely comfortable and familiar with the area and lighting is good, you are squatching after all. You’re literally looking for Bigfoot. You should be in Condition Yellow.

Hopefully you’ll have some sort of experience that will elevate you to Condition Orange, and if you’re very lucky, Condition Red. Will you be prepared to identify and react accordingly?

Believing in monsters and paranormal beings goes back to the beginning of time. The beliefs are strangely consistent across time and place. We then have to ask the inevitable question: what do they mean? Why does humanity, as a whole, so consistently and ubiquitously populate its border spaces with fascinating and sometimes threatening creatures? North America has Bigfoot, Puerto Rico has the chupacabra, and Sweden has monster serpent in Lake Storsjon. There has been an enormous amount of literature on the topic in recent years form encyclopedias all the way to actual peer reviewed research articles. For example George Eberhart catalogues some 1085 unconfirmed animals in his recent encyclopedic “Guide to Cryptozoology”; Michael Newton catalogues 1583 in his “Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology”. These scientists are not completely crazy. They acknowledge that only a small percentage of these animals are real. They know that the vast majority of these beliefs are the province of folklore. The majority of the work is then left to folklorists rather than naturalists (Dendle, 2006).

Modern cryptozoology bears many similarities and differences to that of pre-modern cryptozoology. In modern time and in scientific communities the study of “hidden animals” expressly means animals unconfirmed by science. In medieval times this would make no sense. Cryptozoologists have never been interested in the undiscovered bugs or plankton of the world, but in the sensational creatures that fill us with a sense of fear and wonder and awe. Bernard Heuvelmans, the “Father of Cryptozoology,” has stated that to count as a cryptid they have to have at least one trait “truly singular, unexpected, paradoxical, striking, emotionally upsetting, and thus capable of mythification”. The main similarity between the past and present is that these creatures have to be formidable, frightening, and monstrous. Nobody cares if you saw a giant purple bunny rabbit with four ears while camping in the Rockies. It’s just not scary enough (Dendle, 2006).

In the first century AD, Pling, Pomponius Mela, Aelian, and Solinus provided the tradition of classical natural history that went on to provide many of the remarkable creatures in medieval bestiaries. In first century BC, Lucretius explained centaurs and other hybrid creatures as optical illusions and tricks of the mind. In second century, Pausanias often assumed that many myths and legends he heard were extreme exaggerations of kernel truths. Strabo dismisses a host of travel writers who report the bizarre fauna of India as outright liars; Lucian of Samosata flatly rejects the exotic tales of earlier travel writers such as Ctesias and Iambulus (Dendle, 2006). In short, even back at the beginning of time nobody could agree on anything. So not much has changed in that regard.  Animals that we have confirmed and known to exist were considered mythological and that of legends a few hundred years ago. So who is to say that animals that are unconfirmed and considered mythological in the modern world won’t be considered fact in a hundred years or a few decades or even tomorrow?

We will always project primordial fears onto creatures lurking just beyond reach and just out of sight. The fear of the dark, the unknown, and the reptilian have haunted mankind throughout time. The “hairy man” or giant probably meant different things to different pre-modern societies. In the modern world, however, Bigfoot has been read as a mirror image of ourselves: we continue Bigfoot beliefs from apparent psychological need to crystallize fascination with animalism into a tangible symbol (Dendle, 2006). This of course is just how cryptozoologists explain this phenomenon but I’ll let you come up with your own opinion.

In the fifteenth century all the way through the nineteenth century, discoveries of new lands and new species continued to stimulate the natural sciences and inspire people with a sense of wonderment. By the start of the twentieth century there were few large animals left to be discovered. At this point scientists now “knew” what animals did and did not exist. In the last eighteenth century, scholars were divided over the issue of whether or not any species were truly extinct. By the late twentieth century, however, it was common knowledge that human kind was now responsible for the mass extinctions of species all over the globe. Human kind has now developed an extreme sense of guilt over the destruction of habitats and elimination or near elimination of species. One important aspect of cryptozoology is to now repopulate the world with undiscovered creatures that have somehow survived human kind’s worldwide destruction.  The whole business of mass extinction seems less overwhelming and depressing in the face of mysteries left to be discovered (Dendle, 2006).

The roles of hunter and hunted, of civilized and uncivilized, of predator and victim, have become reversed in reports of modern day cryptid encounters. We now project the fear of the unknown on our undiscovered friends. The Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society prides itself on being a “non-kill” organization, and the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization stated that its long-term goal is the to determine “how these rare and elusive animals can and should be protected and studied after their existence is generally acknowledged by governmental agencies and the scientific community.” Skamania County, Washington famously passed a law imposing a fine of up to $10,000 and up to five years in jail for the “willful and wanton slaying” of a Bigfoot. The Sakten Wildlife Sanctuary in Bhutan is a park of six hundred and fifty square kilometers created exclusively to preserve the habitat of the Mirgu, the Bhutanese version of the Yeti (Dendle, 2006).

So you see from this, modern day science (even medieval science) will always find ways around folklore and mythological animals. They will say that they are created from our imagination. Maybe in a few hundred years Bigfoot will no longer be taboo, but won’t even be questioned in its authenticity. Maybe the chupacabra is real too…maybe even aliens exist. Who really knows? Society won’t truly believe in anything until they see it with their own eyes. I have my own beliefs and I’m sure you have your own too.

Who is to say we are wrong…who is to say we are right?

Amanda Salmond….

References:

Dendle, P. (2006). Cryptozoology in the medieval and modern worlds. Folklore, 117, pages 190-206.

I’m Squatching You

John…

First: I really do not want to get shot to put it plain and simple. Put in a stressful situation I have found people don’t act the way they think they are going to and accidents will happen. That recipe with a gun involved will lead to someone getting injured or worse. If you want protection stay in groups four or larger and carry bear spray and large ax handles (we use them for wood knocking). I have not checked for a few years but the last time I researched cougar and bear attacks there were some interesting facts. Let’s go with cougars first. You should fear them more than any other predator because when they attack they are attacking to eat you. There was at the time I researched no recorded attacks on humans in numbers of three or more by a cat. Cat attacks in Utah are rare because the cougar population is widely hunted. Bear attacks are almost the same as cats when it comes to large groups. Another thing to do is make noise when you move around which we do by talking. Gives them warning to when you are coming. I am not an expert on this so if you want more information do some research on your local wild life from experts to learn the do’s and don’ts of the wild. Interesting side note though is there has not been a record bear attack that I could find of someone on horseback because they present a large target. Wild animals, especially predators need to stay healthy to survive so they hunt in particular ways for a reason.

Second: I error on the side of caution when it comes to Bigfoot. I know hunting dogs can recognize guns so I assume Sasquatch can too. If they know what a gun is and they know why we carry them then I would just rather not have them around. You could either scare them away or worse you could make the situation more tense and create a bad confrontation. Let us just say for argument sake that one of the reasons they throw rocks or objects at your tent it to see how you react. What if you react with a gun then they know to leave and contact is over. What if I am walking a trail at night and I have a firearm on my hip and they see that so they leave instead of doing something else. I don’t know but I would just rather not have one just in case. Besides I am more concern with humans while I am in the mountains than the local wildlife.

Third: I don’t want to give the impression I am trying to kill one because that is far from the truth. I don’t want to be part of a group that wanders the mountain sides carrying firearms looking to kill a Bigfoot.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

Next time I will mention more about my third reason and some conversations I have had with fellow hunters.

I’m Squatching You

John…