Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jon101

The Sierra Sounds

38 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Earl.Of.Trumps
2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

And in doing so, you cherry picked a quote to illustrate the fact you thought somebody was cherry picking. 

Kind of hypocritical.

No it is not hypocritical. We had two different jobs to do. Trelane's was to post current opinionS - not just the one he is stumping., that is cherry picking..
Trelane said what he did,  implying that ALL testing by qualified people proved negative. that is bull. that is wrong,

My job was to demonstrate that Trelane could be contradicted by choosing the proper link. So I did. 
So let's get it right. show that there are two opinions by qualified people. That has now been done, thanks to me. And then you too 

2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

You're judgemental? Skeptical about what?

I don't know. I was going off the source YOU provided. I'm not vouching for her conclusions.

It did link to results from the "year long evaluation" referred to.

A quote from that :

"The authors of this paper are neither linguists, anthropologists, nor speech pathologists, but have skills applicable to the processing of signals, including speech."

They never explain what those skills are.

And after a few mintues of research on her, at least Karen Stollznow is a linguist.

Here is an article she wrote concerning the subject. :

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/bigfoot-in-mouth-bigfoot-language/

 

I'll check out the link later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
the13bats
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

It is not dead wrong. voice prints are like finger prints. No gorilla finger prints could ever be confused for human. 

If it is unidentified, obviously it cannot be proven to be BF because we know nothing of BF

No you are totally mistaken that highly questionable audio recording is not like a finger print, please research stuff before you jerk that knee reply.

Correct that recording can not be proven to be the mythical creature bigfoot nor can that audio be proven to be anything, its not evidence past a questionable sounds on a tape.

None of your so call "experts" have credentials, 

So back to the start, there is zero to support bigfoot is a living creature.

Edited by the13bats
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
41 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

So let's get it right. show that there are two opinions by qualified people. That has now been done, thanks to me. And then you too 

Nope,  you failed again, your people were not qualified.

56 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

"The authors of this paper are neither linguists, anthropologists, nor speech pathologists, but have skills applicable to the processing of signals, including speech."

They never explain what those skills are.

And after a few mintues of research on her, at least Karen Stollznow is a linguist.

failure seems a go to for you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
2 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

What you said, Trelane, was far from opinion: "The Sierra Sounds also known as the "Samurai Chatter" have been examined and were widely dismissed years ago."

WHO examined them and dismissed them? I thought you had someone in mind that gave the sceptic view of everything being fake and would therefor
be cherry picking, since you would choose such a person over the people who examined them and saw that the sounds had merit.

 

That information was provided in other threads related to  BF and "Bigfoot sounds", as well as post #4 by @Resume. I didn't feel it was necessary for me to rehash what was already posted. Cherry picking would be if I found something but only quoted the part I wanted to present. I didn't do that my good man. The sounds and the individuals who allegedly recorded them have no merit to me.

So what about this "again" business?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Heres a good read on it...

https://skepticalhumanities.com/2013/07/07/linguistics-hall-of-shame-17/

I will add that while i do not consider tracks as proof of bigfoot for myriad obvious reasons we have 100s likely 1000s of plaster casts taken from alleged bigfoot tracks and in general most look akin, with the sierra sounds it stands alone, no other alleged BF recordings that sound like it and this rasies to questions for me if bigfoot was recorded on that tape there would be other examples.

And if it was just misidentified forrest animals and sounds we would have other examples and we dont,

I do know the audio sounds like humas fooling around and we do have other audio that sounds similar which is humans cutting up.

I place this audio recording in the same folder as the patterson film.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

Since I didn't provide links for why I made my statement (didn't know that was a requirement) of them being debunked and that formed my opinion I will provide what I personally think should suffice. 

This one was posted in 2013, the author is a PhD in Linguistics for qualifications:  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/bigfoot-in-mouth-bigfoot-language/

This one was also posted in 2013:  https://www.livescience.com/26663-bigfoot-strange-sounds.html

This particular piece I read two years ago, it doesn't speak directly to those sounds but does bring up very solid points that BF believers can't appropriately answer. I actually read this a week after I returned empty handed for evidence from one of my own camping expeditions:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-so-many-people-still-believe-in-bigfoot-180970045/?page=2

If you have an opposing or contrasting opinion, that's fine. I eagerly await the day something remotely resembling evidence that can be verified is presented and not debunked.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
9 hours ago, Trelane said:

If you have an opposing or contrasting opinion, that's fine. I eagerly await the day something remotely resembling evidence that can be verified is presented and not debunked

 

Quote

“Interest in the existence of the creature is at an all-time high,” the paleontologist Darren Naish has observed, even though “there’s nothing even close to compelling as goes the evidence.”

 

Im not going to name names as we know who they are but some members are obviously here not to discuss a subject but rather just go at endless personal debates and i just dont waste much if any time on that type of troll.

As far as evidence that bigfoot is a living creature there really isnt anything at all, things hailed as smoking gun proof decades back is now out right laughed at for being so ridiculous, believers will post tired old well debunked tripe as their best evidence then go ad hominem when its shown to be nothing of merits.

Quote

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I can just picture the dear true believer who had ran dry on making lame excuses to their lack of evidence who thought they were so clever for coming up with that flawed expression because when one thinks about it no evidence sure does reflect nothing is there to leave any evidence.

In the last 15 to 20 years i have seen nothing but epic fails when it comes to proving bigfoot exists and it just keeps getting worse.

Unless they present a specimen there is nothing to see here.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
41 minutes ago, the13bats said:

In the last 15 to 20 years i have seen nothing but epic fails when it comes to proving bigfoot exists and it just keeps getting worse.

Let me clearify that ive never seen any supportive evidence for bigfoot, it was in the last decade or so that interest peaked and in turn old cases many clinged to were well exposed and debunked, so now when someone believes old hoax recordings or a nice blobsquatch pic is smoking gun i see it as grasping epic fails.

Seems the more BF hunters and shows pop up the less it produces.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume
Quote

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence where evidence is necessarily expected, as in an alleged breeding population of continentally distributed, undocumented, 6 to 9 ft. bipedal apes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
33 minutes ago, Resume said:

The absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence where evidence is necessarily expected, as in an alleged breeding population of continentally distributed, undocumented, 6 to 9 ft. bipedal apes.

Thanks for wording it better than i can,

Its an annoying to me true believer cop out like when they reply "it doesnt work that way" or they blame the skeptic because the skeptic asked for evidence to support the claims and stories.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume
50 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Thanks for wording it better than i can,

Its an annoying to me true believer cop out like when they reply "it doesnt work that way" or they blame the skeptic because the skeptic asked for evidence to support the claims and stories.

You put it just fine; I just piled on because I too find the "absence of evidence" crutch annoying. It's an easy out for some, especially when context is ignored.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
8 hours ago, Resume said:

You put it just fine; I just piled on because I too find the "absence of evidence" crutch annoying. It's an easy out for some, especially when context is ignored.

Yep.  That can be used for anything.  Bigfoot, leprechauns, fairies or living 100 ton dinosaurs.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
the13bats
10 hours ago, Myles said:

Yep.  That can be used for anything.  Bigfoot, leprechauns, fairies or living 100 ton dinosaurs.   

For me and it might not be all that fair i also consider the persons attitude, sincerity is not the measure of truth or fact, a person can be sincere and wrong, mistaken, hoaxed, even most charlatans are very sincere.

If a person tells a story and starts saying what prosaic things it cant be and it can only be some unproven psranormal,  otherworldly supernatural explanation i admit that person losses credibility and intregrity with me, and they will claim skeptics have the closed minds.

Ive also seen people get very cross prehaps to the point of becoming so unhinged in their meltdown over their story not taken at face value they threaten the skeptic, this happened to joe nickell when he pushed the charlatan ghost hunters the warrens, Ed couldnt provide proof of his claims so he resorted to threats. Very telling.

I have an old "in search of" UFO episode saved a lady who claimed to see an odd craft land in a field doesnt jump to it must be aliens she suggests military and she openly admits she doesnt expect to be believed with no proof, saying she wouldnt  believe her ( paraphrased ) i respect that attitude.

Here, its old and cheesy, enjoy,

Since its a BF thread heres a double feature...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.