Sunday, February 14, 2016

Does Bigfoot Mimic Other Animals? Do Sasquatch Have Their Own Language?


Through the years people have heard what sounds like some unknown language being spoken by something lurking in the woods. Many people believe the source of those sounds are bigfoot. On rare occasions it's even been recorded, most notably the Sierra Sounds, captured by Al Berry and Ron Morehead during the 70's. Language experts have assessed some of these recording and believe they are in fact a language. Here, two veteran bigfooters from the South discuss some of their findings over the years, and their thoughts about bigfoot language. Check it out:


38 comments:

  1. Bigfoots are able to mimic other animal's DNA. That's how no actual bigfoot DNA has ever been found. Only raccoons and deer and horses and bears and a whole lot of human contamination. Bigfoots do that intentionally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They are also very good at pinochle and other various games of chance...one from fla drives a cab i understand

      Delete
    2. Nargh! Since Sasquatch are human, that's what their DNA reads as.

      Delete
    3. I would have thought the bigfoot zealots could have come up with a better excuse for all the non-bigfoot DNA than "bigfoot is human".

      So sometimes bigfoot is a relic hominid. Sometimes it's an alien from another dimension. Sometimes it's invisible. Sometimes it's an angel hybrid. Sometimes it's an orb. And now it's a human too.

      Seems like bigfoot can be whatever these schmucks want it to be to try to claim their lack of evidence means something.

      What a joke.

      Too bad for them we're not all stupid enough to fall for that tripe. If patty is human, then it's a human in a bigfoot suit.

      Delete
    4. Nargh! Sasquatch is just human... And I'm detecting anger in your comment because you know what that means. Test upon test has come back as this. Ray Crowe's Sasquatch hair samples were deliberately contaminated with known animals and still came back human. The Walla Walla hairs found by government employees via a direct sighting, Zana's lineage with her son's unique ancient morphology as evidence, the list goes on and on with Sasquatch samples always coming back human. There is nothing about Patty's anatomy or morphology that cannot be found in both ancient and modern humans.

      It's not an excuse... It's knowing the topic you sound off about enough. Sasquatch are human.

      Delete
    5. Someone needs to learn the difference between anger and ridicule. Becasue he is ridiculous.

      Bigfoot human? Pffft. Not even.

      Delete
    6. Sweetheart... You'd need to bring some facts and some substance to the table before you start ridiculing anyone. And we all know you've never been too good at that.

      Delete
    7. That's hilarious coming from someone who has yet to provide anything of substance at all. Just blather bluster and bullshit.

      It's adorable how bigfoot zealots can't ever get their heads around the concept of the burden of proof.

      Delete
    8. Sweetheart, the reason you're all so angry and bitter is because the substance I bring is never countered with anything other than tantrums... Especially on your part. The burden of proof swings both ways, sweetheart. Did you say something about concepts?

      (Cringe)

      "Zealot"... Another word you've picked up from around here of late. You're developing your vocabulary, if not your general knowledge on the subject matter at least.

      Delete
    9. So you're really dedicated to this idea that anyone who calls you out on your bullshit is "angry and bitter". Oh please. That's what's known as projection.

      We're laughing at you.

      Delete
    10. No... Calling BS is one thing, demonstrating it to be exactly that appears to be slightly out of your league. And you're angry and bitter because of this simple fact.

      The real joke is seeing you face fall daily in proving something that should be so easy considering how allegedly obvious you claim it is... And watching you get angrier and angrier as a result. People like you come around on a self esteem quest, it must smart to go from here with even less.

      Delete
    11. Yup. Nailed it. Pure projection.

      Delete
    12. "Zealots & schmucks"... Your diagnosis does list anger issues as one of many traits, I guess.

      Delete
    13. Really? That's your argument that you're not projecting your own anger and frustration that bigfoot isn't real? That's hilarious.

      Your incomprehension and misunderstanding of idiom is almost as bad as your so-called evidence for bigfoot.

      Schmucks are people for laughing at. People like you.

      Delete
    14. Why would I be projecting any anger on others? I'm the one sitting on the evidence you can't explain away... If something isn't real, it doesn't leave evidence. Not so "co-called" when "clever" people such as yourself struggle so much. Look at your comment at 1:14... Another tantrum because your DNA mantra got kicked back at you. If you hadn't noticed, I'm waiting on a counter argument for that too. Isn't "deflection" one of your other regularly utilised audacities?

      Stop calling people names and get around to lifting that heavy burden. That's what clever people do.

      Delete
    15. Ridiculous "evidence" that was easily explained away to which your only arguments have been "Nu-uh!" and "You're angry!"

      Is that the "evidence" you're talking about?

      Human DNA is proof of humans. We're looking for bigfoot here.

      If you don't want to be called a schmuck, you should stop being a schmuck.

      Delete
    16. I'm sorry... Where was this explained away?? Would you care to point me to the comment up top where this occurred, I may have missed it? Dismissing something, in this case "Bigfoot being human", because it doesn't fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic... It isn't very clever. But presenting not one source to support your ideas as well, is just plain failure. Now that's funny.

      Ok... Let's try it this way... Explain to me how "Bigfoot" is an animal. Stop calling people names and start providing some substance to your claims, young man.

      Delete
    17. ^ To dumb to know primates are Animals! Haaa haaaa haaa
      SCHOOLED!

      Dr B Sykes!

      Delete
    18. Oh well... I guess I'll have to come back and check in the morning.

      Goodnight AC.

      Delete
    19. Lolwut?

      Are you seriously trying to claim bigfoot is NOT an animal? Surely you're not going to try to claim it's a mineral or a vegetable. Or whatever the heck orbs are supposed to be.

      Heh. What a schmuck.

      Delete
    20. I love it when you cringe!

      Delete
    21. 6:43... You lose. Every time you think you're clever, it's just too easy making you look like a complete idiot. It's a cruel streak I'm not proud of, but it's simply just too tempting and too easy.

      Delete
    22. Hahaha. More projection.

      And now you're running away, tail between your legs, because the stupidity of your reasoning has been rubbed right in your face.

      And this is your attempt at a parthian shot? What a schmuck. A childish schmuck. An ignorant, vainglorious, hollowly condescending, childish schmuck.

      Every year I get a couple first year students exactly like you. They never last to second year. This arrogance of ignorance and presumed but false superiority you have is not going to serve you well in life, kid.

      Delete
    23. Perspective;

      1. You didn't demonstrate anything about DNA.

      2. You didn't demonstrate anything about Sasquatch not being human.

      3. You merely called people names.

      4. You lose.

      Delete
    24. > 1. You didn't demonstrate anything about DNA.
      Neither did you. You just made the preposterous and unsupportable claim that bigfoot has human DNA.

      > 2. You didn't demonstrate anything about Sasquatch not being human.
      Have you even SEEN the Patterson Gimlin film? If that's not a man in a suit, then it isn't human.

      > 3. You merely called people names.
      I called things as they are. I'm not in the business of callimg human skulls bigfoot, nor am I in the business of calling a schmuck anything other than a schmuck.

      > 4. You lose.
      And just like a childish schmuck you think this is about winning and losing. If you think that then you've already "lost".

      Delete
    25. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    26. 1. Actually, dear boy, I gave three instances, two of which are supported by the research from the very best geneticist in the world. When you have a hair sample from a direct sighting by government employees, where tracks were also accumulated that tests as human by the best genericist in the world... That means Sasquatch are human. Might I add that this hair sample is a direct match to eleven other samples all linked to their own Sasquatch activity. When you have an actual skull with ancient morphology not seen since Paleo peoples that attests to a whole community's anecdote about a Yeti, a wild human that not only was described as a Sasquatch before any pop culture was around, but who could actually interbreed with people and had offspring that survive to this day... That once tested comes back as human... Sasquatch are human. When you have a hair sample attained from Sasquatch activity that is deliberately contaminated with known animals, to which comes back as human... It rules out the possibility of contamination which can easily be screened for these days anyway.

      Now it is your requirement to counter those claims and not merely call people names.

      2. There is nothing in Patty's anatomy and skull morphology, her bipedalism, her limb length, even her midtarsal break that can't be found in singular instances in both modern and ancient humans. The following is a forensic sketch from one of the best forensic experts in the US, Harvey Pratt, who is accustomed to taking masks of bank robbers, etc;
      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html?m=0
      ... You'll notice that once the hair is removed, she looks just like an ancient human. Even by some stretch of the imagination Patty turns out to be DNA tested as one of the earliest homo species, even if Patty indeed looks like homo Erectus... It's still human. She has hands, feet, a human face, it can pretty much get insufferably obvious pointing out the factors as to why Patty is human.

      3. If you're "not in the business of calling human skulls Bigfoot", then please present a case that demonstrates that "Bigfoot" is not human... You ran away last time like a clueless coward, and names don't help you even the second time around.

      4. No... I think anyone impartial would request that you simply support your ideas with at least a couple of facts, and not the word "schmuck". You're really lucky to have me stoop this low to respond to you at this rate. You lost weeks ago, now this appears to be slightly cruel on my part.

      Delete
  2. This is one of the most interesting question asked since long time on this website. The fact that BF may be physiologically near of human being made possible this ability. I think BF can reproduce a bunch of sound and even repeat words heard from humans but this capacity don't means he speaks english and he can handle this language with complex sentences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's some cool sounds recorded in the middle of nowhere;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/mkdavis-discusses-audio-compilation-of.html?m=0

      Delete
    2. Off the subject, but interesting nonetheless:

      http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1965385-lost-roman-roads-in-uk-discovered-with-3d-lasers/

      Delete
    3. Absolutely fascinating little find, NC, as always thank you very much.

      Delete
  3. I think it's unfortunate that Chris Noel got a little too stubborn to admit he got hoaxed by Dyer... Because his research videos are some of the most beautifully articulated and put together you'll ever see, with his recordings being some of the most fascinating anyone will ever hear.

    I highly recommend people put the Dyer nonsense behind them and check Noel's videos out. He didn't hoax anyone at the end of the day... And nobody will regret educating themselves on his research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Awe come on joe! U sound like a little english Fop!

      Delete
    2. ^ has a degree from tosser university

      Joe

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. I think Scott Nelson would have something to say about that.

      Delete