Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Bob Gimlin Interview!!!

   Due to the logistic problems of getting this interview with Bob, I had to ask the help of my friend Thom Cantrall. Thom is a very good friend of Bob's and has regularly scheduled lunches with him near Bob's home. The interview was actually videoed to insure accuracy and transcribed verbatim from Bob. In addition, the format is in a dialog form and I have included most excerpts from the discussion from both men as to add authenticity to the interview. Also, there are a few questions that have been changed or omitted simply because it was a live interview and with that, were asked by Thom as he saw fit. He either changed to help get a better clarification or some were just missed during the very interesting dialog.  I do think this interview was probably the most interesting interview I have seen Bob do and I hope all enjoy it. Thanks for the questions and again, apologies if your question was missed. I am sure we can do a follow up at another time.

1) norseman -  Bob, did you think the film would solve the mystery and gain public acceptance?
Bob:  I definitely did not think it'd solve the problem.. it did not even solve the problem with me.
And do you regret not shooting Patty which would have assured species recognition almost 50 years ago?
Bob:  No I don't... I had no intentions to unless I thought that I HAD to.
2) people booger - Bob, during the encounter, did you feel concern for your or your colleagues or horses safety?
Bob:  Yes, I did somewhat.  I didn't know how much or what to expect.
Do you feel you would have retreated or shot the creature if it had turned and threatened yall?
Bob:  Yes, I do... I've always said I feel I would have shot and I wasn't sure with something that size.  At that time I was an excellent shot.  And I had 180 grain... 30'06 180 grain and I'd shot a lot of elk with that same projectile.
 3) Terry - Bob, did you observe the tracks immediately after seeing the bigfoot?  
Bob:  Yes, I did.
Were the ground conditions suitable for it leaving tracks like that and do you remember thinking something wasn't quite right with them?
Bob:  the tracks were...
Thom:  I'm not sure what that means...
Bob:  I don't either what that means.  The tracks were well acceptable for tracks for what that type of soil was.
4) ptangier – Bob, have you had any other eye- witness events….have you had any close non-visual events?  
Bob:  Yes, I have.
 Thom:  Yes, one was on that trip... (The trip Bob took on the Pacific Crest Trail when he rode from Mexico to Canada the full length of the Pacific Crest Trail)
Bob:  One was on that trip... one was up at Bumping... (Bumping Lake in the Cascade Mountains, just east of Mt. Rainier in Washington)
Thom:  When was that?
Bob:  Around 6 years ago.
 5) WSA - Mr. Gimlin: Are there currently any active Bigfoot field/academic investigators that, in your opinion, are on the cutting-edge of research or worthy of exceptional credibility?
Bob:  I think that's a definite yes on that.
Could you explain why you feel this way about them?  
Bob:  OK, I feel this way particularly because I know the people individually and they are doing the very, very best they can in the field research at this time.  There's been some, uh, uh, tremendous things happen in my opinion.
6) HairyWildMan - Bob,...the old saying goes "Hindsight is 20-20"....is there anything(s) you wish that you had done differently...then,...... from the beginning of your search....to the end result of having the footage of Patty?
Bob:  Well, that's changed over the years... Yes, there’s a lot of things I would have done differently the first 35 years.  The first thing was, I wouldn't have been down there to start with!
Thom:  Chuckle... Yeah, I hear that!
7) Vafooter - Mr. Gimlin, Are there any videos that you have seen that you believe are real BF?
Bob:  I haven't really witnessed very many videos so the ones I have seen I leave an open book there of, it looks pretty good but, uh... and I'm not going to say, “not quite good enough,” but there's always that question now...
What would you consider to be the area most likely to encounter a BF these days?
Bob:  Well, I've always said the Olympic Peninsula (of Washington) in my opinion is a great area.  But, you're limited there for foliage and also for rain so I, uh, have changed my mind somewhat over the years.  I  used to say over the years I think the Olympic Peninsula is your best shot.  Well, I strongly believe that now, maybe back down in the Willow Creek area and that partic... that radius within a hundred miles or fifty is probably as good a place as any because of the way everything lies there... the mountain range and that close to the ocean and also the rivers and uh, the privacy.
Thom:  Just to add.. of the places I've been that I've found, that southeastern Oklahoma area is absolutely alive with them.
Bob:  See, that's it, I've never been east to some of those places that I hear about so I don't really know.  I've been to the Olympic Peninsula, I've been to Bumping Lake and I've been in California and those have always been.. uh... we've heard sounds... and somewhat... of course, the film footage itself speaks for the California area.  uh.. So that's my opinion as far as that part of it goes.
Other than your own encounter, what is your favorite BF report or incident?
(didn’t ask this one)
8) Salubrious – Mr Gimlin, did seeing Patty change anything about how you see the world?
Bob:  Oh, definitely.  'Cause I never... I was a … Basically I'm telling the truth, I was a skeptic up til that time... That they must exist but I was kinda like old Harry Truman, I had to see to totally believe.  (interruption)  Anyway, at that particular time the only thing I was going by was what Roger had talked to me about and played those cassette tapes (Roger used to play cassettes of people's testimonies about sightings when he and Bob were camped on their trail rides) that other... the testimonials of other people.  I thought Yes... they are probably there... there must be something there but I wanna see it!
9) lightheart - Mr. Gimlin did you hear Patty make any vocalizations of any kind?
By this I don't necessarily mean screams or yells typically associated with Bigfoot but also grumbling noises at having been disturbed, snorts, etc.?
Bob:  If she did, I never heard it... there were so many things were happening so quickly... uh, and the horses moving... Roger moving... me trying to get settled in to help him in case I had to...
Thom:  It's like the case of the old adage, when you're up to your tail in alligators, it's hard to remember your initial objective was to drain the swamp...
Bob:  Chuckle... That's right... Exactly Thom... that is exactly it
10) Will – Bob, have you been following the work of Bill Munns and what is your opinion about it?
Bob: uh.. Well I.. When I met Bill Munns and found out what he was doing... I met him and was really impressed... and for what he's doing at this present time... I don't know exactly... I will know this weekend but I take my hat off to Bill Munns for what he's done actually for my credibility part of it and so, to me, Bill Munns is really high on my list.  Very very high on my list.
Thom:  I'll echo that... very high on mine too... He has done fantastic work...
Bob:  He has indeed.
 Have you seen any other BF photos that look a lot like what you saw?
Bob:  Well, some have come about as, uh, close as I that I could still identify that and I, uh, really, uh, most of the ones I see show a face and, uh, and the body part of it, uh, will deviate a little and I understand that there is going to be differences in body of bigfoot, so therefore, I say whatever they saw and took a picture of or described is probably as accurate as my description of … of … of Patty, and... but I did she her face very clearly and some of those are very, very close.
 11) Sunflower - Bob, Have you seen anyone, at any time, able to duplicate exactly what you saw that day in 1967?????
Bob:  No, I haven't seen anyone that totally duplicated it because with... when Patty walked away with that tremendous amount of muscle underneath that hair moving, uh, it's pretty hard to duplicate that, uh, in a picture or anything else in my opinion.
Thom:  You're right, that was...
12) Bi-pedalist - Mr. Gimlin, besides  the adrenaline rush and fear factor operating did you still get the hair on your neck rising that day in 1967?  
Bob:  Well, I definitely did, yes, I, uh, uh, I finally realized these creatures do exist and here's one right in front of me... walking away from me with a size and muscle that I never dreampt that any creature could ever have..
 Also, you have been to many conferences and have met many people and have many friends in this field many with eyewitness accounts.  What do you make of the "high strangeness" accounts that people share with you, especially those that occur before and after sighting events?  
(Didn’t ask this one)
13) simplyskyla - How many bigfoot sightings has he had in his lifetime?
Thom:  We covered that... (We had covered the question of the number of sightings he's had... three.. Patty, the one on the Pacific Crest Trail and one at Bumping Lake)
Was patty the closest he ever got? 
Bob:  Well, es.. this is an estimated distance... the closest I got was when I first saw her and I'd say that was probably 60 feet... uh.. just a ball park figure was 60 feet or less.
14) Chelefoot - Mr. Gimlin, Have you ever had any doubts that Patty was anything other than 100 percent real?
Bob:  Never have... Uh, with all the litigation that's come out about that... with the different people saying they were in a suit down there... I knew in my own mind and watching that and being right there that if couldn't have been a man in a suit.
If you could change one thing about that day in Bluff Creek, what would it be and why?
Bob:  That people earlier on the film footage would have accepted it... what's been proven in the past and left me and my wife alone for the first 35 years.
One last question from me... Do you think there is any possibility that there is a question about that day at Bluff Creek that you haven't been asked yet?   :) 
Bob:  Not really.  It seems like I have been asked so many different questions.  … I meant... I think possibly that I have forgotten some of... some of the most basic events because of my age and because of the injuries I have sustained over the years 
15) Kitakazee – Mr Gimlin, there were sources that said you had Bob Heironimus’s
Horse name Chico at Bluff Creek, can you confirm that?
Bob:  Okay... I did have Bob Heronimous's horse because Roger had, apparently, borrowed that horse from Bob Heronimous.  'Cause I never got the horses together to go.  Roger gathered up the horses... I had the transportation and I knew the horse.  I'd been around the horse before... Big, stout... good roping horse and I think Bob used him back in those days to rope on but Bob Heronimous actually had that horse early in some of the work he was doing for Roger as well as myself where Roger was trying to get together a film to generate revenue to go on an expedition.
(rephrased question) Mr Gimlin, you look amazing for your age, what do you eat and how do you stay this fit?
(Not asked, but Bob stays very busy and still cowboying!)

16) Rockape - Bob, did you ever consider the possibility that Patty was trying to lead you away from her young?
Bob:  Well, I never had enough time to even think about that.  I just knew she was walking away... didn't even know that they suspected a young or other one in because at that particular time, I knew about the three different sizes of tracks we'd been called down there for but I hadn't... I wasn't … I was tired from the long distances we'd been riding at the time we'd been down there... so I never gave it any thought about her trying to lead me away from anything...
The PGF is considered the gold standard of BF evidence, is there any other video, photo, etc. that you find impressive evidence?
Bob:  No.
 What would you say to the people who think the PGF is a hoax?
Bob:  I say you ought to take a good look at the film footage and realize that there is gonna possibly be people out there try to make a story out of this.  Forever that they're gonna say they were in a suit in northern California when Roger and I were there... and it's been done more than one time as far as I know... in fact, I didn't even realize that Greg Long had had somebody... a big guy, uh, 6 or 7 years before he got ahold of Bob Hermonimous and tried to prove he was in a suit down there.  So, You know, it kinda is a... a two sword, double sword or double edged question for me because I don't really know... the thing is... is... I just know that's what happened and I'm going by what happened.
Thom:  Right
17) WV Footer – Mr Gimlin, Upon seeing "Patty", what was your first thought? What were you feeling at the time, Fear, Awe, Excited,...?
Bob:  There's a great big thing and they really do exist.
Thom Chuckle... yeah... that is the first thought, isn't it?
Bob:  that's the first thought I thought of...
Thom:  The first... first time I saw one here to there and yeah... standing there looking at him and said “where are the experts now?...”
Bob:  Exactly, Yeah... Well, I thought “All doubt is gone...”
 18) bf2011HBMay -  Even though you and Roger agreed not to shoot a Sasquatch, did you ever think in the back of your mind that it would benefit the world to have a specimen for scientific study despite the agreement? Thanks. (Question not asked, apologies Henry)
19) AaronD – (Slightly rephrased) Bob, have you had any encounters with anything that even COULD be a bf since 1967? (Covered this above)
You have already said it was NOT an ape he saw in 1967 (PGF subject), could you have guessed what it was?
Bob:  No... uh.. you know I, I.. could not... all I knew was it was a big, hairy covered human like creature walking away with a... with a great stride and a great, uh, amount of muscle mass and so, that's the only thing I could come up with.  I had no idea...
Thom:  It's mind boggling, isn't it?
Bob:  Yes it was... definitely was...Still is to my...
Thom: Right...
Bob:  after all the evidence... all the sightings that people have had, and all of the... all of everything that has happened since 1967 that's given me more strength about that than uh, than prior.
Do you have any idea why your 47 y/o piece of evidence is still the most convincing of any that sasquatches exist? Like why hasn't something been since found to better prove?
Bob:  Well, yes, there's questions in my mind about that, but, you know, there's no way to really address them, 'cause in my opinion, uh, there's been a lot of effort to... to get more evidence.  The only other thing I could come up with.. I have no proof... their ability to stay away, uh, from the camcorders, whatever, and basically I can figure out a little bit of my own personal opinions why they avoid human beings so much now... especially modern human beings... whereas we've heard the native Americans had close contact with them as if they were just part of the, uh, they wouldn't bother, uh... they were there, they belonged to Mother Earth... And we start shooting at them or we start to gather evidence they really exist and they're just trying to live their own life and be left alone.
Thom:  And, well, look... look at our society... who's want to be a part of that if they had a choice?
Bob:  Well, I can't... I'd like to be the first one to the moon if I could to get away from all this.
Thom:  Chuckle...
20) Pbeaton – Mr Gimlin, I know you told me in the past her tracks went across the entire sand bar. My question is do you recall roughly how many were relatively good clear tracks ?  12 to 20 ?  20 to 40 ? 40 plus ?
Bob:  Good tracks?
Thom:  Yeah...
Bob:  Oh, I'd say roughly, 50 to 60...
Thom:  50 to 60?
Bob:  or maybe even more than that.  I covered as many as I could with all the material I covered as many as I could with all the material I could gather off the dead tree.  There was a pretty good line of tracks there... uh... Matter of fact is, I can't recall just how long that, uh, type of soil was there but I'd say probably, uh, a hundred yards almost... at least 150 feet of that same type of soil (silted in) that had gathered up underneath that logjam or behind that logjam.
Thom:  Uh huh... before it got into the rocky stretch?
Bob:  Before it got into the gravel.  … You know, and my error was then, I wished Roger and I would have measured that... but, you know, you just don't think of all that...
Thom:  and then you have the film to take care of...
Bob:  Exactly.  Plus, you've got a lot of other issues and October 20th the day's a little short already... and you're dealing with darkness early.
Thom:  That's right... and none of us are professionals...
Bob:  I was the furtherest thing from a professional and... and.. and apparently Roger was too... We did what we thought was the best thing at the time.
21) Gigantor - Mr Gimlin, There have been claims that there were other BF type animals at the sighting location. Did you ever see any other animals in addition to the one filmed?
Bob:  No I did not.
22) Drew- (Rephrased) How many days did you and Roger spend at Bluff Creek?
Bob:  Yeah... My estimation was about 21 days down there.  I never could decide whether it was the last day or so in September or the 1st of October because we'd been down there approximately 3 weeks.
Thom:  Right
23) Sweaty Yeti – (slightly rephrased below) Mr Gimlin, I would like to ask if you recall any additional little things that Roger said to him...(that he hasn't previously mentioned)....the night of the filming...and on the following day, on their way back home?
Thom:  I'd like to ask if you recall any additional little things that Roger said to him that (you) haven't previously mentioned on the night of the filming and on the following day on their way back home.. uh, you know.. Personal type of things... what were his feelings?
Bob:  Well... okay... the next day on the way home, uh, ok.. that has to be explained because there was no “next day”.  That next day was trying to get out of that area with a storm in there... and then, all night I drove and Roger slept most of the time while I did the driving.  So... the only thing that was talked about that night after we got back to the truck is that, uh, what... what really happened that day and what he saw through the camera and what I felt I saw and smelled.  So, Therefore, each thing that we talked about varied just a little and then, of course we went on to sleep... the next morning it was raining and, uh, things just kind of broke loose from there.
Thom:  Was there an odor associated with her?
Bob:  a what now?
Thom:  Was there an odor?  Did you smell her?
Bob:  Yeah, yes, there was an odor... I thought it had kind of a... a skunky, mest... musty, skunky type of smell... Pretty stinky but with a must to it.
 Thom:  That's cool... Uhm...I think I have a couple I wrote that I wanted to ask too...
If you were to have that happen today, what would you do?
Bob:  If that happened to me today, I would not ride across the creek with the horse... I would try my best to act real submissive and get as close to her as I possibly could instead of all the scramble that went on that day.  Because if... if that happened to me again, I would hope that Roger didn't have a camera and was running after her to take a picture and I could try my best to get as close as I could and act submissive like... I want to be a friend... That's what I'd like to do and that's what I'd like to do today if I ever get another opportunity to get close to one again.
Thom:  Do you have any regrets about the publishing of the film to the world?
 Bob:  Oh yes, I do... so many different issues on that it would take me days to go through all of it

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

NEW!!! Scott Nelson Interview 03/26/2014

NEW!!! Scott Nelson Interview 03/26/2014

   Hi all!!! I know most of everyone is ready to see Winter finally leave and Spring begin! I like many of you are ready to get outside and enjoy the outdoors no matter if it is Squatching, walking, hiking or any other outside activity you enjoy.

   Just like the Ron Morehead interview, there were some great questions posed to Scott. He called me many times in this process because he wanted to make sure the format worked well and he could make sure to get all of the questions answered to all's satisfaction. Again, many thanks to Scott to enable us to ask questions to a man in my opinion, is the most qualified to help us to learn about this unique and remarkable enigma. 

Hi Scott and thank you very much for agreeing to answer questions from our forum members. These will be submitted in our blog as an ongoing learning process to help understand what research is being done from some of the most notable researchers in the BF Community. We appreciate your time to help us learn more about the BF/Sasquatch People.

1) Southernyahoo - Have you contacted any Phoneticists in regards to the various recordings you now have? 

Reason for asking.

With the perception of language in the recordings and that it was done with a human like vocal system, the phonemes containing quantal vowels can be studied, measured and quantified using the relationships of F1 and F2 formants. With the three quantal vowels or cardinal vowels being attributed to humans only among mammals according to Anthropologists, this would be quite telling.
You are quite right about this and I am sure that someday these studies will be done on Sasquatch Language, just as they have been done on Human Language.  Phoneticists and those specializing in Linguistics are the very scientists that Ron spoke of in his interview, and as of yet, they want nothing to do with these sounds.  I have offered to present my study to some of the most eminent Linguistics Specialists in the world, but have been rejected every time due to concerns for their academic reputations.  One gentleman in England wanted us to box everything up and send it to him, but with a little research I discovered that he was a professional skeptic with a definite agenda.  I have always been willing to present the study to anyone who will listen, and of course we are always looking for others who are willing to take the same academic risks that we have.

2) Gigantor - Mr Nelson, Could you please explain in layman terms why you think language exists in the recordings you've heard?


      It might be best to start here with my arguments for the three conclusions that I drew almost immediately upon hearing the Sierra Sounds for the first time.  Probably the best way to do that is to copy some of the notes I use when I present my study at conferences and symposiums:

     After that first quick review of the samplings of the Sierra Sounds, there were three facts that were immediately evident to me: (1) The vocalizations are not human (as we currently define human); (2) The creatures were speaking in a complex language (by the human definition of language); and (3)  The tapes could not have been faked.

      First:  The voices are not human.  The creatures on the Berry/Morehead Tapes are producing sounds that humans cannot make.  Their vocal range is far too great; much lower and much higher than humans are capable of producing.  This fact is corroborated by the Kirlin study.  Additionally, the volume and resonance of many of the vocalizations they produce is far beyond the ability of humans.  However, the most striking element to note is the prosody of utterance, or the tempo at which each utterance is delivered, as well as the speed at which the conversational turns take place, with the creatures almost stepping on each other in their discourse.  For the majority of the utterances, the rate of deliverance is at least twice that of humans.
     My second conclusion:  It is a complex, human-like language.  What did I recognize in the vocalizations that told me that it was language?  First are the articulated phonemes (individual units of phonetic sound) so similar to our own that it must be assumed they are produced by the same apparatus that we possess, namely, the tongue, the teeth and the lips, along with the entire tracheal tree, oral cavity and nasal cavity.  I have isolated 39 different phonemes, all common to human language.  Phonemes combine to form morphemes, or individual units of meaning which we commonly call syllables or minimal words.  These are evident throughout the tapes, repeated in conversational turns and morpheme streams characteristic only of language.  We find discourse (conversational turns of utterance); query inflection and direct response; imperative or persuasive inflections; expression of emotion, intimidation, negation and even ritual.  These vocalizations exhibit characteristics that are conventional, automatized, arbitrary and creative; all of which are properties of human language.
     In brief, there are so many characteristics of human language evident in the tapes that we must assume that even those elements that cannot yet be known, such as grammatical categories, are also present in this language.
     Finally to my third conclusion:  The tapes could not have been faked.  While serving as a crypto-linguist working with Naval Intelligence, I trained in every form of deceptive voice communication imaginable, including slowing the tape; speeding it up; modulation of tone and pitch; playing tape backward and distortion of every kind.  None of these techniques is evident here.  I was a Russian analyst so I trained in all of the Soviet tactics of deception.  They are the best in the world at deceptive communication techniques, but even their best effort could not have produced these vocalizations; and certainly, no one could have done it in 1974.  What initially led me to conclude that the tapes were not fake, is that in numerous instances the humans and the creatures are speaking at the same time; vocally stepping on each other.  This cannot be done without leaving trace evidence (also confirmed by the Kirlin Study).      
     At this juncture, to claim that these vocalizations were faked, one would have to argue that a secret cabal, comprised of several ingenious conspirators, was so determined to deceive the world, that they invented their own language, modulated their vocalizations to frequencies above and below the ability of humans, harassed a small group of well-armed hunters, over a period of several weeks in successive years and threw in numerous cognate words and expressions to boot.  It is now more reasonable to defend the existence of an undocumented creature than it is to believe in such a conspiracy.

3) Doc Holiday - If there is a language involved does it sound similar to any known languages and if so which one?

Thank you.

When I first stumbled onto the Sierra Sounds, labeled “Samurai Chatter” on a website, they did indeed sound Asian due to the rapidly staccato nature and deep-throated delivery.  I immediately took the sounds to a Native-Japanese colleague of mine who said, “It sounds like an ancient form of Japanese, but I can’t understand a single word.”  I have since played the tapes to native speakers of virtually every human language group, to include Russian, Spanish, Persian, and several Native-American, African and Pacific Island Languages.  All of these native speakers have heard “words” that are familiar to them.  This has led me to conclude that it is natural for us to listen for morpheme streams that have meaning for us; however, we cannot conclude that these are cognatic words and phrases from human languages.
     If Sasquatch is as intelligent and observant as we think he is, it would also be natural for him to assimilate parts of our language.  If his very survival depends on avoidance of humans, would he not want to know what we are thinking and planning?  He certainly would and for the same reasons that I did what I did in the Navy, “Know Thine Enemy,”        
     If Sasquatch followed us to the New World over the Bearing Straits, he would likely carry remnants of Asiatic languages.  His language would have evolved along the periphery of Native-American culture.  Spanish has been a dominant language on this continent for more than 500 years and English for more than 400.  Therefore, I believe that Sasquatch could be using elements from all of these influences, as well as his own language system that would be very different from known languages.   

4) Chris - Mr. Nelson, Why did you ever decide to make a separate Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet, when all of the sounds can be phonetically transcribed using the current International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The IPA contains all sounds that can be made with a vocal tract. Why did you feel it necessary to make a new alphabet?

     The IPA is extremely complicated for any non-specialist to understand, using many symbols that look nothing like “letters” in any common language and which for most researchers (including myself) are impossible to find on any keyboard, let alone pronounce. Without specialized training in Linguistics, the IPA would be useless.  Therefore, the quick answer is: I decided to create a phonetic alphabet that is more accessible to a broad spectrum of researchers; knowing that the real evidence for Sasquatch Language would not come from academics who have never stepped foot in the woods, but from the front-line dedicated lay-persons who invest virtually everything they have to spend week after week out there amongst these beings.  

     I utilized variations of modern English Reformed Phonetic Alphabets as well as elements of the International NATO Transliteration Alphabet with which all military Crypto-Linguists are familiar.  This makes for a much more research-friendly tool, very useful for those of us who are doing the hard work.  We will let the academics do what they do when we are finished.

5) See-Te-Cah-NC - Mr. Nelson, What were the key things you noticed about the Sierra Sounds speech that clued you in that it was possibly language? Do you think that the Sasquatch "language" can/will eventually be translated into an existing human language? Is there a possibility that the sounds (language) were produced by a human?

There is no possibility that the sounds were produced by a human.  Please see my answer to number 2 for my argument as well as what is it that makes this language.

     “Translation” can never truly take place until meaning can be confirmed by the speaker, so that is something that will not be happening anytime soon.

6)  Chelefoot - Mr. Nelson, Are there examples of other audio recordings that have demonstrated the same language characteristics that you have identified in the Sierra recordings?


 I have just a couple of short clips that fit this description, but nothing of the clarity and extent of the Sierra recordings.  That, of course, is our Holy Grail.

7) WV Footer - Mr. Nelson, you have concluded that a distinct language was detected. As an expert in your field, do you think the communications are of a hostile nature, or maybe an effort on the Squatches Part to communicate with humans?

     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 even humor are expressed; most notably at BI-1:30.19 (Berry Tape) where I posit that the male creature is laughing.
     We are quite sure that on the Morehead Tape, the creatures are attempting to slow down their utterances in order to communicate with the humans.

8)  JanV - Mr. Nelson, To me many purported Sasquatch recordings sound like Native American languages. Do you think there is a connection? Do you have any theories regarding this?

Please see my answer to number 3.

9)  SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT - Mr. Nelson:   Have you analyzed any audio recordings where the BF speaks a known human language that seems authentic?  I would imagine there are a lot of hoaxes out there.    If a recording seems authentic and not human in origin,  is there any way to determine from the recording if the speaker is communicating in a human language known to it or if it is just mimicry?     Randy R

      I have received many audio clips that certainly are attempts to deceive, others that are just mis-identified animal sounds and still others that simply cannot be determined to be outside of human ability to produce.  The rest of your question I believe I answered in (2)  and (3) above. 

10) BobbyO - Mr Nelson, can you please clarify that when you use the word " language ", you are not describing languages of the human species which are divided geographically such as English, Spanish, Mandarin etc but are describing the word as a form of communication like many animals are supposed to have, like Orca's for example ?

Or, are you saying that this “language " is more similar on a technical level to actual human languages than what other forms of communication in the animal world is said to be ?

What is evident on the Berry/Morehead Tapes is language by the human definition of it.  Virtually all of the phonemes recovered are common to human languages, therefore, we have to assume they are articulated with the same apparatus humans have.  Please see above where I expand on this.

11) NCBRR - Is there a correlation between the speed of a spoken language and intelligence of the speaker and if so what does that say about BF's IQ?

     I am not qualified to judge on this issue.  Humans speak in such a wide range of delivery rates and certainly, we speak quickly when we are in a heightened state of excitement.  I do not believe that all humans who speak rapidly are more intelligent than those who speak more slowly.  In fact, I have found that highly intelligent people tend to slow their delivery, giving some thought to what they are going to say and wanting to insure comprehension by the listener.

     I believe, however, that Sasquatch is a highly intelligent and even sentient being, since it is by our having the ability for Language that we define ourselves as sentient beings.

12) KBHunter – Mr Nelson, when you first heard the Sierra Sounds as your son was doing his research project on Bigfoot, what was the first thing you thought when you heard it? Did you think it was a potential hoax? Also, when was the WOW moment that you knew they were real?

     The “WOW” moment was immediate and there was no possibility that it was a hoax.

13) KBHunter – What kind of advice on equipment can you give researchers that want to do their own recordings?
     I am certainly no sound equipment expert.  Ron and I have had good service from the ZOOM H2 voice recorder.

14) KBHunter – When people do “call blasting” using recordings like the Sierra Sounds or others, is there a potential danger of what they are telling the other BF/Sas? Is there a chance the sounds could be “not so nice” and would create a potential bad encounter?

     There is always the chance that some of the utterances on the Berry/Morehead Tapes are not so nice.  I have always thought that call-blasting was rather silly and ineffective.  I am quite convinced that they are much smarter than we ever wanted to believe and that they cannot be fooled for long by call blasting.  In fact, I think it drives them away.  I think it is much more effective to just go out into the woods, do the things that we silly humans normally do, be non-threatening and there-by invite their curiosity.

15) KBHunter - Thanks so much for your time, can you please pass along any future conferences or events that you will be speaking?

     I have nothing big scheduled for the near future – some blog-talk appearances and a couple of events here in Kansas City (and of course my own efforts to get out in the woods and see if we can’t get guys to talk to us).

     Thanks for the opportunity, KB.

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Ron Morehead of the famous Sierra Sounds answers your questions!!

I want to thank Ron for his time for this interview. The attempt for the new interview format is to allow participation from the forum members and to help provide insightful information from some of the people who have contributed a great deal to the BF Community. I also want to thank all for your help in the great questions you had for Ron!



From Gigantor:
Did you see any of the subjects making the sounds? 

Ron: Yes, however, you’re probably referencing the sounds Al Berry taped, which seemed very close to the mic.  His microphone was remotely placed about 40 feet up from our shelter.  We think the creature was behind one of the huge trees there.  Each time he would stick his head out of an opening, made earlier in the roof, the sounds would stop.  On that night, he saw nothing…nobody did. 

I ask because the recorder must have been made very close to the subject in order to get such a clear result.

Mr Morehead, did you ever feel threatened or feel fear during these encounters? 
Ron: Because of the unknown, it’s difficult to not feel a bit insecure; however, after we didn’t shoot our guns and they didn’t come crashing through the shelters’ walls, we became less fearful.  That’s when we began to look forward to the night-time and their visits.

From Chelefoot:

I know he believes that Patty is a real BF.  Is there any other footage that he considers to be the real deal, based on what he has seen/heard?
Ron: I don’t consider myself a film analyzer…some very well could be, but I usually let other accredit or dismiss.  I don’t like to get involved in something when I don’t know the context of the situation or the people involved.

From BobbyO:

Do you find it frustrating in the years that have passed since the recordings that the research community has made little to no impact on the scientific acceptance of the animal you recorded?

Ron: Understanding the constraints that science works within, and how they need to stay inside that boundary of proof, I don’t have a problem with it.  They must assume it’s just another wild unidentified animal running around in the woods until evidence can show them something different.

Have you ever been approached by any type of Government authority regarding what you recorded? 
Ron: NO

Do you have any idea, even if not confirmed, of how many animals there were present at the time of the recording and how/what did you personally feel their persona and/or intentions were ?

Ron: Usually we could estimate how many there were by the direction of the sounds and the interaction they were having with each other.  At first we thought the aggression must have been directed at us, but in retrospect, I think they were squabbling among themselves, probably over the food left out.

From WVFooter:

How were the recordings obtained? 
Ron: Cassette Recorders, night-time conditions.
What were the circumstances surrounding the actual recording of these creatures?

Ron: During the first couple years they would only come around after we went into the shelter and closed the opening.  It wasn’t until 1974 that they became interactive with us while we were outside the shelter.  The details of these events are more thoroughly covered in the CDs and my book.
How close were the Bigfoot(s) from the recorder?
Ron: They were not that close to the recorders, but often close to the remote microphones.  I don’t know how far from the mics they may have been—different times, different distances, but often seemingly very close.  Great Apes have a way of making their sounds travel with a lot of amplitude by squeezing their air sacks with their upper arms.  This could be one of their attributes.
From Doc Holiday:
I’m sure someone has to have tried this, has playing  back the recordings out in the field consistently drawn  physical responses and /or vocal replies  that were similar or the same?
Ron: No, actually never.  We tried it a couple times at camp, but it didn’t work.  Then we thought, “What if what we previously recorded was not nice?”…we had no idea what they were saying.  I don’t encourage folks do this with these sounds.
From David NC:
There are hundreds of questions I could ask. This took place at a remote deer camp that I assume he owned and or had access to. Was this a one season thing or was there ongoing interaction/observations (I considered listening an observation of your surroundings), and if it was not how many years did he observe activity in the area?
Ron: The hunting camp is located on Federal land, about an 8-mile trek on an imposing trail in the Sierra Mountains.  The events were on-going, and the close-up sounds stopped in 1976 (began in 1971).  Since then, we’ve had occasional glimpses, a couple good sightings, but mostly the sounds are from a distance now.  The most recent event for me was in 2012 when I heard chatter from a distance, then a ‘bang’ on one of our barrels, and heard bi-pedal walking around the stove area.
Has Mr. Morehead had any other experiences with what he may think was a Sasquatch in other areas he has been? 
Ron: Yes, I’ve had other incidences in other areas, but never like the ones at our Sierra camp.
From Bipedalist:
Ask Mr. Morehead if he and Scott Nelson get together and compare notes or take new recordings from other researchers with valid sound captures and give feedback and/or springboard what they may learn from them to extend their own research?
Ron: Scott and I have been to the Sierra camp together, but he’s never been able to capture more corroborative sounds.   Scott often gets inundated with folks sending him sounds of yells, grunts, or moans, but so far he has not received any sounds that have a morpheme stream (several words that make up a sentence) which would allow him to state that the source had language.  He uses our Sierra recordings as a comparison.
From See-Te-Cah NC:
This is a follow up question in regard to possible government involvement - Have the recordings been analyzed or otherwise commented upon by anyone from a government research agency, such as Yerkes, Oregon, or the California National Primate Research Centers? 
If so, what were their comments/opinions? If not, why?
Ron: Government agencies do not take this subject seriously…at least not publically.  Over the years we tried many times to obtain help from qualified institutions.  Most, however, put us in the looney-tunes box and wouldn’t respond seriously.  We actually paid a few to try and give us an unbiased report.  One told us they thought they heard words being spoken and therefore discredited the recordings (but kept the money).  Another told Al Berry that the original recorder he sent to them was not the recorded that recorded the sounds…that was just wrong, but kept they money.  Another told me that they’d tell us what made the sounds in three days, guaranteed.  They wanted $5,000 up front…didn’t fall for that one. 
The stories go on-and-on regarding our efforts.  Dr. Kirlin’s report gave credibility to the recordings but it was semi-quantitative.  Scott Nelson’s statement clarified the language issue, and it seems more and more folks are now reporting that they are hearing these creatures’ chatter (similar to Albert Ostman’s account of 1924).
From the parkie:
Just to add to the questions already posed by others, do Ron's observations include any clear sightings, and if so, could he describe any of them in detail please?
Ron: Larry Johnson (one of the hunters) had a fairly good sighting from just a few feet away on a moonlit night, from a small hole within the shelter’s wall.  He claimed it was over 8 feet tall, broad shoulders, and no neck.  Most of the sightings have been brief…never has one of these creatures been caught napping.  My daughter (Rhonda) has had very good sightings.  She described one as being about 7 foot tall, thin but with broad shoulders, and turned with its head and body together—no neck.   The one I got a glimpse of was the night I recorded them while Bill McDowell and I were by our stove.  It was moving so fast I could not make out any details. 
Is there any reason he has not been able to subsequently record sounds of the same quality since the original recordings?
Ron: Although I usually take a recorder with me, sometimes I don’t.  It’s not important for me to obtain more vocalizations.  My goal is to understand them better, and it seems they are very tuned-in to exploitation.  Although they have humanistic attributes, they seem to be able to stealthily out maneuver us.  They are not altogether human.  I believe they are a hybrid with attributes we don’t understand yet.

From Bonehead 74 --- 2 part question related to statement
If anyone is interested in reading a more detailed account of the Sierra Sounds incidents, you should get a copy of Bigfoot by Alan Berry and B. Ann Slate. The first third of the book relates the circumstances surrounding the recordings.  
Ron: Also, “Voices in the Wilderness,” is my book which I recently released that includes a CD sound track.
My questions for Mr Morehead are:
How closely does the above-mentioned book relate the facts of the incidents as he knows them? 
Ron: It’s good and tells the story from Al Berry’s perspective.  Al was diligently looking to uncover a hoax…he never could.
Does Mr Morehead consider bigfoot to be just another animal like bear, deer, apes, and even humans, or does he believe there is something "more" to them?
Ron: I believe there is much more to them, and suggest reading my articles at www.bigfootsounds.com
From BobbyO  (slightly rephrased by KB)

Regarding the 911 call you discuss on your blog from the early 1990’s, what more can you tell us about that and what did you learn?
Ron: If a dog irritates, or begins to chase, one of these creatures, it will probably not return…at least not alive.  This man’s German Shepard was tossed 35 feet, over a fence, after it was ‘thumped’ on the ground (probably dead then).  My suggestion is to not take dogs on expeditions.  I don’t think these creatures really want to kill your dog, but they will if irritated.

Again, a big thanks to Ron Morehead and all that contributed! That is the end of the first interview!