Researchers inside North America Bigfoot Search are members of an email exchange amongst some of the top Bigfoot researchers in the world. Several months ago a linguistics expert initiated a study of a Bigfoot tape of what appeared to be language. Since none of the researchers on our list were language experts, a search was made and a linguistics expert was found, R. Scott Nelson. We recognize the time and effort he applied to this research and it is greatly apreciated.
During the weekend of 6/19/10 R. Scott Nelson made a presentation at the Oregon Bigfoot Symposium on bigfoot/sasquatch language. Mr. Nelson based a significant portion of his study on the Sierra Sound Recordings. Mr. Nelson's background is in deciphering cryptic coding associated with communication in Naval exercises. He is considered an expert on the deciphering of complex coding and his abilities to decipher bigfoot/sasquatch language is a huge step forward in our research. Below is the documents that Scott forwarded for posting.
Fm: R. Scott Nelson
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.
The first two pages of Berry Tape I transcription are attached as an example of the prescribed usage of this alphabet.
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
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
(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
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′
**We recommend readers going to the "Ray Wallace" page on this website and read "Letter #2". There are statements made in this letter about bigfoot language that is quite revealing.
Here is his background and the study follows:
Here is R. Scott Nelson's 2 hour interview regarding his analysis of the Bigfoot recording and language. This is good!
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
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
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.
Made by pressing both lips together; B, P, M.
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.
The tongue is sticking out between the front teeth; Δ, Θ.
The flat part of the tongue is touching behind the alveolar ridge; SJ, TSJ.
The flat part of the tongue is against the hard palate; JÜ.
The back of the tongue is pushing up against the soft palate; K, G, KH.
The back of the tongue is pushing up toward the uvula; Rr.
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.
When two sounds occur, one right after the other then fricate; DZJ.
The air is partially blocked so that friction occurs; F, S, H.
The tongue or lips shape the mouth cavity to create some air restriction; L, R, W, Y.
Caused by vibration of the vocal chords; B, V, D, Z, Θ.
With no vocal chord vibration; P, K, T, F, S.
Voiceless with a strong puff of air; P, K, T, Δ.
The tongue is close to the top of the mouth while the front of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ï, I, Ü, U.
The tongue is close to the bottom of the mouth while the middle part of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ä.
The tongue is close to the bottom of the mouth while the back of the tongue shapes the vowel; A.
The tongue is halfway between the top and bottom of the mouth while the front of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ë, E.
The tongue is halfway between the top and bottom of the mouth while the back of the tongue shapes the vowel; Ö, O.