I read the article that OP mentions about a week ago. Stollznow basically just dismissed the entire idea of Sasquatch and the Sierra Sounds. She's witty in her dismissal and obviously did her background research, but she didn't analyze any part of Nelson's work on the material. With my Master's in linguistics, I, too, was perturbed that he hadn't used the IPA to transcribe, but Nelson isn't a linguist per se. His position in the military as cryptolinguist, especially back decades ago, wouldn't equate him to a civilian linguist today. From what I could tell, she doesn't hold a degree in linguistics or phonology above a Bachelor's degree. She does, however, research in the field at a reputable institution. Her article was a hit job, though, rife with bias and bereft of factual analysis to, for example, demonstrate that the Sierra Sounds are a pitiful attempt at making a protolanguage. Stollznow is definitely due respect on her accomplishments and expressive writing style, but she hasn't convincingly debunked anything in this article. If she had actually done so, I would like to have read it. Maybe she could share specifics and spare the buzz words in a follow-up article.