The Echo Incident

[Guest]

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I'll take another listen...

I'll give you the timestamp......two to six seconds...

Oh, that! Yeah, that type of sound had been described by some members present as a growl, though to me it sounds more moan-like. We presume it to be the target species and the same animal responsible for the other sounds heard shortly afterward. The night that was recorded, our member on watch heard the moan/growl, but not the subsequent chatter/bark noise. He was close to other members who were sleeping/snoring and the cicada sounds were intense, so the first time we heard the chatter was when we played back the recording some time afterward.

[bipedalist]

There we go, thanks, I thought they were related but sometimes ears play tricks on you, even good ears like mine. It sounded distinctly important to me but couldn't classify the sound any other way but sort of a buzz....but it did have a "sigh like" quality to it.....but it isn't anyones snore or a frog.....good on that. Not going crazy,

[Guest NEernElitist]

You can't conserve that which does not exist. Until you prove that they're there, nothing special will be done to make sure they're protected. Counter-intuitive perhaps, but sixty years of concerted effort to establish them in other ways has proven fruitless.

Not exactly what I was getting at, that seems like an excuse to eschew scientific inquiry in the name of expedience. I feel like that position is a cop-out.

So if I'm reading this right, killing it is the only way to prove it exists? So what exactly was the TBRC member shooting at? Doesn't this reduce the whole effort to faith and belief? If so, I simply don't believe the story. It's dangerously close to becoming a quasi-religious fairy tale.

I'm sorry, I love the show and the forums but this circular logic has become the kind of sad filibustering and doubletalk that past failed efforts fringe groups hold onto.

Peace.

[Guest]

Not exactly what I was getting at, that seems like an excuse to eschew scientific inquiry in the name of expedience. I feel like that position is a cop-out.

If your reason for proving the existence of bigfoot is solely for your own edification, then you don't need to kill one. All you need to do is go where they are and see one. That's enough for many, many people. If your reason is to simply have an excuse to go into the woods and tell freaky stories to your buds, then no, you don't need to kill one. If your interest in the subject is sufficiently sated by typing thousands of words into an internet forum for others to read, then no, you don' t need to kill one (or even leave your house).

However, if your reason is to "facilitate scientific, official and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat," then you need to prove they are there to the whole world. Not just yourself and not just your family and friends. That is (part of) the mission of the TBRC and I can assure you, everyone in our group takes it very seriously. We are not interested in having cool stories to tell or in spending yet more time in spooky woods. We want these animals recognized and protected. Period. Since we're not talking about a new subspecies of mouse or some interesting new cat or kind of bear, simple pictures will not be enough. Not by a long shot. Even a video is not enough. Not the kind you're likely to get (short and with a fleeting view). IMO, you will need recognizable tissue. Either bones, if you're so lucky to find some, or a body or parts thereof. *Maybe* DNA if it's collected in the right way and you have enough for more than one lab to get repeatable results. Even that, IMO, would be insufficient to get "scientific, official and governmental recognition". But that's just my opinion.

You call what we do a cop-out, I call it one of only a handful of real field research operations being conducted today.

So what exactly was the TBRC member shooting at? Doesn't this reduce the whole effort to faith and belief? If so, I simply don't believe the story. It's dangerously close to becoming a quasi-religious fairy tale.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about there. Daryl shot at a bigfoot. Period. You can believe that or not, but if you choose not to you and your only argument is "I don't buy it", then we're both wasting our time here.

...this circular logic has become the kind of sad filibustering and doubletalk that past failed efforts fringe groups hold onto.

I'm afraid the only circular logic I can find in this exchange is coming from you.

Edited November 2, 2011 by bipto

[Guest]

. We want these animals recognized and protected. Period. Since we're not talking about a new subspecies of mouse or some interesting new cat or kind of bear, simple pictures will not be enough. Not by a long shot. Even a video is not enough. Not the kind you're likely to get (short and with a fleeting view).

Bip, back when the TBRC was the "Texas Bigfoot Research Center", the group got a confirmation from the Texas Parks and Wildlife that the TXPW would recognize the creature as a new species, in Texas, if anyone could obtain a clear photo of one.

Is that no longer the case?

[Guest]

If we get a picture, I guess we'll find out. We've had cameras out for more than five years now.

Edited November 3, 2011 by bipto

[gigantor]

However, if your reason is to "facilitate scientific, official and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat," then you need to prove they are there to the whole world. Not just yourself and not just your family and friends. That is (part of) the mission of the TBRC and I can assure you, everyone in our group takes it very seriously.

I'm glad there is a group with a worthwhile mission and I wish you a successful conclusion. My only "beef" is that you guys are working in Texas. I wish you were operating in the PNW.

I know, I know, there's supposedly BF in Texas also.

Edited November 3, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest]

Good enough for what?

What I meant by that is that it may be best to just to be thankful for his permission to use the land (land that clearly is producing some quality interactions), and not expect much from him in the way of testimony or evidence. But who knows, if he did have physical evidence that tested out, that would be great. I guess the alien beliefs could just be a side issue. Something like a creation myth to explain how they got there. Other than that stuff he seemed to absolutely believe what he was saying as far as bigfoot being in the area, and it is really good to see his story verified by people like Bipto and the TBRC. I don't know if I would have believed his interview when he went there, but for it to check out with sources I trust, it makes a huge difference.

[bipedalist]

Alrighty then, yes, I agree. I was not too sold on Branson on his recall of his personal encounters alone. Now with additional documentation I see no reason to believe the spot is less than smoking hot.

[Guest]

bipto,

Do you apply negative evidence to your investigations and understanding? Evidence that is circumstantial and contrary to the premise you are wishing to validate? For instance, working against your premise (wood apes exist in southeastern Oklahoma mountains) is the experience you have had with trail cams. By your own admission, wood apes have not been verified by the protracted use of trail cams and this is a disappointment. Since your group set up the cams, it must have been with the expectation of verifying anomalous ape activity.

The trail cams ought to be seen as evidence against the belief of wood apes in the Ouchita Mountains. Granted, like all evidence relating to sasquatch, it is not conclusive.

Do you look at such negative evidence and contrast it with positive evidence, such as Colyer’s sighting, and weigh the merits of each? Or do you deny the trail cam project is in fact negative evidence?

For the sake of argument (and brevity), let’s say we are limited to the trail cam evidence (against) and Colyer’s evidential statement (favoring) while considering the existence of wood apes in SE Oklahoma. Would you fault an opinion that would favor the trail cam evidence (no wood apes found) over someone who said he saw one (finding wood ape)?

With trail cams we have impartial, raw information. Trail cams do not have brains with perceptions tainted with aspirations, needs, desires, memories, etc.

Of course, we could rationalize the trail cam evidence as more a lacking than a negation. And we could also explain Colyer’s naked sighting in various ways not conducive to belief in wood apes.

Are we stalemated? Or not?

[Guest]

Seriously. I wonder what that has to feel like when rocks are constantly plinking on your roof top as you are lying there staring at the ceiling. Pretty much knowing what's out there. It's gotta be a whole lot easier just spotting one across a canyon or something.

[Guest]

For the sake of argument (and brevity), let’s say we are limited to the trail cam evidence (against) and Colyer’s evidential statement (favoring) while considering the existence of wood apes in SE Oklahoma. Would you fault an opinion that would favor the trail cam evidence (no wood apes found) over someone who said he saw one (finding wood ape)?

We have more than just Daryl's sighting. We had two members with daylight sightings, plus we have a variety of interesting experiences that I expect we'll be publishing shortly.

I agree, the lack of pictures is a frustrating reality, and if it was any one person's word against five years of no pictures, then I might be thinking the same as you. However, as I said, there's more than just one person's word. Also, for me, Daryl isn't just any person. I know this dude really well and, as I said on the show, the idea that he's hoaxed the group is simply inconceivable. Also, based on personal experience with him, I can easily rule out the idea that he misidentified another animal or a person. How much weight should you or anyone give my opinion? I can't say, but I know that's not good enough. It's good enough for me, but it can't be good enough for everyone else.

As I was telling someone recently, you have to remember that this information was not released in the way we would have preferred. Mr. Branson's appearance at the Honobia conference and his podcast interview set up a scenario in which we had to put details of our operation out of order. Specifically, the Echo Incident report had to be released before the rest which would give what happened that day better context. Echo wasn't an isolated event, it was just one dramatic aspect of the larger operation.

[Guest]

I dunno...I never doubted the truthfulness of the story. Most of the time I'd question any story with such amazing circumstances, but I didn't. I guess it's a testament to D.C's veracity. I hope he gets a new gun, though:)

And Bipto...I apologize if this was already stated, but did D.C have an elevated position on the BF? I assume that the BF had no idea that he was there, and maybe it was focused on the couple. Could it have been tree peeking at the couple? Since there were slugs in the tree, I assume it was close to it. Was the BF in a valley, and how far was the creek bed from the tree where the slugs were lodged? When Colyer moved into position to get the shot, how far did he have to travel to get into that position? Was he in stealth-mode, or just walking to the position in a normal fashion? Was there wind, and if so, was it blowing towards

DC, relative to the BF? Sorry if any of these were already

covered. Thanks for your time!

Edited November 3, 2011 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest]

...did D.C have an elevated position on the BF?

No, it was level ground.

I assume that the BF had no idea that he was there, and maybe it was focused on the couple.

That's my theory.

Could it have been tree peeking at the couple?

It was moving when Daryl came upon it, not stationary. My personal theory is it was moving away from the couple and unwittingly toward Daryl.

Was the BF in a valley, and how far was the creek bed from the tree where the slugs were lodged?

The creek was nearby. I've said before I'm not entirely clear how close it was to the incident site, but it's probably somewhere around 100 yards.

When Colyer moved into position to get the shot, how far did he have to travel to get into that position?

I dont' know. Not sure if he stopped and fired when the animal was visible to him again or what.

Was he in stealth-mode, or just walking to the position in a normal fashion?

He was investigating a banging sound from the nearby cabin. We wasn't just amblin' along, but I don't know I'd describe it as "stealth mode" either.

Was there wind, and if so, was it blowing towards DC, relative to the BF?

The weather condition noted in the field log at 3:15 was 89F with a light breeze, but direction was not recorded.

One of our members is a licensed piot with his own aircraft. It's usually the case they he'll overfly an area we're about to operate in or where a witness has reported an encounter. He's a great asset to the group.

The following video was shot by him of X and will be included in the OE summary report that I suspect will be published very soon. It demonstrates how X is thickly wooded, remote, and completely different from the popular conception of what Oklahoma is supposed to look like.

[BobbyO]

I'm glad there is a group with a worthwhile mission and I wish you a successful conclusion. My only "beef" is that you guys are working in Texas. I wish you were operating in the PNW.

I know, I know, there's supposedly BF in Texas also.

There are groups in the PNW that have that same worthwhile mission, undoubtedly..

2 off the top of my head & in no particular order..

http://www.olympicproject.com/

http://www.wasrt.com/