The Echo Incident

[Guest]

I wonder if it will hold a grudge?

Edited November 6, 2011 by Tautriadelta

[Guest]

Only one way to find out...

[bipedalist]

Uhhh, how thick are those cabin walls out that way?

[Guest]

Prolly not that thick.

If, in fact, that blood is from the wounded animal, then we may already have our answer regarding grudges. We sent people back in as soon as we could to look for evidence. We had one guy down there all by himself for a few nights. There was the same kind of general pestering going on (rocks, knocks) and one more visual encounter, but nothing aggressive.

[bipedalist]

Must have just been the stubbed toe scenario then....be on the lookout for funky toenails that might be lost!

[Guest Jodie]

Who volunteered to be the solo guy out there after the event or did you draw straws for the honor?

[MagniAesir]

If he could not hit with a shotgun the rifle would not have been any help. Like I said you can't miss fast enough to bring something down even with .500 if you cant put lead/steel on target. I'm sure that next time, if he get's another chance DC's Squatch fever will have subsided, and his shots will hit home with no problem. Inuits hunt polar bear with 5.56.....nerves of steel but it will work if the shots are where they are supposed to be. Marines and Soldiers kill enemies everyday with .12 slugs. At 30 yards body armor may as well be pound cake.

We have talked before on this site about the difference between a hunting round/caliber and a defensive one, when after dangerous game.

I routinely hunt in grizzly territory with a 308 winchester (moose/deer hunting), but if I knew that I needed to stop an angry grizz, I would choose something different.

Now given the choice of firearms I have, if I was looking to shoot a Sasquatch my first choice would be my winchester model 94 in 450 Marlin. My second choice would be my 338 winmag.

If I was going to use a 12 guage I would equip it with a rifled barrel and ghost ring sights.

I would leave the buckshot at home and use only sabot slugs.

I have heard good things about brenneke slugs and some Alaska guides use these (not available in Canada so I don't know how they work)dixie slugs

[Guest]

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.

bipto,

Thanks for your reply. However, and the fault probably is mine, you did not see (or at least didn’t reply to) the primary issue I was attempting to present: Do you acknowledge the existence of negative evidence? If so, does such evidence temper your views concerning the existence of Bigfoot?

Previously, for the sake of argument, I was reducing sasquatch phenomena to two relevant facts, the failure of trail cams to verify the existence of wood apes in SE Oklahoma and the statement of a field investigator in Oklahoma that he saw a wood ape. Of course, there is more positive evidence for wood apes in this location than just the statement of Colyer. Likewise, there is more negative evidence than just the failure of the trail cams. Does negative evidence cause agnosticism relating to wood apes, or is it ignored or overthrown by the positive evidence?

I ask because having followed the sasquatch issue since the 1960’s I’ve noticed that proponents seem to take the unstated position of believing the natural world as known to us stands neutral concerning the existence of sasquatch. In this view, all that is needed is (positive) evidence, such as sightings and track prints, and the balance then tips heavily in favor of belief in Bigfoot’s existence. Collecting more sighting reports and more tracks is seen as virtually proving the existence of anomalous apes in North America.

This reasoning seems to ignore, or is ignorant of, the fact of negative evidence. I’ll relate this to the development in Oklahoma. Colyer said he saw a wood ape, briefly but long enough to identify it and open fire on it. Contrast this with the comments of a longtime resident of the area, LaVelle Rose, speaking of her husband, “Odell and I have lived up here for 20 years. We used to ride mules and horses all over these mountains, and we’ve never seen anything like a Bigfoot.†Does the positive evidence (Colyer’s account) override the negative evidence (the Roses’ experience)? Perhaps. Or does the 20 year experience of two active residents carry more weight than someone who, by comparison, virtually shows up in the area and has a sighting? Or, in other words, are wood apes terribly elusive (no sightings in 20 years time), or not (seen twice within a week’s time during Operation Endurance)?

Or let’s look at some of the other positive evidence you have presented: wood knocks, rock throwing and vocalizations. This evidence should be exciting. Actual sounds made by wood apes and recorded for us to hear. Except, this phenomena is almost standard issue for Bigfoot field researchers nowadays. It almost seems like everyone who believes in Bigfoot and goes out in the woods to look for it will hear woops and screams and creepy oriental voices and will have wood knock experiences and have rocks thrown their way. Yet, how many field biologists, wildlife managers, hunters and fishermen, hikers, and so on, move around these same areas and never hear or see anything of the like? When have wildlife researches come back from the woods with such tales, unless they are affiliated with Bigfoot organizations? If we take such events as confirming wood apes by ignoring negative evidence, then it seems Bigfoot are targeting Bigfoot researchers almost exclusively.

The conflict between positive evidence and negative evidence can go on and on. Two people in recent years have claimed to have shot a Bigfoot in the Honobia, Oklahoma area. Yet there is no body to confirm their accounts (so, negative evidence). Researchers claim wood apes throw rocks, apparently to chase away intruders on their territory, a territorial display. Yet the same researchers say they have determined pathway areas where migratory anomalous apes pass through. OK. So, how can they be territorial? (An incongruity that may convert into negative evidence). If wood apes follow trails, where then are the copious amounts of scat we should find, as we find with other large apes? Overhead films of SE Oklahoma show dense, vast woodlands where a large animal not catalogued by science may exist. On the other hand, much of woodlands consist of oak and box elder, and other deciduous trees that should make the area less dense during the winter months. Does the State Wildlife Conservation Department understand or agree with the idea SE Oklahoma is home to giant native apes? Etc., etc.

I do appreciate the time you have spent here, bipto. What do you believe about negative evidence?

[Guest]

It's a shame that was the choice he made. That .45-70 could have very well anchored a type specimen.

But I realize I wasn't there and hindsight is always 20/20.

He needs one of these:

http://www.gunblast.com/50Beowulf.htm

It's a rifle, it's a big bore rifle, it's semi auto, it has detach box mags, it can be fitted with RIS to utilize night lights, lasers, etc. It also utilizes AR lowers, so a guy just needs to buy the upper and a bolt.

Im saving as we speak.

BTW, kudos to Daryl to man up and go out and investigate a sound.

I've read reports by organizations that shall remain nameless that upon hearing supposed Squatch sounds they hunkered a little lower inside their sleeping bag and stayed inside their *tent (*=aka burrito wrap for large carnivores).

Freakin kudos indeed.

45-70 that a sissy gun !! you need the 45-120 !!

just kidding, 45-70 is more than a proven round on big game.

[Guest]

Who volunteered to be the solo guy out there after the event or did you draw straws for the honor?

Ha! No, I think it just worked out that way. Various people's schedules being what they are, he had the option of being alone. Stainless steel cojones, to be sure.

[Guest]

This reasoning seems to ignore, or is ignorant of, the fact of negative evidence. I’ll relate this to the development in Oklahoma. Colyer said he saw a wood ape, briefly but long enough to identify it and open fire on it. Contrast this with the comments of a longtime resident of the area, LaVelle Rose, speaking of her husband, “Odell and I have lived up here for 20 years. We used to ride mules and horses all over these mountains, and we’ve never seen anything like a Bigfoot.†Does the positive evidence (Colyer’s account) override the negative evidence (the Roses’ experience)? Perhaps. Or does the 20 year experience of two active residents carry more weight than someone who, by comparison, virtually shows up in the area and has a sighting? Or, in other words, are wood apes terribly elusive (no sightings in 20 years time), or not (seen twice within a week’s time during Operation Endurance)?

There are many subtle differences in the two accounts (Daryl vs. the couple). I think you need to factor in their activities, the location of those activities, the duration of the activities, etc. There are also simple chance elements involved. There are forest rangers in the PNW and NorCal who have spent decades in areas where reports have been coming from in relatively high numbers but who have never seen anything and therefore don't think there's anything to the animal. I suspect there are also residents in areas where cougar live or transit through who have never, after decades of living there, seen one. Does that mean they don't exist? I don't know how the account of two people can override the account of another, especially one like Daryl with whom I have a personal relationship. I know him well and what kind of man he is. And perhaps that's the issue here. I can't be a dispassionate third party to this event since Daryl is a close friend whose word is gold as far as I'm concerned.

Or let’s look at some of the other positive evidence you have presented: wood knocks, rock throwing and vocalizations. This evidence should be exciting. Actual sounds made by wood apes and recorded for us to hear. Except, this phenomena is almost standard issue for Bigfoot field researchers nowadays. It almost seems like everyone who believes in Bigfoot and goes out in the woods to look for it will hear woops and screams and creepy oriental voices and will have wood knock experiences and have rocks thrown their way. Yet, how many field biologists, wildlife managers, hunters and fishermen, hikers, and so on, move around these same areas and never hear or see anything of the like? When have wildlife researches come back from the woods with such tales, unless they are affiliated with Bigfoot organizations? If we take such events as confirming wood apes by ignoring negative evidence, then it seems Bigfoot are targeting Bigfoot researchers almost exclusively.

Again, location, duration, activities, etc., all matter. And who's to say all these non-bigfoot people hearing the odd knock aren't hearing one made by a wood ape? I totally agree that there are a lot of people in this field of interest who, it seems, can simply walk into their backyard and hear or see evidence of bigfoot all around them. But I'm not going to let them influence my deductions based on our observations any more than someone who never sees that evidence, either because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time or are simply predisposed to explain it all away.

The events we experienced during OE were unprecedented in sheer volume for the TBRC. Over the past eleven years, we have had isolated trips in where one or two interesting things would happen, but after the first week of OE, it all kicked into high gear. In the second half of the operation, the activity started happening during the day, too. Very unusual. Why? No idea. Why there? Can't say. We have theories, but that's all they are. We need to spend a lot more time down there observing and recording those observations.

Two people in recent years have claimed to have shot a Bigfoot in the Honobia, Oklahoma area. Yet there is no body to confirm their accounts (so, negative evidence).

Killing an animal with a gun in not as simple as pointing it in its general direction and pulling the trigger. Assuming you hit it, you have to have been using a weapon of sufficient power to kill the animal. Even if you were, it's very possible to hit it in a location that isn't immediately fatal causing it to run off over terrain it's much better at reversing than the shooter is. Anyone with large game experience knows these things (and there are few animals in North America as large as a fully grown wood ape). I would counter that two shootings in recent years is positive evidence while two failures to produce a body is how the cookie crumbles sometimes.

Researchers claim wood apes throw rocks, apparently to chase away intruders on their territory, a territorial display. Yet the same researchers say they have determined pathway areas where migratory anomalous apes pass through. OK. So, how can they be territorial? (An incongruity that may convert into negative evidence). If wood apes follow trails, where then are the copious amounts of scat we should find, as we find with other large apes?

In reverse order, scat has a very short shelf life. Researchers have found suspected wood ape scat before, but it's difficult to preserve for analysis. Also, researchers of other primate who find it have the benefit of knowing where their research subjects are, generally speaking, at any given moment. Plus, their subjects are not as shy as their North American cousins appear to be. Plus, they're not using the scat to prove their subject even exists.

I think it's possible for animals to be both territorial and mobile at the same time. I don't know that I'd call their movement migratory, but large cats travel thousands of miles but still set up territories along the way. In other areas, we've observed sightings activity that will go on for a couple years than die out and seemingly move to another location suggesting the animals are more nomadic. How does that square with X where there have been sightings reported for decades? We can't say, but would love to find out.

With regard to tree cover, you're right, in the winter it's sparse down there. Where do they go? No idea. I hope we can find that out, too. In the mean time, we continue our work.

WRT to identifying wood ape pathways, the TBRC has never claimed to have done that. I'm not sure how anyone could make such a claim.

Edited November 6, 2011 by bipto

[Guest parnassus]

B

Scat DNA testing doesn't require the whole "load." just a smear. And ithe smear can be easily preserved in a variety of ways: see this paper: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3873253 for example. It is difficult to imagine how a lot of activity is being produced by huge animals yet no stool can be found.

This brings up the question of what they eat. Have you observed anything that would suggest their food sources?

Thanks

p

[Guest]

The issue of negative evidence is a bit tricky. If applied to other creatures, it really doesn't make much sense. For example. I have hunted deer, javelina, elk, bear, antelope, turkey, and various other game animals in Arizona over multiple seasons a year for over 25 years. I have not once come across a mountain lion in the wild. I have also varmint called almost every weekend for the last 7 years. I've brought coyotes, foxes, badgers, feral dogs, bobcats all in, sometimes as close as five yards, yet still, never a mountain lion. That would be considered tons of negative evidence for their existence in the areas where I have hunted (all throughout AZ). My cousin meanwhile, was sitting in camp around a fire, and heard some very strange sounds, then a loud crash near a tree where he had a whitetail hanging in a game bag about 20 yards away from him in the dark. He races over there with a flashlight in one hand and a handgun in the other. Well a huge lion cut the deer down, and was literally standing over the kill hissing at him in a very aggressive stance. He shot him right there. I don't think you could find an easier encounter. Well thats some pretty positive evidence. A lot of this ends up being pure chance, assuming you put yourself in quality areas enough times.

What I mean is I don't know how useful it is to keep a (+/-) tally as you are conducting your operations. Daryl Colyer saw one and shot at it. It doesn't matter that a couple has been out for 20 years and didn't see one. I'm guessing seeing one at 30 yards, firing at it, and very likely drawing blood pretty much trumps the fact that some people haven't heard woodknocking.

Edited November 6, 2011 by arizonabigfoot

[southernyahoo]

I really don't understand the hang up on negative evidence, there is negative evidence for all sorts of things , yet none can preclude the existence of the positive. It's only relevant to percieved probability not a determinant of fact. One true positive trumps all of it and negative evidence (not finding) has many explanations that are inconsequential to the positive.

[Guest]

This brings up the question of what they eat. Have you observed anything that would suggest their food sources?

We've taken John Mionczynski into the area in the past (not during OE). John is an expert in the types of food a large omnivore would require to thrive. According to him, there is ample food in the Ouachitas.