The Echo Incident

[Guest]

The way they stand when they're facing you at close distance.  The way they meet your eyes, evaluating you just as much as you are evaluating them.  The way they coordinate as they are stalking.  The way they actively employ deception as you are watching them seek and take cover. 

 

All of that sounds like gorillas and chimps.

[JDL]

And there in lies the trap. We will never know what they are or how closely related they are to us without proving them to science first.

I think a lot of what your describing JDL you would feel the same way if you met Koko and she signed to you, or you watched her mother a kitten or use a spoon to feed herself. I completely understand....... But Koko is not a human.

But I will say this, they are wily creatures, not sure that is a true measuring stick of intelligence, but elusive? Absolutely.

 

Why not tell me that I'd feel the same way about our cat.  There is a distinct difference.

 

All of that sounds like gorillas and chimps.

 

Yeah, no.  I've spent plenty of time at the zoo, and I'm familiar with the abilities of chimps with regard to memory, etc.  Not the same.

 

I've never perceived them as less than people.  I've never perceived gorillas and chimps as more than apes.

[southernyahoo]

I do not define the ability to be elusive with intelligence. This logic is flawed.  

 

Really Norse? Any animal that doesn't care if we see it or find it has either been found or lives in a highly obscure place.

 

How does BF hide right under our noses in North America for centuries without the intelligence and a sense that staying that way is imperitive?

 

The answer is either 1. They have been discovered before and deemed unsuitable for the masses to know about or 2. They pull this off with extreme intelligence and a universal sense of self preservation necessitating a covert lifestyle.  

[Guest]

Intelligence does not equal human. Dolphins are smart. Orangs are freakin' brilliant. My dog shows flashes of genius. None of them are human. Not by a long shot.

 

Empathy is great. I value that trait in myself and others. But we need to be able to see past our own emotions to what is both logical and for the greater good. There is no logical reason for anyone in the NAWAC to conclude wood apes are more than apes. I wish a specimen did not have to be collected. But it does. You either agree with that or you don't. If not, I doubt I can change your mind and I know for damned sure telling me what you think won't change mine. We don't deal with opinions and feelings, we deal with what we have seen and experienced. 

 

A more interesting and perhaps productive debate would be to flip this "wood apes are really humans" thing around. What makes humans human? What separates us from other animals on earth? Why are we special? I've spent a great deal of time thinking on that. Have you? 

[Guest Stan Norton]

^Indeed. Were we to apply the same logic to ourselves as we do to the rest of the animal kingdom we'd have begun an eradication programme long ago. This entire 'debate' is framed within a misguided world view that humans are so very special: this view is now being applied to a creature which no one even knows anything meaningful about. We will know and learn nothing until the species is scientifically listed. Until the habiutuators front up their forest friends we must look to a body instead.

[southernyahoo]

Intelligence does not equal human. Dolphins are smart. Orangs are freakin' brilliant. My dog shows flashes of genius. None of them are human. Not by a long shot.

 

Empathy is great. I value that trait in myself and others. But we need to be able to see past our own emotions to what is both logical and for the greater good. There is no logical reason for anyone in the NAWAC to conclude wood apes are more than apes. I wish a specimen did not have to be collected. But it does. You either agree with that or you don't. If not, I doubt I can change your mind and I know for damned sure telling me what you think won't change mine. We don't deal with opinions and feelings, we deal with what we have seen and experienced. 

 

A more interesting and perhaps productive debate would be to flip this "wood apes are really humans" thing around. What makes humans human? What separates us from other animals on earth? Why are we special? I've spent a great deal of time thinking on that. Have you? 

 

I absolutely do think about it Bip, but it's not just what I think, It's what science says every time they encounter the evidence which is either evidence of a human or fabricated by one. I honestly don't attribute that to the game skeptical scientists play with BF proponents. My position isn't based on emotions , feelings, or a tendency to anthropomorphise whats really there. It's all about defining the line between what's human and what's not and you won't be able to argue behaviors or accomplishments between apes and humans with a dead specimen.

 

Have you thought about what you will do when the scientists keep telling you it has human DNA and all you have to come back with is your opinion that it's not?

[Guest zenmonkey]

Intelligence does not equal human. Dolphins are smart. Orangs are freakin' brilliant. My dog shows flashes of genius. None of them are human. Not by a long shot.

 

Empathy is great. I value that trait in myself and others. But we need to be able to see past our own emotions to what is both logical and for the greater good. There is no logical reason for anyone in the NAWAC to conclude wood apes are more than apes. I wish a specimen did not have to be collected. But it does. You either agree with that or you don't. If not, I doubt I can change your mind and I know for damned sure telling me what you think won't change mine. We don't deal with opinions and feelings, we deal with what we have seen and experienced. 

 

A more interesting and perhaps productive debate would be to flip this "wood apes are really humans" thing around. What makes humans human? What separates us from other animals on earth? Why are we special? I've spent a great deal of time thinking on that. Have you? 

Exactly what I always ask when someone uses the"they are a type of human" What makes us human? what defines us from an orang? You can usually get a good idea of where they stand from that. lol and what they understand about basic biology

Edited May 20, 2014 by zenmonkey

[JKH]

Absolutely. Many ape-like behaviors and essentially no homo traits (other than superficial similarities in how they sometimes get around). 

I can't fathom this sweeping statement. Bipedalism is what their bodies are evolved for, according to scientific observations of decades of evidence.

 

I'm not interested in arguing, but I can't help but think about the human-ape subject. Being primates, we share common physical and social characteristics, but no, they're not human. However, their unusual characteristics suggest close relation. Here's an interesting slide from a powerpoint I recently found: Apologies if the format is messed up, I tried to fix it.

 

Unique to Rare Physical Features of Humans

Compared to Other Primates (especially chimps):

 

1. Bipedalism

2. Cranial enlargement

3. Exaggerated secondary sexual

characteristics (loss and gain)

4. Hair Loss

5. Increased manual dexterity

6. Menopause

7. Long life span

 

From the accumulated evidence, Sas seems to share five out of seven of those traits. Food for thought.

Edited May 20, 2014 by JKH

[LeafTalker]

Why are we special?

Why do you need to know why?

 

I think people who ask that question may not trust that they are special, first; and second, may have a desire to claim some advantage, some privilege, from being special. 

 

Being special is fine; claiming some privilege because of it is the part that worries me, if the privilege comes at someone else's expense. 

 

We ARE special, but so is everyone -- and everything -- else. 

 

The role each individual -- and each species -- plays on this planet is as important as every other role. 

 

There's something counter-productive, I think, about looking for the defining thing that makes us different. The "defining thing" keeps changing all the time, as many people here have pointed out numerous times.  

 

Why don't we learn from that? It should be clear by now that that might not be the right question. 

 

Just my opinion.

Edited May 20, 2014 by LeafTalker

[Guest]

Have you thought about what you will do when the scientists keep telling you it has human DNA and all you have to come back with is your opinion that it's not?

 

So far, no reputable scientist has said that. And my opinion is based on direct observation, not stuff I've read on the internet or farcical DNA studies. 

Edited May 20, 2014 by bipto

[JDL]

Intelligence does not equal human. Dolphins are smart. Orangs are freakin' brilliant. My dog shows flashes of genius. None of them are human. Not by a long shot.

 

Empathy is great. I value that trait in myself and others. But we need to be able to see past our own emotions to what is both logical and for the greater good. There is no logical reason for anyone in the NAWAC to conclude wood apes are more than apes. I wish a specimen did not have to be collected. But it does. You either agree with that or you don't. If not, I doubt I can change your mind and I know for damned sure telling me what you think won't change mine. We don't deal with opinions and feelings, we deal with what we have seen and experienced. 

 

A more interesting and perhaps productive debate would be to flip this "wood apes are really humans" thing around. What makes humans human? What separates us from other animals on earth? Why are we special? I've spent a great deal of time thinking on that. Have you? 

 

After several encounters, some within touching distance, I've definitely put some thought into it.  Before I knew what to call them, before I met anyone else who mentioned them, I understood them as some freakish species of man.

 

I'll go with my personal experiences.

 

What defines them as man, or near man?  Biologically, the number of chromosomes, TBD.  The capability to interbreed, to the extent that such accounts are credible (which stongly suggests the same number of chromosomes as we have).  To me, specifically, it is human interaction.  For two weeks I kept telling myself that the first one I encountered close up was just some sort of freakish man (of our own species).  My second encounter convinced me that it was not human in the narrow definition of homo sapiens, but still very much human in the broader sense.

[southernyahoo]

So far, no reputable scientist has said that. And my opinion is based on direct observation, not stuff I've read on the internet or farcical DNA studies. 

 

It's not just one study or any one peice of evidence, but the collection of many pieces that points the way. It's a shame that anecdotes of observation without the company of supporting evidence doesn't count.

Edited May 20, 2014 by southernyahoo

[Guest]

The only thing that counts is reputable, repeatable, and reviewed results.

[Cotter]

JDL!  Next time yer that close, get a swab of the inside of its mouth!

[JDL]

Next time one reaches all the way inside my tent I promise I'll grab its arm and hang on for dear life.  I guarantee there'll be some physical evidence left on my broken, mangled body.