The Echo Incident

[Cotter]

^Plus for taking one for the team!

[WSA]

I go with the chromosomal compatibility definition, and I expect that will be the go-to criteria for determining "human", or not. If we can reproduce with it and conceive viable, non-sterile offspring, it is human in my book. If we can't, it is something else. To put up other, less objective, criteria leads us out into some deep weeds, in my opinion. 

[norseman]

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.

It's a good question SY. But Indians were smart, crafty and elusive, and they certainly did not remain elusive from Europeans for long.

I think other factors are at play. And the fact that it is an animal plays in its favor IMO. It doesn't need a fire, it didn't plant corn, it doesn't live in villages, it doesn't flake stone tools.

Not many crumb trails to follow it back to its home.

I think they are a rare animal, I think they are nomadic too. They are also semi nocturnal, and they don't seem to gather in very large groups. And they are naturally shy and like to remain hidden.

The only way I can hunt cougar is with hounds. Their "Bushcraft" is better than mine, and I've seen a total of three in my whole life. But I do not believe that a cougar is smarter than me.......if that were the case he would train hounds to scent track me!

[Guest]

There's nothing magical about being elusive. Do I need to find the link about the tens of thousands of gorillas that were recently discovered though indirect measure of their impact on their habitat? Or wildlife researchers who never see their target species? Not ever. Or the simple Vietnamese ox that we have exactly one picture of? Anything can be elusive. I don't see that's a sign of human intelligence. 

 

This may be the most pointless of debates (second only to anything about the PGF). It's not that I have no respect for those with differing opinions, it's that we have all seemingly come to diametrically opposite points of view after reviewing the same evidence and having similar experiences. I, of course, think anyone who wants to ascribe human traits to these animals is demonstrating fundamentally flawed logic. Nothing they can say will sway me or my associates because we believe what we believe based on our interpretation of what seems to be perfectly obvious evidence. The same could be said for those on the other side. 

 

Suffice it to say the NAWAC will continue along its current course of action until such time that we can stop because a specimen has been collected elsewhere or we collect one or something else happens during the course of our research to make us reconsider our assessment of the facts at hand. If you really think they're human and that killing one would be murder, go get your proof now. Absent that, we will carry on.

Edited May 20, 2014 by bipto

[clubbedfoot]

^^^ but how many things can be elusive when they are stalking you out of the woods?

[southernyahoo]

There's nothing magical about being elusive. Do I need to find the link about the tens of thousands of gorillas that were recently discovered though indirect measure of their impact on their habitat? Or wildlife researchers who never see their target species? Not ever. Or the simple Vietnamese ox that we have exactly one picture of? Anything can be elusive. I don't see that's a sign of human intelligence. 

 

This may be the most pointless of debates (second only to anything about the PGF). It's not that I have no respect for those with differing opinions, it's that we have all seemingly come to diametrically opposite points of view after reviewing the same evidence and having similar experiences. I, of course, think anyone who wants to ascribe human traits to these animals is demonstrating fundamentally flawed logic. Nothing they can say will sway me or my associates because we believe what we believe based on our interpretation of what seems to be perfectly obvious evidence. The same could be said for those on the other side. 

 

Suffice it to say the NAWAC will continue along its current course of action until such time that we can stop because a specimen has been collected elsewhere or we collect one or something else happens during the course of our research to make us reconsider our assessment of the facts at hand. If you really think they're human and that killing one would be murder, go get your proof now. Absent that, we will carry on.

 

 

I'd say that if the apes are hammering the cabin with with rocks and then dash away before you can get outside to even see them then this is more like a prank that human teenagers will play than the more instinctual territorial display of other apes. This is just one example from your own accounts where the correlation of behavior is equally aligned with human behavior.  It's not flawed logic, because the behavior in your own accounts demonstrates their intent to stay out of sight most of the time and foil your ability to lock onto them. I also know of no other accounts of apes that will pretend to be a log on the ground as a stealth tactic. 

[Guest]

100% parallel with other ape activities, especially chimps. If anything, it argues against human levels of intelligence since a human would have figured out we represent a threat (since one of them may have been shot by us and others of them have been shot at since then). A human would hunker down or bug out to avoid the threat or they'd up their game and use their superior physical abilities to remove the threat, not continue the same old same old rocks chucking only to run off like teenagers after. That doesn't sound smart. It sounds like instinctive behavior. Also, there are many animals (including the vastly intelligent rabbit and juvenile deer) who will lay still as a means of evading threats. Nothing human-like there *at all*. 

 

Whatever. This is another example of one side drawing logical conclusions from the same set of basic facts that are opposite of what the other side conclude. As I said above, this is a pointless debate. You're not going to sway me and I'm not going to sway you.

 

As I said, if anyone reading these words wants to keep us from pursuing our objective, you should prove the animal is real. 

[JDL]

I caught one once in the open Northwest of Pyramid Lake.  I was standing still on a knoll just below a small ridge behind me as it crested another parallel small ridge a short distance in front of me.  It was in full stride in the middle of a sunny afternoon in the middle of nowhere, and the last thing it was expecting was to run into people, otherwise it wouldn't have been walking along in the open like it was.  A few seconds after it appeared, my brother walked up to the top of the knoll from behind me, the bigfoot saw his movement, turned its head and saw us both.  It had a clearly startled expression which it quickly suppressed.

 

It didn't immediately jackrabbit away.  It turned its head back forward and accelerated its stride perhaps 20% for a step or two.  It was clearly searching for a hide position.  I'd already noticed that directly in its path there was an eroded cut down the side of the ridge he was on.  The cut was narrow enough that he could step over it easily, and I couldn't tell from my angle whether or not it was deep enough to conceal him.  He saw it and decided to use it almost immediately.  You could tell because after the two slightly accelerated strides he slowed to his previous pace and continued in a direct line which would take him over the cut.  He didn't dash for it or dive into it.  He simply continued to walk as if he'd never seen us, and did not look back at us again.  I expected him to walk up to the cut and get into it, but as he neared the cut, he did not vary his stride at all, and for a second I thought that he was not going to use it, but simply step over it and keep on going in a straight line.  Then, as he was stepping over it, he did not place his forward foot on the opposite side.  He just lifted his back foot, and then dropped into the cut, allowing his body to go limp and fold into it as he did so.  A few seconds later we could see him peeking at us from the cut, with just the top of his head and eyes visible.

 

In this short bit of time I observed the following sequence of behaviors:

1.  Total relaxed travel unaware of my presence.

2.  Startlement upon noticing myself and my brother.

3.  Suppression of its facial expression to appear unconcerned.

4.  A decision not to run to its left back over the crest of the ridge it had just crossed.

5.  A decision instead to look for a covered position along its path of travel.

6.  A slight acceleration of its pace for two strides as it searched for cover.

7.  Identification of cover in the form of the eroded cut to its front.

8.  Immediate slowing to its original pace.

9.  A decision, apparently, to act as if it were unconcerned with our presence.

10.  An attempt to make us think that it was not going to use the eroded cut, but simply keep walking away.

11.  Three intentional acts of deception in 3, 9, and 10 above.

 

It didn't simply behave in an elusive manner.  It attempted to manage our perception regarding how it felt and regarding what it had decided to do, and what it was about to do.

Edited May 21, 2014 by JDL

[Guest]

That's a fascinating account filled with rich behavioral details. Sounds like Patty in many ways. We've had animals act not too dissimilarly to the one you observed while others bolt and fly like the wind. I assume different animals react differently based on things like their rank in the social group or their relative opinion of their own bad-assness (or something else entirely). 

 

I've mentioned him before, but the account of an orangutan who deceived his keepers is remarkable. If you have the time, this is a great telling of the story. 

Edited May 21, 2014 by bipto

[salubrious]

A animal running is an animal at risk. Many animals will amble off upon discovery.

[southernyahoo]

100% parallel with other ape activities, especially chimps. If anything, it argues against human levels of intelligence since a human would have figured out we represent a threat (since one of them may have been shot by us and others of them have been shot at since then). A human would hunker down or bug out to avoid the threat or they'd up their game and use their superior physical abilities to remove the threat, not continue the same old same old rocks chucking only to run off like teenagers after.

 

Read those two bolded again....

 

 their relative opinion of their own bad-assness (or something else entirely). 

 

 

So they are arrogant then?  Teenager pranks are done with this same notion they won't get caught, and I suspect this is what led to the idea of the overwatch tent hiding the armed marksman. Does this really sound like you are just dealing with an animal when you are forced to these measures?

 

Not trying to convince you of anything Bip, just letting look at this through my eye's , so you can understand me better.

[Cotter]

^My dog does those things.

[Guest]

Read those two bolded again....

 

Hunker down in that they'd stop making their presence clear or bug out in that they'd leave the area and not return until the threat was gone. Strategically, not tactically. Their strategy is flat and without any sense of logic or consideration. Their tactics change hardly at all over time. 

Does this really sound like you are just dealing with an animal when you are forced to these measures?

 

Yes. I'd explain to you why we feel that but I've already done it about a hundred times. 

Edited May 21, 2014 by bipto

[southernyahoo]

Hunker down in that they'd stop making their presence clear or bug out in that they'd leave the area and not return until the threat was gone.

 

It would seem that you know that they perceive threat when you are able to see them.  That's why the overwatch tent is necessary because they can't see you and know you are looking at them. What other reason is there to hide in a tent? The point being if they can't see you then you can't see them and the threat IS gone in their minds.

 

Isn't this why it is employed?

 

Strategically, not tactically. Their strategy is flat and without any sense of logic or consideration. Their tactics change hardly at all over time. 

 

 

 

No point in changing what works for them.....Usually.  They probably count on our natural and involuntary reactions to the things they do. 

Edited May 21, 2014 by southernyahoo

[Guest DWA]

I'd say that if the apes are hammering the cabin with with rocks and then dash away before you can get outside to even see them then this is more like a prank that human teenagers will play than the more instinctual territorial display of other apes. This is just one example from your own accounts where the correlation of behavior is equally aligned with human behavior.  It's not flawed logic, because the behavior in your own accounts demonstrates their intent to stay out of sight most of the time and foil your ability to lock onto them. 

l'm just not seeing this.  for one thing it doesn't give animals enough credit; for another..well, you know, it isn't taxonomy.