The Echo Incident

[Guest DWA]

southernyahoo:  that avatar looks humanlike.  Doesn't mean it's human.  If seeing that face causes you to put the gun down - as it has for more than one hunter - all I can say to you is, yep, might do the same for me.  Doesn't mean I did it because that is Homo sapiens.  And given all the reasons we kill one another, not to shoot something because it's human, well, gotta say, that's not the reason I don't shoot.  (Being arrested for murder aside, now.)

 

There is no tail reported on any ape.  So?  Tails don't enter into my calculus either.  If bipto met me on the street, we started talking and I looked down and, um, dude had a tail, I'm not suddenly switching gears to we need a specimen of this thing.

 

Again, this "human/not human" cag keeps us from getting to the real reasons I would never kill one - but can't help rooting for knowledge.

 

(Never mind keeping serious scientists miles away from this topic, which, count on it, it does.)

[Guest]

Should you actually put down a nine-foot Grumpy, would this site be among the first to hear of such an advance in science, or among the last? (along with the rest of the media sites).

 

We definitely would not say "we got one, stay tuned." Our plan is to document the specimen as well as possible along with experts in several fields then announce. We definitely won't play any games about it or be coy or post cryptic videos to YouTube or any of that nonsense. When we say it, we plan on saying it all at once to everyone. 

If bipto met me on the street, we started talking and I looked down and, um, dude had a tail, I'm not suddenly switching gears to we need a specimen of this thing.

 

Man, I would love a prehensile tail. How cool would that be? 

[the parkie]

That being said, as I mentioned in the other thread, we've started previous operations earlier in the year than now and later in the year than now so it wouldn't be an absurd assumption for someone to think we're getting close to this year's ops. Similarly, if I were to stop posting here unannounced for ten days or so starting, oh, I don't know, day after tomorrow, the casual observer would be free to draw from that absence whatever they want. Maybe I'm going to Disneyland. Never know.

What with all the historical back and forth over on the other thread re possible hoaxing / legality / illegality of NAWAC's operations, I hope there is no horrible mix up over the next ten days or so. I would hate to see one of your group face prosecution over the shooting of an eight foot Mickey Mouse.

[Guest DWA]

We definitely would not say "we got one, stay tuned." Our plan is to document the specimen as well as possible along with experts in several fields then announce. We definitely won't play any games about it or be coy or post cryptic videos to YouTube or any of that nonsense. When we say it, we plan on saying it all at once to everyone. 

 

Believe it or not, gang, that's how scientists do it, every time.  You know you aren't getting the real goods if you get anything else.

 

Man, I would love a prehensile tail. How cool would that be? 

 

Not only that but I would promise not to sacrifice you for scientific advance.  Cool.Or.What.

[southernyahoo]

southernyahoo:  that avatar looks humanlike.  Doesn't mean it's human.  If seeing that face causes you to put the gun down - as it has for more than one hunter - all I can say to you is, yep, might do the same for me.  Doesn't mean I did it because that is Homo sapiens.  And given all the reasons we kill one another, not to shoot something because it's human, well, gotta say, that's not the reason I don't shoot.  (Being arrested for murder aside, now.)

 

There is no tail reported on any ape.  So?  Tails don't enter into my calculus either.  If bipto met me on the street, we started talking and I looked down and, um, dude had a tail, I'm not suddenly switching gears to we need a specimen of this thing.

 

Again, this "human/not human" cag keeps us from getting to the real reasons I would never kill one - but can't help rooting for knowledge.

 

(Never mind keeping serious scientists miles away from this topic, which, count on it, it does.)

 

I think scientists recognize what I do in the evidence, and it is why most of them are very cautious about proferring the need for a body publicly where Sasquatch is concerned. I could give many reasons why I think they are in the genus homo, but that would involve reviewing just about all the evidence there is on the subject. The earmaks are everywhere, from the humanliike tracks, the Human specific sounds,  the DNA, bipedality etc etc.. Sooner or later the dream of an unknown ape with a new classification in primates will fade out and we'll be back to calling them wildmen. JMHO

 

Yes the die hard ape camp will press on and if they succeed in taking a specimen we'll no for sure, but I'm not counting on ever seeing the specimen once science looks at it.

[Guest DWA]

I think scientists recognize what I do in the evidence, and it is why most of them are very cautious about proferring the need for a body publicly where Sasquatch is concerned. I could give many reasons why I think they are in the genus homo, but that would involve reviewing just about all the evidence there is on the subject. The earmaks are everywhere, from the humanliike tracks, the Human specific sounds,  the DNA, bipedality etc etc.. Sooner or later the dream of an unknown ape with a new classification in primates will fade out and we'll be back to calling them wildmen. JMHO

 

Yes the die hard ape camp will press on and if they succeed in taking a specimen we'll no for sure, but I'm not counting on ever seeing the specimen once science looks at it.

 

Those are subjective suppositions, not shared by any serious scientific proponent, unless you have some I'm not aware of (and sorry, based on so far I just can't take Ketchum seriously).

 

1.  Humanlike tracks; but distinct from human in subtle but concrete and consistent ways (the midtarsal break being only one).

2.  Sounds?  They are if anything the most non-human thing about it.  Samurai chatter?  Shoot.  Parrots can speak English.

3.  DNA?  Um, sorry, you gotta connect that DNA to an animal, not a hair or a steak, or we gotta go with "contaminated samples" (which given the rest of the circus surrounding Ketchum surprises few if anybody).

4.  Bipedality?  Birds are bipedal.  Lots of dinosaurs were bipedal.

 

I also don't think scientists have been cautious at all.  "Show me a body" is the chorus.  Even if they were that doesn't indicate anything but the usual reasons it pays for scientists to be cautious short of proof.

 

I need to point out here that this is plain old scientific open mind.  I am prepared for anything the taxonomists say.  It's just that evidence so far doesn't point to "human."  The overwhelming reaction of witnesses - there are exceptions, and apparent reasons for that - is "that wasn't a human I saw."

Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I could give many reasons why I think they are in the genus homo, but that would involve reviewing just about all the evidence there is on the subject. 

 

I would encourage you to do this. In my opinion, those who argue for bigfoot humanness do it from the wrong direction. They cherry-pick individual behavioral traits or morphological similarities and draw straight lines to Homo. That's literally anthropomorphizing. The very definition of the the word and, obviously, I think a fundamentally flawed process. I take the opposite approach. I start with those things that make humans human. What sets us apart from other life and makes killing one of our own murder but killing any other living thing on the planet not. If you take that path, I don't see how you can deduce that wood apes are anything approaching human. Close, sure. At least as close as other great apes or some marine mammals, but even that is very, very far away. 

 

For example, you said...

 

The earmaks are everywhere, from the humanliike tracks, the Human specific sounds,  the DNA, bipedality etc etc.. 

 

Tracks and bipedalism are not enough to make a human. The shape of their foot is superficially like ours, but the track evidence suggests the morphology is quite different. Not unlike past bipedal primates, but not like us. Their use of bipedalism is also not unique to humans. Other apes will situationally walk on two legs and wood apes, based on observation and reported behavior, are not exclusively bipedal as we are. The sounds they make, too, are not like the sounds we make. You can find an expert I'm sure who will talk about syntax and language, but for a hypothesis to be validated and become a theory, it needs to be proven more than once. The science behind wood ape language just isn't there. No reputable DNA analysis has yet been conducted. Not once.

 

At the end of all that, you have a bushel of circumstantial evidence that's not nearly close enough to "human." You ignore all the huge circumstantial differences. Their overall physical shape is nothing like ours (once you get past the primate prereqs of arms, legs, head on shoulders, etc.). They are massively larger than us. Larger than any known close relative to Homo that might also fall under the "human" camp (like Neanderthal). They are covered in hair that, in at least some parts of their body, can be quite dense. They appear to have no neck or a very different one than we do. The proportions of their limbs is very different than ours and much closer to that of apes and monkeys. Basically, for each circumstantial element you pick out, I can pick out two more that go the other way.

 

I think what makes us human is a combination of things that don't show up in a photograph or film of typical wood ape encounters. They need to be shown to do what we're doing right now: Discussing abstract concepts. They need to demonstrate what Neanderthal did: culture, art, religion. They need to manufacture tools, not just poke things with sticks or bang stuff with a rock. They need some kind of technology. They need to be able to pass down knowledge with language. They need to be shown to have the ability to work against their instinct. They need to be able to exist simultaneously in multiple social structures like we do (family, job, military, religious congregation, etc.). They need to show that they can modify their environment to suit their needs. These are things that all human cultures have done, to one degree or another. Even our close relatives (again, Neanderthal, Homo floresiensis, etc.) have done many of them. None of these behaviors have been found with regard to wood apes. 

 

In short, there is no preponderance of evidence that suggest these animals have any of the attributes commonly associated with human development. 

 

So that's my list of what makes humans human. What's yours? And in what way are they found in wood apes? 

[Guest DWA]

^^^bing.  Pretty much.  That.  And this especially:

 

 

I think what makes us human is a combination of things that don't show up in a photograph or film of typical wood ape encounters. They need to be shown to do what we're doing right now: Discussing abstract concepts. They need to demonstrate what Neanderthal did: culture, art, religion. They need to manufacture tools, not just poke things with sticks or bang stuff with a rock. They need some kind of technology. They need to be able to pass down knowledge with language. They need to be shown to have the ability to work against their instinct. They need to be able to exist simultaneously in multiple social structures like we do (family, job, military, religious congregation, etc.). They need to show that they can modify their environment to suit their needs. These are things that all human cultures have done, to one degree or another. Even our close relatives (again, Neanderthal, Homo floresiensis, etc.) have done many of them. None of these behaviors have been found with regard to wood apes. 

 

 

The reasons I will never, personally, kill one have nothing to do with anywhere this goes on the primate family tree.  They're the same reasons I'd never, personally, kill a dolphin, a gorilla...or a deer.  Or a duck.

 

When we start slicing it to "I can kill this, no problem, but never ever this" and start citing "higher" as our reasoning, I think we're forgetting what higher actually means.

Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA

[southernyahoo]

Those are subjective suppositions, not shared by any serious scientific proponent, unless you have some I'm not aware of (and sorry, based on so far I just can't take Ketchum seriously).

 

1.  Humanlike tracks; but distinct from human in subtle but concrete and consistent ways (the midtarsal break being only one).

2.  Sounds?  They are if anything the most non-human thing about it.  Samurai chatter?  Shoot.  Parrots can speak English.

3.  DNA?  Um, sorry, you gotta connect that DNA to an animal, not a hair or a steak, or we gotta go with "contaminated samples" (which given the rest of the circus surrounding Ketchum surprises few if anybody).

4.  Bipedality?  Birds are bipedal.  Lots of dinosaurs were bipedal.

 

I also don't think scientists have been cautious at all.  "Show me a body" is the chorus.  Even if they were that doesn't indicate anything but the usual reasons it pays for scientists to be cautious short of proof.

 

I need to point out here that this is plain old scientific open mind.  I am prepared for anything the taxonomists say.  It's just that evidence so far doesn't point to "human."  The overwhelming reaction of witnesses - there are exceptions, and apparent reasons for that - is "that wasn't a human I saw."

 

We're headed for a serious side track here DWA but among apes......

 

1. There are no apes that make tracks like humans that aren't in the homo line.

2. Any ape that produces the articulations and production of quantal vowels found in the sierra sounds samuri chatter would seriously be considered human.

3. There is no unknown ape DNA eminating from the purported/suspected BF samples (human is the only ape result)

4. Genus homo is the only ape that walks bipedally as it's primary mode on flat ground.

 

Science would definately look at that evidence and conclude that there is a problem in just going after a specimen.

 

It is simply a dream and a hope that science would make a new classification of ape (that isn't homo, yet with these so similar traits) for the sake of acceptance, recognition and conservation. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^Actually the problem is that scientists don't accept any of those things 1-4.  Bipto nailed it.  Me too, but his was better.

 

Anthropomorphizing isn't science.  Just way it is.

[Guest]

We're headed for a serious side track here ...

 

I don't think so. It's the kernel of 75% of the comments made regarding the work of the NAWAC.

 

1. There are no apes that make tracks like humans that aren't in the homo line.

 

No known apes. There's a lot of variety in the shapes of primate feet.

 

2. Any ape that produces the articulations and production of quantal vowels found in the sierra sounds samuri chatter would seriously be considered human.

 

Why? Says who?

 

3. There is no unknown ape DNA eminating from the purported/suspected BF samples (human is the only ape result)

 

Which is much more easily explained by no actual DNA from a wood ape having been studied so far or that no uncontaminated sample has been produced. 

 

4. Genus homo is the only ape that walks bipedally as it's primary mode on flat ground.

 

Known ape. Each ape will evolve according to its environment. 

 

Science would definately look at that evidence and conclude that there is a problem in just going after a specimen.

 

Who is this "Science" person? You speak as though this has been settled by "science." I see no evidence of that. Science wants a specimen when discussing the classification of new species. 

 

You've answered my question with the same set of circumstantial cherry-picked aspects and have addressed none of my rebuttals.

[Guest DWA]

And we're in big-time smh territory when people start taking "none we know of" and writing it "none, ever, no way, and ever will be."

 

Um, pardon, m'sieu...?  We're talking about one we don't "know" right here and now, an ape that breaks many ape conventions.  Just like, you know, orangutans and gibbons do.

Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

The reasons I will never, personally, kill one have nothing to do with anywhere this goes on the primate family tree.  They're the same reasons I'd never, personally, kill a dolphin, a gorilla...or a deer.  Or a duck.

 

I don't disagree. I am not the kind of person who would kill an animal for sport or who would even want to kill one for my food. But I would if I had to or if it served the greater good by feeding my family. In this case, my personal aversion to killing animals is outweighed by the greater good served by establishing this animal. That, of course, is a personal ethical choice. 

 

When we start slicing it to "I can kill this, no problem, but never ever this" and start citing "higher" as our reasoning, I think we're forgetting what higher actually means.

 

This is a debate above my pay grade. 

[southernyahoo]

Do you know what a quantal vowel is Bipto? I want you to listen for them next week, but do ignore the owls.

 

Just so you know Bipto, some scientists don't think Neanderthals could make them. Are they silly?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3339812/Neanderthals-speak-for-first-time-in-50000-years.html

 

Tracks and bipedalism are not enough to make a human

 

.

You are really going to have to tell these people about it Bip!

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060803-footprint.html

 

You arguing culture, behavior and accomplishments Bip. With a specimen, think biology only. What will make them not a human? I think you are hoping for a different chromosome count or number of vereibrae in the neck or something, because Patty with all her differences hasn't shown us enough and walks too much like a member of homo.

Edited May 22, 2014 by southernyahoo

[Guest DWA]

I'd never tell you that my refusal to do it personally combined with the guilty pleasure of knowing for sure if someone else does it - and who knows, risks scarring himself for life emotionally by so doing - doesn't make me something really vile.  Looking for a word.  Human.  Got it. 

 

And I eat lobster and crabs, have partaken from goose and venison to buffalo and rattlesnake and emu and alligator, yum yum...which makes the debate above my qualifications as well.  Sometimes we just have to admit to being ....um, that word again.

Edited May 22, 2014 by DWA