The Echo Incident

[Guest Stan Norton]

Zen you are correct. I'm as much to blame as any but it had started to head into weirdsville already.

[southernyahoo]

I think everyone pretty much knows my position, but for the record I don't buy for a second the things speak, let alone are masters of multiple human languages.   What I have heard for myself was purely animal and was sounds, not articulated language even though it clearly was communicating anger/threat.  But then again I've heard and/or seen any number of animal species threat displays that were not a spoken language.  But be that what it may...

 

This thread is just another old chapter of the usual BF circular argument book.  The bottom line is a dead monkee in the back of someone's truck is unequivocal, not even the most dedicated of the "they-are- super-human-gian- forest-people" camp dwellers can contest that.  The same dead monkee delivered to a major college's biology department with as much press coverage as possible would very quickly answer the question "are they capable of spoken complex language in the same manner as humans"...

 

A dead one surely wouldn't speak, but the anatomy would tell us something. The problem is when science decides what it is and what to do with it, if it's determined to be human. The public might react to it similarly to what you see here , either throw everyone involved under the bus or accept some hideous being or monster lives in the wild, which they might rather it not exist at all. 

[Guest zenmonkey]

A dead one surely wouldn't speak, but the anatomy would tell us something. The problem is when science decides what it is and what to do with it, if it's determined to be human. The public might react to it similarly to what you see here , either throw everyone involved under the bus or accept some hideous being or monster lives in the wild, which they might rather it not exist at all

The only way it can be determined to be human is if Rick Dyer has stepped up his game to be inside the suit that is shot....shame eh? and yes stan once I log on i realize i am headed into weirdsville

[southernyahoo]

 

 

But what's our evidence that sasquatch speak?  What you heard in a recording?

 

Without any video , what you hear in a recording is all you'll have for evidence.

 

So here it is with some high frequency filtering to dampen insects and some dead time excised.

 

Be it a bigfoot or not, the voice and articulation is evident along with a couple repeated syllables or words. The last of which sounds like "back away"

 

NAWAC back away.wav 

[Guest]

Without any video , what you hear in a recording is all you'll have for evidence.

 

So here it is with some high frequency filtering to dampen insects and some dead time excised.

 

Be it a bigfoot or not, the voice and articulation is evident along with a couple repeated syllables or words. The last of which sounds like "back away"

 

NAWAC back away.wav

To my ear, the wood ape has a British accent.

[Guest Stan Norton]

If so then it must have said 'back off innit or I is gonna shank you'.

[LeafTalker]

Thanks, southernyahoo. Those are definitely words. Obvious speech. 

 

I can't get my mind around the fact that this was recorded by someone who insists BF doesn't have language.

 

How very interesting.

[southernyahoo]

It is interesting when people come to different conclusions on evidence that we should be quite good at deciphering.

[Incorrigible1]

Belief is evidently a powerful supplementation of logic filters.

[LeafTalker]

Inc1, you hear with something called a "logic filter" stuck on your head?

 

That must be the problem!

 

I just use my ears. 

 

And I agree, southernyahoo. That evidence is completely not contestable. And yet, people contest it. 

 

Fascinating. 

Edited May 26, 2014 by LeafTalker

[Incorrigible1]

'Tis true, I don't believe bigfoot cross corporeal boundaries. I believe they're flesh and blood. I don't believe any creature, human or not, is capable of reading my mind/intentions. I don't believe any creature can exceed known boundaries of time and space. I don't believe in cat-fights occurring unseen but heard. I don't believe in bigfoot causing one to hear crashing trees nearby.

 

Problem? I think not. Logic is not a four-letter word. Try it, for a change.

[LeafTalker]

I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings, Inc1, but I have no interest in your beliefs. They have no bearing on the topic at hand.

 

I'm only interested in the fact that you can listen to a recording, and not hear it. 

[Incorrigible1]

No offense taken. On occasion, one's belief compels one into shading logic filters. Belief is a pre-judgement of facts.

 

Not approaching any issue with pre-existing belief is conducive to logical thinking.

 

There's belief, and there's logic. Sometimes the two are at odds.

[LeafTalker]

What you seem not to understand is that a discussion of evidence has nothing to do with either belief OR logic. 

 

Evidence is something that can be seen, touched, smelled, or heard. 

 

Studying evidence requires the use of your sensory apparatus, not your "logic". 

 

If your "logic" is overriding the testimony of your senses -- to the point where your "logic" says that an audio recorder that is playing back sounds is not actually playing those sounds -- then something is very wrong.

 

What's funny is, this particular piece of audio that southernyahoo has reminded us about was recorded by the NAWAC team, which consists of honorable people who most here generally seem to feel would never stoop to falsifying evidence.

 

So the character of the people who made this recording is not in question. We can trust that the recording is an actual recording of an actual Sasquatch vocalization. We don't need some kind of accounting of who was where when, and what the intentions of the recordist were, and on and on and on.

 

It's simply a matter, then, of listening to the recording and noting what is in it. 

 

Why are you unable to do that? What is preventing you from listening to the recording and noticing what is in it? 

 

It's obvious that there is speech in that recording.

 

Can you not hear it? 

[LeafTalker]

If Sasquatch speaks? It's got to be human! Then where are the fruits of that?

Remember, the hand axe is older than speech as we know it is. In fact it was probably this need for organization and cooperation that built language as we know it. As our creations became more complex? So did our language.....not the other way around.

I'm sorry, norseman. I didn't mean to ignore your post. I sooooo appreciate the reasonable way in which said what you wanted to say. I do think, however, that there are some errors in it. I'm no expert on how or why language developed, but I do not think the need for organization and cooperation "built" language. Honey bees cooperate very, very well without spoken language. 

 

And just because one group of humans needed to make hand axes does not mean another did. Have you not seen the elaborate stick structures that everyone so observantly points out were constructed of branches that were not cut by a tool of any kind? Why would you waste time building a tool to do something you apparently don't need a tool for?

 

And there are plenty of cultures who did not hunger to create complexity in their lives. The indigenous peoples of the world kept (and still keep) their lives simple. They did not build skyscrapers in the deserts. They did not pave roads or fly to the moon. Yet, strangely, they're still human. 

 

So you and I do not think alike on any of this, but I really appreciate your even tone. 

 

That is more important, to me, than any "content". 

 

So, thank you for that.