The Echo Incident

[Incorrigible1]

We can trust that the recording is an actual recording of an actual Sasquatch vocalization.

Belief.

 

 

 

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.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Incorrigible1

[LeafTalker]

So you're saying you think Bipto's recording is not authentic?

[Incorrigible1]

I'm saying you believe it is.

[LeafTalker]

I do believe the NAWAC recording is what it is represented to be. 

 

You apparently think I'm incorrect to believe that the recording is as it is represented to be (a recording of Sasquatch vocalizations).

 

So you apparently have doubts about the authenticity of the recording. 

 

I'm so sorry. Perhaps Bipto can clear up those doubts for you. 

[Incorrigible1]

Bipto, do you believe me incorrect to take your recordings with a grain of salt?

[ohiobill]

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.

Of course it has to do with belief and logic. Regardless of your degree of belief in the subject logic allows for the possibility of hoaxing - intentional or not. I remember many on this forum who have been dupes for Toejam and Dyer. Do YOU remember how easily so many were taken in? While the NAWAC has a good reputation in Sassy circles logic certainly allows for the possibility that ANY time there is ANY possibility that ANYONE can benefit financially from a hoax it has to be considered along with all the other subjective aspects like witness character, what was going on at the time, etc. 

 

I often see posts stating how certain the poster is that sighting x happened exactly as described or that researcher y isn't making a mistake. But when you read through some people's posts it's amazing how often they've been wrong in who to trust and how often the tale(s) they so voraciously defend turn out to be hoaxes. 

[norseman]

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.

I try to be civil!

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you want us to make an exception when there are none. We know the hand axe is well over a million years old, but only recently discovered that Neanderthals like us had a hyoid bone and were capable of speech. Before that we thought only Homo sapiens were capable of speech....

http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/did-australopithecus-make-stone-tools/

If that article is true? And australopethicus made stone tools? And Sasquatch is incapable of doing so? How do they fit in all of this?

Boiled down to brass tacks from what we know about the fossil record? Speech came much later than fire and stone tools. If Sasquatch is apart of the genus homo? Then you have to explain how they are capable of speech but not million year old homo traits and skills........

It's true that other animals can cooperate without speech, bees use pheromones and body language. But the bigger point you are missing is if Sasquatch is capable of speech and is human??? Where is the fruits of that manifesting itself? We can go to the Congo or the amazon and observe primitive humans. And what we observe is that they make tools and fire, live in villages and sing, dance, make art and do human things. We see none of this with Sasquatch? Why is that ?

Big or small ? species in the genus homo made tools, in my opinion if you don't make tools your not human, your something else.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kdqYqhhTUEQ/TSoKDolqq-I/AAAAAAAAAxU/PDt9zkxdg1Y/s1600/Homosapian.jpg

[LeafTalker]

You ask how Sasquatch humanity manifests itself, thinking it has to manifest the way you think it has to.

 

I don't think it does. 

 

If a Sasquatch person can speak a language, but does not paint oil paintings, and you believe that each of those things is an attribute that belongs to humans only, then you will have to revise your definition of "human".  

 

When your theories can no longer accommodate what is, you have to revise your theories. 

 

The other point to be made is that Sasquatch DO do all those things you say they don't. They make tools and fire, live in communities, sing and dance, and make art. 

 

WesT made a brilliant study of a Sasquatch blind, from which study he concluded that Sasquatch use spears to hunt deer. Not always. Just sometimes. 

 

Other people have heard Sasquatch singing. 

 

Others have witnessed Sasquatch building and tending fires. 

 

Others have been gifted with Sasquatch art. 

 

And on and on and on. 

 

It's fine if you don't believe any of this. I do. I have enough experience of my own to know that none of this is impossible.

 

Again, I sooooo appreciate your civility. Have I mentioned how important I think that is? (I think it is very, very, very important.) 

 

And I also appreciate that you say, "in my opinion if you don't make tools you're not human". 

 

I guess I would say, in my opinion, if you have language, you are a human. Not that labels matter. The Sasquatch people are who they are, whatever we decide to call them. What's sad is that we seem to think we can accord them less respect if we don't classify them as human.

[dmaker]

Leaftalker, has there ever been any claims about sasquatch evidence or alleged observed behavior that you have not believed? I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic, but I cannot think of a single example.

[norseman]

If Sasquatch is as leaf talker believes them to be?

They would be on reservations running casinos right now.

In essence he basically described a Native American tribe, and we are to believe they are out there now living in villages, starting fires, hunting with spears, singing and dancing?????

Iam trying to be civil but what he proposes is ludicrous.

[Guest zenmonkey]

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.

Agreed. I have a big problem with the word belief. but hey to each his own.

[LeafTalker]

If Sasquatch is as leaf talker believes them to be?

They would be on reservations running casinos right now.

In essence he basically described a Native American tribe, and we are to believe they are out there now living in villages, starting fires, hunting with spears, singing and dancing?????

Iam trying to be civil but what he proposes is ludicrous.

 

It is interesting that you have been unable to remain civil in a conversation that you started. Oh, and a conversation in which the other party was never uncivil to you. 

 

But I think I understand your difficulty. It stems from the fact that you tried to launch into a discussion of theories, as if they mattered more than the actual evidence. 

 

I think you have it backward. Evidence first; theory next. And when new evidence surfaces that does not support the theory you have created (or that someone else has created for you), you don't throw out the evidence; you change the theory.  

 

So what we should be doing is looking at the evidence, and deciding what we think about it. 

 

I hear spoken words -- language -- in the audio clip for which southernyahoo recently posted a link.

 

What do you hear in that audio clip, Norseman? others? 

[norseman]

The only evidence that matters?????? Is a specimen!

And the NAWAC would agree!

The only person that is creating wild theories in their head???? Is you! That recording could be uncle bob in bushes........how knows?

Until you provide real tangible evidence? I'll stick with the fossil record.......thanks! 0.o

[LeafTalker]

Thanks for playing, norseman. 

 

Anybody else want to comment on what they hear in the recording?

[norseman]

Iam not playing, Iam trying to keep you from sliding down the rabbit hole.

Have you ever read old accounts of Sasquatch? Like the mountain man that observed the Sasquatch playing in his fire? How about the ostman account? What do we see in the PGF? Clothing? Tools? Jewelry? Headdress?

It's true Indians saw them as wild men. But by what definition? If they had access to see gorillas? What would they have called them.

Ignoring the fossil record and science and just sticking with anecdotal accounts I still say you have a very long way to convincing anyone that we are dealing with some sort of Neolithic human with all of the said trappings of that technology.

If they cooked on fires and lived in

Villages we would have found them long ago.

A nocturnal rare shy ape that eats food raw and sleeps under a log? Not as much.