Board member Inmyhappyplace posted a dramatic body-cam video of the rescue of the baby in Spanish Fork. First, kudos to the responding officers who responded quickly and worked very hard to enact the rescue. The footage is terrific!

Second, yes, I too can hear the voice around the 2:00 mark when the video is played at full volume (full volume on my computer and on the video itself.) I heard a woman's voice that appears to be saying "Help me." It is faint but discernible. I believe that she was saying more than that. Was there a female bystander who was talking during the rescue? Voices can get really echo-y in canyons or areas of rock formations.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A86.JyehxQdVizgA5RInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0MzkwOG5yBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwNF8x?p=rescue+baby+spanish+fork&tnr=21&vid=FC83B2F41A8D23685D5AFC83B2F41A8D23685D5A&l=706&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUR.6878793959351%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11m0qphh1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZ0XNImjrQIY&sigr=11bpjl1id&tt=b&tit=BodyCam+Shows+Dramatic+Rescue+of+%26%2339%3BBaby+Lily%26%2339%3B&sigt=11krs2re4&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DVideo%2Brescue%2Bbaby%2Bspanish%2Bfork%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13aaao9ap&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Closed thread:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1538302



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2015 06:35AM by summer.

There is a female rescuer. Watch the full extended version of the video. You can hear the female speaking with the other resuers throughout the video. No big mystery here. You indeed can hear a muffled woman's voice around the 2:00 mark. The key word here is muffled. You've been told that it is saying help me so your mind is trying to match that description to what you are hearing. This is no different than the ghost EVP recordings I've heard that usually sound like muffled random noise but those who are recording them swear it is a ghost saying a certain phrase. They rarely sound like what the recorder is claiming to have heard.

I have excellent hearing (it's been thoroughly tested, due to having a parent who had significant hearing loss at my age,) and I am hearing an adult female voice saying, "Help me." You can hear it just before the rescuer responds to the request. If the female rescuer said that, she can easily clear it up. It is not a toddler's voice, it is that of an adult female.

I hear the muffled voice at two minutes. It might have said ‘Help me’, that fits with what I hear, but it certainly isn't clear. The officer certainly calls out immediately after that as well, but that doesn't determine anything conclusively.

My hearing was also tested in the past, and I was found to have hearing many times above the human average, particularly in the higher frequency ranges. That’s why it offends me that digital music lops of the high end at 20,000 Hz and above assuming nobody hears anything higher than that. Well, I hear overtones above 20K, so thanks for assuming everyone has the same perceptions.

Anyway, I mostly wanted to keep this thread going. It’s very entertaining. I vote the voice was from a parrot eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, and that it actually said, “Einstein believed in a God!”

But I do hear a voice at 2:00 … not that it proves anything.

:)

. . . which, by definition, leaves out religon:

**SEGMENT !

Death of the Baby's Mother: Questions Asked & Hopefully Reasonably Answered

In a now-closed thread, RfM poster "inmyhappyplace" (aka, "imhp") appears to be in an ongoing and rather unhappy disagreement with me and therefore has ordered me to "give it up." Nonetheless, "imhp" keeps it up by asking me a question relating to the topic of the circumstances surrounding the death of Lynn Grosbeck, mother of Lily, the 18-month -ld baby who survived her plunge into the Spanish Fork River.

Before going there, however, I had asked "imhp" the following question regarding the claim of first responders who said they discovered baby Lily in a half-submerged car in the river after being directed to her by a human "voice":

"OK, then, where did this 'muffled human voice' come from?"

"imhp" refused to answer that question; instead unhappily replying:

"Give it up, Steve. There is a voice."

GONG. Non-answers don't count.

"imhp" has not verified that what was supposedly heard (by either "imhp" listening through a headset to the amplified soundtrack of the released rescue videotape or by the first responders) was, in demonstrated point of fact, "a voice" that directed the rescuing officers to the trapped occupants of the car. Nor has "imhp" identified the source of this supposedly direction-giving "voice." This particular "voice," the officers claimed, was emanating from "inside" the crashed car in the river. Whatever the case, some of the police officers involved in the rescue of Lily said that they "thought" or "felt" they heard was "voice." That is documented by their own words:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1538302,1538728#msg-1538728


In fact, a plausible explanation exists for both the identity and the source of that "muffled voice." RfM poster "Good grief" offers the following:

"There is a female rescuer [at the Spanish Fork River rescue scene]. Watch the full extended version of the video. You can hear the female speaking with the other rescuers throughout the video. No big mystery here. You indeed can hear a muffled woman's voice around the 2:00 mark. The key word here is 'muffled.' You've been told that it is saying 'help me,' so your mind is trying to match that description to what you are hearing. This is no different than the ghost EVP recordings I've heard that usually sound like muffled random noise, but those who are recording them swear it is a ghost saying a certain phrase. They rarely sound like what the recorder is claiming to have heard."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1539234,1539263#msg-1539263


Now, continuing, at "imhp's" request. to the next round:

"You are typically very diligent in documenting your posts. Where is your evidence that the mother died long before the rescuers arrived? Although I could have easily missed it, I haven't seen an official statement to that fact."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1538302,1539233#msg-1539233


As to how long the mother had been dead when she and the vehicle that she had been driving were discovered in the river, this seems to be a question that is relatively easy to determine logically, given the known circumstances and conditions at the time of, and involving, the accident.

Let's review what is known:

1. The car went off the bridge at 10:30 the night before (based on a "loud noise" heard in the immediate area of where the accident occurred).

2. The car (a red Dodge sedan) landed roof-down in the river.

3. The vehicle was discovered by a fisherman at about 12:20 p.m. the following day.

4. The deceased mother's body was found by first responders when they turned the vehilce on its side.

5. The deceased mother's body was still in the driver's seat and submerged below the waterline.

6. The baby was unconscious but still alive because she was dangling above the frigid waterline in her infant seat, in the back seat.

FACT CHECK: Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the mother very likely died when the car went into the water, upside down, trapping her underwater where she probably expired quickly, due to lack of oxygen (that is, if the impact of the crash itself did not kill her; or a combination of the two was responsible for her death).


7. CNN reports that, in fact, “[t]he car landed on its roof in the Spanish Fork River.”

8. CNN further reports that the car was “smashed.”

9. CNN explains how the baby (as opposed to the mother) survived the crash: "[The] car seat made the difference. Lily was in the proper car seat for her age, and the seat appears to have been properly attached. Even though the child was trapped and upside-down, her body remained in the seat and above the frigid water. Doctors say that such low temperatures are dangerous, but even more dangerous if the baby had gotten wet.”

10. In fact, as CNN reports, “the water was so cold that when the rescue was over, seven of the men involved had to be treated for hypothermia."

11. CNN reports that "they [the first responders] heaved the car onto its side and saw the mother, [Lynn] Groesbeck, in the driver's seat. It was clear to them that she was dead.” Hence, the conclusion that “Lily's mother . . . died in the crash that had landed their car on its roof in the Spanish Fork River.”

12. CNN reports that there were “no skid marks” at the scene of the accident where the car left the road; and that the car was "launched" into the river after first hitting a concrete barrier near a bridge. This could well have injured, if not killed, the mother.

FACT CHECK: Again, given the circumstances, it is logical to conclude that the mother either died instantly or soon after the car impacted, roof-down, on the bed or the river.

(Sources: “Rescue of Toddler Who Survived River Crash Caught on Video,” by Ray Sanchez, "CNN," 14 March 2015, at: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/14/us/utah-baby-submerged-car/; and “Baby Who Survived Car Crash in Utah River is getting Better,” by Ben Brumfield, "CNN," at: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/utah-baby-alive-submerged-car/)


13. The "Seattle Times," via the "Associated Press," reports that “[t]emperatures were near-freezing” and that, upon impact in the riverbed, “icy water rushed” into the car “just below [the baby's] head through the broken windows.”

14. The "Seattle Times' quotes a police officer as saying, in reference to the child, that “[s]he must have been just out of the water enough to be getting oxygen,” (The mother, one will recall, was trapped in the front seat below the waterline and, therefore, not getting oxygen).

(Source: “‘It’s heartbreaking’: Baby found dangling in overturned car in river shocks police,” by Bready McCombs, “Associated Press,” in “Seattle Times,” 10 March 2015, at: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/baby-improving-after-14-hours-in-overturned-car-in-icy-river/)


15. The “New York Daily News“ declares that the “mother drown[ed]" in a “submerged car. . . . which had been submerged in near-freezing water for 14 hours--[where the] mother lay dead in the driver’s seat,” with the car positioned “upside down” in the river.

(Source: “'Mysterious Voice' Led Utah Cops to Discover Child Who Survived for 14 Hours in Submerged Car after Mom Drowned,” by Joel Landau, “New York Daily News,” 10 March 2015, at: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mysterious-voice-leads-police-baby-car-crash-article-1.2142732)


FACT CHECK/CONCLUSION:

The physical factors surrounding the crash add up to the mother having been dead soon, if not immediately, after the the accident occurred, due to her being:

a) submerged below the river's frigid waterline;

b) in a smashed, upside-down car in the river; and

c) trapped without oxygen in the driver's seat, a condition in which her body was ultimately found in the river.

In a nutshell, the mother was found dead, the baby was found unconscious and, consequently, there was no voice found coming from within the car. The truth hurts, but if anyone believes the mother was able to (a) meaningfully move about; (b) communicate with others by yelling out locater directions; or (c) survive for any signficant length of time in those extremely hostile and, yes, deadly conditions, then that would indeed have been a “miracle.” In reality, it's a bridge too far to cross when it comes to credibility.
_____


**SEGMENT 2

The claim was expliclity made that the guiding "voice" came from inside the car.

"'The four of us heard a distinct voice coming from the car,' [Officer Jared] Warner told CNN. 'To me, it didn't sound like a child's voice.'"

"Tyler Beddoes, a third officer at the scene, said [the following to CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360']:

"All I know is that it was there, we all heard it, and that just helped us to push us harder, like I say, and do what we could to rescue anyone inside the car."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2015%2F03%2F09%2Fus%2Futah-baby-alive-submerged-car%2F&ei=R5EIVenECcmwggSs1IGQBA&usg=AFQjCNG89jK6Ix774Fy3muuiECc54LkmeQ&bvm=bv.88198703,d.eXY
_____


**SEGMENT 3

Terra firma would be a good landing point for rational discussion, since There are good reasons to seriously doubt the "hearing voices'" story.

In another thread, poster "just browsing" declared the following:

"For all the non believers in an afterlife. Comments [requested].

"LINK FROM DESERET NEWS--4 police officers heard an adult woman's voice pleading to be helped coming from a partially submerged car--Only occupants inside were a deceased woman and an unconscious 2 year old. SPOOKY !!!!

"What think you?"

("For All the Non-Believers in an Afterlife, Comments," at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1532848,1532848#msg-1532848)


As the saying goes, dead women tell no tales--but believers in non-deadism do.

All of the following are "proof" of an "afterlife," of "God," of the "supernatural"? Not so fast, folks:

"'II FELT LIKE I COULD HEAR someone telling me, "I need help,' [Officer Bryan] DeWitt told CNN affiliate KSL. 'It was very surreal, something that I felt like I could hear.'" [emphasis added]

"Tyler Beddoes, a third officer at the scene, said the same.

"'Someone said "help me" inside that car,' he said.

("Baby who survived car crash in Utah river is getting better," at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2015%2F03%2F09%2Fus%2Futah-baby-alive-submerged-car%2F&ei=xv_9VLqKKYinNoeUgKgH&usg=AFQjCNG89jK6Ix774Fy3muuiECc54LkmeQ&bvm=bv.87611401,d.eXY


"'I remember hearing a voice that didn't sound like a child just say, "Help me," one of the rescuers, Officer Jared Warner, told NBC affiliate KSL. 'TO ME, it was plain as day,' he added." [emphasis added]

("Lily Groesbeck Rescue: Utah Cops Recall Pulling Toddler From Overturned Car in River," at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnews%2Fus-news%2Futah-rescuers-recall-pulling-toddler-overturned-car-river-n319831&ei=xv_9VLqKKYinNoeUgKgH&usg=AFQjCNGvigvAVw3yJy_pB8ceeb7ilbVdVw&bvm=bv.87611401,d.eXY)


"Four Spanish Fork police officers all said they heard it.

"'We've gotten together and just talkin' about it, and all four of us can swear that we heard somebody inside the car saying, "Help,"' officer Jared Warner recalled Sunday. . . .

"Dewitt was one of the first officers to arrive. The incident was originally reported as a possible abandoned vehicle in the river. But as he got closer, he said he could see the mother inside. Three more officers arrived almost simultaneously at the river.

"'We were down on the car and a distinct voice says, "Help me, help me,"' Dewitt recalled.

"'It wasn't just something that was just in our heads. TO ME it was plain as day cause I remember hearing a voice,' officer Tyler Beddoes said. [emphasis added] 'I think it was Dewitt who said, "We're trying. We're trying our best to get in there."

"'How do you explain that? I don't know,' he said, adding that the voice didn't sound like a child."

("Rescuers Recall 'Distinct Voice' that Spurred Them to Rescue Trapped Toddler," at; http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ksl.com%2F%3Fnid%3D148%26sid%3D33747089&ei=tw3-VMnEM5PcgwTq4IKQDw&usg=AFQjCNEcswSKOgntjbIRws-eEkC6IBFd8Q&bvm=bv.87611401,d.eXY)


"The officers who rescued a Utah toddler from death’s doorstep in a submerged car on Sunday said their adrenaline-fueled heroics were triggered by a mysterious plea. . . .

"The vehicle crashed into the river around 10:30 p.m., according to a witness who told police he heard the accident. The car was not visible from the roadway, and was not discovered until 14 hours later, when a fisherman spotted it at 12:24 p.m. Saturday and called police.

"That’s when Beddoes and his partners arrived. The witness told them that he could see an arm through the window, and the four men plunged into the freezing rapids to see if they could find any survivors.

"Then, suddenly, they started hearing the distinct sound of a woman’s voice, calling to them to help.

"'We heard a voice saying "help me, WE'RE in here." [emphasis added. [NOTE: Now the voice is claimed to have been speaking for both mother and child, as opposed to just "me".] It was clear as day. We replied back 'hang in there, we're trying what we can.'

"The voice motivated them to push harder because they believed there may be someone inside who was still alive. With their adrenaline pumping they pulled the heavy, water-filled car onto its side and discovered the driver was dead.

"The officers had no explanation for the mysterious voice that appeared to come from inside the car. Beddoes said he said he wouldn’t believe it really happened JAD NOT THE OTHER OFFICERS HEARD IT AS WELL. [emphasis added]

“'I don’t know what I THOUGHT I HEARD,' he said. 'I’m not a typically religious guy. It’s hard to explain--it was definitely something. Where and why it came from, I’m not sure.'"

("'Mysterious Voice' Led Utah Officers to Child Who Survived for 14 Hours in Submerged Car," at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Fnews%2Fnational%2Fmysterious-voice-leads-police-baby-car-crash-article-1.2142732&ei=kg7-VLvcDsamggTDooAY&usg=AFQjCNEtOY5a8jodSrBJb8caoz_3eHKSSQ&bvm=bv.87611401,d.eXY)


"As four Utah police officers approached an overturned car discovered below a bridge in an icy river, they heard a woman's voice asking softly for help. . . .

"And that voice? Beddoes said he and the three officers talked later and concurred they all heard the same thing. They can't explain it, but have no doubt they heard it.

"'That's the part that really sends me for a whirl,' Beddoes said. 'I'm not really religious, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK OF.' [emphasis added] . . .

"Beddoes said the family has thanked him and the other officers for helping to save little Lily. As he recalls the events of those chaotic moments, on a frigid but sunny day, Beddoes still can't believe the girl survived--and still can't make sense of that undeniable voice coming from the car.

"'We all got together and we all heard the same type of thing,' Beddoes said. 'We just can't grasp what we were hearing.'"

("Toddler Improving After 14 Hours in Upside-Down Car in River," at: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Faponline%2F2015%2F03%2F09%2Fus%2Fap-us-car-in-river-infant-found.html&ei=TBD-VLzrNYiUNtPXgfAI&usg=AFQjCNG2EhHZv2Seclmct1X61ugZ54vWaw&bvm=bv.87611401,d.eXY)


Whoa. Take a deep breath.

Did the officers perhaps also "FEEL" they heard someone say, "help me"? Were they subliminally predisposed to "hear" a voice because another said he "FELT" he had heard a voice? Or that, as one of the officers officer stated, "TO ME," [that voice] was as plain as day"? Were the officers affected by what one responding officer said "I THOUGHT I heard"?

"Hear" we go again. A supernatural spin being put on an event that doesn't automatically or necessarily require "GOD" as the explanation.


*Critical reaction to the supposedly mystical aspect of the story:

--"I'm skeptical. People claim to see UFOs, be abducted, see heaven when they pass away, see dead relatives etc. People as witnesses often believe they correctly identify suspects in a lineup. I think human minds are really easily swayed into creating memories that may or may not be based on real events. It wouldn't surprise me if someone told her about the event and she reconstructed it in her head, and now believes she vividly remembers it."

--"That's . . . true. Either way, that's all I'm willing to go into on that one. There's not much point to trying to prove a personal story."

("Baby Found Alive 13 Hours after Car Plunges into a River in Utah"


For those willing to swallow tales of the "sacred," superstitious and sensational, the following article is recommended, "Child’s Rescue Swirls with Supernatural":

"An 18-month-old child survives a tragic car crash into a river, a crash that likely instantly killed her mother. She is rescued 14 hours later, alive, still strapped into her car seat. Rescuers then tell the media that they were prompted by an adult female voice that called “Help” from the overturned vehicle. What are we to think of this? Miracle? Guardian angel? Or misinterpretation? The dramatic story has commentators arguing about God and supernatural intervention.

"'Rescuers Claim Mystery Voice Called to Them to Save Toddler Trapped in Car That Overturned in Utah River'

"'Lily wasn’t moving when rescuers found her, hanging upside down in her mother’s smashed car. It had flipped over into a frigid Utah river half a day before, and the baby was still strapped in her seat.

"'Lily’s mother, Lynn Jennifer Groesbeck, died in the crash that had landed their car on its roof in the Spanish Fork River. She was 25 years old. . . .

"'A mystery arose from the rescue: The police officers who entered the water say they heard a voice calling for help.

"'The mother was dead, but the officers said that they heard an adult’s voice calling to them.

“'The four of us heard a distinct voice coming from the car,' Warner told CNN. 'To me, it didn’t sound like a child’s voice.'

"'The voice gave the rescuers a surge of adrenaline needed to push the vehicle upright, he said.'

A local heard the crash the night before but could not see anything strange. A fisherman spotted the vehicle. So, this was not an isolated area. Could there have been someone else around? As suggested on Group of Fort, perhaps a homeless woman was there. Or, the story notes that all the rescuers “discussed” the event. Could it be that one heard what he thought was a cry for help (but instead was an echo or other noise misperceived) and the others agreed? Or, shall we assume that after 14 hours, now was the time that God or the guardian angel chose to act? That’s confusing.

"The mysterious voice did not actually save the child since rescuers were already on the scene and checking for survivors. What saved this child was the car seat, the person who called emergency services, and the rescuers who got her out. No miracle here."


*Attached reader commentary on the above:

-"Not surprising. Religious opportunists will exploit any occasion to put a religious spin on any feel-good story. Isn’t it near Easter enough to call it an Easter Miracle?"


-"Riversides can be quite noisy, depending on what the water is interacting with as it passes by, rocks, trees, etc. And in that circumstance, the ‘cry’ could have been caused by rushing water interacting with parts of the half-submerged car. Also, the rescuers would have been trained and primed to listen for calls for help as part of their job, so perhaps they erred on the side of caution when interpreting the sound as human caused."


-"Heard this story on the 'Today Show' and, naturally, everyone had to chime in on what a ‘miracle’ it was. It seems that anytime someone escapes death or serious injury in any sort of accident it’s a ‘miracle’ to everyone working on television. Wouldn’t it be more of a miracle if everyone in the accident or tragedy walked away without injury rather than one or two? To me the 'miracle' is that some of these folks throwing the term around actually have jobs in journalism."


-"So, it was a miracle the child lived (and to be clear I’m happy the child survived)--but what about the mother who died? She didn’t deserve a miracle? Where is HER miracle? And wouldn’t the child be happier with a living mother?"


-"I was born and raised not far from where this story happened. And from my personal experience, I can say these sort of faith-promoting rumors have a long-standing tradition. Most active members of the pre-dominant religion [Mormon] are always on the lookout for divine interventions, personal revelations and anything that supports their beliefs. Almost every family has some kind of story of a relative that was saved by a vision or a voice. Chance occurrences never seem to happen--always there is some divine purpose. These stories are pretty much a dime a dozen throughout the region. My comment does not mean I think the men involved are liars. Far from it. They probably sincerely believe they were guided. Its just when you are raised to see and expect miracles, you are very likely to experience one–or assume what you see is one."

("Child’s Rescue Swirls with Supernatural Commentary," by "idoubtit," 11 March 2015, on "Doubtful News: Belief/Superstition, Paranormal, Perception, Unsolved Mystery,"at: http://doubtfulnews.com/2015/03/childs-rescue-swirls-with-supernatural-commentary/)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2015 07:34PM by steve benson.

Someone from this board was present at the filming of this paranormal video. I won't out them, but I will throw it out for people to watch. The original poster says there where no children present during the filming.

I have no opinion about it whatsoever. I'm simply posting it for people to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxq410K-MpI

Whatever may be heard by those weighing in on "evidence" is not what the officers heard. The officers state they distinctly heard a woman's voice coming from car, and they heard her saying the same thing, that was 'clear as day,' calling "Help me, we're in here." Not a dispatcher, in other words.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mysterious-voice-leads-police-baby-car-crash-article-1.2142732

. . . in the car, now, was it? (or from the unconscious baby, either).

Or do you think that her supposed disembodied immortal "spirit" was "talking" through the deceased mother's deceased vocal chords?

Or was the "voice" coming from one of those "angels" you invoked in a previous thread on this same topic?:

"I believe there could have been an angel or the spirit of the mother calling for help while her infant baby still strapped inside the submerged automobile. Some things belie logical explanation, and this is one of them."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1539265,1539544#msg-1539544


Yes, your invented-angel fairy tale defies logical, rational, sensible, empirical, natural, common-sensical, available, testable, observable, experiment able, repeatable, falsifiable, believable and (finally) respectable explanation.

To borrow from Clarence Darrow, I don't believe in angels, because I don't believe in Mother Goose. The Spanish Fork River Rescue has already been satisfactorily dealt with in terms of persuasive, available, terra firma-grounded evidence, despite your earnest desire to force it into the woo-woo category of everlasting mystery.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 07:17AM by steve benson.

I don't believe even the police officers themselves are calling it an angel, or a disembodied voice of the dead woman.

It is simply of unknown origins other than they distinctly heard her voice coming from the direction of the car that was submerged under water - and there was no one else near the car except for the four officers and the deceased mother and her infant.

There is the element of mystique that science cannot explain, nor would try to. Science isn't in the business of disproving the existence of angels or spirits anymore than it can prove their existence.

Science accepts the mysterious - that's part of what attracts men and women to the study of science. The riddles of life are more intriguing than the answers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2015 08:41PM by amyjo.

. . . or a spirit.

I suspect that you may not believe in the Holy Ghost, but you obviously believe in other body-less apparitions.

This is what religion does to some folks: It disconnects them from reality so that they can go live in their very own make-believe world of imaginary playmates.

(By the way, science does not accept the ridiculous, which is the category where you appear to be most comfortable).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 07:16AM by steve benson.

One thing is undisputed: death is certain.

Another thing that is unknown and therefore undisputed: what happens to the soul after death. That is just an area you, me, or anyone including science doesn't really understand or can quantify.

Accepting the unknown is a part of science and part of the study thereof.

That may be difficult for a journalist who also happens to be a skeptic to understand.

But it isn't for science to say it doesn't know, or presume to know whether the voice was that of a spirit [disembodied or not,] or an angel there that day.

"There are only two ways to live. One as though nothing is a miracle. The other as if everything is a miracle." (Einstein) I choose to believe in the realm of possibility that miracles exist, are all around us and sometimes right before our eyes and ears. Whether we're receptive or not to them is part of our awareness or lack of one, but doesn't negate the wondrous.

One thing is undisputed: death is certain.

Another thing that is unknown and therefore undisputed: what happens to the soul after death. That is just an area you, me, or anyone including science doesn't really understand or can quantify.

Accepting the unknown is a part of science and part of the study thereof.

That may be difficult for a journalist who also happens to be a skeptic to understand.

But it isn't for science to say it doesn't know, or presume to know whether the voice was that of a spirit [disembodied or not,] or an angel there that day.

"There are only two ways to live. One as though nothing is a miracle. The other as if everything is a miracle." (Einstein) I choose to believe in the realm of possibility that miracles exist, and sometimes right before our eyes and ears.

Besides, study of angels isn't in the scientific domain. It's astral physics. Not hard physics.

Angels flying around infiltrating space and planets isn't something we learn in astronomy or physics.

Doesn't mean they don't exist. It's just another field of study!

Like separating Liberal Arts from the Hard Sciences. There's a place and time for each and they are overarching into all other areas of life.

Learning to live and let live is an art, not a science.

. . . she had help in the temporal world from the visits of loving fairies who, with their magic wands, did her dishes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtIIinJzf1U

Neither is Tinkerbell, for that matter, even though she helps guys do their laundry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPs1IU9XO8M

Back to your imaginary playmates.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2015 09:03PM by steve benson.

It's the artful dodger in the choir of religious believers who can't back up their storied songs of glory with confirmable evidence so, like you, they create pseudo-science worlds governed by special rules that don't apply anywhere else in the universe, where their invisible angel friends reside and from whence these creatures come to Earth to direct mortals here and there as the angelic to-do list requires.

I guess that explains why you can't see God with your "natural eyes"--or why the Angel Moroni has never been available for a sit-down chat, eh?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 03:43AM by steve benson.

This isn't a discussion of fairy tales, but since you invited it let's just say that imagination is at the heart of fairy tales, and is also a tool of science.

Einstein when asked what was the best gift his mother had given him answered: she read lots and lots of fairy tales to him as a child - that helped to foster his imagination and inspired him.

He also believed in miracles - that all life is a miracle, and all of existence.

Some things just cannot be explained away. The extraordinary surrounds us.

All science does is seek to understand. But even science cannot disprove or prove that angels, spirits, or even God exists.

God doesn't need to prove anything to us either. You accept what you will. Living with blinders on to the wonders around us is either a conscious choice or an inability to appreciate the miraculous.

The only motive I had for finding and posting the first responder released video was to see for myself what instigated all the rancor jere regarding this very tragic accident. As As I began to watch the video, I certainly had no expectation to hear a voice calling for help as described by the rescuers. Hearing what sounds like a woman's muffled voice calling for help actually took me by surprise. Many posters here were throwing out all sorts of assumtions and heaping ridicule on these rescuers and upon practically any Mormon that moved. And, yet, there it is right on the recording.

It is not for me to determine, as Steve contends, where the voice came from, and if it was human, or who it belonged to. The rescuers stated, with sincere humility, that they heard a woman's voice calling for help from onside the car. After seeing and hearing what is plainly on the recording for myself, I, for one, will give them the benefit of the doubt.

inmyhappyplace Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only motive I had for finding and posting the
> first responder released video was to see for
> myself what instigated all the rancor jere
> regarding this very tragic accident.

IMHP (as Steve has "baptized" you!), I have not seen any 'rancor' here regarding this tragedy. Rather, I've seen posters remarking on how sad it is, what good news it is that the baby survived, and expressing their condolences to family and friends, as well as to fellow board members who knew, or were related to, the family.

Yes, we are analyzing this "voice" element of the tragic incident, because it comes squarely within the purview of the range of our discussions here, but that doesn't mean we are not cognizant of the family tragedy that has just occurred, as well as the happy news of the child's recovery.


> Many posters here
> were throwing out all sorts of assumtions and
> heaping ridicule on these rescuers and upon
> practically any Mormon that moved. And, yet,
> there it is right on the recording.

Oh my. I'm so sorry if anyone is getting the impression that RfMers are "heaping ridicule on [the] rescuers". Again, I haven't seen that anywhere in any of the several threads discussing this event. To the contrary, again, people have expressed admiration and support for the great work the rescuers did, determined, ferocious, coordinated, focused, dogged, knowledgeable and self-sacrificing (many needing treatment themselves for hypothermia after the rescue) and effecting a good outcome for one of the two accident victims.

I didn't see anyone ridiculing rescuers because of what they are saying they heard.

I do acknowledge it may feel like ridicule by proxy, at most, if you take some of the general comments about faith and belief in miracles and apply them literally to the specific situation. However, even in this case, I am certain the people making such remarks do not intend to "ridicule the rescuers".


>I, for one, will give them
> the benefit of the doubt.

I do too, in that they believe they are accurately reflecting what they say they heard.

But that doesn't mean I will go straight from A to Z (there was an accident, a rescue, and a miracle), without examining B through Y first (there are many possible alternative explanations that do not include 'miracle').

I don't think we should shout 'miracle' as a first cause every time we don't immediately know enough to explain an event. In any case, we kind of devalue the word by using it loosely and often, such as "It was a miracle I wasn't late for work, traffic was terrible". Well, no, not a miracle - if you left plenty of time to get to your destination that is what put you at your desk by 9, no miracle needed.

The way we perceive incoming information often informs our conclusions. Which side of the great divide/s we stand likely strongly influences the way we see certain events and how we interpret their meaning.

Nightingale, "baptism" is an interesting euphemism to describe Steve Benson's attacks on people. And your comments focusing on how gracious, grateful, loving, and supportive the RfM posters have been regarding this tragedy is completely disingenuous.

Also, if you had actually read my comments, you would know that I did not once describe this as a "miracle" as you have presumed.

. . . you can stop your investigation. I choose to take it further. It's kind of like when I was a cop. In pulling over people suspected of being drunk, we'd ask them where they were coming from (you know, like maybe from a bar, a restaurant, a party, a friend's house). It helped source the reality of what was causing (and verifying) the witnessed phenomena known as DUI. It's called establishing the trail of evidence.

It always good to get the bigger picture when you can. Makes for a better case. :)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/17/2015 10:55PM by steve benson.

Amen, same here.

It may sound muffled to viewers listening to a taped version of what the officers heard, if it is the one and same.

Yet to the officers it was clear as day, according to their report to the news.

I don't disparage them as to what they heard. It just makes sense to me and the possibility of an unknown unidentified female voice speaking to them from the direction of the car while not something totally expected.. owing to the exigency of the circumstances surrounding the baby and sudden death of mother, not unheard of either.

Stranger things have happened. Not everything has a rational explanation, despite what skeptics will say. It's just part of the mystery of life. There's more we don't know than we do know. Like what happens when our souls leave our bodies for example, upon death. Just because we can't quantify something doesn't make it any less real.

Modified to add: Just because we cannot quantify something in the spiritual realm doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Science is not in the business of proving or disproving life after death for example, or the existence of angels.

Skeptics can argue until the last breath in their body - doesn't negate the soul's existence if indeed it does continue on after death. And that a spirit or an angel from unseen realms can in fact, at least at times rare though they be, intervene in a family's survival or rescue.

AmyJoMeg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Modified to add: Just because we cannot quantify
> something in the spiritual realm doesn't mean it
> doesn't exist.

Or that it does. What would define something as "existing" would be evidence of its existence -- and there is no evidence for "the spiritual realm," so there's no reason to assume any such thing exists.

> Science is not in the business of proving or
> disproving life after death for example, or the
> existence of angels.

Using the scientific method could absolutely establish that angels exist or a "life after death" exists -- if there were evidence of such things. There isn't any such evidence. So claims such things do exist have no merit. That doesn't mean they DON'T exist, it just means claims they DO exist have no merit. They're arguments from ignorance.

> Skeptics can argue until the last breath in their
> body - doesn't negate the soul's existence if
> indeed it does continue on after death. And that a
> spirit or an angel from unseen realms can in fact,
> at least at times rare though they be, intervene
> in a family's survival or rescue.

There's no need to "negate the soul's existence," as there's no evidence a "soul" DOES exist. Or any of the other things you've claimed. You're using fallacious arguments from ignorance -- science can't immediately explain this, so it must be magic. If doing so makes you happy, great. But it's both poor logic and completely unsupportable by evidence.

. . . a police report.

What is quantifiable is that a dead, drowned woman and an unconscious, hypothermic baby were found inside the car.

Human beings in such a condition don't make audible cries for help. Therefore, it should be noted in the police report that these cries that the police thought were coming from inside the car were not coming from inside the car--and that the source of these alleged voices could not be determined.

I’ll start this off by saying, for the record, that I don’t really care what happened at that crash scene, other than that a baby was saved, and that it was too bad that the mother died. Having said that, the thing I did find interesting about this debate was the voracity with which people went to great lengths to dispute the events reported by the officers. In the furor, I saw people jumping to conclusions in a manner that seemed no different from their opponents, and they appeared to use similar speculative leaps of mind as those made by the people who supported the idea of a disembodied voice as described by the officers.

Here are a few of the things that I saw.


1. If ‘god’ was able to call out for help, then ‘god’ would have avoided the accident in the first place? See? … It’s stupid. Case solved. No God.

Response: No one said anything about this being a voice from ‘god’. That came from the people who proposed this conclusion, and from their personal supposition of what such a paranormal event like this would be describing. That’s a poor conclusion to draw. There are several ‘paranormal’ circumstances that could attempt to explain how such things might be possible, without attributing the voice to any omnipotent all controlling ‘god’. Investigators of the paranormal rarely attribute unexplained events to ‘god’ or ‘omnipotence’. Religious minded people (for or against) are the ones who do that, and it’s kind of a red herring. Keep ‘god’ out of it, nobody claimed it was ‘god’ speaking. There are numerous paranormal theories that don’t include god.


2. Many have said it makes no sense, because it had no bearing on the outcome … that it didn’t change anything about the situation.

Response: I found this to be a poor assumption, and a bit of a twist on the facts as reported. The officers indicated that it wasn’t until the car was tipped by them onto its side that a baby was even noticed in the car. It was indicated in their statements that the voice is what caused them to think someone needed rescuing, since they could tell the driver was underwater and already presumed drowned.

In these sorts of situations, officers would normally wait for equipment to remove the car … dead driver and all … from the river. Yes … they would. They for sure wouldn’t risk their lives, in a freezing river, with a current, risking being injured under an unstable vehicle, or getting a hernia, etc, etc, just to help the tow truck driver in doing his or her job. Police don’t risk their lives unless there is an emergency. The article I read indicated that the emergency they were responding to was the cry for help. Which led to tipping the car. Which led to the discovery of the baby.

Of course the voice, or perceived voice, or whatever it was … the parrot … led to the saving of the baby. Otherwise, police certainly would have waited for a towing crew instead of risking their lives in a freezing river heaving around an unstable car. The ‘phenomenon’ seemed to play a key and relevant role in the saving of that baby. Although, the baby might have held on for a towing crew, but we’ll never know that because that isn’t what happened … they tipped the car on its side and found the baby.


3. The final thing I thought was a bit of an overreach in disputing the events as claimed came from Steve, and all his focus on phrases such as ‘TO ME’, and ‘I THOUGHT’ in the officers statements.

Response: Steve, you usually make really clear, concise arguments. What happened this time? The phrases ‘to me’ and ‘I though’ are common colloquialisms people use when they’re being asked (maybe for the umpteenth time) if they’re SURE that’s what they heard. As in: Are you sure it was a bird you saw? … Well, I certainly *thought* it was a bird. It had wings, and was feathery, and was flying … so yes, it looked like a bird *to me*.

Lawyers, and oxford debaters, and people learning to write technical journals are taught to remove all the passive phrases out of their rhetoric. However, common people often do speak using these local colloquialisms in their language … such as ‘well I *thought* it was an adult female voice’ or ‘it sure seemed like someone calling for help *to me*’. This passive rhetoric is common, and doesn’t mean the people were using it to cover for a lie or to express uncertainty. On the contrary, they are phrases almost certainly to be used when someone is trying to emphasize that they are positive of what they saw or heard … maybe after being asked repeatedly if they are sure. If anything, the phrases add emphasis about their certainty of what they heard.

I just saw your picking apart these phrases as irrelevant, and sort of reaching. So what if they used some passive language. So do most people, and it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that they are lying or deluded. It’s colloquialism, a common way of speaking.


Anyway, like I said, there is no way to prove or disprove what the officers described as happening at this event. I’m not for or against any claims or non-claims. I just wanted to point out how some of the arguments that were made to refute the events were a little bizarre, and led me to wonder what was going on with people. Some of the arguments against the events were as outlandish and grasping at straws as were the arguments for it being a paranormal event. In any case, I found the people watching here on RfM to be the most fascinating part of it all.

As for my opinion, maybe I would call this a synchronicity.

Unexplained thing happens (even if was an echo off a canyon wall, or a water noise), which leads to a perception that someone needs to be saved, which leads to the discovery of a previously unknown baby, which leads to a baby being saved.

Synchronicity … something slightly more woofull than a coincidence.


(Reaching for the Kevlar panties now …)
(Also realizing people hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest …)
(la la la la .. la … la la la … or however Paul Simon phrased that song.)

I agree and see no reason to doubt the officers heard something.I really am surprised that people are so bent on disproving everything.I dont know what the officers heard, but a baby is alive and that is what counts.Strange things happen and they are likely not supernatural. There is.no need to disparage the officers or mock their story

. . . out of the narrative, especially when they are speculative in nature. These reports are expected to be objective, factual and free of personal views.

"I thought" and "I felt" are not expressions of fact, especially in this case. However, mention of those thoughts and feelings can nonetheless be included in the report, within the context of explaining how they related to the assessment and acquisition of evidence, as well as how they helped determine the actions on scene of the officer writing the report.

It would be interesting to see how--or if--the officers involved in the rescue effort attempted in their individual DRs (departmental reports) to explain the fact that what they regarded as a voice or voices coming from inside the vehicle could not have been such, based on the fact that upon gaining access to the interior of the vehicle, it was discovered that the mother was dead (with her body being trapped and underwater) inside the vehicle, and that the baby was alive (but unconscious) inside the vehicle.

If I was writing a DR on my personal involvement in the incident (and I wrote many as a cop), and I was one of the officers who thought he had heard a voice or voices, I would write my narrative something like this:

"I came upon the vehicle, which was submerged upside down in the river. I entered the river, heading toward the vehicle. As I approached the vehicle, I thought, or felt, that I heard a voice or voices coming from its interior, crying, "Help me! Help me!" This increased my sense of urgency to rescue what I thought were individuals trapped inside the vehicle.

"Upon accessing the interior of the vehicle, I discovered a young adult female, later determined to be Lynn Grosbeck, deceased in the front seat, with her body underwater. I also discovered a small baby, later determined to be Lily Grosbeck, in an unconscious state, hanging upside down while strapped in her car seat above the waterline, in the rear passenger section of the vehicle.

"Based on that evidence, I concluded that the voice or voices that I thought I had heard coming from inside the vehicle had not, in fact, come from inside the vehicle. I was not able to determine the source of the voice or voices that I thought I had heard,"

Synopsis. Narrative. Conclusion: The three basic elements of a police departmental report.

That would have been an element of my report narrative, which would have to have then been signed off on (along with the rest of my DR) by the sergeant on duty before submitting the DR to Records. I would expect the sergeant to approve my narrative, as written.



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 07:12AM by steve benson.

Well, I guess there was the official report … and then there was giving an interview to a reporter. Your version does sound like the kind of report I would have assumed from a cop.

Hey, by the way … why were the police even giving interviews to reporters? In my city, that never happens. The police are very stoic, and never say a word to reporters. If they do, it’s the chief making a statement to a media scrum … and it’s vague and almost evasive.

Then again, in Taber, Alberta the police are busting kids for swearing now … so maybe the worlds just going crazy or something. Anywoo … I’ve said my bit, and said about all I can think of to say on the matter. :)

The officer dispatched by the communications center to the scene writes a main report. Officers who responded as backup also write their own, but supplemental, reports which detail their own observations and participation in the incident. These "supps" are included with the main DR as attachments.

I don't think it was a good idea for the officers to have been giving interviews to the press, especially so soon after the incident when so much was yet unknown or undetermined. Officer DRs are available upon request (and usually for a fee), as public docs, within a few days of being written and submitted to Records. In the meantime, if the PD wishes to provide some kind of accounting or update on the case to the public, that's the designated job of the PIO. Cops involved on-scene do not typically give media interviews while the case is open and ongoing.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 01:14AM by steve benson.

Yes, that's how I thought it was handled. Through a PR chain and scrutinized reports (car went of road, driver died, baby was saved). One thing certainly did happen ... a spectacle was made of this families tragedy, regardless of what happened or didn't. Where I live, someone might be getting in trouble for that. Or maybe not.

Thanks Steve.

That DR would sound entirely reasonable to me. The officers heard what sounded like a voice saying, "Help me." Later they could not make a determination as to what made the noise since there was no rational explanation due to the circumstances.

Exactly. There's no need to assign the mystery to the supernatural simply because they can't determine what happened exactly. It is most unlikely that the sound came from the mother as she was already passed, and equally unlikely that it came from the unconscious baby.

. . .authenticatable facts, with the "I-thought-I-heard-a-voice-coming-from-inside-the-car" claims put in proper persepctive, given the known facts. The known facts are that there was a dead adult and an unconscious baby inside the car, both incapable of uttering cries for help.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2015 06:10PM by steve benson.