Guest Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 For what it's worth, I remember this news story about the "discovery" of a new fruit eating monitor lizard: http://www.livescien...ed-science.html Note the scientist's quote: "...we are humbled because the species is not really new — it is only new to us as Western scientists," Brown said. "In fact, resident indigenous communities — the Agta and Ilongot tribes — have known about it for many generations. If only scientists had listened to them earlier!"" It seems that "discovery" of many new species are really all about "Western" scientists bothering to investigate animals that are already well known to local residents. Note that this particular species is in a heavily populated part of the Philippines. The locals have known about it because they prefer to eat the fruit eating monitor lizards because they taste better than the flesh eating lizards! This lizard was first "reported" to scientists decades ago, and in 2001 a photograph was taken and it took a few more years for scientists to "investigate" (ie. a local citizen brought a dead lizard from the local meat market for them to examine). The methodology of science, requiring proof in the form of a type specimen, etc. by definition will rule out the "existence" of species until they can be properly "discovered" (or REdiscovered). Maybe its time for scientists to give greater credence to sighting reports so they can devote resources for follow up investigation... If I could, I would like to set something straight here. This is not critique in regards to your opinion, BFSleuth... but from the media source that you linked this article of information from. The media says things like "this particular species is in a heavy populated part of the Philippines". That is just how they write these articles, and it seems to draw more interest , with this kind of generalization (which the media is known for). Luzon is heavily populated, but a very large part of it, is still forested with only indigenous tribal peoples living there. The immediate forested areas, do not have a heavy human population, as does metro areas of Luzon, or this monitor species would not exist now.. if indeed it is rare, and sought after for the dinner table. My source... I've been there, and traveled around Luzon and into some of the mountainous tribal areas. Although noted as an "apples and oranges" comparison, to the relevance of the monitor being found vs.BF existing, and not yet being found... it could be more than that. There is other local mythology, of a BF-like creature that lives in these same forests. The tribesman also know about the "Kapre" or forest man , but don't talk much about it. I heard about it , over 30 years ago. If my plans work out someday, maybe I can find out more about it, myself. In the urban Philippines, it is myth and legend. In the rural and tribal areas, it is something accepted, as a living being that is " out there " . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 By all means though, please regale us with your examples of cryptids that have since been discovered, and by "cryptids" I'm using your definition: species that scientists refused to look for because they were embarrassed to do so. (I hope you'll also be providing evidence that no scientists have looked for bigfoot because they are/were embarrassed to do so.) Yes, please. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 The problem is that it was less helpful in the development of any argumentation, including your own, as a result of its ambiguity. The phrase "there is no consensus that the matter is worthy of study" seems perfectly clear to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Great another thread turned into an English class!! Isn't there a fourm for that somewhere for you guys or at least start your own thread! It could have (or should have) the word pontification in it somewhere Mulder could be the dean of your group!! Please continue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Anytime the pontification gets going hot and heavy, there is always someone who wants to spoil the fun by pontificating about pontificating. Drat! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Now there is part of the problem, your answer did not include a layman's term break down, since i sence a British themed pontification i used a Definition from a British English Dictionary. "pontification" to speak or write and give your opinion about something as if you knew everything about it and as if only your opinion was correct. Ok ~ please continue the Pontificating. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 (edited) Saskeptic, rather than go about this like a cross examination, I think I will try to liven things up with a more complete description of what I consider to be 'the problem'. You seem to feel that science has done enough to investigate the BF phenomenon without result, and that consquently BF can be safely lumped into the category 'cryptid' -- cryptid being understood as that group of alleged creatures that scientists can safely scoff at from within the comfy confines of the faculty lounge. So while you're lounging in an overstuffed armchair having a scotch and a hearty guffaw with academic chums next to the reassuring warmth of the Promethean hearth, I'm outside raising my collar and wrapping my scarf tightly against the damp chill of lingering doubts and swirling uncertainties. I think about the giant / colossal squid for instance. Yes, there have been reports of things washing up on the beach for a long time. But science has been completely unable to get so much as a glimpse of a live one despite numerous apparent opportunities and a number of efforts -- until recently. Yes, I think that is a situation suitably analogous to BF -- the great ape, of which there are numerous exemplars in the fossil record. Indeed, we have extant great ape species without much paleontological precedent to suggest that they even exist. What if BF was a uniquely difficult 'get' for science? What if extraordinary efforts were required? I don't think a dispassionate review of the data will allow us to say with anything resembling confidence that the question might not require extraordinary efforts, far beyond what might pass for the conventional definition of 'due diligence.' Edited December 18, 2011 by exnihilo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 (edited) I think about the giant / colossal squid for instance. Yes, there have been reports of things washing up on the beach for a long time. But science has been completely unable to get so much as a glimpse of a live one despite numerous apparent opportunities and a number of efforts -- until recently. Yes, Point : Was it not just a few fisherman in a small boat that caught the first pictures and later other fishermen caught live squids and not so much a big scientific investigation. You don't need a lot of fancy equipment and a big backing to find something if you go looking for it, i don't understand why it is so hard to find a 8' tall 500 pound gorilla roaming our woods. Tim Edit for word placement Edited December 18, 2011 by RedRatSnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 18, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted December 18, 2011 Well one, it's not always 8 ft. tall nor 500 lbs., and two, it's not always roaming (alot of times it's just idling), lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 And it's not a gorilla..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Point : Was it not just a few fisherman in a small boat that caught the first pictures and later other fishermen caught live squids and not so much a big scientific investigation. You don't need a lot of fancy equipment and a big backing to find something if you go looking for it, i don't understand why it is so hard to find a 8' tall 500 pound gorilla roaming our woods. Tim Edit for word placement There was more to the squid expedition than you are suggesting. Here's an article about it: http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=42137106980 i don't understand why Of course you don't understand, neither do any of us. But that proves nothing, and it's high time we admitted it. And it's not a gorilla..... I'm using "great ape" in the sense that includes human beings as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Well one, it's not always 8 ft. tall nor 500 lbs., and two, it's not always roaming (alot of times it's just idling), lol! And probably not 'most' of the times... given individual's inability to accurately report details in hightened states of anxiety and excitement. And it's not a gorilla..... Not exactly, but with what I've seen and observed, they're pretty **** close: closer to them than human. Yes, YES. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 (edited) I'm using "great ape" in the sense that includes human beings as well. I wouldn't have argued with "great ape". I was addressing RRS's comment: i don't understand why it is so hard to find a 8' tall 500 pound gorilla roaming our woods. Not exactly, but with what I've seen and observed, they're pretty **** close: closer to them than human. I guess you must not have seen & observed the same ones I've seen & observed. Edited December 18, 2011 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Well one, it's not always 8 ft. tall nor 500 lbs., and two, it's not always roaming (alot of times it's just idling), lol! Ok so it loses weight in the summer maybe or it swells when it gets wet, but how would you explain it changing height all the time, does it's head crown grow during full moons. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I wouldn't have argued with "great ape". I was addressing RRS's comment Ooops. Sorry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts