Why Is It Easier To Find Large Animals In Third World Jungles Compared To North American Forests?

[Guest DWA]

Scientific standards can't be lowered to a point where anecdotes are acceptable as proof of a species. So it's not really about how many sightings there are. It's about which one actually happened or which footprint is actually real. There could be millions of sightings and track-ways, but in the end it's all futile evidence when not a single one can be proven to be the real deal. 

No it's not futile.

 

The history of science is the history of following inconclusive but compelling evidence to a conclusion.

 

I know of no proponent who thinks anecdotes are proof.  But skeptics keep saying that they do.  No they don't.  The inability of bigfoot skeptics to sort this issue out is the field's single biggest problem.  It makes dialogue impossible.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

The question in the OP in a nutshell really is saying the obvious. "Why is it so hard to find Bigfoot". It's just couched in a challenge that could easily imply the follow-up conclusion "therefore SSQ doesn't exist". In truth? It's a well-worded question. Good on you Cotter.

I agree that it is hard work finding this creature. There is hardship presented simply by the nature of the habitat both in the PacNW and the Ouachita Mtns. So, round and round the dialogue goes but there is no fault in the nature of that cycle. The quarry, namely Bigfoot, is..... unusual. As an understatment I think it fills the bill nicely.

There is after all a lot of evidence. I mean a LOT of evidence. Surely there are important aspects that can be gleaned from the reports that point to a weakness in the phenomenon that can be prised open and capitalized on other than say, opening the Bigfoot Restaurant chain. There is something that I think bears some scrutiny and I'll be starting a thread on it as soon as I have ironed out the arguments in support of it. Stay tuned.

Edited September 1, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest]

" Why Is It Easier To Find Large Animals In Third World Jungles Compared To North American Forests? 

 

Maybe talking about birding in N. America vs several third world jungles in Asia.. is irrelevant to the question ( of large animals ). I'll talk a bit about it anyways. I had a much harder time locating and seeing them, in Asian forest. Not sure why... but I really needed an experienced guide. Maybe it was my lack of knowledge, and experience with the species and the terrains of habitat (?) No guides would take me to see hairy wild men... but I'm pretty convinced, it would not be any easier spotting one in Asia, then here in N. America. Probably, a bit more dangerous. Open savannahs of Africa, or Asia.. would be easier spotting large animals,  than the jungle. Not telling anyone.. anything new there ( Am I ? )

[hiflier]

Hello imonacan,

 

Not really but you nonetheless bring out a good point. That of being familiar with the terrain/habitat one is immersed in. I walk my dog every night around 10 PM. It's on a well traveled street that has pretty fair lighting. If one little thing is out of place on that street he knows it. A trash can put out for pick up in the distance. A piece of paper along the curb on the other side. He will stop in his tracks and stare at whatever it is for a minute or more. Anything different will catch his eye because he knows his terrain. He needs to assess if there's a threat of some kind and his curiosity will not allow him to move on until he's satisfied that all is well. On the return walk he will look at the object but his gait will not change as he goes past because he's already determined the status of the "intruder".

 

Birding in different environments present the same problems especially when foliage and plants in general are different than what one is used to. Birding in a pine forest is different than a stand of maples etc. Nevermind a different country whose indigenous birds have mimicries and adaptive colorations suitable for those habitats. 

Edited September 1, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest]

Scientific standards can't be lowered to a point where anecdotes are acceptable as proof of a species. So it's not really about how many sightings there are. It's about which one actually happened or which footprint is actually real. There could be millions of sightings and track-ways, but in the end it's all futile evidence when not a single one can be proven to be the real deal. 

 

1) "Anecdote" = "observation by an 'unauthorized' observer (ie a non-'scientist')"

 

"Field data" = "observation by an authorized observer (ie, a 'scientist')"

 

2) Eyewitness testimony is certainly a lesser form of evidence, but it is evidence.  Particularly when there is a consistency between accounts spanning 1000s of miles of distance and years, even centuries, of time.  Consistency is a strong indicator of a central core phenomenon as a source.

 

3) Dismissal of eyewitness testimony (or any other kind of evidence) is part of the great Skeptic Logic Loop:

 

1. Deny the existence of the phenomenon based on "lack of evidence"
2. Disallow any proffered evidence on the grounds of "is not proof".
3. Repeat denial of existence of phenomenon based on "lack of evidence".

[Guest Darrell]

^But how does that explain why you cant find one when you want to and why you cant kill or capture one to study.  The phenomina is as much psychological as it is zoological.

[Guest DWA]

You can find one, if you actually want to (almost no one does).  NAWAC is.  That they haven't killed one is something that hunters should understand, particularly when we've gotten the thought ingrained in even thoughtful people's heads that you could be plugging a guy in a suit.  (Chimpanzees and gorillas would never be shot if that consideration weighed on every shot.)

 

No one is putting in the time.  Chimps and gorillas are in zoos, and get killed so often, because of thousands of years of putting in the time.

[Guest]

no one is putting in the time?

nawac???

[Guest DWA]

Not enough, right? 

[Guest]

how close are they to be considered putting in the time?

[Guest DWA]

Continuous field presence for two years is starting to get us in the ballpark.  Educated guess.

 

Patterson and Gimlin spent a little less than a month.  NAWAC's Endurance and Persistence, somewhat more.  Relentless I believe is around that involvement.

 

I just listed all of history's bigfoot expeditions.  Everything else is weekend dilettantes.  Good luck confirming a fox that way.  A mink?  Fuggedaboudit.

[Guest]

^But how does that explain why you cant find one when you want to and why you cant kill or capture one to study.  The phenomina is as much psychological as it is zoological.

 

1) Who says you can't find one?  Researchers are having encounters, finding sign, etc.  There are even reports of BF being killed.

 

2) As to why it doesn't happen more often: finding and documenting in the wild relatively "dumb" animals like the cloud leopard, giant squid, etc took years, decades even.  10s of 1000s of lowland gorilla went entirely UNdocumented until just last year in the Congo.

 

You're still looking at the problem through the "if not 'proven', not evidence" prism.

 

If Science were to stop dismissing eyewitnesses, trackways, etc and start actually following up on them, building the knowledge base and improving the ability of the data to predict habitat, travel patterns, etc, then the goal of obtaining an organic sample for "proof".

 

They ain't gonna "get 'er done" by sitting on their well-padded butts in their shiny clean labs and sneering at the topic, refusing to get their hands dirty with actual research.  Even Sykes, Ketchum, et al were/are only passively engaged in the topic, waiting for random people to bring samples to them to analyze.

[Guest Cervelo]

I guarantee that in a week one could get a picture of every mammal species in the continental USA over 200 lbs if one was so inclined.....except for one....yeah it's just we don't take it serious, or have enough information, or or or or and and and....all excuses folks biggies either extinct, very very rare or doesn't and never has existed.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Cervelo

[norseman]

^^^^^^^

 

So your a skeptic then?

 

In your opinion do they exist or not?

[Guest DWA]

Good thing you saw one first, then. 

I guarantee that in a week one could get a picture of every mammal species in the continental USA over 200 lbs if one was so inclined.....except for one....yeah it's just we don't take it serious, or have enough information, or or or or and and and....all excuses folks biggies either extinct, very very rare or doesn't and never has existed.