So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest]

Who really cares? If skeptics are reading what those that have seen bigfoot have to say I have to assume they are interested. I can't get into pondering all of the convoluted reasons why that might be the case, at least, not today.

[Guest]

Your kind attention all....

Several posts have had to be deleted, and or edited to remove mention of religion/ religious topics.

It has been stated many times- the rule is simple !

There is NO discussion of religion on these boards...... !!!

I dont know how else to put it so everyone understands.

Any further discussion of it will be deleted, and warnings and other action taken.

Thank you.

[Guest]

Apparently the Vu Quang ox in Vietnam didn't actually exist until science told us it existed in the 1990s.

I'm not sure why people fail to appreciate the chasm of difference between the discovery of creatures in remote parts of the world over the last century and the lack of discovery of bigfoot despite repeated and ongoing field work in areas in which they are supposed to occur. These glib comparisons make great "don't-those-know-it-all-scientists-look-silly" soundbites, but when you really examine them they fall apart.

Case in point, the Vu Quang ox or soala, discovered by western scientists in 1992 and formally described in the journal Nature in 1993. The Vu Quang Nature Reserve, on the border between Vietnam and Laos, is one of the most remote places on the planet, and is, to this day, still very difficult to access for western scientists. Near as I can tell, the joint survey of the region conducted by the Vietnamese Ministry of Forestry and the World Wildlife Fund in 1992 was the first formal wildlife survey conducted there. On that first survey, the scientists collected 3 sets of horns, just one of which would have been sufficient to describe some kind of new species. In less than a year, four follow-up surveys by Vietnamese scientists turned up additional complete skulls, skins, etc., such that by the time the paper was submitted in 1993, it included a description based on the examination of over 20 specimens. Now, not quite 20 years later, the saola has proven difficult to keep alive in captivity, and its biggest problem is that people (both poachers and indigenous hunters) are simply too good at catching them. While it is true that the species was not directly observed in the wild by western scientists at the time the paper was published, it has been definitively photographed in the wild (and in captivity) with the first camera trap photos apparently obtained in 1999.

When you dig a little bit into the story, it quickly becomes obvious that Vu Quang - much like the Virungas at the dawn of the 20th Century - is simply an extremely remote and special place. Once western scientists got there and started poking around, amazing discoveries occurred rather quickly. From the Vu Quang link above: "Since [1993 when the giant muntjack deer was discovered shortly after the saola] evidence has been found of at least two new fish species, a new rabbit, squirrel, and warbler, possibly another new kind of deer, and Vietnamese warty pigs, last recorded in 1892 and long considered extinct." This is a case, just like gorillas and okapis, in which there was not a centuries'-long history of local people telling stories of fantastic creatures that western scientists pooh-poohed. Once the western scientists actually got to these fantastic places, the creatures they contained were readily discovered and described with the kind of physical evidence no one - anywhere - has ever produced for bigfoot.

With bigfoot, it's quite different. First, where is our North American Vu Quang? Yes, we have plenty of remote places in North America, but seriously, how are they really on par with places like Vu Quang or the Virungas circa 1900? They aren't. Here in the U.S., we've had a solid 200 years of surveys, military expeditions, mining, logging, hunting, wildlife survey, forest health monitoring, energy exploration, trapping, etc., and these activities occur now at a greater pace than ever. Even if we could make the case that we have truly pristine and unexplored wilderness that could hide our own undiscovered 100-kg mammal, we'd have to make the case that our undiscovered animal is restricted to that place. It's not. Some BFF folks just visited lovely Honobia, OK this past weekend, regarded as a hotbed of bigfoot activity. Bigfoots are supposed to be in Texas too, and Ohio and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Florida. A quick glance at the BFRO sightings database indicates that bigfoot is not some remote wilderness-dweller living out its days in some undiscovered Eden. If bigfoots are real, then they occur in places that have been, and continue to be, very thoroughly explored.

So can we please abandon these appeals to recently discovered animals in out-of-the-way places as relevant to the discussion of bigfoot? If anything, I interpret them as far more convincing that there is no bigfoot than that there is.

Vu_Van_Dung_et al.1993.pdf

Edited October 4, 2011 by Saskeptic

[ShadowBorn]

I'm not sure why people fail to appreciate the chasm of difference between the discovery of creatures in remote parts of the world over the last century and the lack of discovery of bigfoot despite repeated and ongoing field work in areas in which they are supposed to occur. These glib comparisons make great "don't-those-know-it-all-scientists-look-silly" soundbites, but when you really examine them they fall apart.

Case in point, the Vu Quang ox or soala, discovered by western scientists in 1992 and formally described in the journal Nature in 1993. The Vu Quang Nature Reserve, on the border between Vietnam and Laos, is one of the most remote places on the planet, and is, to this day, still very difficult to access for western scientists. Near as I can tell, the joint survey of the region conducted by the Vietnamese Ministry of Forestry and the World Wildlife Fund in 1992 was the first formal wildlife survey conducted there. On that first survey, the scientists collected 3 sets of horns, just one of which would have been sufficient to describe some kind of new species. In less than a year, four follow-up surveys by Vietnamese scientists turned up additional complete skulls, skins, etc., such that by the time the paper was submitted in 1993, it included a description based on the examination of over 20 specimens. Now, not quite 20 years later, the saola has proven difficult to keep alive in captivity, and its biggest problem is that people (both poachers and indigenous hunters) are simply too good at catching them. While it is true that the species was not directly observed in the wild by western scientists at the time the paper was published, it has been definitively photographed in the wild (and in captivity) with the first camera trap photos apparently obtained in 1999.

When you dig a little bit into the story, it quickly becomes obvious that Vu Quang - much like the Virungas at the dawn of the 20th Century - is simply an extremely remote and special place. Once western scientists got there and started poking around, amazing discoveries occurred rather quickly. From the Vu Quang link above: "Since [1993 when the giant muntjack deer was discovered shortly after the saola] evidence has been found of at least two new fish species, a new rabbit, squirrel, and warbler, possibly another new kind of deer, and Vietnamese warty pigs, last recorded in 1892 and long considered extinct." This is a case, just like gorillas and okapis, in which there was not a centuries'-long history of local people telling stories of fantastic creatures that western scientists pooh-poohed. Once the western scientists actually got to these fantastic places, the creatures they contained were readily discovered and described with the kind of physical evidence no one - anywhere - has ever produced for bigfoot.

With bigfoot, it's quite different. First, where is our North American Vu Quang? Yes, we have plenty of remote places in North America, but seriously, how are they really on par with places like Vu Quang or the Virungas circa 1900? They aren't. Here in the U.S., we've had a solid 200 years of surveys, military expeditions, mining, logging, hunting, wildlife survey, forest health monitoring, energy exploration, trapping, etc., and these activities occur now at a greater pace than ever. Even if we could make the case that we have truly pristine and unexplored wilderness that could hide our own undiscovered 100-kg mammal, we'd have to make the case that our undiscovered animal is restricted to that place. It's not. Some BFF folks just visited lovely Honobia, OK this past weekend, regarded as a hotbed of bigfoot activity. Bigfoots are supposed to be in Texas too, and Ohio and Virginia and Pennsylvania and Florida. A quick glance at the BFRO sightings database indicates that bigfoot is not some remote wilderness-dweller living out its days in some undiscovered Eden. If bigfoots are real, then they occur in places that have been, and continue to be, very thoroughly explored.

So can we please abandon these appeals to recently discovered animals in out-of-the-way places as relevant to the discussion of bigfoot? If anything, I interpret them as far more convincing that there is no bigfoot than that there is.

Saskeptic

So your argument is that a creature the size of Bigfoot cannot live in the forest of our Nation? And the the creatures that not just me but a whole lot of eye witnessess have seen and expieranced is just a figure that is just in thier imagination?Even the witenesses that go back to the 1800's must all be liars.This whole mess with these creatures must be one giant conspiracy because we all planned this together,all these witnesses came together at one time and said that "hey people lets start a bigfoot story and get the world in on this and see how many we can get to believe in this"Yes i can truely see this happening .conspiricy at its best,people of all kinds banding together to come up with the idea like this.

It is basically saying that we are all liars and we are all in on this to fool a nation.But then again who cares cuase I am just full of it who knows nothing.

[Guest]

So your argument is that a creature the size of Bigfoot cannot live in the forest of our Nation?

While I remain unconvinced that there was ever a "bigfoot" in North America, this is irrelevant to my post. My point this morning is simply that the stories of discoveries of large mammals over the last century are very poor analogies for the lack of discovery of bigfoot today.

You believe in bigfoot because you are convinced you saw one. That's the best reason I can think of for believing in bigfoot, and I certainly can't fault for you drawing the conclusion that something you saw, exists.

Some people, however, may believe in bigfoot because they erroneously think that bigfoots live in places scientists have not explored or that there is this repeated pattern of science turning its back on local peoples only to end up with egg on its collective labcoat when the local people were proven correct. Those are lousy reasons for believing in bigfoot, and that's what I addressed in my post.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Very cool info Saskeptic...thanks. I am still hoping you are wrong, but I can't deny your posts are usually very informative. It is appreciated.

I will ignore your first paragraph as uneeded frustration. Your points were sufficient without it.

Edited October 4, 2011 by HairyGreek

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I agree with Hairy, Saskeptic. You make some excellent points in not only these posts, but in most everything you post generally.

[kitakaze]

I'm not sure why people fail to appreciate the chasm of difference between the discovery of creatures in remote parts of the world over the last century and the lack of discovery of bigfoot despite repeated and ongoing field work in areas in which they are supposed to occur. These glib comparisons make great "don't-those-know-it-all-scientists-look-silly" soundbites, but when you really examine them they fall apart.

(snip)

Sweety Tony Danza, yes. Everything he said, yes.

The remoteness fallacy just bowls me over.

The dumptser of a King County, WA nursing home is not remote!

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=28743

Wapello County, Iowa is not remote!

[xspider1]

First, I also agree that your Science is generally very good, Saskeptic.

However:

These glib comparisons make great "don't-those-know-it-all-scientists-look-silly" soundbites, but when you really examine them they fall apart.

Not really. 'Know-it-all-Scientists' are very often made to look silly. That's why, in my estimation, the smarter scientists are generally more open-minded than the no so smart scientists.

Yes, we have plenty of remote places in North America, but seriously, how are they really on par with places like Vu Quang or the Virungas circa 1900? They aren't.

In many ways, yes they are. I.e., a great deal of the 2+ billion acres in the US is unexplored and, in fact, very difficult to access.

Even if we could make the case that we have truly pristine and unexplored wilderness that could hide our own undiscovered 100-kg mammal, we'd have to make the case that our undiscovered animal is restricted to that place.

Why?

If bigfoots are real, then they occur in places that have been, and continue to be, very thoroughly explored.

That is a fundamental flaw in logic. You don't have to believe all of the reports to believe any of them.

So can we please abandon these appeals to recently discovered animals in out-of-the-way places as relevant to the discussion of bigfoot?

I doubt it. Seems very relevant to me. When Bigfoot becomes known to mainstream science, it will technically be a recent discovery of an animal that will most likely occur in an out-of-the-way place. How could that not be a similar?

[Guest HairyGreek]

In many ways, yes they are. I.e., a great deal of the 2+ billion acres in the US is unexplored and, in fact, very difficult to access.

Some good points xspider1. Could you expound on the one above in particular? Where are these places exactly? I would be every interested in hearing more. I have always been curious if Sasquach was more like the morlocks then what we imagine them as.

Caves are about the only place left in the continental US that I feel are probably not getting as much coverage as need be. What are your thoughts on other locations? This may better be handled in another thread as this is really going off topic though.

[ShadowBorn]

Alaska is a big state which we could say is still to be unexplored where i believe that we are pushing these creatures.They can survive this extreme area just like the brown bears that live there. Canada is another area that i also believe that these creatures are being pushed ,they are not willing to be a part of our sociol structure.

Some people, however, may believe in bigfoot because they erroneously think that bigfoots live in places scientists have not explored or that there is this repeated pattern of science turning its back on local peoples only to end up with egg on its collective labcoat when the local people were proven correct. Those are lousy reasons for believing in bigfoot, and that's what I addressed in my post.

And yes you are Saskeptic these are lousy reasen to believe in these creatures.I believe in it because of what i saw and expieranced and there is no changing that.I am not a scientist nor have I ever claimed to be one.so it is difficult for me to understand that side of the coin so to speak.This goes for all the other witnessess as well since all they want is proof of what they saw.So it hard to tell them them that there is no such thing.Since they have actually saw something that was real to them.This is why science needs to be open to a posibility that yes there could be a creature roaming our forest.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Alaska is a big state which we could say is still to be unexplored where i believe that we are pushing these creatures.They can survive this extreme area just like the brown bears that live there. Canada is another area that i also believe that these creatures are being pushed ,they are not willing to be a part of our sociol structure.

Sorry julio126, I would love to see a source on this claim though.

[Guest]

The truth is--they are already convinced. Deep in their hearts, they want to believe and, yes, in some corner of their brain, they know bf is real. They have a deep-seated desire to be able to say so without being smirked at, so they demand proof they can offer to the smirky types.

It's a game they play. They may be half fooling themselves, but they are not fooling (DRAMATIC CRESCENDO) ME!

You know it's true.

[Guest HairyGreek]

The truth is--they are already convinced.

I beg to differ. Some of them are seriously laughing.

Deep in their hearts, they want to believe and, yes, in some corner of their brain, they know bf is real.

The first part of your sentence, some have admitted to; the second...mmm, not so much. See above.

They have a deep-seated desire to be able to say so without being smirked at, so they demand proof they can offer to the smirky types.

I think you are talking about the people like me who are vigilant and hopeful, but waiting for something concrete here. Not those who think that days will NEVER come.

It's a game they play. They may be half fooling themselves, but they are not fooling (DRAMATIC CRESCENDO) ME!

You know it's true.

Well, it was funny even though it isn't true. But thanks for playing Canyon!

[Guest]

Not really. 'Know-it-all-Scientists' are very often made to look silly. That's why, in my estimation, the smarter scientists are generally more open-minded than the no so smart scientists.

Perhaps you could direct me to some of these scientists who foolishly scoffed at stories of the saola prior to its discovery.

In many ways, yes they are. I.e., a great deal of the 2+ billion acres in the US is unexplored and, in fact, very difficult to access.

So you think that "a great deal" (I guess that means at least 50%) of 2 billion acres (that's at least 1 billion acres for those playing at home) in the U.S. is (your term) "unexplored?" In other words, we've got at least 1 billion acres in this country in which we have very little idea of the large mammals that await discovery there, much like Vu Quang 20 years ago? Great! I can hardly wait for these discoveries.

(Incidentally, the Vu Quang region is about 750,000 acres.)

Why?

To make an apples-to-apples comparison between the discovery of other recently described mammals and the undiscovery of bigfoot.

That is a fundamental flaw in logic. You don't have to believe all of the reports to believe any of them.

Then you're prepared to school me on which ones to accept and which to reject? Great! I've been asking people to help me do that for years and no one has come through.

Next, I'll ask you about your straw man argument: where do I indicate that one must accept all reports to accept any of them? We might easily agree that the account from Staten Island is most likely erroneous. What of the accounts from, say, Ohio? Are you prepared to discredit every account (I think there are more than 100) from the state of Ohio because it's not included in your "remote as the Vu Quang" part of the U.S.? Worse, are you suggesting that significant parts of the Buckeye State are as remote as the Vu Quang?

I doubt it. Seems very relevant to me. When Bigfoot becomes known to mainstream science, it will technically be a recent discovery of an animal that will most likely occur in an out-of-the-way place. How could that not be a similar?

If the folklore of bigfoot was that there was some lost valley somewhere in some remote corner of the world - and I'm talking Vu Quang remote here not just an "out-of-the-way place" - and bigfoot was ultimately discovered from that place on the first (or nearly the first) expedition to that place, then discoveries of gorillas, okapis, and saolas would be perfectly relevant. If you think this scenario applies to bigfoot, then you have an entirely different understanding of bigfoot than, you know, like everbody.