So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest]

This is why science needs to be open to a posibility that yes there could be a creature roaming our forest.

I'm open to that possibility Julio, I'm just not convinced by anything thusfar put forward as evidence.

[Guest]

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

I think xspider refers to the bigfoot scoffers, which I'm sure there are plenty of.

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.

What do you consider "explored"? The once over? What if your quarry was BETTER than you at avoiding detection?

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

What was its range?

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

The point is that discovering a species doesn't have a time limit.

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.

This is your biggest faux pas, IMO. You debate as though all the reports are true, then pretend like you don't.

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?

The question is how many reports does it take to make bigfoot possible? Only the truth can set this limit.

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.

IMO, you don't have a good grasp on the vastness of the land. I work with aerial photos of land over BC daily. I am still blown away at the vastness of the wilderness in BC. Imagine a creature much better than you at avoiding detection in remote wilderness. Do you really expect a casual walk-thru by some biologist to stumble upon a bigfoot? Really? Please don't rebut with a report about a dumpster diving BF.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest]

Saskeptic said:

"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?"

Could you share with us the reports you do not consider erroneous? Since you didn't state one must accept all reports to accept any of them, I'd enjoy knowing which reports you do accept, and the reasons for accepting those particular accounts.

[xspider1]

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?

You implied that, in typical hard-nosed skeptical fashion, when you said:

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

Please enlighten us as to why they must occur in places that have been very thoroughly explored in order to be real. Let me guess: because reports come in from thoroughly explored places, riiiight?

The real strawman argument is you taking my statement:

I.e., a great deal of the 2+ billion acres in the US is unexplored and, in fact, very difficult to access.

to somehow mean '50%'. haha! nice try but, logically, your contentions above are way off. If a great deal of US territory (and, let's not forget Canada, etc. etc.) is not virtually unexplored then I stand corrected but, it is, so I don't. Thanks anyway.

[Guest Forbig]

Saskeptic said:

"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?"

Could you share with us the reports you do not consider erroneous? Since you didn't state one must accept all reports to accept any of them, I'd enjoy knowing which reports you do accept, and the reasons for accepting those particular accounts.

What? Did I read this right? Saskeptic accepts a Bigfoot report? O my!

This is better than Ketchum proving the Squatch DNA to the world.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

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.

A know it all scientist would just stop; would be more than just silly: they would not be following the process.

(being ready to reject or correct whatever one holds true)

Then again: A Scientist constantly rejecting ambiguous and unsupported claims; time and time again, may come across as "all knowing and closed minded."

When a demonstration of a demonstrable, testable and can be stated as fact (hello! Bigfoot) is in your face and one still rejects it; that would be silly.

open-minded

It's not as if a hunch is not part of this process. However, hunches never seem to make it into reputable journals for some reason. :] (though they could be a start and lead one there)

[Guest]

Obviously, there are no anecdotal accounts of bigfoot that I "accept." Given that the reports are anecdotal, however, there are almost none that I can refute, and neither can anyone else refute them. We may be a little more skeptical based on specific details of the encounter - let's say a dumpster-diving bigfoot in an urban area - but what I'm talking about is more broadly geographical.

I just checked the BFRO database. There are 218 accounts listed for Ohio. When I approach this phenomenon and try to come to a better understanding of what I'm trying to evaluate, my only source is to read what proponents have to say about bigfoot. One thing they say is that, on at least 218 different occasions, these creatures have been encountered in the Buckeye State. I don't have to accept all 218 accounts to conclude that if bigfoot is real then some of them live in Ohio. Here's your chance to man-up:

1) Do you believe there are bigfoots in Ohio?

2) Do you believe that any significant part of Ohio is as remote as the Vu Quang Nature Reserve on the Vietnam/Laotian border?

If your answers are "yes" and "no", respectively, then thank you for illustrating my point that the discovery of creatures like the saola is a lousy analogy for bigfoot. As Gigantofootecus and others have suggested, for bigfoot to be real it must be very different from gorillas, okapis, saolas, etc., in terms of its ability to evade detection. The latter creatures were rather easily confirmed once western scientists actually got access to the places where they live.

If you answer "yes" to the second question, then I recommend some reading and traveling, because you are ill-informed.

If you answer "no" to the first question, then please pause whilst I prepare a large bowl of popcorn.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

It's a great post Saskeptic and I can't argue with the logic. I wouldn't be myself however if I didn't challenge the great posts with a "what if?". So please excuse the behavior.

What if bf migrates through Ohio on a line, moving to the next most remote (currently unoccupied by people) point on that line? Rather than a fixed non-remote location as your comparison. BF string theory.

[BobbyO]

2) Do you believe that any significant part of Ohio is as remote as the Vu Quang Nature Reserve on the Vietnam/Laotian border?

If you answer "yes" to the second question, then I recommend some reading and traveling, because you are ill-informed.

It's not that remote Sas is it given that there are over 30,000 people living in just over 600km2 ??

& amongst them are................

http://ahoyhanoi.blogspot.com/2011/06/vietnamese-big-foot.html

http://blognyatias.blogspot.com/2009/11/indonesian-cryptozoology.html

Skamania County in WA is much more remote given that it's 7 x the size of the Vietnamese Nature Reserve & has a Third of the people in it, plus it's 90% forested, isn't it ??

[Guest]

Define "remote" ?

As someone who lived for years just 45-50 minutes north of NYC, I can tell you there are state parks/land preserves and large tracts of land even in the Hudson Valley, where few if any people EVER go.... They may venture in part of the way, but very few (if any) hike the 10+ miles in a day to get back in to where its really "quiet" (no humans). I'm speaking of areas that arent even that far from a town, or small city.

When you look at a piece of land like the Adirondack Park in NY - coming in at close to 6.1 million acres, and consider its almost entirely Wilderness, and having myself done enough back country hiking and camping in it- I would compare its "remoteness" with any part of Laos/Vietnam you'd like.

As far as scientists and fauna go? There are scientists here in NY who definitively claim on a somewhat regular basis, that its IMPOSSIBLE for there to be any mountain lion/cougar type cat populations left in NY, and the same with Wolves as well. That doesnt stop the occasional sighting from taking place- and those are known recognized species.

To discard or ignore the ability of well attuned animals to stay hidden in the nature around us, even while we may walk by on a path just feet away, is to seriously underestimate their ability.

I myself have stopped in the woods- staring at what I was sure was a deer 30-40 yards away (partially obscurred), and just when I was ready to give it up for "seeing things", the deer having stood stone still, staring at me- snorted and bolted off into the woods- scaring the bejeezus out of me.

If a deer can be that elusive (and dumb at the same time), who's to say what a higher level thinking biped, especially one with a say 600-700 cubic centimeter cranial capacity, could do. (the brain size is a guess based roughly on a size between other large anthropoids and humans.)

I realize full well, my own experiences are worthless to a debate- without having some sort of non anecdotal evidence/proof to offer, but its also very frustrating when you know you've experienced something that your 100% sure about, but can't prove- and have other's dismiss it out of hand as pure fantasy.

You wouldnt understand until you've walked a mile in my shoes.

Art

[Guest]

What if bf migrates through Ohio

That's fine. Remember, the point of this discussion is not "there is no bigfoot," the point is that discoveries of gorillas, saolas, etc., are lousy analogies for bigfoot. If bigfoot does something really different than those latter creatures, like migrating through remote places such that it is even less likely to be detected, then it's just another thing that further weakens the analogies.

[Guest]

It's not that remote Sas is it given that there are over 30,000 people living in just over 600km2 ??

Population density is irrelevant to this discussion. Remoteness is not about the ruggedness of the terrain or the number of people who live there, it's about the history of exploration by western scientists, i.e., the people who care about describing species. The local people in Vu Quang obviously knew all about the saolas long before the 1992 expedition.

Lewis and Clark explored what would one day be Skamania County in 1805. The 1992 expedition in the Vu Quang is comparable. Yes there were local people there and yes they knew about the native creatures there. But westerners who were interested in naming, describing, and cataloging those species did not arrive in the Vu Quang until 1992. They arrived in Skamania County in 1805. Given that about 80% of the land area in the county is included in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, it's easy to see that the county has been very thoroughly explored, mapped, and inventoried since the county was settled in the mid-19th Century.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Thanks to Art for a great post.

Saskeptic - you lost me with your pick of Ohio. If you can't make your point by picking a state you know to have far less remote areas, then your argument sort of falls apart. Try those questions again with say, Montana or the like and start from the beginning.

[Guest]

Define "remote" ?

As someone who lived for years just 45-50 minutes north of NYC, I can tell you there are state parks/land preserves and large tracts of land even in the Hudson Valley, where few if any people EVER go....

From Hayes, W. J. 1871. Notes on the range of some animals in America at the time of the arrival of the white men. The American Naturalist 5: 387–392:

Vanderdonck writing in 1642 estimated that 80,000 beavers were trapped annually in each of 9 years during which he lived in the "New Netherlands."

The State of New York paid out $38,260 in wolf bounties from 1815–1820.

By the mid-17th Century, the Adirondacks became a destination for Jesuit missionaries and French trappers. By the 18th Century, mining and logging were major industries in the region. By the 19th Century, the whole "Adirondack Guide" culture developed to take people hunting and fishing into the region.

If the Vu Quang was first explored by westerners and settled in the mid-1600s, then it might be a decent analogy for the Adirondacks.

[Guest]

Thanks to Art for a great post.

Saskeptic - you lost me with your pick of Ohio. If you can't make your point by picking a state you know to have far less remote areas, then your argument sort of falls apart. Try those questions again with say, Montana or the like and start from the beginning.

Does that mean that you're manning up and stating that you don't think there are any bigfoots in Ohio, i.e., all 218 sightings in the BFRO database are erroneous? I didn't report those encounters; good, honest people who are absolutely convinced they saw a bigfoot did.