So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest HairyGreek]

No, I will have to turn down your offer to "man up" I suppose. Unless you would take it as manning up to say they don't live IN Ohio, only through. I have never pictured them to be indigenous to any one area based on the dispersion and the time of year the occurrences happen to increase.

218 sightings over how many years? And will you concede the point that Furious made? I agree with you that comparing the rain forests of Vietnam to America is apples to oranges. The rest...you are really losing me on. I don't think finding a BF is anything like stumbling across a mammal that sits out in the open grazing all day. I already agreed with you above on those points.

My point is, others have made some valid counter-arguments and I was curious if YOU were going to "man up" and address them. You can't get everything you need from a book Sas. I would take the word of someone who has lived in the woods of NY their whole life over whatever reference you can find to say there is jungle...and then there is jungle.

Edited October 5, 2011 by HairyGreek

[BobbyO]

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.

Sorry, i thought remote meant somewhere that was far away from anything, like people for example, not a place with 30,000 people living in not such a large area but because there wasn't an abundance of the wonderful Westerner Human Being stamping his/her feet all over it, that defined it as remote....

I keep forgetting that Westerners are the be all & end all where Science is concerned..

I've lived in SE Asia for 8 Years next Month, people in this part of the World tell all kids of stories of things in the Jungle that i have no clue what they are, because they're not in any of my " Western " influenced Books & they can't pick them out, because they're not in there..

That doesn't mean they're not there in the Jungles however, it just means that it doesn't exist yet in the minds of the West, like all those Deer except for the last 10 or so Years..I find it quite embarrassing really how smart we think we are & how much we think we know, when really we ( the West ) are centuries behind Native people in a lot of places, North America & Vietnam included.

It's an incredibly ignorant way to be.

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.

I don't think it's been that thoroughly explored Sas personally, we maybe like to think it has but it quite obviously to me hasn't been..

It would depend how you were define " thoroughly explored " too i guess. Yes it is mapped & named pretty well now but there's hardly a lot to map, other than Forest Roads, Wilderness areas & tiny Towns, none of which have a population of over 1,500 people.

[Guest]

No, I will have to turn down your offer to "man up" I suppose. Unless you would take it as manning up to say they don't live IN Ohio, only through.

"Through" and "in" are irrelevant. When gorillas and saolas were first discovered, there was no way to know if they were collected on permanent home ranges or if they were detected during dispersal. There were individuals in the Virungas and the Vu Quang, respectively, on the day that the first physical evidence of their existence was collected by westerners.

So bigfoots don't reside year 'round in Ohio, but they pass through on occasion? That's fine. You sound like you are willing to admit that there is some veracity to bigfoot accounts from Ohio, even if it's not all 218 in the BFRO database. They still occur there every bit as much as the migrant birds I find in my area are simply passing through. People see them and biologists collect them. This is even why we have some species with weird names like "Cape May Warbler." The species neither breeds nor winters anywhere near Cape May, NJ, but the holotype for the species was first collected there.

So. . . if bigfoots occasionally occur in Ohio and Ohio is much better explored than the Virungas of 1900 or the Vu Quang of 1992 then . . . gorillas and saolas are poor analogies for bigfoot. That's all I'm saying. Bigfoots must be doing something very different from these other creatures that have recently been described.

And will you concede the point that Furious made?

I addressed it in post 176, and above. I don't concede it, because it supports my point.

I agree with you that comparing the rain forests of Vietnam to America is apples to oranges. The rest...you are really losing me on.

But there is no "rest." That's my point: these recently described mammals such as gorillas and saolas were collected and described on what appear to be the very first expeditions by western scientists into their respective areas. If bigfoot was collected and described from the Great Lakes region in the 17th Century or from the Columbia River Valley during the Lewis and Clark expedition, then gorillas and saolas would be fine analogies. But it wasn't, so they aren't.

My point is, others have made some valid counter-arguments and I was curious if YOU were going to "man up" and address them. You can't get everything you need from a book Sas. I would take the word of someone who has lived in the woods of NY their whole life over whatever reference you can find to say there is jungle...and then there is jungle.

If you can't see that I have addressed these counter-arguments, then I suggest you look over my last few posts again. I have addressed them. I even provided a relevant literature reference. If you find an error in logic or interpretation then please illustrate it and I'll gladly respond.

Also, please, before going down this tortured path of "the people who spend time in the woods really know what's going on" recognize that such statements more often lead people to getting egg on their face than they do to getting a point across. To wit, I am a field biologist who studies wildlife and habitat relationships over most of the eastern U.S. I wrote about Ohio this morning because I've personally done surveys in the most remote parts of southeastern Ohio: I know the area has been explored because I'm one of the people who has contributed to its biological exploration. As for the Adirondacks, I am a native New Yorker and quite familiar with the landscapes, forest types, trees, and wildlife of the region.

[Guest]

Saskeptic:

The Adirondacks are "mapped" too- look at a map of NY sometime- the Adirondack Park is that big blob of green (up north) that takes up nearly a 1/4 of the State- and when you look closely there are very few roads or trails that venture far off the beaten path. It is wilderness, by its simplest definition- as so is much of the 800,000 acre Catskill Park in the southern part of NY. No logging, no commercial activity is allowed. Very few areas have residential areas, and the ones that do have been limited for many many years (late 19th century). And yes although at certain points of time- a good portion of it has been tromped over by explorers and hunters and the like- to say its been "thoroughly explored" is really a joke. The only trail that passes all the way through both parks is the Appalachian Trail- and how far off of that do people stray?

Maybe its different in other places, but here in NY, both areas are constitutionally protected and designated as "forever wild" areas. That goes back to late 19th century. So aside from a VERY limited group of intrepid hunters and explorers/hikers- the vast majority of both areas remains (like I said) as remote as remote can be. You can pick a spot on the map in many areas- draw a straight line for 20 or 30 miles (if not much further) and not cross over a road, or come anywhere near a town. That's pretty remote if you ask me. Within those remote areas are numerous mountains, streams, ponds, and lakes that have been visited by very few people- and even if they have, its not like any kind of permanent or even regular human presence was established there.

EDITED - ^^^^ to add, didnt know you were a native of NY, and knew the area- sorry for the lecture !

I also dont really personally see how many wolves or beavers were harvested has to do with anything ?

I understand at that time it meant there were hundreds if not a few thousand men who made their way by going into the less frequently visited areas- to access the streams and ponds to do so. But they also had their own stories on the subject.

In fact, because of the many "wildman" stories and reports of "bigfoot" type creatures that go back to the very same period as your 1805 timeline- I'd say that lends at least some credibility to the proponent side of things. Not to mention that coinciding with the European (white man) accounts, is a well established Native American belief in similar creatures in the Northeast. Whether its the same animal/creature that lives out West, is possibly an entirely different discussion- as typical reports from the East, are as a rule not nearly as large and bulky as the gargantuan western (PNW) accounts.

Tirademan has posted several old newspaper reports from various periods in the 19th century- some with outrageous claims, and probable exaggeration, but the historical accounts of these sightings are not as rare as one would expect, and they far precede any of the 20th century firestorm that was created out west by the Pgf or other real or hoaxed situations.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of areas that are more than remote enough- to conceal a creature that doesnt just run away when seen, but consciously is aware of human presence, and wants to stay as far away and hidden as possible. However smart they may be, or not- they are (possibly) advanced enough to know that humankind has been nothing but detrimental to their existence, and to as a rule avoid crossing path's with us. How much of that is instinctual, and how much is learned or passed down is debatable based on how much credit one would give for their possible intelligence level.

That's just the way I see it. Even if I hadnt experienced what I did many years ago, I'd still have to have at least an open mind- just based on the sheer size of many unpopulated areas, and how infrequently any human passes through those areas.

I know its not enough to say that they are there because of this, but its a real stretch to make the claim that the area's are just not remote enough that they couldnt be.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Art1972
add update

[Guest]

BobbyO's quotes bolded black:

1. I keep forgetting that Westerners are the be all & end all where Science is concerned..

2. It would depend how you were define " thoroughly explored " too i guess. Yes it is mapped & named pretty well now but there's hardly a lot to map, other than Forest Roads, Wilderness areas & tiny Towns, none of which have a population of over 1,500 people.

My responses:

1. Western scientists only matter in this discussion because these are the people who care about publishing descriptions of different organisms. This does not in any way suggest that westerners are better, smarter, more sophisticated - or indeed, more "western" - than any other group of people.

2. Things we've mapped and explored in Skamania County since the mid-19th Century, a sampling: geographic coordinates and grid lines, roads, powerlines, mineral resources, soil types, forest stands, forest pests, forest fires and fuels, marketable timber, wildlife, native plants, endangered species habitat, salmon spawning areas, fossil fuel reserves, seismic activity, vulcanism, atmospheric condition, hydropower potential, archaeological resources, etc. When your county includes Mount St. Helens, you can bet that it's been pretty thoroughly scoured by scientists over the last few decades!

Things we'd mapped and explored in the Vu Quang by 1992: (insert stridulating cricket sound)

[Guest HairyGreek]

"Through" and "in" are irrelevant. When gorillas and saolas were first discovered, there was no way to know if they were collected on permanent home ranges or if they were detected during dispersal. There were individuals in the Virungas and the Vu Quang, respectively, on the day that the first physical evidence of their existence was collected by westerners.

Irrelevant? So if you are going to look for a creature that resides there in the summer months in winter, this information would be irrelevant? OK...if you say so.

So bigfoots don't reside year 'round in Ohio, but they pass through on occasion? That's fine. You sound like you are willing to admit that there is some veracity to bigfoot accounts from Ohio, even if it's not all 218 in the BFRO database. They still occur there every bit as much as the migrant birds I find in my area are simply passing through. People see them and biologists collect them. This is even why we have some species with weird names like "Cape May Warbler." The species neither breeds nor winters anywhere near Cape May, NJ, but the holotype for the species was first collected there.

I do say there is verracity to 218 reports (more are on other places outside the BFRO). Not everyone goes for them being animals either. Also, comparing an Ox to BF is at least somewhat realistic in weight and shear mass. A bird the size of human's fist able to migrate a greater distance in a greater amount of time? Not so much.

So. . . if bigfoots occasionally occur in Ohio and Ohio is much better explored than the Virungas of 1900 or the Vu Quang of 1992 then . . . gorillas and saolas are poor analogies for bigfoot. That's all I'm saying. Bigfoots must be doing something very different from these other creatures that have recently been described.

So you can then say with 100% certainty that there is not a subsection of Ohio relatively unexplored that a Sas can be living in? That's a pretty bold statement. I can see by your final statement below why you said it. Way to pick an area you already know all the answers about.

I addressed it in post 176, and above. I don't concede it, because it supports my point.

You are correct and I apologize.

But there is no "rest." That's my point: these recently described mammals such as gorillas and saolas were collected and described on what appear to be the very first expeditions by western scientists into their respective areas. If bigfoot was collected and described from the Great Lakes region in the 17th Century or from the Columbia River Valley during the Lewis and Clark expedition, then gorillas and saolas would be fine analogies. But it wasn't, so they aren't.

Since you like looking things up, you may want to re-check the Lewis & Clark reference. I have heard different. You seem to have more time on your hands on the moment though so let me know how it turns out. Not trying to sound snarky even though..well, I know it kinda does.

If you can't see that I have addressed these counter-arguments, then I suggest you look over my last few posts again. I have addressed them. I even provided a relevant literature reference. If you find an error in logic or interpretation then please illustrate it and I'll gladly respond.

Nope, this post was sufficient answer I think. Thanks.

Also, please, before going down this tortured path of "the people who spend time in the woods really know what's going on" recognize that such statements more often lead people to getting egg on their face than they do to getting a point across. To wit, I am a field biologist who studies wildlife and habitat relationships over most of the eastern U.S. I wrote about Ohio this morning because I've personally done surveys in the most remote parts of southeastern Ohio: I know the area has been explored because I'm one of the people who has contributed to its biological exploration. As for the Adirondacks, I am a native New Yorker and quite familiar with the landscapes, forest types, trees, and wildlife of the region.

I won't end up with egg on my face because I am not engaging you to discredit you or participate in some sort of mental pissing match. I see validity to both sides of the arguments and have +1 some of your statements. I have to take you at your word that you know what you say and grew up where you "report". Just like I do with some folks regarding their encounters with Sas on their "home turf".

I respect your opinion and what you write Sas even when i don't necessarily agree or understand what you are writing about. I know when you have more than one person coming at you at once it can be frustrating, but you don't need to get an attitude. You would know with me if it was necessary. I raise the skull-n-bones when I come calling for a fight.

[Guest]

I know its not enough to say that they are there because of this, but its a real stretch to make the claim that the area's are just not remote enough that they couldnt be.

Which is fine, because that's not what I'm claiming. I'm only claiming today that, as remote as a place like the Adirondacks might be, it is a poor analogy for places like the Vu Quang in 1992 or the Virungas in 1905.

Think of it this way: Imagine that it's, I don't know, 1636, and our man Pierre is pulling up some tributary to the Hudson and setting his traps. He's the very first white man to attempt to trap beavers in the Hudson Valley and he produces the very first Hudson Valley beaver pelt that ultimately makes its way back to France. The good people of France are thrilled to learn that beavers are alive and well in the New World after being so thoroughly trapped in Europe. THAT is an appropriate analogy for the 1992 expedition to the Vu Quang that led to the scientific description of the saola.

Now consider all the trappers, miners, loggers, farmers, biologists, geologists, hunters, anglers, skiers, hikers, etc. who have spent time in Pierre's valley since 1636. None of them has ever produced a physical piece of bigfoot from that valley. This does not mean that bigfoot does not or cannot occur in that valley, but it does mean that the discovery of the saola is a poor analogy for the search for bigfoot. Why? Because saola was discovered on the first (as far as I can tell) such effort it could have been. The expedition went 1 for 1. They didn't go looking for saola; they were just looking. As for bigfoot in Pierre's valley, we're 0 for . . . ? AGAIN, this doesn't mean there's no bigfoot, only that saola is a bad analogy. Capice? (Proof I'm from Upstate NY.)

[Guest]

Roger.. thanks for clarifying this. I must have missed some of the saola discussion somewhere above.

So here's a test to confirm your Upstate New York status...

What is a "spiedie" ???

No looking it up !!!!

Art

(Well, actually it may depend on what part of upstate you hail from.. Speidie's are really only well known from Syracuse to Binghamton...)

[Guest]

(Well, actually it may depend on what part of upstate you hail from.. Speidie's are really only well known from Syracuse to Binghamton...)

Where I'm from, speidies are something that they eat down south! My wife knew all about them from her travels on 17; I had never heard of them until I met her.

[Guest]

ok you pass... at least you know where rt-17 is...

For those who arent "in the know" - spiedies consist of cubed pieces of meat- chicken, pork, beef, vension, lamb (whatever your preference) that have been marinated in spiedie sauce. The marinade recipe varies, usually involving olive oil, vinegar, garlic, and a variety of Italian spices and fresh mint.

The meat sits in the marinade for sometimes several days+ then are grilled to perfection, and served either on soft italian bread (wrapped around the meat) or on a sub roll....

Very tender, very flavorful, very popular in central NY State...

ok, sorry to derail the thread... stop drooling and back to the debate!

Art

[slabdog]

(rant mode on)

oh for the love of.....

This back and forth with Saskeptic reminds me of two fat kids staring longingly back and forth at each other across the dance floor at the prom...they really don't want to dance but they sure like the thought of it.

Here is what the man said on September 29th 2011:

"We can't prove to you that there is no bigfoot, but you can prove to us that there is."

I, for one, am tired of the theoretical back and forth about how dense the forests in upstate New York are .... (Although I am admittedly hungry for a Speidie).... and whether Ohio would be a great rest area for a world traveling Bigfoot.

who cares? What does it accomplish?

Nada!

Researchers....!

Show him (read: Real Scientists) the best evidence you got (cockleburs and all) and put the issue to rest for crimeny sake!

Otherwise, get used to the fact that the skeptics will never take you seriously, toughen up the old epidermis, and move on.

(deep cleansing breathes)

(rant mode off)

wooooo!

That felt good!

Just my .02 cents.....

(probably not worth much)

Edited October 6, 2011 by slabdog

[Guest]

wait, are you saying you want to dance with Saskeptic ?

The spiedie I understand, but have you seen him dance !! ??

I get your post Slabdog, i'm just kidding.

I feel the futility of the arguing much of the time, and try to not get caught up in it, but on occasion i cant resist giving my typing skills and my brain a little exercise...

Just gotta wipe the spiedie sauce off the fingers so the keyboard doesnt get all icky...

Art

[slabdog]

[slabdog]

wait, are you saying you want to dance with Saskeptic ?

Fat kid or not.....if I had strong evidence (as some claim they do) I'd be pull'n him in close and danc'n the lambada!

[slabdog]

it's actually pretty funny....

....and probably exactly what I would look like it I was prancing around in the same get ups.. Edited October 6, 2011 by slabdog