Guest HairyGreek Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I liked you better when you were patiently waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 dang rant mode.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 6, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted October 6, 2011 Very tender, very flavorful, very popular in central NY State... I'd still prefer a little tiger sauce to hotten it up. And maybe some sweet peppers to give that sweet and hot taste too. Let's eat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 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 Sounds about like a Fajita to me. TexMex food rocks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 6, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted October 6, 2011 Good Post Slab & you're 100% right.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 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. For all your pontificating you still didn't answer my point. Did the Vu Quang Ox actually exist in reality before science told us it existed in the early 1990s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kerchak Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Define "remote" ? Presumably Saskeptic is one of those folks who thinks 'remote' alludes mostly to foreign third world countries. In his Vu Quang Ox post he keeps going on about how remote their range is. In fact the Vietnam War was fought right through the southern part of Vu Quang Ox's suspected range. The United States Military even constructed a cross Annomite mountain forest range road in this southern section, which was the "the largest and most successful combat engineering feat" of the Vietnam War: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/War+trophies+of+the+past-a0170201417 This is the suspected range of the Vu Quang Ox along the Vietnam/Laos border. http://www.ultimateungulate.com/artiodactyla/pseudoryx_nghetinhensis.html This southern range section is right in the middle of an area that was infiltrated, spied on and bombed the heck out of during the Vietnam conflict. The famous battle of Hamburger Hill took place in the nearby A Shau Valley. Remote, my backside. A major war was fought across a part of the Vu Quang Ox's southern range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) "Remote" is definitely a subjective concept. For me it has to fulfil 2 Criteria AT LEAST 1 hour away from Help. Be it medical or an extra set of hands to strive off an emergency situation. AT LEAST 1km from a Road where a MAXIMUM of 1 vehicle every 6 hours on average Because there are large areas of the Outback where there is literally no-one around. A homestead bay be "remote" from a town, but with 20-30 persons working there during the season it could be seen as a small village, So point 1. Whereas the long roads between towns may be in the middle of nowhere and be on a road which has people every couple of minutes (Point 2). As I said this is my concept of "Remote" and others may have their own criteria or even fine-tune these points. Edited October 6, 2011 by Krisop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 For all your pontificating you still didn't answer my point. Did the Vu Quang Ox actually exist in reality before science told us it existed in the early 1990s? I responded to this rhetorical question in post 153 with a narrative summary describing the discovery, two links to additional information, and an attachment that is the actual friggin' paper in which the species is described. Maybe that avalanche of facts was too much for you to wade through, so here it is repeated simply and in bolded font: The first specimens collected by the expedition to the Vu Quang in 1992 were horns obtained from local hunters who had killed the animals. Where on earth would you have gotten this silly idea that I didn't think the animals existed before they were described in the literature? As for "remoteness," I must have defined it 4 or 5 times now in this thread. I'm referring to how recently an area received its first wildlife inventory expeditions by western scientists. In Skamania County it was 1805. In the Virungas it was, what, around 1900. In the Vu Quang, it wasn't until 1992. Part of the reason it wasn't surveyed until 1992 is precisely because of the Vietnam War and its after effects. I'm not at all surprised to learn that important battles were fought in the region; I assumed some had been. But the biologists looking for stuff to discover and describe? They didn't get there 'til 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) Good Post Slab & you're 100% right.. Yeah! Why come onto an online forum and talk about stuff and learn new things! Absolute silliness! Edited October 6, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I got re-interested (that may not be a word) in Bigfoot in the past two years based on some sounds I heard that I couldn't identify in an area I had an experience in my youth. I came to this site and others looking for information and technical assistance with recording. Which I got from some awesome folks like Stan Courtney. I think Bigfoot is a definitely maybe, and a great reason to get outdoors. But as with any group dynamic and certainly with this subject I found almost cultish positions on both sides of the fence. One site I no longer post on because any dissenting voice with the current climate is not welcome and quite frankly feel the climate has changed on this site as well but hey each to their own and believe want you want. I may be a skeptic by some standards but obsessed not me, but maybe we should all step back and look in the mirror now and then....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) Interesting. How do you feel the climate has changed on here? For or against the skeptic? Or do you mean in another area? You have been around longer Cervelo. You would have to tell me. Edited October 6, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 . . . gorillas and saolas are poor analogies for bigfoot. That's all I'm saying. The whole "man up" thing was silly. I don't think that all of the reports from Ohio are valid Bigfoot sitings but, almost assuredly, some are. I don't see the point in describing which reports seem more likely to be valid than others to the detractors (who make up their own minds quite easily that Bigfoot definitely do not exist). Bigfoots must be doing something very different from these other creatures that have recently been described. Bingo! They obviously are but, the analogy to other large animals that have only been recently discovered by Western science still seems valid. I don't see any way to man-out of that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Interesting. How do you feel the climate has changed on here? For or against the skeptic? Or do you mean in another area? You have been around longer Cervelo. You would have to tell me. It's much more warm and fuzzy, which is not a bad thing, with newbies coming to the scene as the whole subject becomes more mainstream. It has not become tyrannical by any means (as others have IMO) For me it's more entertainment as I see the same discussions evolve and reach the same end over and over. I have to remind myself often it's a discussion board not a conclusion board, no answers will be found here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 The whole "man up" thing was silly. I don't think that all of the reports from Ohio are valid Bigfoot sitings but, almost assuredly, some are. I don't see the point in describing which reports seem more likely to be valid than others to the detractors (who make up their own minds quite easily that Bigfoot definitely do not exist). That was because I had been erroneously accused of posing skeptical arguments from the point of view that any bigfoot report must be a valid report, which is not, and has never been, my m.o. When people introduce that idea in discussion, I ask for clarification so we can all be on the same page. Although I've found very few here with the courage to admit it publicly, some bigfooters believe in a truly wilderness bigfoot from the wildest parts of the PNW, and they put very little stock in accounts from elsewhere in the Lower 48. The putative distribution of North American bigfoot is very much relevant to this discussion. If, for example, bigfoots really occur in some remote ranges in British Columbia - and nowhere else - then examples like the discoveries of gorillas, okapis, and saolas actually would make rather sound analogies. If, however, this "bigfoot" we're talking about really does occur where it is broadly reported, then we must acknowledge that it occurs in areas that have been thoroughly explored, such as Ohio, Florida, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, etc. That doesn't mean that there's a guy in a labcoat with a microscope aimed at every square centimeter of Ohio. It only means that folks like the WWF aren't funding expeditions to the Muskinggum River Valley because they suspect a treasure trove of undescribed large mammal discoveries awaits them there. Bingo! They obviously are but, the analogy to other large animals that have only been recently discovered by Western science still seems valid. If bigfoot is qualitatively different, then how is the analogy valid? Gorillas, okapis, and saolas were discovered by western scientists once western scientists began studying the places where they lived. If bigfoot lives in Ohio - or any other place that we can agree has had at least rudimentary study and exploration by western scientists - but is yet to yield discovery, then this is counter to the analogy of the discovery of other recently described large mammals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts