Comments on: Viet Nam Nguoi Rung Letter Hoax Revealed

By: A. L. Hinton

A. L. Hinton — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:54:37 +0000

BFRO Report # 30510 Peoria County, IL (note the “investigator”). After I did some measuring of the image, using the “measurements” which matched the witness measurements, here is my photo annalysis using basic algebra: IF the “entire” footprint, including the canine track at the heel is 17 inches, the canine track itself would be 3.645 inches wide (maybe a wolf? My 90 lb labrador has 2.3 inch wide tracks). The hominid track itself would be 13.4 inches (a big man?) Without the canine track, and if the toe-to-heel hominid track is 17 inches, the canine track is 4.635 inches wide (OMG! Dire wolf?). With no ruler next to the single left footprint in a muddy area (a hopping bigfoot?) it is impossible to compare the “footprint”, nor believe the measurement. In my opinion, the edges of the toes appear to have had material (mud) flicked-out, as it appears the edges are missing dry chuncks of dirt). Since there is a canine track and a racoon track next to and inside the hominid track, it has some age, & if made when it was muddy, there would not be the dry rough edges… it would show mud pushed-up and/ or clean edges, now caked/ dry, depending on how muddy it was. I mentioned before I was military, and part of my formal training was as a cavalry scout (basic recon).Later on, I was a lab tech, an instructor, and well, I’ve been to many of the same places as in the Johnny Cash song. I also live in the county of Illinois where 10 miles to my east, November of 2009, a hunter shot & killed a wolf, as well as to the south, 3 black bears have been tranquilized and removed in the last 3 years. IL DNR website/ google search will confirm it. My point is that if [eh-hem]scientific measurements are to be used, as well as photographic “evidence”, we must ensure we use CSI type of “admissible evidence”. Excited emotions, poor photographic evidence gathering, a self-riteous “I’m a Bigfoot hunter so everything I see is Bigfoot evidence” attitude…. well, it doesn’t help anyone but the sceptics. Mr. Courtney, if you see this, I respect your passion. But, please take a step back and think about the word “objective”. We need field men. Maybe we can get together & go mushroom hunting or fishing and we can exchange a few ideas? Time to stop hoaxing ourselves.

By: DWA

DWA — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 01:16:06 +0000

PhotoExpert: I think this is the third time on this site I’ve been semi-credited with coining a phrase. Keep counting these up, I might apply for Who’s Who in America!

But of course I can’t take credit for that one. And I don’t know who could. Me? It just came out! Of course you may use it. With pleasure. Your contributions here are always valued; it’s the least I could do.

By: A. L. Hinton

A. L. Hinton — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:48:56 +0000

We all know the “type” of “cryptozoologist” whom seem to “find” one & only one footprint at a time, usually after some carefull brushing & scooping of the leaf litter. A brush here, a scoop here, & viola! A footprint. It takes more than an Eddie Bauer hat, photographer vest, a jeep, & a BFRO membership to be an objective observer. Case-in-point, I was fishing here in NW IL about a month ago when all of a sudden there was a splash in the canal… did something throw an object at me? Next, I heard distinctly 2 instances of wood knocking. Then, a grunt behind me. Bigfoot? I was creeped out a bit, thinking about it. But, the splash was created by gravity and ripe black walnuts falling in to the water. The wood knocking, walnuts bouncing off branches. And, the grunt was a buck which was apparently not happy about me or my dog being on his turf. I want to believe, I DO believe… But, as has been mentioned, we must be our own harshest critics. Not everything is due to Bigfoot. In fact, chances are 99% of our evidence is not Bigfoot evidence. Those who believe EVERYTHING is need to take a step back, some time off, assocociate with some hunters and learn the ways of the fields and woods. I’m recently retired from the military and have seen some incredible things, heard noises in the dark, had that creepy feeling… However, when logic overcomes emotion, most things can be explained. When it does happen, when someone photographs, films, captures, finds or befriends a Squatch… it will be truly amazing. One more thing while I’m on here… I love to watch Monsterquest and similar shows. But, as I see how most of the investigators operate… a few hundred yards from basecamp, overweight, decked out in new field duds… I must laugh. I think those who believe and are serious hunters aren’t on camera. Get serious. Get native. Get tactical. And for God’s sake, stop hanging feminine hygine products in trees!

By: PhotoExpert

PhotoExpert — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:56:10 +0000

DWA–Good posting! There is nothing that I can add except that I like your usage of the phrase “out-Occam it”. May I use that with your permission?

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:42:02 +0000

I should note that in my post above the "Occam theory" is best described not as - simply - "the simplest" but rather as...oh shoot. Read the "overview" in the Wikipedia entry for the flavor:

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:50:56 +0000

Um, folks?

This is ONE REPORT.

This is why, when anyone says, OK, tell me the five most convincing pieces of sasquatch evidence you know about (I’ve been asked that, right here on this site), just laugh. The evidence is compelling for two reasons: the quantity of reports (frequency) and their internal consistency (coherence). Any ONE of them – shoot, any 50 – could be fake. All of them? Oh sure, ya kook. Tell me how all the reports I’ve read are false positives, and yes you have to do that or you have no case.

I’ve heard more than one report of rock apes. Debunk ‘em all, and we’re done. Any you can’t debunk, I’ll go with George Schaller on the response: if only one is genuine, real animal. Period.

The vast majority of the evidence for sasquatch hasn’t been close to convincingly challenged. For nguoi rung, you tell me; but it seems there’s smoke, and where would it be coming from? Village dogs? Hairy VC? Doubtful.

All of ‘em flat lies? Show me.

The “Occam theory” (i.e., the simplest explanation of the evidence) is always the one in play in a scientific investigation. To knock it off the table – to even significantly challenge it – you have to “out-Occam” it, i.e., show your explanation is better. This is bottom-line fundamental, and scoftics consistently fail to understand it. Hairy hominoids existing today is an eminently plausible idea; there is much evidence in the fossil record, and an impressive body of encounter literature. It’s the “Occam theory” in this case, and scoftics haven’t touched it.

Rock apes: still very much in play. Real? You tell me. But you gotta use the evidence.

ONE report. Toss. No problem.

And the guy’s points about everything-being-Bigfoot: oh yeah. The overly credulous hurt the investigation more than the overly skeptical, because the latter get to jump all over the former – what Grover Krantz called the “lunatic fringe” – and ignore the body of legitimate evidence.

By: Lu Ann Lewellen

Lu Ann Lewellen — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:15:35 +0000

Excellent article. Thanks.

By: wolfatrest

wolfatrest — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:16:33 +0000

As I have said before, we ourselves must be the harshest judges of evidence and “proof”. Every bit of evidence should be treated the same way it would be if it were in a crime scene. Go in, try to disprove the existence of a bigfoot with the available evidence and anything which you can’t disprove stands a good shot of being credible. Go in and try to prove their existence and and you’ll think everything is proof positive. It’s just like statistics, if you play with the numbers enough, you can make them say whatever you want.