Viet Nam Nguoi Rung Letter Hoax Revealed
Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 11th, 2011
You have seen the report before. Today, November 11, 2011, we must reveal this case as a hoax. The full story in a moment, but first a reminder of the alleged missive. (Please note, this is the opinion of Tony Gerard, and not necessarily the opinion of this blogger, Cryptomundo, or any administrators here.)
In 2006, Stan Courtney noted an interesting letter from a Viet Nam veteran on his website. Click on the link to read the letter in its entirety.
Here is a portion of its contents:
It was 1969; I was on patrol one evening, just before dark in the North Two Corp in North Vietnam. We were returning to the hill, when we encountered hostile fire, the squad was caught off guard so we used what cover was available. The fight had been going on for only a few minutes when movement caught my eye. Through the thick vegetation I saw what I thought was a large man breaking cover from behind my left side. As the thing ran past me I realized it wasn’t a man, and was not really sure of what I was seeing. The thing was about 7 feet tall and had an enormous build, though not completely covered with hair, the thing had reddish brown hair covering a good portion of its body. It had covered about 30 yards very quickly passing within just yards of my position, when it got hit in the crossfire. The thing stumbled once or twice but never fell.
The following investigative report is from Tony Gerard (above), who was a consultant on MonsterQuest. Gerard is a full time Biology instructor at Shawnee Community College in Illinois. He feels this is a cautionary tale that is useful for understanding what pitfalls exist in cryptozoological examinations:
“Nguoi Rung, a letter from Viet Nam” was published in 2007 on Stan Courtney’s website and referenced more recently on Cryptomundo. I know the author well, he was one of my former high school students and remains a good friend to this day. The letter is a hoax. The story behind it could serve as a lesson to other investigators.
Dave (not his real name) is a life- long outdoorsman. He is an avid hunter, a top notch predator caller and coyote hunter. It has been his passion for years. He lives in central Illinois not that far from Stan Courtney. He is a vet, but was way too young for Vietnam.
At some point he and Stan had a series of conversations about some of the recordings on Stan’s website. Dave had written Stan about recordings; Stan later looked up his number and called Dave. Dave was convinced many of the recordings on Stan’s site were coyotes- it’s something he’s made a study of for years. Stan wouldn’t even consider it- they were Bigfoots and that was that!
Dave had mentioned all this to another buddy at work- Steve (his real name). Steve began to tease Dave about it. Steve really was a Vietnam vet, and Dave knew many of the details of his experiences in Vietnam. Steve had never mentioned Rock apes as part of his experience, but Dave knew enough Bigfoot lore to have heard of them. He conceived what he felt was a clever practical joke to one-up Steve for the teasing he was getting at work.
He wrote the letter, using location and work details from Steve’s actual Vietnam experiences, and sent it to Stan Courtney from a bogus Email address. He exchanged several Emails with Stan as he posed as Steve from the bogus account. He peppered the Emails with clues as to Steve’s real identity without actually telling it. He told Stan he did not want to talk in person, predicting that Stan would follow the clues, look up the actual Steve and call him. That’s just what happened. Steve of course denied any knowledge of the letter, but Stan didn’t believe him and didn’t take” no” for an answer easily. Later Dave and Steve had a good laugh together about it.
Dave told me about this a couple of years ago when he found out I was working on the series “Monsterquest”. When I sent him the link to his story on Cryptomundo, he felt like the joke had gone too far- it could interfere with actual serious research- and he asked me to set the record straight. He never intended for the letter to be published, and did not even know it had been till I sent him the link.
There’s a bigger point here that just dispelling a hoax. People who are not Bigfoot investigators look at things from a non-bigfoot perspective, and very often have valuable insights not clouded by a pre conceived notion. The Bigfoot community is often critical of mainstream science for being so dogmatic about the lack of Bigfoot evidence, but that door swings both ways. Some Bigfoot researchers are so dogmatic about the actual existence of Bigfoot that they see Bigfoot evidence everywhere- and refuse to accept a more mundane explanation for what they consider Bigfoot evidence.
Not to beat a dead horse here but a couple of other examples-
A well know Illinois bigfoot researcher once posted pictures of a large round hay bale with a very large depression in the top. He theorized it was from a Bigfoot sleeping on top of the bale. A friend told me that the hay bales in his horse pasture look exactly the same. It’s from his dogs sleeping on it. “They like to lay up there in the sun” he said. “After a couple weeks the depression gets wallowed out pretty wide and deep”. “Did you let him know that?” I asked. “Yeah” he said, “But he wouldn’t believe me. He knew it was Bigfoot.”.
A Tennessee researcher once posted pics on the web of what looked like miniature stick formations. Some were teepee types while others were green sticks bent in an arch. They were found in isolated openings in a National forest. She noted that each had a small area of disturbed dirt beneath it, but that she had found nothing in the dirt when she dug around there. She theorized that these were play stick formations made by juvenile Bigfoots, although she didn’t know why the dirt was disturbed beneath each.
I’m from rural Kentucky and I think I have the explanation. People often illegally plant marijuana in National forest lands. A small area of disturbed earth in an otherwise undisturbed area will often be utilized by birds to taken a dust bath. How do you keep birds and other animals from disturbing your planted seeds? Put some sticks over the spot. I contacted her about my explanation, but she knew I was wrong. It was obviously the work of juvenile Bigfoots.
So I’ve probably belabored this point too long. What are the take home lessons here?
We should always remember the principle of Occam’s razor- when selecting from a number of competing hypotheses the simplest one is probably correct. Is it more likely that dogs or Bigfoots are sleeping in your horse pasture?
Non- Bigfoot people look at things not expecting to find Bigfoot evidence, and they are often correct. It’s dangerous , and a poor investigative policy, to become too convinced by your own conclusions.
Everyone, even people we disagree with, should be treated with courtesy and respect, especially regarding their privacy. If an investigator contacts an alleged witness who has not come forward of their own accord, and they claim to know nothing about what is being investigated, it may be because they really don’t know anything about what is being investigated. In the case of the Vietnam letter, the investigator just assumed that the fellow denied knowledge because he did not want to talk about it. As a result a hoax was passed on, has now found its way onto the internet, and could have potentially made its way into the annals of lore as a legitimate account .
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
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.
Excellent article. Thanks.
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.
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:
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?
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!
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.
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.