Are These "Skunk Ape" Photos Worth a look (?)

[Recently Digested]

Well, I, for one, believe it is.

I realize that, just from the little I know about the guy, Art Bell is regarded in some circles as being, at best, creduluous, and, at worst...well... Still, if you can spare the messanger (Bell) and, if need be, ignore the medium (his webpage), this recently posted picture might spark your interest. It's worth (great?) debating, at least.

http://www.artbell.com/graphics14.html

[Eutychus]

Which picture are we looking at? The guy in the gorilla suit, or the one who put a hammer through his truck window?

[Recently Digested]

D'oh! My lack of elaboration gave Eutychus the chance to make a hilarious quip!

The skunk-ape pic, by the way. That's quite the "suit." As for the other guy...well, I guess he's just an
out-and-out liar, since no rational person would ever claim that anything other than rain falls to the earth, around which the universe revolves, right, Eutychus?

[bare]

Hey! That's my neighbor's truck. Gonna have to go find the my kids spud gun. I keep telling them that spud guns are only for shooting skunk apes but they gleefully persist in creatig mysteries for the gullible.

[TV time]

Agree that it's a fake. If for no other reason that the immature palm trees in the foreground are placed there. They did not grow there. That type of palm doesn't grow in clusters like that.

Also the lighting is wrong. It implies a short flash at night, roughly what one would use on a standard 50 mm camera. This means the photographer is at least within six to eight feet. This close to an animal that is suggested to be extremely wary of humans?

Some nice touches though. The two sets of "red-eye" very effective. Hiding as much as possible of the beastie but letting the viewer see just enough..

[Sylkyn]

I love stuff like this! I haven't heard of Art Bell, per se, but I recently heard something about this particular "new creature"...supposedly along the lines of a BigFoot animal or something. You'd think with new technology and things of that sort, they could at least come up with something a bit more plausible, photographically speaking, and not resort to the same tactics that were debunked in the 60's and 70's.

/mild hijack

Just once I'd love to see a CLEAR picture of BigFoot or Nessie. With all the sightings, you'd think somebody would have a decent camera with them.

/end mild hijack

[UncleBeer]

Or someone would shoot one and have it stuffed. But since these creatures don't exist, I guess that ain't gonna happen, is it?

[Strainger]

Skunkape? Bwahahahaha!!

Actually, those pictures bear a strong resemblance to me on my last camping trip. Now that I think about it, I wondered where that flash was coming from when I went to go take a leak.

[Cat Whisperer]

Aww, he's cute. All glowing red eyes and shaggy hair.

[Recently Digested]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
But since these creatures don't exist, I guess that ain't gonna happen, is it?

What makes you so certain an unknown form of primate doesn't exist, undetected save the hundreds upon hundreds of recorded sightings, in, if not the Everglades, the Pacific Northwest/British Columbia? I mean, besides the arrogant, Western belief that, "if WE don't know about it, it CAN'T be there," of course...

Originally posted by SilkyThreat
Just once I'd love to see a CLEAR picture of BigFoot or Nessie. With all the sightings, you'd think somebody would have a decent camera with them.

Let us assume for a second that the sasquatch exists, and that the eyewitness accounts of its behavior are, more or less accurate (of course, a clarifier is necessary--the jury is still out regarding both issues, and will remain so in the collective minds of the scientific community [and in my own, as well] until a bullet-ridden corpse is unceremoniously dropped at the feet of Stephen Jay Gould.) This would mean that what we're dealing with is (1)nocturnal (2)"shy," as cliche as that sounds and (3)calls the continent's thickest forestry its home. By extension, an encounter with such a creature would, on average, occur at night, for a few seconds, and inside an environment the majority of the camera-toting populace dares not tread. Ergo, the odds of witnessing such a creature are already slim to none. The odds of encountering such a creature AND conveniently having a camera at your disposal fall somewhere between slim and forgetaboutit. In other words: it makes sense that "sasquatch" photos are few and far between, come about quite accidently, and are of a poor quaility (a fact that lends the very question you asked, Silky...see, it's a sort of Catch-22.)

Is the Art Bell photo I mentioned a hoax? Most probably...but not SIMPLY because of the creature it proports to depict. A vocal minority of primatologists and paleontologists (read: people more learned in regards to the subject and its ramifications than yourself, Unclebeer) agree that, while unlikely, there is no reason to immediately discount the notion that an undiscovered form of primate remains undiscovered by mainstream science.

[Purd Werfect]

Well, I've never believed in pickup trucks, but those pictures of what was purported to be one sure looked convincing.

[Cat Whisperer]

So here I am, visiting Great Debates again...no, wait, this is MPSIMS - I'm so confused!!

[diamud]

Quote from TV Time:
------------------------------------------------------
Agree that it's a fake. If for no other reason that the immature palm trees in the foreground are placed there. They did not grow there. That type of palm doesn't grow in clusters like that.

------------------------------------------------------

I also think the picture is an obvious fake, but I would point of that the plants are palmettos, not palm trees. They grow wild all over Florida.

[Tommy the Cat]

Ya' know, this may be a damn good hoax, but I won't dismiss it out of hand. I'm not going to sell all my earthly posessions to go on a "Skunkape" hunt either, but it is interesting.

BTW, listening to Art Bell is damnably entertaining. Pseudo-science at its absolute best.

[Lemur866]

Originally posted by Recently Digested
What makes you so certain an unknown form of primate doesn't exist, undetected save the hundreds upon hundreds of recorded sightings, in, if not the Everglades, the Pacific Northwest/British Columbia? I mean, besides the arrogant, Western belief that, "if WE don't know about it, it CAN'T be there," of course...

WHAT "Western" belief? Don't be silly. Western scientists turn up new animals EVERY DAY. Sure, most of them are insects and creepy-crawlies, but every so often we turn up a new vertebrate. Any primatologist or anatomist who came up with a new primate species from America would be instantly catapulted to fame. So why would they cover up and ignore evidence?

Westerners have inhabited this continent for 500 years. And in all that time, no bones, no skins, no skulls, no teeth, no captive specimens, no hair samples, no DNA?

Let us assume for a second that the sasquatch exists, and that the eyewitness accounts of its behavior are, more or less accurate (of course, a clarifier is necessary--the jury is still out regarding both issues, and will remain so in the collective minds of the scientific community [and in my own, as well] until a bullet-ridden corpse is unceremoniously dropped at the feet of Stephen Jay Gould.) This would mean that what we're dealing with is (1)nocturnal (2)"shy," as cliche as that sounds and (3)calls the continent's thickest forestry its home. By extension, an encounter with such a creature would, on average, occur at night, for a few seconds, and inside an environment the majority of the camera-toting populace dares not tread. Ergo, the odds of witnessing such a creature are already slim to none. The odds of encountering such a creature AND conveniently having a camera at your disposal fall somewhere between slim and forgetaboutit. In other words: it makes sense that "sasquatch" photos are few and far between, come about quite accidently, and are of a poor quaility (a fact that lends the very question you asked, Silky...see, it's a sort of Catch-22.)

No. There are many animals with the rarity and habits you describe. Snow leopards. Cougars. Red Wolves. Golden Lion Tamarins. Bamboo Lemurs. Etc. Etc. National Geographic gets stunning photographs of these creatures every month.

Every hunting season the woods are crawling with drunken sportsmen blasting everything that's not wearing blaze orange. How come nobody's ever shot one of these things by mistake?

Excuse me, but a photo of a guy with a carpet draped over his head doesn't exactly impress me as evidence. Well, just because THIS photo is fake of course doesn't prove that the creature doesn't exist. But you can IMAGINE any creature you want. I mean, you can't PROVE that unicorns don't live in my backyard, can you? So until you can do so, perhaps you should keep an open mind about my unicorns. Or maybe, just maybe, you should NOT believe that I have unicorns in my backyard until I show you some evidence for one.

Is the Art Bell photo I mentioned a hoax? Most probably...but not SIMPLY because of the creature it proports to depict. A vocal minority of primatologists and paleontologists (read: people more learned in regards to the subject and its ramifications than yourself, Unclebeer) agree that, while unlikely, there is no reason to immediately discount the notion that an undiscovered form of primate remains undiscovered by mainstream science.

True, in the trivial sense that if you showed up with a specimen most primatologists and paleontologists wouldn't close their eyes and put their hands over their ears and insist that the creature didn't exist. But first you have to have a specimen. Funny how we have specimens for every other creature, but not this one. And why not? Because there is no reason to believe that this creature exists. Pretty simple.

[Hiro Protagonist]

...lemme see if I can get this figgered out. This guy has a monkey that he is pissed at cause it stole his truck and then wrecked it? Or is it, the monkey snuck into his barn, punched out his truck winders, fucked a hole in the wall and then made his escape into the palmettos, pausing only to pee on the bush and thus allowing the truck owner to catch him red-assed, as it were?

Hmmmm... I'm starting to feel like Inspector Cleuseau.
"Pardon me, but does your doggy bite?"
"No." CHOMP
"I thought you said your doggy does not bite!"
"That is not my dog."


Seventh useless post and counting

[Eutychus]

Throwing this over to Great Debates where DavidB can trash the piss out of this thing.

[David B]

There's not really much of anything left to trash. You MPSIMSers got to it before I could! I mean, there's not even a "Skunk Ape" listing in the Skeptic's Dictionary. (Nor is it listed in their cryptozoology entry.)

But, never one to give up easily, I did a search at Skeptic Planet. I found a couple of "snippets" from the Tampa Bay Skeptics, but not much to jump up and down about:

http://members.aol.com/tbskep/v10n3rpt.html#Skunk_Ape
http://members.aol.com/tbskep/v11n3rpt.html#skunkape
http://members.aol.com/tbskep/v12n3rpt.html#skunkape (this one is particularly amusing -- it seems this ape-hunter wanted to use taxpayer funds to search for this creature)

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

One thing I am going to do is change the thread title so people have a clue what this is all about.

-----
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[Tsugumo]

Originally posted by SilkyThreat
Just once I'd love to see a CLEAR picture of BigFoot or Nessie. With all the sightings, you'd think somebody would have a decent camera with them.

...Does no one see the irony in this all? People shout, "We want good clear up-close photos of this unknown creature!! We won't believe you until you show us them! If it exists, someone should have taken a good shot of it by now!" Then here are two photos, nice and clear, up close, showing two different facial expressions on the thing (though the plant is in the way on the first pic, it doesn't look like it'd have the same grin as in the second), and everyone shouts, "Those can't be real! They're good clear up-close photos! No one could take those!! It's just someone in a suit!!"

So how in the hell is anyone supposed to prove it? If I bring out a "Bigfoot" carcass full of bullet holes, people will shout that it's just from a yak or something, and then tell me to bring them a REAL carcass.

So how is anyone supposed to prove it when no one wants to believe it?

- Tsugumo (granted the Skunk Ape thing could be a hoax, I don't really know...but the Government hired some idiots to make a tape of them explaining how they make crop circles by stomping down the crops with wooden planks and now everyone believes that...despite the fact that the crops in crop circles have BEEN tested and they've been chemically altered...can you tell I listen to Art Bell?)

[David B]

Considering the crap you posted about crop circles, yes, I can indeed tell you listen to Art Bell -- and apparently believe everything he or one of his guests says, as well...

[Tsugumo]

Originally posted by David B
Considering the crap you posted about crop circles, yes, I can indeed tell you listen to Art Bell -- and apparently believe everything he or one of his guests says, as well...

Yeah, I listen to the show. And if a drunk comes up to me on the street one night and tells me "Whatever you do, don't go into that alleyway!! The thing in there will KILL YOU!!", I'm going to avoid the alleyway. Sure he's drunk, and probably a little nuts, but I'm not going to completely disregard everything he says because of that. That's like saying that unless you have a degree in anthropology, you can't say "that is a dog".

I don't believe everything they say, but I think it's ignorant to throw anything I haven't personally witnessed out the window. I've never met someone from Washington, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (though photos of Washington could be computer renders, and pics of people could be pics of people from ANYWHERE, so all I have to go by is people telling me "Washington exists, I was there once!", and why should I believe them? They may do a radio talk show that discusses things like that, which means they're crazy).

- Tsugumo

[DrFidelius]

You do realize that if you were so inclined, you could find a way to visit Washington yourself.

That in and of itself causes your analogy to collapse.

[DrFidelius]

Oh, and I (and most of the people here) are more likely to go into that alleyway with a flashlight to see what scared the drunk. The truth is probably unbearably dull; but if you prefer to scare yourself and hide under metaphorical covers, br our guest.

Knowing what is really in the alley is priceless.

[jab1]

I've been to both Washington state and Washington, D.C. Does that help?

[Tsugumo]

You do realize that if you were so inclined, you could find a way to visit Washington yourself.

Because we know it's there right now (though technically, I have no more reason to believe what you just said than if someone else told me the moon tastes like chocolate because you're just "telling" me that). If you told some random tribe in Africa about Washington where all the people "drive" in "machines" and such, why would they believe you? It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means they haven't seen it yet and would assume it doesn't, and call you a liar, heh.

- Tsugumo (again, I'm not saying these things exist and are real, I'm just saying that ignoring any possibility of it because you haven't personally seen it is sort of nuts...and again, how would someone prove it to you? Show you a nice clear photo that they couldn't possibly have taken, or a blurry one that they couldn't possibly have taken, or a videotape of one that they couldn't possibly have taken?)

[DrFidelius]

We are going to DC next weekend. I could post a fuzzy photo of The Wife when we get back.

(Note: One photo of The Wife does not prove her existence, especially a photo allegedly taken so far from the areas of the usual sightings...)

[Recently Digested]

Tsugumo opined: "...Does no one see the irony in this all? People shout, "We want good clear up-close photos of this unknown creature!! We won't believe you until you show us them! If it exists, someone should have taken a good shot of it by now!" Then here are two photos, nice and clear, up close, showing two different facial expressions on the thing (though the plant is in the way on the first pic, it doesn't look like it'd have the same grin as in the second), and everyone shouts, "Those can't be real! They're good clear up-close photos! No one could take those!! It's just someone in a suit!!"

So how in the hell is anyone supposed to prove it? If I bring out a "Bigfoot" carcass full of bullet holes, people will shout that it's just from a yak or something, and then tell me to bring them a REAL carcass."

------

I see you have a firm grasp of the conundrum, Tsugumo. Reports of anomolies, including photographs and, in the case of the sasquatch, hair samples, fecal matter, and audio recordings (just ask for a cite and you shall receive), are rejected for being either (a)too conclusive or (b)too blurred, fragmented, etc. In this case, the photo falls into the former category. Perhaps if the photo had revealed less detail fewer subtle nods towards anatomical correctness (the eyes, both glowing and centered close together in the middle of the face), it would be better received. Oh, wait...those are the things we DON'T want!

David B, confirming the theory I've begun formulating in just the short time I've lurked at this BBS (read: the number of posts is often directly proportional to the jerkassedness of the poster) called what you posted about crop circles "crap." I can only assume that you personally affronted him somehow for him to react so strongly. Is there a link?

Lemur said: : "Every hunting season the woods are crawling with drunken sportsmen blasting everything that's not wearing blaze orange. How come nobody's ever shot one of these things by mistake?

Excuse me, but a photo of a guy with a carpet draped over his head doesn't exactly impress me as evidence. Well, just because THIS photo is fake of course doesn't prove that the creature doesn't exist. But you can IMAGINE any creature you want. I mean, you can't PROVE that unicorns don't live in my backyard, can you? So until you can do so, perhaps you should keep an open mind about my unicorns. Or maybe, just maybe, you should NOT believe that I have unicorns in my backyard until I show you some evidence for one."
----

Okay, I'm not even going to justify the "drunken sportsmen blasting everthing that's not wearing blaze orange" statement. In itself, it shows that you know little to nothing about the fundamentals of hunting.

"Carpet draped on a guy's head?" Sorry, but it looks a little more complicated than that. But I'm sure you realize this and you're just exaggerating for effect.

As for the unicorn metaphor...nobody is seeing unicorns on a regular basis, Lemur.

Also, as I mentioned, there HAVE been hair AND fecal samples discovered by those who had presence of mind enough to investigate after the initial sightings. Not that this matters to you. Nor does it matter that the results often return as "unknown animal...consistent with a primate...inconclusive." It's "inconclusive," so it can't be true! By the way, it's not exactly like we have anything to which to compare such a sample, so, all we can say is what it's not...and what it's not, apparently, is good enough for futher, objective inquiry.

So...Western scientists HAVE been discovering unknown vertebrates...even in recent decades? Yes they have. Accidently. Surreptitiously. Very few zoologists, naturalists etc., would EVER (if he or she wanted to be taken seriously) announce a SEARCH for an unknown vertebrate reported to exist, especially one with the commercially (albeit unintentionally) produced stigma of cartoon silliness the image of "Bigfoot" produces. Nor would they receive the funding. But, you inadvertently made a good point that only validates my own: locales that have been civilized for centuries have produced large, previously unknown vertebrates, so it's not unheard of, nor is it impossible, so your "Westerners have inhabited this continent for 500 years, and in all that time, no bones, no skins, no skulls, no teeth, no captive specimens, no hair samples, no DNA" statement is actually deflated by your previous one (that it happens "every day.")

Lemme' say this one last time: I don't "believe" in sasquatch, as it is not a question of "belief" to begin with. What I "believe" is that there have been enough consistent testimonials (along with trace evidence) to warrent an objective, funded investigation, and an end to blanket dismissals by those who claim to strive to "stamp out ignorance." I would not be surprised if just that sort of ignorance (and selfishness) has perpetuated a modern day myth for centuries. In contrast, though, I would not be surprised if this animal truly existed.

[HoldenCaulfield]

::Lurker comes out of hiding for a bit::

No opinion on this particular subject, but I have a better analogy than the Washington thing.

How do we know people like Napoleon existed? It could be an elaborate hoax. All eyewitnesses have since died (how convenient!) There are no pictures of him, only paintings. His body could simply be someone else's that was thrown in his grave. His accomplishments could actually be those of many people that were attributed to one person in an attempt to stir up nationalistic feelings and upset the concert of Europe and eventually lead to the revolutions of 1848 (time for paranoid conspiracy theory.) We have no conclusive evidence that he existed.

But those pictures do look pretty fake.
-HoldenCaulfield (Didn't know you visited here Hiro, I'm Bass2496 from Rit.)

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Recently Digested said:

the number of posts is often directly proportional to the jerkassedness of the poster

Too bad you've only been lurking a short time. For if you'd been around longer, you might know that insults like this have no place in Great Debates.

Don't let it happen again.

--------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[tubagirl]

Hey! Hey! Hey!!!!!

The skunk-ape is great legendary Floridian lore. Supposedly he only comes out at dawn to eat the roadkill on certain roads. He runs very, very fast if he sees you spot him. That is what they are refering to with the pictures of the smashed car. he doesn't hesitate to take whacks at you.


This was "Skunk-Ape" topic was on the radio station in Orlando recntly and they had people calling in talking about it. Wether it is real or not is questionable. (I don't belive in it) But the legend of Skunk-Ape isn't a crappy web site legend, but a Floridian legend.

[Scylla]

I just want to be sure I understand:

The Skunk Ape through a meteorite through the truck?

[Esprix]

What the fuck is a Skunk Ape supposed to be that people are faking pictures of it?

I am so confused...

Esprix

[dropzone]

Even throwing in the [gratuitious insult] Florida Swamp Rat factor [/gratuitious insult], those eyes look mighty close together for a human. But there isn't enough detail for me to make any full judgement. As for "skunk apes," many species from outside the US have found the Florida climate to their liking, and with so many circuses formerly wintering there I would not be surprised if some chimps got loose and built a breeding colony. He seems to have grizzling around his muzzle like a chimp and the other hair appears to be the right color and length. And he appears to be in a chimp threat posture in the first photo. I don't what the hell is shown in the second photo.

However, the famous film of the Bigfoot walking across a field or riverbed shows an animal with a remarkably long femur. Proportionally to the rest of the body it looks far outside the range of normal human femurs, and that is HARD to fake. Lower leg? Easy--stilts. Upper leg? Nope. I am not as sure as many skeptical people are that it is somebody in a gorilla suit.

[Recently Digested]

The pictures posted below the skunk ape pics are unrelated to the skunk ape incident, itself. Bad web page designing, I guess.

Okay, David B. I won't let it happen again. I guess only YOU can do the insulting around here. Besides, who said I was referring to you?

Dropzone...you made a good point. I was wondering about whether or not it was an escaped animal, myself. How large are palmettos, on average? That way, we could judge just how tall the skunkape/man-in-suit/model/etc. is. If the figure is of a reasonable height, it might just be wise to write this one off as an escaped primate, because it does look orangatanesque, and there's no logical reason why this isn't just that. Same with the grizzling. If it is a hoax, they did some research.

[Ptahlis]

I'm sorry, but photos today are fairly lightweight in the realm of evidence, especially given the lack of anything like a corpse, even a partial one. In this digital age, I have seen fake nude photos of celebrities that are undetectable without a peek at the original photo. An ape on a web page just isn't convincing.

[SSgtBaloo]

I've read about the "skunk ape" in some books about cryptozoology. It's supposed to be a sasquatch-like creature that appears in the southeastern United States, and it smells, by all accounts, nauseatingly bad.

Having said that, the first two pictures, fake or not, appear to be photos of something that strongly resembles an ourangutan. Am I convinced? Nope.

~~Baloo

^{I'm still rooting for sasquatch, even in the absence of compelling evidence in its favor.}

[SSgtBaloo]

I read those cryptozoology books I'm referencing when I was in Jr. High and High school. Cites? Are you kidding? I can't remember the names of any of my teachers from back then and you want book titles?

~~Baloo

[Tsugumo]

On Art Bell tonight (started moments before this post), they're talking about this very thing.

If you want to listen, just go to http://www.artbell.com/ and hit "Program" and "Listen Live" to hear it through RealAudio or Media Player 2.

Some sort of Cryptozoologist is going to be talking about it with him (and from the description, it sounds like he's going to be saying that it could very well be real).

But then, he's on Art Bell, so he's obviously a phoney. Anyone who comes on Art Bell is full of crap, as DavidB can probably tell us all about.

- Tsugumo (wearing a Bigfoot costume)

[APB9999]

Okay. Here is why we should be skeptical of the swamp ape.

Primates occur in Africa, Asia and the Americas, but APES do not occur in the Americas - except for humans who are exceptionally adaptable to environments extreme enough to prevent the migration of other apes. Although there are New World monkeys, the simians certainly did not independently evolve in the Americas.

So an ape native to Florida (or an Oregonian sasquatch, for that matter) would be not just an interesting find, but a revolution in primatology. How would it have gotten here? Swim the Atlantic? Over the Bering land bridge during the last Ice Age? Unlikely for tropical apes, and ALL the large apes are tropical (again with the exception of humans who have adapted widely.) Or perhaps it is a winged ape - it can't be ruled out from the photograph.

I don't have to do a complete search of every square inch of Florida to know the phylogeny of primates or see these patterns. I discern them from what I see in the rest of the world. So is there a skunk ape? The odds against it are simply astronomical. Certainly they are far, far greater than the probability that this is just another cryptozoological hoax/self delusion. It is, of course, formally possible that the creature exists, but the set of things that are formally possible but highly unlikely is a very large one and almost completely overlaps the set of things not worth wasting your time with.

[Recently Digested]

APB9999...so what you're saying is this (and I am genuinely curious and interested, asking out of ignorance and not debating your statement...by the way, I appreciate that you explain the basis of your skepticism in a reasonable tone, not simply dismissing the concept with a snide put-down): the biggest stumbling block in regards to the existence of North American apes, Sasquatches, etc., is their means of getting there in the first place? I, myself, find it telling that the two regions of the world traditionally purported to harbor such creatures are eastern Asia and a slight crescent of land running from western Canada and into America's Northwest. What do these areas have in common? The land bridge you mentioned. You seem to know a lot about the subject, so I'd appreciate your continued commentary.

[David B]

[Moderator Hat: ON]

Recently Digested said:

Okay, David B. I won't let it happen again. I guess only YOU can do the insulting around here.

If you have trouble understanding the difference between describing something that was said and directly insulting a person, I will gladly explain it to you in e-mail.

-------
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator

[Moderator Hat: OFF]

[Dinsdale]

I recall reading recently about previously undiscovered herbivores and primates being scientifically identified in SE Asia and S America. In the reports I read, these species were "new" only to the outside observers. Indigenous peoples were well aware of their existence, and provided scientists with skins and helped them find live animals. Yet we are to believe that in the continental US, Florida no less, a species of large primates exists in numbers large enough to reproduce, yet incapable of irrefutable identification?

As Lemur noted,I am routinely amazed at the photos I see in National Geographic of rare and elusive (and small) species. I am regularly amazed at what dedicated scientists, artists, and thrill-seekers accomplish. I see no insurmountable obstacle here.

Heck, there are an incredibly small number of Florida panthers, yet folk manage to tag them, and they occasionally show up as road kill.

And given today's technology, I am extremely dubious that intense analysis of a hair or stool sample would yield no more detailed analysis that "unknown animal". Cite please?

[Lemur866]

Originally posted by Recently Digested
Tsugumo opined: "...Does no one see the irony in this all? People shout, "We want good clear up-close photos of this unknown creature!! We won't believe you until you show us them! If it exists, someone should have taken a good shot of it by now!" Then here are two photos, nice and clear, up close, showing two different facial expressions on the thing (though the plant is in the way on the first pic, it doesn't look like it'd have the same grin as in the second), and everyone shouts, "Those can't be real! They're good clear up-close photos! No one could take those!! It's just someone in a suit!!"

No, these photos are NOT clear! The palm fronds are clear. The shape behind it is not clear. It could be anything. All I can see is a blur with two spots that could be eyes. I have no idea if this is a guy in a suit. It could be a photoshop image. It could be a dummy. I don't know where you are getting the "grin" from, I don't see any grin.

So how in the hell is anyone supposed to prove it? If I bring out a "Bigfoot" carcass full of bullet holes, people will shout that it's just from a yak or something, and then tell me to bring them a REAL carcass."[/i]

No. If you bring in a carcass, we can look at the teeth, the organs, the skull. It would be very very easy to prove that a Bigfoot carcass was a previously undiscovered primate. And the zoologist who published his work on the type specimen would be instantly famous. Do you think scientists hate fame? No. Do you think scientists are scared to upset the conventional wisdom. No. Actually, upsetting the conventional wisdom is the BEST WAY to advance your career, so long as you are right, or at least are wrong in interesting ways.

I see you have a firm grasp of the conundrum, Tsugumo. Reports of anomolies, including photographs and, in the case of the sasquatch, hair samples, fecal matter, and audio recordings (just ask for a cite and you shall receive), are rejected for being either (a)too conclusive or (b)too blurred, fragmented, etc. In this case, the photo falls into the former category. Perhaps if the photo had revealed less detail fewer subtle nods towards anatomical correctness (the eyes, both glowing and centered close together in the middle of the face), it would be better received. Oh, wait...those are the things we DON'T want!

Are you saying that these are good photos? Ha! No, they suck, the don't show a thing. OOO, the creator of the photos knew enough to include red-eye! Wow! Apparently this person has used a camera with a flash before! And what are you talking about, evidence rejected because it's too conclusive? There is no conclusive evidence. You can point to hair, but where's the DNA analysis? You can point to fecal samples, but how can you prove they came from an unknown species of primate?

Okay, I'm not even going to justify the "drunken sportsmen blasting everthing that's not wearing blaze orange" statement. In itself, it shows that you know little to nothing about the fundamentals of hunting.

Bah. My point is that hunters shoot lots of animals, and who is more likely to stumble across this creature than a hunter? And hunters have rifles, so why hasn't one of these creatures turned up dead?

As for the unicorn metaphor...nobody is seeing unicorns on a regular basis, Lemur.

Says you. I see them all the time, I've got samples, I've got specimens. No, YOU can't see them, with your Western Pro-science skeptical attitude. You wouldn't believe them even if I showed them, so I'm not showing them. I only show my evidence to people who already believe in unicorns. See?

Also, as I mentioned, there HAVE been hair AND fecal samples discovered by those who had presence of mind enough to investigate after the initial sightings. Not that this matters to you. Nor does it matter that the results often return as "unknown animal...consistent with a primate...inconclusive." It's "inconclusive," so it can't be true! By the way, it's not exactly like we have anything to which to compare such a sample, so, all we can say is what it's not...and what it's not, apparently, is good enough for futher, objective inquiry.

No, "inconclusive" doesn't prove it can't be true. It means that there is no reason to believe it is true.

So...Western scientists HAVE been discovering unknown vertebrates...even in recent decades? Yes they have. Accidently. Surreptitiously. Very few zoologists, naturalists etc., would EVER (if he or she wanted to be taken seriously) announce a SEARCH for an unknown vertebrate reported to exist, especially one with the commercially (albeit unintentionally) produced stigma of cartoon silliness the image of "Bigfoot" produces. Nor would they receive the funding.

No. Was the person who discovered the Golden Bamboo Lemur ostracized? Or was she taken seriously? Why, amazingly, yes Patricia Wright was taken seriously!
http://notes.cc.sunysb.edu/CAS/icte....rm/resprojects
Huh, here we have a brand new species of lemur, and zoologists are begging to go study the damn thing. This doesn't seem like the behavior of the scientists you know. Perhaps you don't know very many.

Finding and describing a new vertebrate species, especially one as unique as a native North American ape, would be the pinnacle of success for a zoologist. There are only a few out there, vs. thousands of zoologists. The only reason you insist that zoologists don't want to discover new species is that they haven't discovered this particular species. They also haven't discovered any pixies, nixies, kelpies, goblins, hobgoblins, gorgons, sphinxes, unicorns, phoenixes, swanmays, selkies, kobolds, chimeras, hydras, hoop snakes, hippogriffs, or champchurches. Ah, but the reason they didn't discover these creatures is that they were close-minded! They refused to consider the evidence! What evidence? Nevermind that, they refused to consider it! Because they were cowards! Those damn skeptical scientists!

{Fixed skunked code. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 02-13-2001 at 01:02 PM]

[Lemur866]

AHHHH! The skunk apes messed up my coding! Damn skunk apes! Nooooooo!

[Recently Digested]

Lemur:

I didn't say that the scientists didn't WANT to search for the sasquatch...I said that they would be ostracized for doing so, if only because of the conotations "Bigfoot" carries. By the way, tell me...what inspired the search for this new lemur? What were the circumstances that prompted the investigation?

Sigh.

This is tiresome. I'm going to let someone else take over.

http://<a href="http://members.aol.c...otFAQ.html</a> is an exhaustively researched FAQ I encourage everyone to read, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Dogmatic disbelievers and the credulous are especially urged to take a look.

From the FAQ--
On DNA/Hair samples:
"Dr. W. Henner Farenbach is among those scientists actively testing hair samples for identification using genetic material. While many of the hair samples have been determined to be of synthetic origin (e.g. "fur suits") or of known animals (e.g. bear, deer, etc.) a few of the results have yielded an "unknown primate" (based on similarities in DNA base sequences) as the source of the hair.

This news is bittersweet, however - since a bigfoot specimen hasn't been recovered, we have nothing to compare these hair sample data to. Dr. Fennerbach can't tell for sure that it's bigfoot hair without a "real" bigfoot for comparison, but he can determine what it's not - and these hairs didn't come from any animal currently known to science."

{Edited for copyright concerns. Do not post large chunks of presumably copyrighted material; post links and *small* excerpts only. --Gaudere}

With the above quotes, I neglected to suffix each and every misspelling with "sic."

The writer's laconism borders on the droll, and his methodical, step-by-step dissection of the uninformed, blanket denials that so often make these debates impossible, make for eye-opening reading.



[Edited by Gaudere on 02-13-2001 at 02:06 PM]

[Recently Digested]

http://members.aol.com/Mtgjudge/BigfootFAQ.html is the correct addy. Oops.

By the way...Lemur, you only see a blur and two eyes? In the first picture? It doesn't look very blurry to me. I think you're exaggerating for effect again.

[pldennison]

The hindrances faced by a sasquatch photographer stem mainly from the elusive habits of saquatches. Almost any other type of terrestrial animal (land animal) is easier to locate and photograph not only because there are more of them, but also because they are in more predictable locations. Sasquatches are nomadic, nocturnal to some degree, and extremely wary of humans. Their food requirements and social structure may force them to migrate from place to place on a frequent basis and in an unpredictable pattern.

So, let me get this straight: There aren't a lot of them, and we don't know where they are, but we know that they are nocturnal, what their eating habits are and what their social structure is. And, despite the fact that they are nocturnal "to some degree", the most famous moving image of one depicts it strolling casually around the woods in broad daylight.

So, basically, we can't catch one or get a good photo because they're elusive, and we know they're elusive because we can't catch one or get a good photo. But we still know what they eat and how they live. Wow, that's really good research.

Anyhoo, the thing in the picture looks like a plain old orangutan to me, with maybe some Photoshop work done on it. Could even be stuffed.


Tsugumo: Could I please have some cites on those "genetically altered" crops and the government forcing people to 'fess up to making circles? Thanks in advance.

[jab1]

"Extinct" insects found in Australia.

So, lemme get this straight: Scientists can find three (count 'em, three) six-inch-long insects on an island near Australia, but they can't find a seven-foot-tall man-ape?!?!

(chortle, giggle, snicker, SNORT!)

[Fenris]

Just as an aside, on the other set of pictures, the ones where the guy hammered in his car window? That must be a pretty remarkable bit of "space junk" since, per the page, it flew out of the garage, leaving a hole in the wall. Unfortunately, if you look at the hole, the hole was punched into the garage, not out of it.

You've heard of the "magic bullet"? This must be the "magic meteor"

Fenris