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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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…
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.
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?
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.
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.
…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?”
“I thought you said your doggy does not bite!”
“That is not my dog.”
Seventh useless post and counting
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:
…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?)