# Are These "Skunk Ape" Photos Worth a look (?) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 11, 2001, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029 "2001-02-11T10:20:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Recently\_Digested](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce73a5/32.png) [@Recently\_Digested](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recently_Digested)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/101 "2001-02-16T21:38:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Who says there exists no format for it? Are you _trying_ to show that you don’t know what you’re talking about? OK…explain: why SHOULD he submit it to a scientific journal, WHAT would that mean to YOU, and WHAT would it accomplish? Do you think anyone would care? Would it be detrimental to his career? Do these journals just accept anything? Would they consider it rubbish? Also…what, and who, in the hell are we talking about? The club-footed track that went on for 1,000-some prints? > [@](#): > > Yes. What did you read? Like I said, his writing and mindset is even-handed in regards to these issues (which translates as “credulousness” when it comes to anomalies, I guess…any “incredulous” individual would dismiss them immediately). In fact, his chapter on sasquatch ended with these words: “One does not have to be a rigid, unbending dogmatist to resist (the existence of sasquatch) in the absence of a body or living specimen. This sort of skepticism, eminently defensible, is on thing; dogmatic denial is another (hint: he’s talking to some of you folks).” Now…does that sound like “credulousness”? > [@](#): > > Have you ever read anything by a source that wasn’t credulous? Just wondering. If the above is any indication of your knowledge of the word, then I would hope not. 1.) The “well, if it’s in (a) \_\_\_\_\_\_, it MUST be TRUE!” witticism, while still amusing and convincing, is rather cliche. I emitted a smirk and what might be considered a chuckle, NOTHING like the gut-wrenching belly laugh such trenchant, faux-acceptance might have garnered a few decades ago when it was still fresh in the populace’s collective mind. What I mean, DavidB is…work on it a little, OK? 2.) Weren’t you supposed to have “trashed the piss” out of this (specifically the “skunk-ape” picture) by now? Tsk. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/102 "2001-02-16T22:04:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Recently Digested \* > \*\*OK…explain: why SHOULD he submit it to a scientific journal, WHAT would that mean to YOU, and WHAT would it accomplish? Do you think anyone would care? Would it be detrimental to his career? Do these journals just accept anything? Would they consider it rubbish? \*\* Articles published in scientific journals are subject to peer review. That means other experts in the field look at the potential article and decide if it has merit. These are experts in the field, not a bunch of guys off the street. If it does appear in a scientific journal, the article would have much more credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Recently\_Digested](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ce73a5/32.png) [@Recently\_Digested](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Recently_Digested)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2001, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/103 "2001-02-16T22:33:16Z")
I agree and understand completely. You don’t think his “peers” would look at the report, read the word “sasquatch,” or, even worse, “bigfoot,” and say, “Next!”? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2001, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/104 "2001-02-17T01:04:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Recently Digested \* > \*\*I agree and understand completely. You don’t think his “peers” would look at the report, read the word “sasquatch,” or, even worse, “bigfoot,” and say, “Next!”? \*\* Why would he need to use those words, considering the baggage they carry? Is the phrase “previously unidentified North American bipedal primate” somehow not descriptive enough? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2001, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/105 "2001-02-17T02:13:26Z")
Submission to a peer-reviewed journal would also clear up any questions regarding the methodology of examining the scat or hair samples. He wouldn’t just be able to say “It’s unidentified”, he would be able to show just what was checked, what it was checked against, and what warranted the conclusion. The judges would suggest tests which had not been performed, or alternate interpretations of the results. This helps to assure that the conclusions reached are accurate and not subject to the whims and oversights of the investigator. And I can assure you that there are many primatologists and other scientists who would sell their grandmother to the Bey of Algiers for the opportunity to prove the existence of a previously undescribed bipedial ape. You seem vaguely familiar, **Recent**. I am sure I know you from somewhere… ---
**Author:** ![APB9999](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB9999](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB9999)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2001, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/106 "2001-02-17T11:03:19Z")
I found this statement questionable: > [@](#): > > ‘The footprint data follow a Gaussian distribution curve such as would be expected from a population…A collection of reports fabricated over 40 years by hundreds of people independently would have a non-Gaussian distribution’ {Sapunov, 1988}. RD responds: > [@](#): > > As for the bell-curve…while we remain ignorant as to whether or not such a creature, if it exists, would display a sexually dimorphic bell-curve, my interpretation of the study was that the very fact that it displayed a pattern common in nature seemed to support its authenticity. Quite frankly, I don’t understand what it is you’re contesting. My point was that _any_ time you take a lot of measurements that are subject to random fluctuations you tend to get a Gaussian distribution. It’s also called the normal distribution, precisely because it’s so ubiquitous in nature: > [@](#): > > We now consider another probability distribution which is of great practical importance, the Gaussian distribution. It is important for several reasons. (1) It describes the distribution of random errors in many kinds of measurements. (2) It is possible to show that even if individual errors do not follow this distribution, the _averages_ of groups of such errors are distributed in a manner which approaches the Gaussian distribution for very large groups. _Statistical Treatment of Experimental Data_ Hugh D. Young McGraw-Hill, 1962 > [@](#): > > If you carry out a number of careful measurements of any quantity and plot a chart showing the frequency with which individual measurements differ from the average of all measurements, then this “error curve” turns out to be shaped like the Gaussian curve." _Lady Luck:The Theory of Probability_ Warren Weaver Dover, 1963 So while this distribution (of, say, foot sizes) _is_ to be expected from a population of sasquatch, it is _also_ to be expected from a population of hoaxers. Sapunov apparently disagrees; I’m just curious what his argument is, and I have no way of checking the citation: Sapunov, V.B. {1988} A mathematical analysis of “Snowman” {Wildman} eyewitness reports. Cryptozoology. 7: 61-65. Can you summarize his arguments? Also, the problem of the lack of remains and/or descendants along the only possible migratory route is still on the table. The fact remains that all apes are tropical and that since their appearance, only cold weather migration routes have existed. Without human mastery of fire and hunting and, I suspect, the gregarious associations that allowed us to hunt large mammals like mammoths and caribou, _we_ would likely not have colonized the Americas. Neither sasquatch nor the skunk ape is suggested to have any of these characteristics. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2001, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/107 "2001-02-17T15:15:59Z")
Recently Digested: Regarding the scientific journal stuff, others have already done a fine job of answering. You also said: > [@](#): > > What did you read? What do you want, names of articles and books? Sorry, I don’t recall. I’ve only been following this sort of thing for a decade and a half now, in one form or another. Believe it or not, I don’t keep a running tally of every article and book. You don’t want to believe me? That’s your choice. But I can tell you, when it comes down to a choice, who is the more credible person around here. > [@](#): > > Weren’t you supposed to have “trashed the piss” out of this (specifically the “skunk-ape” picture) by now? As I noted when it came in, that had pretty much been done already. The fact that you choose to ignore anybody who points out the flaws doesn’t mean those flaws are gone. It just means you live in your own little world. I hope you have fun there. ---
**Author:** ![Totah\_Dine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@Totah\_Dine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Totah_Dine)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2001, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/108 "2001-02-18T23:03:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 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… \*\* > > That’s like saying that unless you have a degree in anthropology, you can’t say “that is a dog”. > > - Tsugumo \*\* What does Anthropology have to do with dogs??? ---
**Author:** ![Tsugumo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4da419/32.png) [@Tsugumo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tsugumo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2001, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/109 "2001-02-19T07:51:50Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Totah Diné \* \*\* > [@](#): > > What does Anthropology have to do with dogs???\*\* …I have no idea. I’d swear I’ve always heard that anthropology is the study of animals, but I just checked [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) and apparently it’s not, heh. Replace “anthropology” with “whatever the name for someone who studies animals and animal behavior” (what IS the name for that? Anyone?). [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by David B \* \*\* > [@](#): > > What do you want, names of articles and books? Sorry, I don’t recall.\*\* S’funny…everyone ELSE has to give inane specifics like that. I read that invisible dancing elves took over Manhattan last year. Sorry, I don’t recall the name of the book though. Just trust me on it, heh…(and yes, you’re 6143 post count makes you more credible, but if you told me about the elves, it wouldn’t make it true) [QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Recently Digested \* \*\* > [@](#): > > I agree and understand completely. You don’t think his “peers” would look at the report, read the word “sasquatch,” or, even worse, “bigfoot,” and say, “Next!”? \*\* Ditto on that. Even if he used a fancier group of words to describe it, it would translate into “Bigfoot” in everyone’s head and they’d be automatically reading it as a joke. Just like if they sent in a report about invisible dancing elves. And to give the report a good review and such is to join the “Bigfoot weirdos” side and put your own career/credibility on the line…if no one else agrees, then you look like a crazy person, just like the Bigfoot guy. Even if you WANT to be the one to find the thing, there’s no way you’ll risk your career unless it’s 100% sure, which requires a carcass for DNA testing, which requires people to take the thing seriously, which requires a carcass for DNA testing… And on a completely unrelated note: have some banana bread next chance you get, for it is the greatest form of bread there is, oh yes… - Tsugumo (“the only difference between brilliance and stupidity is in how many people agree with you”) ---
**Author:** ![Tsugumo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4da419/32.png) [@Tsugumo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tsugumo)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2001, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/110 "2001-02-19T07:53:59Z")
Ho ho ho, that’s some funky HTML…looks like I forgot a /something /somewhere, heh…Sorry about that! - Tsugumo (like tripping over your own feet, curses!) ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2001, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/111 "2001-02-19T19:25:03Z")
Recently Digested asked if I had ever read anything by a certain author. I responded that I had. He asked what it was. I responded, “What do you want, names of articles and books? Sorry, I don’t recall.” From here, Tsugumo, “thinking” he had an opportunity to take this thread on a tangent because he’s been unable to present any evidence for his bizarre claims, said: > [@](#): > > S’funny…everyone ELSE has to give inane specifics like that. Really? I don’t recall asking you about your reading list for the past decade or two. Oh, wait, you must mean when we ask you to back up your strange claims. So I guess, to you, not remembering which specific books and articles from a certain author I have read in the last 15 or so years is equivalent to not providing evidence in support of extraordinary claims? > [@](#): > > I read that invisible dancing elves took over Manhattan last year. And, from what you’ve said here, you probably believe it. > [@](#): > > Sorry, I don’t recall the name of the book though. Just trust me on it, heh… So you really do equate a bizarre claim with a simply ordinary claim. No wonder you are unable to separate fact from fiction. > [@](#): > > (and yes, you’re 6143 post count makes you more credible, but if you told me about the elves, it wouldn’t make it true) It’s not my post count that makes me credible. It’s _me_ that makes me credible. Similarly, it’s your promotion of bizarre claims, not your post count, that makes you not-so-credible. ---
**Author:** ![Tsugumo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4da419/32.png) [@Tsugumo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tsugumo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2001, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029/112 "2001-02-20T05:42:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David B \* > **From here, Tsugumo, “thinking” he had an opportunity to take this thread on a tangent because he’s been unable to present any evidence for his bizarre claims** Woah, man…you got like 2 sentences in the middle of the post where I was simply pointing out that the general SDMB rule seems to be that you have to back your points (such as calling an author credulous with nothing to back it up other than “I read it, didn’t like it, and so I say so”). > [@](#): > > **And, from what you’ve said here, you probably believe it.** Again with the quick personal shots, while you ignored everything else in the post (you didn’t even spend a word to say what the study of animals is, heh), just like the first time. > [@](#): > > **Similarly, it’s your promotion of bizarre claims, not your post count, that makes you not-so-credible.** A species existing that we haven’t found a body for yet, just like we find every day and in that Onza link…bizarre indeed. Anyway, I wouldn’t have posted this reply (because I have no wish to go off on a tangent) if you hadn’t thrown in some off-hand insulting (err…“classification of my posts as crap”, which is okay). - Tsugumo (for the “record”, I could argue the other side of the debate because I really don’t care either way, but SOMEONE has to be on the “wrong” end or there wouldn’t be any posts, heh) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-these-skunk-ape-photos-worth-a-look/54029.md?page=5)