Down here, we call’s the critter a skunk ape due to it smelling like a shithouse.
I’m not saying the thing exists, but I find it interesting that the story has been around so long (Native Americans talked about it), and has arisen seperately in two parts of North America. If the skunk ape is the same animal as Bigfoot, than the mythical (or undiscovered, whatever) North American primate has a range similar to the bobcat, which is very, very rarely seen in the wild.
Here’s an interesting photo of the skunk ape. If it’s a fake (which is probable - I bet it’s really just an orangutang) it’s a damn good one.
I’d like to see some cites of "reputable scientists"stating those things. (Yeah, I know it’s a rhetorical question since you always ignore questions you don’t like). At any rate. The argument is flawed. Scientists, like intelligent people, change their minds when the evidence changes but correctly stick to the answer which best suits the evidence available at the moment. Your argument can be used to support anything, including the existence of pink unicorns. What you do is just try to discredit scientists but provide nothing better to use as judgment. So, with your reasoning the only answer is that anything is possible.
Yes, many pople go in the woods and do not see a badger, but many others DO see a badger. That is the entire freakin’ point which you seem to be missing.
And, in my experience, those who defend the existence of Bigfoot are complete ignorant idiots.
This is so obviously false that I won’t even bother.
Except that there is ZERO credible evidence, no little. When the evidence changes, then so will scientists.
That is totally irrelevant but, in any case,'it would be interesting to see some evidence of that. It still would not chnage the fact that the guy who spread the hoax, died recently.
Yeah, for the same reason people with closed minds refuse to believe in pink unicorns or in the Daycolor Bird (which changes color according to the day of the week).
You make some good points, and you are very right about bobcats.
People who live in cities and only know about animals from what they see on tv and at the zoo, dont know what they are talking about.
Re: bobcats. I have always lived in the country, in bobcat country, and spent my whole life in the mountains and forests. I have seen exactly 3 bobcats in my entire life, all of them quite by accident, they were just very lucky sightings, and I have seen more than anyone else I know.
All three instances in which I encountered bobcats, I did not even have time to take a photo before they quickly disappeared, so I could not provide even a picture(which would be discredited by most geeks anyways as being too easy to fake ).
Why were so many different indian tribes involved in a “hoax”?
Contrary to todays city geeks, indians lived in the wilds, knew the land, the animals, and the woods, and any such “hoax” story that an indian gave, would have been easily disproved or discredited by other members of his tribe, or by other tribes.
Susanann, BTW, the question is not whether you or some nuts out there belive Bigfoot exists. The question being asked is “Is Bigfoot Starting to be taken Seriously by Scientists?” and you have provided no evidence that scientists are beginning to take the existence of Bigfoot seriously. None. Zero. The GQ answer so far is NO, science does NOT take Bigfoot seriously.
At least Jane did not spend her entire life in a city building, and she also believed in the existance of the mountain gorrilla(the “reputable scientists” did not believe at all until one was shot). Therefore, who would you be more likely believe? Jane Goodall?.. or someone who lives in Washington DC? LOL
As opposed to you fresh-air country, outdoorsy-types who seem to spend all day on the computer?
What!?! How much research has been done on ‘Indian Hoaxes’? Is there a Snopes.com site from before our country was settled? The reading I’ve done about native Americans also includes tales of mythical beasts, incredible deeds of their heroes, and the ‘Great Spirit’. Were the originators of these tales drummed out of their tribe and shunned at the club? I would love to see reputable evidence of native-American Bigfoot stories that pre-date the Patterson film. I don’t think anyone who believes or disdains Bigfoot stories is blaming ancient hoaxsters.
I wish I had a nickel everytime a yahoo who believes in some Loch Ness tommyrot shouted “Coelacanth!” sheesh. It’s not like there was a huge group of Coelacanth-hunters being laughed at and mocked for their belief. No one accusing them of being nutcases, asking for coelacanth bones or evidence of any kind. While they toiled away at their lonely vigil, comforted in the thought that they were fighting the good fight for truth against close-minded city geeks. Because no one cared. Whereas, Bigfoot supporters (sounds like something Dr. Scholl should sell…) fall into the Jersey Devil - Mothman - Loch Ness Monster- UFO catagory of psuedo-science. Notice I did not say “Jersey Devil - Mothman - Loch Ness Monster - Vietnamese Deer catagory”, this is because that little doe was not argued about for years and years in the court of public opinion. Plus, it HAS been found.
Let’s remember to try and fight ignorance.
We want an open mind, but not so open that Flying monkeys can get in there!
>> Why were so many different indian tribes involved in a “hoax”?
Those stories were tales and legends. They were not accepted as true fact any more than the Chinese accepted the existence of Ddagons or Europeans the existence of unicorns and mermaids. They all have the same value.
Again, the GQ answer is that mainstream science does not accept the existence of Bigfoot and those who may defend it are not part of mainstream science.
sigh. I thought I answered both of these. Now, if ya’ll would unentangle yourselves from this susanann wrestling match for a second, I think I can provide you both with what you are asking for.
Finally, if those don’t convince you, HowStuffWorks.com even did an article on bigfoot which states:
I think they are pretty reputable, although admittedly not definitive. The fact is the legend did NOT start in 1967 with that stupid man-in-a-gorilla-suit film.
There you go. The stories, and beliefs, vary from tribe to tribe.
Look, I know y’all don’t like her, but can you stop locking horns with susanann in GQ and get back to the topic? No more "sheesh"s and references to flying monkees, OK?
Interestingly enough, and closer to the OP, there are fossil records of bigfoot, so some scientists may take the legend of a modern Sasquatch at least halfway seriously. Also from howstuffworks.com:
In the interest of taking off topic discussion on whether this animal actually exists or not out of this thread, I have started this discussion: Sasquatch! in GD so as not to clutter up a GQ thread any further.
Beeblebrox, as I said before, whether the hoax started by the guy who died originated with the Indians or not is totally irrelevant to whether scientists today are taking seriously the possibility that Bigfoot exists.
Well, if she would kindly stop posting bizarre things in GQ and then ignoring all requests for cites or support, that would go a long way for letting us concentrate in the OP which, as I have repeatedly said is NOT whether Susannan believes in Bigfoot. Or is she now considered part of mainstream science?
As to the OP, after you get old like me and have seen a thing or three, you don’t much care whatTHEY say because you know they don’t know in a general sort way. :eek:
Now SussieQ is kinda like BigFoot in that a lot supposedly smart people sure spend a lot of time talking and believing in her. Little black squiggles dancing across the screen do not make SussieQ real, there is no PROOF that she wrote them. We don’t even have a fake foot cast to scoff at.
Now something is causing the little black squiggles to dance on the screen but is there really a SussieQ? What do THEY really believe? :rolleyes:
Judging by the beer cans I have seen, I think a lot of the wilds are not so wild.
I was addressing Bmalion who specifically asked for the information. In the interest of fighting ignorance I tried to correct his misconceptions about the myth’s origin, regardless of it’s relevancy to the OP. True, it was off topic - which is why I started a GD thread.
Sailor, aenea, regarding susanann: look, my point was not about the quality of her posts, but that locking horns with her derails a GQ thread. You both know that. I was tring to get this thing back on topic. If you must criticize her posting style, take it to the pit - there are plenty of threads about her already.
My grandfather used to use a cliche: “It’s like wrestling a pig. You’re both going to get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it”.
GusNSpot, your post was utterly pointless.
Now, TRYING to get back on topic, more on Gigantopithecus from the University of Iowa:
As I said before, scientists who have studied Gigantopithecus take the bigfoot legends sort of half-seriously. They know we once coexisted with these creatures. Although skeptical, they won’t completely rule out it’s present day existence.
Thank you, I did not have time to look them up earlier. They still seem to have more in common with ‘Tall Tales’ than hoaxes. But I will consider, for now, that various giant man myths began before the white settlers arrived. But, they seem to have changed, in the modern Bigoot-supporters view, from being many different stories, into being one big universal account of hairy-giants.
OK, I’m sorry about the flying monkeys. but I stand by the ‘sheesh’.
And if someone’s going to post responses which derisively refer to “city geeks” I think that they can take a little horn-locking. I, myself do neither like, nor dislike susanann.
You know, sometimes I wish I was a pseudoscientist… the only discipline where absence of evidence can be taken as evidence in and of itself.
And as a note- Yes, I’m a city dewlling geek. However, at other times in my life I have been a country dwelling geek. And as such, I have seen badgers, bears, wolves, ets. In fact, I’ve even seen a bear and deer skeleton in the woods.
The fact of the matter is, it doesn’t matter how few Bigfeet there are. If there were any, there would be some sort of non-anecdotal verifiable evidence that they exist. Parallels between the mountain gorilla and the bigfoot, and especially the colecanth and the bigfoot, are tenous at best. The bigfoot lives in forests in America. Not always the most comfortable terrain, but far from inhospitable. The colecanth live at the bottom of the ocean. Mountain Gorillas live in an almost impentrable forest in a region torn by political strife that, prior to the 1900 date you cite, had barely been explored by non-indigenous people. Neither of these are/were territories to which humans regularly ventured. Even if you draw those parallels, the fact remains: people SEE colecanth, and mountain gorillas. More than one person. On seperate, verifiable occasions. As opposed to the Bigfoot, who seems only to be seen by… well, to be harsh- crackpots.
You seem very confused over the fact that science does not beleive the stories of native peoples in regards to these animals. I would respectfully ask you to consider the fact that science in general would prefer evidence more tangible than an anecdote. Anecdotal evidence is certainly sufficient to create a basis for research, but it will rarely or never serve as proof. It is important to realize that, while most scientists will not say “(item) exists,” without evidence, the vast majority would be willing to say “(item) could exist.”
Also- Perhaps, before you hold up Jane Goodall, you should consider if she truly is reputable. An earlier poster already noted her status as a joke amongst her community, for her consitent anthropomorphization of the chimpanzees she studied. She is also an advocate of governmental human population control, an idea that many, including myself, find extremely repugnant.
Given the apparent thread-jacking by credulous psuedoscientists, i’m beginning to wonder if this should be moved to the Great Debates forum. Or, given my general attititude towards credulous psuedoscientists, to the BBQ pit.
