"The provenance is confirmed, the photos are freely available for independent analysis, etc."
Hello? Is this thing on?
As I said, I like wildlife photos. But, pics or video cannot provide proof of existence for an unknown. A type specimen is the only way. "Some claim DNA will do it." But it won't. What would science compare it to?
So you're going to continue to compare rural Kentucky to one of the most remote valleys on the planet in a country notoriously cut off from the outside world? I find this highly . . . disingenuous of you.
Ignorance or obfuscation? Chris, did you know that giant squid were very likely first described by Aristotle? (The official description is mid-19th Century, so bigfoot is lagging, you know, about 150 years behind - at least.)
I merely point out that animals are not accepted by science to exist until a type specimen has been collected. Anything else you may infer but please stick to what I actually say. I make no comparison of KY with any type of remote or secret place. Ridiculous. We do have a few oddities that have been discovered though. Some bacteria found nowhere else on Earth to date.
"Ignorance or obfuscation?" Neither.
It won't turn the tables either way but if you want to discuss other scientific discoveries, ok, we can do that.
Historical reports of unknown creatures are considered myth until science has a type specimen. I found an interesting article that demonstrates the historical accounts of the Gorilla here:
http://listverse.com/2010/04/16/10-beasts-that-used-to-be-mythical/
"It is believed that the first gorilla report comes from Greek explorer Hanno, from the 5th century BC. Hanno traveled to the western coasts of Africa, possibly to Sierra Leona or even the gulf of Guinea, and reported “an island filled with savage people, most of them women, and covered on hair. Our interpreters call them gorillae”.Maybe we should mention that not everyone is convinced about Hanno having encountered actual gorillas (his gorillae could have been chimpanzees). Much later, in 1625, British explorer Andrew Batell reported seeing a “monster” covered on hair except for the face and hands, which slept in trees and fed on fruit. According to him, this “monster” was most similar to a man, but “with the stature of a giant”. Gorillas remained obscure and poorly understood for many more years, being often thought of as brutish, unintelligent and extremely violent. It wasn’t until 1847 that a westerner (physician Thomas Savage) managed to obtain several gorilla bones, including a skull, while in Liberia, and published the very first formal description of the great ape. The next decade, explorer Paul du Chaillu became the first modern European to see a live gorilla during his expeditions to equatorial Africa. As for the mountain gorilla, a different, larger species, it was believed to be a myth until 1902!"
So how long does it take for science to catch on? 2000 years? Yikes. I'll wager the gorilla actually existed long before science accepted it. The fact that it was witnessed by others seemed not to matter for 2000 years? Isn't that something. Has nothing to do with Bigfoot but 2000 years for science to catch on.......
Chris B.
