[spetznaz]

What is odd about that? I did not say I discouted the native accounts, simply that western zoologists discounted them (foolishly). I find it very foolish to instantly discard the views of people who have lived in an area. A particular example of personal interest deals with a certain snake in Africa that lived around where I stayed in my youth called a Boomslang. The Boomslang is a very slender long snake with a roundish head and large eyes, and some decades back Western herpetologists used to say it was totally harmless and had no fangs nor venom. The Africans used to say it was extremely lethal if it bit you. Obviously their views were discarded the 'knowledgeable' herpetologists. Then the most famous herpetologist of the day got bit by a Boomslang, and had a very painful death (bleeding from every orifice, urine turned black, etc). It turned out that the Boomslang is venomous (drop for drop more than the Black Mamba's neurotoxic venom, which is around 80 times more toxic than a rattlesnakes), has considerably long fangs (only that it is a backfanged snake with it's fangs back at the end of it's jaws), and the Africans were correct. Only when Ionades (I cannot recall his exact name) died did they realize that slender pretty snake had punch.

Consequently, I cannot see any reason to blindly discount the views of natives.

[SunkenCiv]

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomslang

[roamer_1]

What is odd about that? I did not say I discouted the native accounts, simply that western zoologists discounted them (foolishly).

I heard that - But then you said the Sasquatch is imagined. I simply related the fact that American Indians (natives like those you find credence in in Africa and elsewhere) wholeheartedly believe the Sasquatch is real. If you willingly take the recommendation of other natives, but Sasquatch is 'imagination', it seems to me that you must be discounting the long and storied history of the Native Americans wrt Bigfoot. That is what I meant to point out.