Posted on 07/08/2007 1:52:43 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Perhaps it is nothing more than a legend, as skeptics say. Or maybe it is real, as those who claim to have seen it avow. But the mere mention of the mapinguary, the giant slothlike monster of the Amazon, is enough to send shivers down the spines of almost all who dwell in the world’s largest rain forest.
In some areas, the creature is said to have two eyes, while in other accounts it has only one, like the Cyclops of Greek mythology. It's said to be more than seven feet tall and covered in thick, matted fur.
The folklore here is full of tales of encounters with the creature, and nearly every Indian tribe in the Amazon, including those that have had no contact with one another, have a word for the mapinguary (pronounced ma-ping-wahr-EE). The name is usually translated as “the roaring animal” or “the fetid beast.”
So widespread and so consistent are such accounts that in recent years a few scientists have organized expeditions to try to find the creature. They have not succeeded, but at least one says he can explain the beast and its origins.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
It’s said that this beast is more aggressive than the ones sighted in the Pacific northwest. I wouldn’t want to find one.
> “the fetid beast.”
Is Hillary campaigning in the Amazon?
Oh wait. That would be “fetid SHRIEKING beast”.
I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that Hillary considers the pirranha and other ravenous flesh eaters as members of her constituency.
ping!
It can’t be Bigfoot, everyone knows he lives in Oklahoma. The Travel Channel told me or was it the History Channel?
I'm married to her.
Heh heh...
You’re added.
You married my ex?
Oh wait. That would be “fetid SHRIEKING beast”.
LOL!
“Strange” magazine (a big all-time fave; the editor and publisher passed away unexpectedly a year or two ago) had an article about a much smaller primate, found by an expedition circa 1930, and of which only a photo survived (someone had shot it in order to take a type specimen). It is otherwise unknown (at least to those who don’t live in the Amazon). :’)
Thanks GitP and pcottraux.
A Huge Amazon Monster Is Only a Myth. Or Is It?
New York Times | 08 July 2007 | Larry Rohter
Posted on 07/08/2007 3:14:36 PM EDT by BGHater
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862671/posts
Impossible can’t be big foot. he was spotted in the UP of Michigan this week and he can’t fly nor could he have ran to the Amazon in two days VBG
They found a couple of previously uncataloged species (think rodents along the lines of squirrels, guinea pigs, etc.).
Any way, "...and I saw this animal at dusk, and I was able to bag it." "When you 'bag it', how did you capture it?" "I shot it with a shotgun I had with me...."
:’) If he wanted to be literal, he should have sneaked up, put a bag over the critter, then swung the bag around and knocked it into a tree a few times. :’)
Are you sure it wasn't a "carbon footprint"?
Messing with Sasquatch!
I believe they named the species after a benefactress of the museum, fwiw.
Silly boy... everyone know that BF has his own G5 executive jet...
Hey, if it’s seven feet tall, bellowing, and about to rip your arms off, you do. ;’)
The late Grover Krantz noted that the existence of bigfoot would never be accepted unless there were a type specimen, elaborating that it meant killing one and bringing back the carcass or “a significant part” of one; he gave as the minimum one hand and the head. I guess there’ll be a big empty spot on the trophy room wall, eh? ;’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.