Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[jerrywayne]

Cryptozoology deconstructed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCjunGPEOJ0

 

[HarryHenderson]

Cryptozoology deconstructed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCjunGPEOJ0

Interesting, but preaching to the choir. I think there's little there we're unaware of. Why does it always seem like Sharon Hill is promoting both sides of the argument? And given it was posted with James Randi's blessing, it's quite ironic the comments are disabled for it.

 

[jerrywayne]

Wonder if this is real:

http://santinibasra.com/cryptozoolo...364qVFrdV3N-g44uVunlQhpgnc8AaiakU69Y4DX8wil-Y

 

[HarryHenderson]

Wonder if this is real:

http://santinibasra.com/cryptozoolo...364qVFrdV3N-g44uVunlQhpgnc8AaiakU69Y4DX8wil-Y

Hard to tell, but if it is, MORE POWER TO 'EM.

 

[William Parcher]

News on the Australian Night Parrot: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12641972&postcount=12

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Why does it always seem like Sharon Hill is promoting both sides of the argument?

That was fascinating. I've never seen her speak before, just a little of the writing, and that spectacular fail at the end where she stomped off JREF in a huff.

There was a huge red flag with her comment about "nasty debunking skeptics" in that conference round-table.

Right after that comment she explained that she tries to "be in the middle". I had clean forgotten about that rule in biology, chemistry, astronomy - it really pervades every science, being "in the middle".

Just look what good it did for her credibility at the end at JREF, I think this is the most charitable view a person can take on what happened. She didn't want to be a nasty debunking skeptic, but an "in the middle" skeptic.

She insisted "they're not lying". We can't take that position with them. The Area X people. No matter how asinine, how outlandish and stupid - no, not lying.

Geez, the whole James Randi skepticism approach is to be instantly on guard for sleight of hand, deceit, illusionists, for con-men in every woo corner.

The way Randi exposed it was infiltration. Espionage. Find out how they're doing whatever it is, perpetual motion machines or ghosts or psychic mediums and spoon benders etc.

Then expose them.

So Randi left a lasting legacy with his "They're lying" approach. His "nasty skeptic" approach.

And someone else got her little fanny spanked hard.

 

[jerrywayne]

The Gloucester Sea Serpent

I've wondered what a good explanation for the famous Gloucester Sea Serpent occurrence would look like. This one seems plausible.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/09/gloucester-sea-serpent-mystery-solved-after-two-centuries/

 

[Naval Diplomat]

I've wondered what a good explanation for the famous Gloucester Sea Serpent occurrence would look like. This one seems plausible.

Thanks for the informative read. That's does seem like an actual legitimate explanation.

 

[William Parcher]

Maybe they saw a cetacean with an exposed penis during a mating or courting event. It could look like a serpent head or tongue or "sting".

 

[jerrywayne]

Maybe they saw a cetacean with an exposed penis during a mating or courting event. It could look like a serpent head or tongue or "sting".

Moby Dick?

 

[Drewbot]

Moby Dick?

Moby's Dick maybe?

 

[Naval Diplomat]

Who would have thought we'd get to whale penis?

 

[jerrywayne]

Who would have thought we'd get to whale penis?

There is some plausibility to Parcher's idea.

http://www.krapsody.com/2008/04/mythical-beasts-are-whale-penis.html