Skeptic Created Fake Pterosaur Footage?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 26th, 2007
You may recall that the following footage was reluctantly mentioned here in September 2007.
It was claimed to be an “old 1924 video of supposed Pterosaur in PNG.”
Now, the Dinosaurs and Origins weblog is saying this is a fake that was created by a skeptic to discredit a researcher.
It looked as if David Woetzel (Cryptozoologist and member of ICR) had posted it. However, this video is a fraud and the real David Woetzel had nothing to do with it. It may be hard to believe that a skeptic stooped this low attempting to discredit the research of a living pterosaur investigator.Dinosaurs and Origins blog
Well, it was a rather obvious hoax, but if it was produced to undermine someone’s actual research, that’s hard to hear.
No specific “skeptic” was named.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
I called it.
The video isn’t even available.
Apparently they were too embarrassed to keep it up.
I thought this was the footage from “The Lost World”… and old silent stop-motion movie about dinosaurs.
As I recall most of us here realized it was a fake. And yes, I did notice that in the bit posted above that no name was given about who the alleged skeptic is.
It’s sad that ideological motives are almost exclusively driving living dinosaur ‘research’ in the 21st century.
Although I don’t have an open mind when it comes to things like living pterosaurs I still like research to be objective and honest.
I always knew it was fake. Never fooled me in the slightest. I don’t have an open mind when it comes to things like living pterosaurs (or plesiasours for that matter) either and that’s coming from a young earth creationist. 🙂
>>”It may be hard to believe that a skeptic stooped this low attempting to discredit the research of a living pterosaur investigator.”
Doesn’t surprise me a bit.
Or a byte.
Maybe he just did it for fun (the hoax) to fool some people as Patterson did with the Patty film.
For Woetzel… Maybe he didn’t take his preaching seriously so he made of him…Just for fun.
Didn’t fool me for a second! 😀
I’m confused by this item. Is there some reason to suppose “a skeptic” created this film, or is that just bald assumption?
That’s pathetic to sink that low. The skeptics are getting pretty sad and now what? Maybe next time they will go to Hollywood and make it a big budget movie.
I take it that the casual use of the phrase “bald assumption” is not some pointed pun thrown in Ben Radford’s direction?
LOL. 😀
I agree with you, Loren, that the “bald assumption” comment may be an indirect jibe at Radford.
LOL—UP TO A POINT. While I am a “believer” and do not agree with most of the skeptical conclusions that old Ben reaches, I think it is “below the belt” to make belittle someone’s “follicularly challenged” constitution. Even if one disagrees with that person.
Particularly since I’m bald myself.
Unfortunate, but true.
I’m not saying YOU were doing that, Loren, or even that DANIEL LOXTON was doing that, but it could APPEAR that that was the intent.
Anyway, SHAME on the “skeptic” who did this.
if you want to see pterodactyls, the movie ‘The Mist’ features them as one of the invading creatures from another dimension. They’re miniature ones however, but rather nasty.
Not to worry, I had no subtext in mind—and certainly not in regards to my esteemed colleagues at the Skeptical Inquirer.
But I do think it’s a good question: why, exactly, is this hoax said to have been created by “a skeptic”? Is that an outright guess, or is there known back-story I’m not aware of—or is just that any mischief-maker perceived as being anti-cryptozoology is labeled “a skeptic” by default?
I think a skeptic now a days is being seen as a total non-believer which is not the meaning at all. Debunking also is being interpreted as a non-believer when in fact it is being skeptical. You follow? There are alot a of HATERS out there but that’s life. I think it’s good there are alot of skeptics and whole hearted believers on these shows as to show no biased opinions throughout the show. Let’s the viewers make their own minds up, something that America needs to start doing again I might add. 😉
Disreputable obvious hoax.
Pterodactyls, and bats for that matter, have the broadest or equal membranous wing width at the juncture with the body-tail-upper legs… not by far the narrowest as shown in this video.
“friggin” frigate bird.
Shameful.
Maybe I can clear up some misunderstandings:
1) The video was removed by the YouTube administrator, not by the one who put it there.
2) The account holder (not the explorer David Woetzel) had his (or her) account terminated by the YouTube admin.
3) The (apparent) hoaxer answered some of my questions about identity, but not all of them: Any time I asked about the Woetzel who searched for ropens on Umboi Island, I got no response at all; when I asked only about the name, the person maintained his name was “David Woetzel,” the same name as his father.
4) The YouTube apparent-impersonator never responded to the inquiries of the real (explorer) David Woetzel.
5) There never was any other name associated with the YouTube account holder, so we have nothing to go by.
6) Apparent impersonation was probably at least part of the reason that video and the account holder were removed and terminated from YouTube.
Put these things together and it seems most unlikely that the real David Woetzel ever had anything to do with that video. The motives of that YouTube account holder are hard to guess, but they seem very questionable regarding cryptozoological investigations.
you could tell this was a fake. when is someone going to get a convincing video? hey if they do there could be a search. you never know.
Just my 5 cents worth but….
I understood “Skeptic” or “Sceptic” (Old world spelling) to relate to a person who maintains a balance between belief and non belief until such time as they witness convincing proof, or a substantial weight of convincing evidence leading them to accept and believe the initial argument, belief or factuality.
A “De-bunker” on the other hand is someone who is determined to remain “Anti” the argument, belief or factuality, regardless of the evidence or even proof that is presented in it’s favour.
A debunker is therefore the conceptual antithesis of a “believer” who is determined to believe, regardless of arguments or demonstrable facts against the subject proposition.
I get fed up with having language misused this way, because it makes intelligent interaction harder.
I am a skeptic regarding David Icke’s “Lizard shape shifters”, but I am open minded about exo terrestrial visitation.
This does not mean that I go around bad mouthing David, or saying that he is talking nonsense, as I am aware that his claims are still within the bounds of possibility, even though I do not believe his argument at present.
I hope this helps distinguish between a skeptic (open minded but unconvinced) and a debunker (closed minded and uninterested in the argument). 😎