Sasquatch Coffee


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. 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.


20 Responses to “Skeptic Created Fake Pterosaur Footage?”

  1. ITSACRYPTIDWORLDTOME responds:

    I called it.

    The video isn’t even available.

    Apparently they were too embarrassed to keep it up.

  2. gloomer responds:

    I thought this was the footage from “The Lost World”… and old silent stop-motion movie about dinosaurs.

  3. Ceroill responds:

    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.

  4. olejason responds:

    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.

  5. YourPTR! responds:

    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. :)

  6. Artist responds:

    >>”It may be hard to believe that a skeptic stooped this low attempting to discredit the research of a living pterosaur investigator.”

  7. Artist responds:

    Doesn’t surprise me a bit.
    Or a byte.

  8. E responds:

    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.

  9. easternbigfoot2 responds:

    Didn’t fool me for a second! :D

  10. Daniel Loxton responds:

    I’m confused by this item. Is there some reason to suppose “a skeptic” created this film, or is that just bald assumption?

  11. AnimusRavnus responds:

    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.

  12. Loren Coleman responds:

    I take it that the casual use of the phrase “bald assumption” is not some pointed pun thrown in Ben Radford’s direction?

    LOL. :D

  13. cryptidsrus responds:

    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.

  14. jamesrav responds:

    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.

  15. Daniel Loxton responds:

    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?

  16. Dr Kaco responds:

    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. ;)

  17. Know it all responds:

    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.

  18. jdwhitcomb responds:

    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.

  19. big mack responds:

    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.

  20. alex_c responds:

    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). 8-)



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.