Exclusive: “Ogopogo” Photos Released

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 6th, 2009

Sean Viloria has released his embargoed photographs of what may be Ogopogo to me at Cryptomundo to share with interested researchers and the public.

Viloria emails the following:

I have been awaiting the public release of still photographs from my August 2008 sighting in Okanagan Lake.

I wanted to make sure that MonsterQuest got to break the story and a few images first and foremost.

Now that “Lake Demons” has aired and The Kelowna Daily Courier today has printed one still [not online, however] from the many I have been able to collect in the last year, I thought I should share a closer look at the images with yourself and the Cryptomundo readership.

Attached (above) are high-res enhanced copies of photos I took on August 23rd, 2008, just past Peachland, near Kelowna, British Columbia.

I have also attached a photo (below) of the prototype sculpture I made by hand which was mentioned in the article.

Please note that everyone involved with the MonsterQuest production, the head of the British Columbia fisheries, author and historian Arlene Gaal, researcher John Kirk (BCSCC), and Dr. Edward Bousfield have all analyzed these pictures and nobody has been able to offer anything in way of an explanation.

These images are not of a wave pattern, log, bird or any of the great number of living fish species that have been documented to live in the Okanagan nor are they doctored or hoaxed in any way.

I have developed a strong belief that we are on the brink of a potentially explosive scientific discovery. ~ Sean Viloria

Photo of Jessica Weigers (Sean’s girlfriend), MonsterQuest director Joshua Dorsey, and Sean Viloria.

Also, Viloria passed along the article that appeared in the British Columbia newspaper today.

Sean Viloria has a series of digital images that may be the latest proof of Ogopogo‘s existence in Okanagan Lake

“Even to this day, I‘m not saying I‘ve captured the Ogopogo on film. I‘m saying I‘ve taken these pictures of something physical, moving, swimming in the lake and I don‘t know what they are,” said the Kelowna resident.

“A biologist said the object could have been at least 40 feet in length, which is gigantic for anything that could be living in the lake.”

Some images possibly show a back with bony ridges, a head and neck, or appendages.

The colour appeared to change from his initial sighting of something black to something red, leading to speculation that pollution may be affecting the creature‘s skin or there could be more than one, perhaps a thriving population.

“Something is most definitely there, something unknown to science that has made its home in Okanagan Lake. There are so many reasons why this could be the truth and there‘s so much evidence pushing for that. I think it definitely deserves a bit more serious look from the scientific community.”


Arlene Gaal, 2009, taken by Paul Cropper and shared with Cryptomundo.

Kelowna Ogopogo author Arlene Gaal, expert John Kirk and noted Toronto biologist Dr. Edward Bousfield can‘t explain what Viloria photographed, other than to speculate it‘s some kind of unknown aquatic creature. Even a biologist in the provincial fisheries department said it would be unusual to find anything like it in the lake.

Viloria shared three or four photos with the TV show MonsterQuest and didn‘t want to release them

publicly until after the Ogopogo segment aired, which occurred recently in the U.S.

“I feel blessed that we saw anything, that we were part of anything. I think it‘s important that this information is made public. I have nothing to fear; I have nothing to hide. I saw what I saw and the camera doesn‘t lie. It‘s just a matter of time before we collect something factual, something that scientists can look at and study,” he said.

“Just hearing about this or reading about this, if it will take a few people out of their daily rat race routine and make them think that maybe there is a little something more out there, I don‘t think that‘s such a bad thing.”

The Aug. 15, 2008 sighting occurred on Highway 97 between Peachland and Summerland: “black cresting humps that were coming in and out of the water, kind of your stereotypical sighting. It was a fair distance away, probably a third into the lake, but you could tell the girth and size of this thing.”

He accidentally turned his digital camera off, but did get an image of something dark in the water, all but submerged.

The second sighting occurred on Aug. 23, 2008 when they stopped for the Highway 97 widening project just south of the first sighting. Viloria saw a “thrashing, big movement in the water” and took 11 more photos.

“There was something there. I was kind of floored because I had no explanation for them whatsoever,” said Viloria.

Viloria joked he will never swim or waterski in Okanagan Lake again. He is contemplating a mini-expedition at the end of summer. As an artist, he has scuplted a 30-centimetre long prototype of an accurate Ogopogo representation. City council may be approached with the concept of a bronze statue at some point.

Source: “Ogopogo spotted in lake,” by J. P. Squire, June 6, 2009, The Kelowna Daily Courier.

baby ogopogo teaser

Photo from the MonsterQuest shoot, 2008.

Loren Coleman 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.


92 Responses to “Exclusive: “Ogopogo” Photos Released”

  1. maeko responds:

    Occam’s Razor…? somebody listening to NPR this weekend?

  2. DWA responds:

    Richard888: Nice one here: “skepticism is great, but please do not cook the data so that it can fit into your conventional explanation because that habit is as illogical as the paranormal.”

    Exactly. It is not skepticism to gin up pie-in-sky “mundane explanations” and pass them off as more likely than the simple existence of, ferpetesake, a simple animal, many equally spectacular and more of which we “know” to have lived (because we read tea leaves in rocks). Yet people we call skeptics do it all of the time. Indeed it’s practically all they do.

    I think it’s funny that we give free rein to speculation on fossils – and are constantly accepting such speculation as gospel – when we won’t even go one one-hundredth that far with animals that people living today – whose veracity is unquestioned by anyone on any other score and who really don’t even want to tell anyone, even anonymously, what they saw – are seeing, regularly.

    Don’t you?

  3. mystery_man responds:

    Occam’s Razor does not really state that the simplest solution is correct or is even most likely. It basically says that given two hypotheses, let’s stick with the simpler one unless more evidence is forthcoming to lead us to the contrary. The basic translation is “We should not multiply entities unnecessarily” meaning more or less “Let’s not make stuff up,” which is to say if a mundane explanation fits the facts, there is no particular reason why we should entertain new, unsubstantiated explanations.

    Occam’s Razor says nothing about the less simple option being wrong, it just demands that you support it with adequate evidence and show why the simpler option is not satisfactory for explaining something. In this sense, the default assessment for a phenomena is actually that it doesn’t exist until it is supported by evidence/. If we did not do this, and accepted every single unjustified possibility that we can conceive of (hey, why couldn’t it be the tooth fairy?), we’d paralyze ourselves with an infinite number of scenarios that in absence of evidence we’d have to give equal weight (not just the things you want to be true). Obviously, this would be absurd. A complex explanation can be correct, but there has to be a reason to suppose that is the case.

    With this particular series of photos, we just don’t have anything apparent to allow us to make the jump that what we are seeing is anything other than the mundane possibilities that have been posited so far. Nothing allows us to say that those simpler explanations are wrong, and in the case of these particular photos many of them seem to fit the data we have here just as well as, and in my opinion better than the unknown option.

    I can actually think of several reasons why the object we see here is unlikely to be a large, living creature in the lake based just on what I can make out.

    First off, it seems unlikely that any aquatic animal this large, with a neck that long and thin is going to be physically able to lift it clear up and out of the water like we see here to begin with. It is thought that even the old chestnut for lake monsters, “plesiosaurs,” were unable to do this. They most likely kept their long necks pointed at a downward angle while fully submerged. It would be a huge physical challenge for a huge aquatic animal with a long, thin neck to lift its whole head and neck clear up above the waves in terms of factors such as musculature, skeletal structure, buoyancy, and balance.

    If what we are seeing here was a living entity, then it is holding its head considerably high above the water. For any aquatic animal to feasibly do this, let alone one this big, it would need two main things. First, it would need strong neck musculature and skeletal structure for support, which do not seem apparent in the thin neck build of the “creature” in the photos. In addition, those muscles and the head would be heavy and unwieldy when held high above the water like this, requiring some sort of large base with good buoyancy. There is no apparent submerged body in the photos, nothing that suggests to me an animal capable of doing this.

    The main problem I have with these photos is that there appears to be no mass in the water underneath the alleged “neck” that we are seeing. I would expect to see a shadow, wake, something suggesting a substantial body. Some might argue “Why should it have a huge body? Maybe it’s a serpent!” Well, a body is actually very important here, and I’ll try to explain why.

    A serpent is just not going to be able to rear up over the water to this extent. Aquatic snakes do not do this, and one reason is because they simply can’t. Even on land, terrestrial snakes need a good base and leverage from which to rear their head up from, which is why those that do this coil up or spread their bodies out in some fashion. The problem is compounded by the physics of being in the water. Without a solid, buoyant base, no submerged, aquatic serpent is going to be able to just stand up in the water as dramatically as what we see in these photos. Physics are working against them, a serpent is going to have a hard time accomplishing this. This alleged creature pictured here just seems to be standing straight up. There would need to be a significant amount of body in the water to make this possible for such an animal.

    Look at aquatic birds or any long necked terrestrial animals. They have a solid base for keeping that neck up. The lack of an apparent body here is strange, and even if there was a body, that is one mighty skinny neck and bulbous head held pretty high up above the water.

    Now, maybe the body is far down where it gives no hint of being there. However even in the second photo, there seems to be a relatively insignificant amount of body for the purpose of craning its neck over the water to the degree apparent in the first photo.

    I am not speaking of Ogopogo as a whole. However, if it exists, I am skeptical that it is what we are seeing in these photos. Based on what I can see, I find it questionable that the subject of these photos is a living, aquatic animal of any kind.

  4. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- What you said pretty much ties into what I said about Occam’s Razor. I think there is enough to warrant looking at that may help to show in some cases that the “simple” explanation is not always the truth when it comes to cryptids. There is certainly evidence presented that I feel is worth looking over. Definitely more than we have for the tooth fairy. :) We just have to take each piece and analyze it in a proper manner. I’m not speaking about cryptids in general when they have a body of evidence, but with these photos, I feel pretty safe with the simple explanation.

  5. DWA responds:

    M_m: this is a great paragraph, and illustrates well what I’m trying to tell cryptid “skeptics”:

    ——————————————————-

    Occam’s Razor says nothing about the less simple option being wrong, it
    just demands that you support it with adequate evidence and show why the simpler
    option is not satisfactory for explaining something. In this sense, the default
    assessment for a phenomena is actually that it doesn’t exist until it
    is supported by evidence/. If we did not do this, and accepted every
    single unjustified possibility that we can conceive of (hey, why couldn’t it be
    the tooth fairy?), we’d paralyze ourselves with an infinite number of scenarios
    that in absence of evidence we’d have to give equal weight (not just the things
    you want to be true). Obviously, this would be absurd. A complex explanation
    can be correct, but there has to be a reason to suppose that is the case.

    ———————————————————-

    Given that at least a few cryptids (the ones I mention above among them) appear to have a compelling amount of evidence in their favor, a skeptical thesis has to be supported with adequate evidence to show why science shouldn’t be looking. No, the cryptid isn’t real either, at least not as we humans define that word (i.e. “what we know is real”), unless and until proven. But the it’s-not-real scenario postulates an alternative – a thing or things speculated to exist – that has to be defended as well. This is my primary problem with the “burden is on the proponents” line. No, it’s not. Not for proof, it isn’t. They are required to present their evidence (which they have); science is the only body we accept as the authority to review that evidence (which it hasn’t). To allow “skeptics” to postulate anything they want as the excuse not to look runs afoul of this:

    —————————————————–

    If we … accepted every single unjustified possibility that we can conceive of (hey, why couldn’t it be an omniscient, world-traveling dude in a suit?), we’d paralyze ourselves with an infinite number of scenarios (why can’t it be five women with footprint machines, doing what their mas and grandmas did before them?) that in absence of evidence we’d have to give equal weight …(why couldn’t 3,500, or 3,500,000, individuals be doing stuff that just happens to all square up when taken together? Why couldn’t they be sharing data by email/snail mail/esp…?)

    ——————————

    Exactly. (My parens, of course.)

    When proponents have ventured evidence that appears to point to what they are proposing, they have to be shown wrong. It’s a scientific discussion; it’s simply cultural laziness that we don’t recognize the responsibility that “skeptics” have not to willy-nilly obstruct scientific inquiry (which they are doing by scaring serious scientists away from serious topics).

    I can’t say what these photos are. But people who hip-shoot sneers at cryptozoology should be held to account to support what they’re saying. Otherwise we’re allowing irresponsible behavior. You don’t let your kindergartener do your taxes; you shouldn’t allow people who know nothing about a topic to spout off in public without consequence (except, of course, to the truth).

    And I agree with everything else you said, too. 😉

  6. DWA responds:

    M_M: our agreements are crossing in the mail. 😀

    As to these photos: in any case like this, I could consider a “simple” explanation to be: that’s not what the lake-monster advocates say it is. There’s nothing in those shots that could not possibly have a mundane explanation. It’s in no way clear enough that I could advocate, say, a sonar drag of the lake to find more.

    As to Jessica Weigers: I even want to see more there. MUCH more. That could be Photoshopped. You can NEVER tell with only one picture. More visual evidence is what science and the truth DEMAND. 😉

  7. cryptidsrus responds:

    Loren:

    Sorry if I (however accidentally) “derailed” the thread. I just felt I had to respond to Lancemoody’s comments.

    And, BTW, you are absolutely right when you talk about the “batting zero” comment. There might not absolute proof that certain things exist, but there is incredibly compelling evidence to at least warrant further study.

    Let me “clear up” what I said above (and I will be as short as I can):

    Lancemoody is probably correct when he stated that he wasn’t trying to “attack me”—however, by implying that I was “naive” for at least starting out by being sympathetic to their claims and refusing to judge their motives without further evidence he is at least implying some judgement on his part as to my discerning powers and “blind faith.”

    I understand that the pictures might be A) misidentification, B) outright hoax, or C) the real thing.

    You see, I have this unfortunate character flaw of believing in a person’s sincerity until the evidence comes forward that it is otherwise. I’m like Will Rogers—I start off by liking a person until I get to “know” them and if it turns out they are not “likable” after all, then I act accordingly. So cynics may sneer at that but that’s me. Silly guy, I am. “Dangerou” thinking.

    So far, that has not happened. In other words, is there PROOF that Viloria is mistaken/hoaxing/a mixture of both? So far, I have not seen this, except for Lancemoody’s suggestion about the bronze statue and Viloria’s possible “cashing in” of that.

    In other words, just as Viloria has to prove he’s telling the truth, if he is lying then one has to come to that conclusion by examining the evidence as well. Viloria has to prove his pictures—if he is “lying,” one has to come to that conclusion other than a predisposed position to the state of that evidence. In other words, give me abetter reason to distrust him other than a statue.

    The “tone” of his comments suggested he has already made up his mind about the validity of this or at least already come to the table with “disbelieving” cast of mind already. I don’t blame him. I admit I come with predispositions on this. I’ve never denied it. I admit I hope this could be real. But I also am opento the posibility it is not.

    Lancemoody totally misrepresented my statements by implying I’m some blind believer who is not willing to enterntain the possibility that Viloria’s footage was fake. I said in the original post it could be a “lot of things.”

    All I said is that I found it hard to believe that Viloria would mistake a kite/windsurfer for a creature. Ive got at least a modicum of preliminary respect for him to assume he is automatically being dishonest like the tone of Lancemoody’s post implied he was. If Viloria is lying, then so be it. If he mistook something, then so be it. But it’s going to take more than a tenous implication of “lying for gain” for publicity for a statue to convince me of his insincerity.

    Ultimately, to rpeat, the pictures are too unclear and we’ll probably never know what they are. But we can discuss them here–even if no proof came.

    He’s hypocritical because he comes with a predisposition (from the tone of his post) to already judge the invalidity/validity of this when we don’t know either way. Ultimately, we do not know. What is wrong with saying that? Ultimately, we do not know. It’s great speculating, though. That is what this site is all about.

    And Mystery_Man:

    What I meant about Occam’s Razor is a question of perception. DWA was right about that.
    I’m just saying the simplest explanatio may be that it is real. Maybe, maybe not.

  8. Erik Knatterud responds:

    A windsurfer with a colourful sail. In the lower picture you see the white board and the man, and the coloured sail lying in the water. No mystery.

  9. fallofrain responds:

    I’ve never seen so many lengthy and complicated definitions for Occam’s Razor. :-)

  10. red_pill_junkie responds:

    You know? Just once I would like to meet this Occam guy, just to shove his razor up his…!

    Sorry couldn’t resist :) Good comments everyone. And yes, whatever that thing is, it doesn’t seem to have much of it under the water. Now if you came and tell me that Ogopogo is some kind of giant octopus, well… 😉

  11. Mark Wallbank responds:

    yeah, too many egos battling it out for superiority.
    Its a great ‘What is Occams Razor?’ thread though.

  12. Dj Plasmic Nebula responds:

    you know what, that seems like a tail now that i see it. in the last 2 pictures of it, it looks like the tail is going under water and i can see a arrow shaped red tip on it. or may i say Triangular shape. It may seem to be a unknown animal after all, but then again it can be an unknown Kite/Ray. cause i think they have tails, not sure

  13. cryptidsrus responds:

    Red_Pill_Junkie:

    That was funny what you said about Occam’s Razor… :)
    You know what, I tend to agree with you!!!
    I wonder how William of Ockham would have felt over the ways his “Razor” has been utilized over the centuries.

    Occam’s Famous Razor has been “abused” by both sides of the “real/non-real” spectrum for ages now. It’s time to give it a rest. Let Occam sleep in peace over in Germany where he is buried.

    And Mark Wallbank:
    It’s not so much “ego” for ME as my refusal to let Lancemoody put words in my mouth and call me “naive” and lump me in with those seeing “ponies in clouds” because I dare to withold judgement about Viloria until I see more evidence. But I understand where you’re coming from.
    Lancemoody has the right to be here like I do and say what he wants. I also have the right to call what he did condescending and even hypocritical.
    And what he said about cryptozoology was terribly unfair, as Loren noted.

    Ultimately, until more definite pictures come in, this could be any of of what some are describing here.
    So let’s just leave it at that. I agree, good discussion of the “Razor.” :)
    I also saw a “tail” under the water in the last 2 pictures, come to think of it.
    You’re right, DJPlasticNebula!!!

  14. jerrywayne responds:

    If this picture was posted without connecting it to Ogopogo, I would not, for the life of me, have come up with the idea that it portrayed a large animal in the water. I was surprised when watching the MonsterQuest program on Ogo and this photo was prominently featured. But, as usual, MonsterQuest is more about spooky SUGGESTION than it is about real scientific questing.

    DWA- Amigo, take a cold shower! (BTW, she was on the MonsterQuest program. She IS fetching, but heck, I’m old enough to be her father and would probably stand a better chance with Ms. Gaal). (You can tell I’m old or I wouldn’t be using a word like “fetching” to describe a hot babe)!

    Amigo, I would very much like to see the “vast trove of scientifically testable evidence” for your favorite cryptid. Please exclude all so-called evidence that could be manufactured, at least theoretically, by human agency. Also, what do you think scientists in the field could do that professional game hunters or trackers or dedicated advocates could not do. It seems you want to dismiss the scientific establishment as a bunch of know-nothings, and then appeal to the same know-nothings to verify your favorite cryptid!

    I am surprised you still want to hang your hat on “sightings”. There is no study that I know of that verifies “eye witness” testimony to the almost certain degree in which you often make your case. Recently, at lunch time, a co-worker came to my desk and remarked that I had a “mighty good looking hamburger.” He was looking at my work hat and work gloves, not ten feet from where he was standing! What if he had two other people with him and he had made that remark and they glanced over and “saw” (power of suggestion) my “hamburger” too? Because three people consistently saw my “hamburger”, does that mean I wear hamburger meat on my head and pickles and lettuce on my hands? Must be so! They said they “saw” my hamburger!

  15. norman-uk responds:

    The object looks like a pipe with coloured vapour coming out of it, doesnt look biological to me. Of course it could be an unknown animal which at least in part looks like a pipe emitting purple vapour but I think more evidence is needed to consider it further. Maybe Monster Quest can do it if I ever get to see it!

    Pity it didn’t fit this description from Crater Lake Oregon about 4/500 miles from Okanagen and reported in British Columbia’s Daily British Colonist newspaper of 26 dec 1884.

    ”Crater Lake Oregon is the home to a dreadful monster. It is said to be as large as a mans body and swimming with about two or three feet (of it ?) out of water and going at a rapid rate as fast as a man can row a skiff leaving a similar wave behind. Its face or head looked white and although it was a long way off it could be plainly seen it was of immense size.”

    There is a similarity here of white head or face.

  16. DavidFullam responds:

    Gentlemen, gentlemen, can we stop this pointless fighting and at least agree that the lady in the one picture is hawt?

  17. Dr. Strings responds:

    Purple lake monsters now? Was Barney buried at sea?Ogopogo is a purple plesiosaur dragging something white or metallic behind it? Good lord. It doesn’t even appear the “neck” has continuity in the first blown-up photo. I can see plenty of water in between the head & neck, if that’s what that’s supposed to represent. I think whoever mentioned that Mr.Viloria might be pushing these alleged photos of Ogopogo to get his bronze statue made probably hit it on the head. I see no monster in those photos.

  18. Camosun responds:

    This is a photograph of an inexperienced, fatigued, windsurfer in the middle of the lake attempting to get back to the rental dock… I hope this person had sun screen on!
    Having lived on the lake for four years, this is a common sight.

    Observe the first “enhanced” photo: the sail – with colour – and the defined legs stemming upwards on the white board.

    Second “enhanced” photo: one tired person in the water with the sail down.

    Take in to consideration the heat waves in the atmosphere. The Okanagan Valley averages 33 C in the summer months.

  19. Alligator responds:

    Some kind of kind of sail or kite is a far more plausible explanation for the photos than a biologic. There, not as fancy an answer as some above, but an honest answer and I believe a n accurate one.

  20. DWA responds:

    Jerrywayne:

    First: I’m not taking a cold shower with anyone like that in the room.

    Second: now come on. You and I have talked about this sighting thing many, many times. It’s all over Cryptomundo. Without sightings, there would be no science. You have to see something new before you verify it, wot?

    For those of you new to the discussion: go to any sasquatch comment thread and search on DWA. Or, let me give you the short form.

    When many, many people, widely separated in space and time, are consistently describing the same thing, something that clusters around means, conforms to biogeographical rules, and consistently varies, in subtle but distinct ways, from the naïve public image of the subject…in the way that real things (and never, ever fakes, and never, ever, EVER illusions) tend to do that…you have something going on that is worthy of scientific review.

    Thanks for your time.

    (Note for the naive among you: I am NOT talking about these photos. Although scientific confirmation of Ms. Weigers would be most welcome.)

    P.S. as for “I would very much like to see the “vast trove of scientifically testable evidence” for your favorite cryptid.”

    Find it. I did. And I am forever pointing people to the bfro and the texasbigfoot org, and go from there.

    R! S! R!

    Don’t GET me upset at you, amigo.

  21. DWA responds:

    Jerrywayne: I should also address this other stuff briefly, which is all that’s required (I’ll try to go with cryptids in general, ‘cause this ain’t no squatch):

    “Please exclude all so-called evidence that could be manufactured, at least theoretically, by human agency.”

    BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHNK! Red herring alert! Red herring alert! That would be expressly silly to do. “At least theoretically…???” Please. Now I know I have taught you better than that. That’s a neat way for a scoftic to dismiss all evidence without even reviewing it; and it neatly dismisses everything that countless generations have taught us about what evidence is, and what can be done with it. No need to address it, other than that. (For anyone who needs help: a real fox could be an exceptionally-good animatronic one. So, you didn’t see a fox.)

    “Also, what do you think scientists in the field could do that professional game hunters or trackers or dedicated advocates could not do. It seems you want to dismiss the scientific establishment as a bunch of know-nothings, and then appeal to the same know-nothings to verify your favorite cryptid!”

    I LOVE calling people know-nothings when they demonstrate, repeatedly, that with regard to a certain topic, they are. All scientists need to do here to stop getting upbraided by me is practice what they learned in school, fercryinoutloud! Stop knee-jerk debunking evidence without looking at it. I will say it again: every scientist I am aware of who has looked at the evidence for the sasquatch is in favor of either (a) calling it real or (b) doing the research to find out.

    Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. I really thought I was bringing you along here. But hey, maybe YOU can tell me why you know more about this than any scientist who comes down on it with me. I’ll time you. 😉

  22. alcalde responds:

    “Please. Now I know I have taught you better than that. That’s a neat way for a scoftic to dismiss all evidence without even reviewing it; and it neatly dismisses everything that countless generations have taught us about what evidence is, and what can be done with it.”

    No, it’s not. That’s standard science. If the evidence is regarding something new, and it can possibly be explained by the existing paradigm, it isn’t considered strong evidence. If the evidence could be scientific error, it isn’t considered strong evidence. If the evidence is of dubious provenance, it isn’t considered strong evidence. If you like I could give you literally a dozen examples of scientific hypotheses that were put forth and rejected because the initial experimental results were unverifiable or unrepeatable. Heck, there’s even an entire book, “The Golem: What You Should Know About Science”, that discusses these types of situations where there isn’t clear evidence and how science has dealt with them. There’s no “scoftic” conspiracy here; the same criteria being applied here has been applied to areas of cosmology, physics, chemistry and probably every other branch of science.

    If you’re talking about easily fakeable evidence, DWA, then what you’re talking about is POOR evidence. Kudos to Jerry for wanting to look only at SOLID evidence. For that matter, Kudos to every juror in America who makes a judgement call every day on the believability of a witness and decides whether or not to accept their testimony or to accept a piece of evidence, and to the judge who rules every day on whether a piece of evidence is admissable or testimony is truly expert. In fact, most evidence that doesn’t have a verfiable chain of custody from crime scene to court room is deemed inadmissable because it could be contaminated or, well, fake. Would you suppport letting anything the prosecution claimed was evidence into a case? I hope not.

    To borrow some examples from UFO Hunters: a video is more useful than a photograph which is more useful than testimony which is more useful than a person who writes UFO books and claims he has information from secret sources which he can’t reveal because he would be killed if he did which is more useful than evidence gathered by “remote viewing” or channeling. Sadly, the one episode of UFO Hunters I watched contained all of the above! :-) Demanding that I waste my time on listening to conspiratorial tales or “psychic” information is silly, as such evidence isn’t evidence at all. Jerry similarly wants solid, verifiable evidence, which is to his credit that he doesn’t form beliefs with sub-standard information.

    “I will say it again: every scientist I am aware of who has looked at the evidence for the sasquatch is in favor of either (a) calling it real or (b) doing the research to find out.”

    I’m assuming that this is a very small sample here, because the last time I checked, neither Bigfoot nor lake monsters were considered mainstream scientific fact. They need evidence that passes the absolutely-not-an-otter/moose/bear/owl test. :-)

    P.S. How can a genuine scientist declare an animal conslusively real without any DNA samples or non-fuzzy photos or non-controversial video footage? Add in that there are many examples of faked evidence which would demand a clear chain of custody regarding prints or such which often doesn’t exist, and it would make it hard for me to take such a scientist seriously.

  23. bccryptid responds:

    I think it’s just as dorky as the ‘dragon-serpent’ one they have now. Classier in bronze, though. I’d love to go to Kelowna just to rub the snout of a bronze plesiosaur for good luck!

  24. lancemoody responds:

    DWA said:

    There is a vast trove of scientifically-testable evidence, all of it pointing to the animals, and none pointing anywhere else.

    You know, Loren, I would hope that, after being offended by my zero batting average comment, that you, as a fair-minded researcher, might also find a ridiculous comment like this equally offensive.

    To my mind, DWA is the absolute worst sort of true believer. For him there is NO evidence against Bigfoot. Even here, where credulity runs rampant, I suspect there might be some Bigfoot enthusiasts who might cringe at such moronic comments.

    Note his hilarious wording “scientifically testable”. Some folks might be more comfortable with “scientifically TESTED” but why take unnecessary steps when you already know the truth?

  25. jerrywayne responds:

    DWA-

    I don’t want to anger you, I really don’t, but…

    To bring the issue to relevance regarding the above initial post, Mr. Viloria believes he has filmed something that relates to the legendary Ogopogo. I believe he is sincere and this is not just a publicity stunt. It also looks like he is a “monster enthusiast”. While Mr. Viloria sees a mysterious object (to him) in the water films this object, he simply does not see what the object apparently IS, a windsurfer, and thinks instead it may be a “lake monster”. And the lesson to be learned?: His belief in a local “lake monster” heavily colored, if not completely distorted, his perception of the event.

    What if Mr. Viloria had not filmed this object and had simply reported it to the local newpaper? Well, then we would probably have his “sighting” indexed as another piece of evidence for the existence of a “lake monster”. And you would probably urge me to read an Ogopogo Internet site for “evidence” of the cryptid, and I would find there Mr. Viloria’s “sighting” as part of the “evidence”.

    Amigo, you suggest I “tell [you] why [I] know more about this than any scientist who comes down on it with [you]” and you will time me for a reply. Frankly, I am far more modest than you seem to be. I DO wonder sometimes if my point of view concerning the issue of sasquatch is correct when there are, or have been, very fine individual scientists who have advocated in behalf of sasquatch, such as Sanderson, Krantz, and Meldrum. Yes, I could be wrong. I admit it.

    But on the issue of certainty and eyewitness reports, your view is equal parts enthusiastic and erroneous. I challenge you to name one scientist who accepts the existence of your favorite cryptid and does so based primarily on eyewitness reports. Name one reputable scientist who says “Hey, I’ve read the bfro sightings reports and now know sasquatch is a real animal. Let’s proceed with the expedition!” Give me one name, please. (And remember, it is your contention that people “see what they say they see”).

    In truth, there are none. Even Krantz and Meldrum became advocates not because of “sightings”, but because of the alleged tracks apparently left behind. Without the tracks, sasquatch is just another ghost story to believe or not. (This not to say that sightings are not used to supplement or shore up the evidence of tracks, but instead to suggest that eye-witness accounts alone will not do the trick).

    Your eye-witnesses “widely separated in space and time” see a similar “animal” because they generally know what they are supposed to see and call “bigfoot”, based on the pop-culture status sasquatch as acquired over the last few decades (thanks to advocates and the entertainment industry). Do I know this for a fact? No. But this interpretation does benefit from the realization that sasquatch territory and habitat has mysteriously expanded over the years in conjunction with the spread of pro-sasquatch “information” and images.

    I think you commit a logical fallacy when you suggest that all scientists who have studied the apparent treasure trove of evidence for your cryptid agree with you. In fact, you have no rational reason to believe this, nor do you have any reasonable means to establish it. You simply do not, and can not, know how many scientists have looked into the bigfoot phenomena and have privately rejected it as based on a real animal. After all, there is no real funding or general interest in refuting the existence of certain cryptids. There is, however, some interest in promoting such. (And, of course, if some scientist does look into the issue and comes to a conclusion the whole thing is a cultural myth, you will refuse to read and contemplate his (or her) argument, all the while ironically charging him (or her) with being a “know-nothing”).

    I think alcalde above has given a good, concise refutation of your charge of “red herring.” Let me add this: we cannot know if Patterson faked his film or not, or whether tracks are real or laid by hoaxers, and we know we cannot always trust eye-witness reports. These types of “evidence” may verify a new ape or be mere human artifacts. We do not know. I ask you, amigo, if you take these off the table, what do you have left?

    Do you have any real (hard) evidence? If not, you may still be intrigued by the sasquatch phenomena and think there is something to it. But what you can’t reasonably be, is CERTAIN that sasquatch exists.

  26. cryptidsrus responds:

    Lancemoody:

    Forget about me. But I have to say this—

    I understand DWA can defend himself quite easily. And I am sure he will eventually do so. He does not need me to speak for him. But I feel I have to respond to a falsehood you just uttered.

    “To my mind, DWA is the absolute worst sort of true believer. For him there is NO evidence against Bigfoot. Even here, where credulity runs rampant, I suspect there might be some Bigfoot enthusiasts who might cringe at such moronic comments.”

    First of all, DWA himself said:

    “When many, many people, widely separated in space and time, are consistently describing the same thing, something that clusters around means, conforms to biogeographical rules, and consistently varies, in subtle but distinct ways, from the naïve public image of the subject…in the way that real things (and never, ever fakes, and never, ever, EVER illusions) tend to do that…you have something going on that is worthy of scientific review.”

    I don’t think that makes him the “worst sort of believer.”

    He also made it clear in the same post he is very skeptical about the Viloria photographs. I guess you and Alcalde forgot to read that part.

    DWA has always made it clear that evidence should be studied only if it conforms to certain rational/scientific/common sense paramaters, not simply because he “wants to believe.” I have been here long enough to know his beliefs enough to dismiss your talk of him making “moronic comments” as being moronic itsself.

    And I was very surprised at your claim that “credulity runs rampant” here.

    From my experience here, the majority of Cryptomundo posters are basically skeptical, though-open-minded under certain circumstances and parameters. I wouldn’t even call Loren a total “believer.” I can understand you branding me with the “believer” mode but it is unfair to the majority of posters AND Loren for you to do that.

    And by what protocols do you make the conclusion that certain comments here are “moronic” and “ridiculous?” You happening to disagree with them? Is THAT the protocol?

    Like I said before, you have a right to post here but what you just said was unfair. To DWA, Loren, and other wonderful people here who are simply trying to find the truth to certain unexplained phenomena and happenings.

    I disagree with a lot of people here but I have never found most of them to be intolerant of my beliefs or me of them. One of my favorite posters here is Mystery_Man and also Kittenz. I don’t agree with all of their conclusions but I feel privileged to be able to discuss subjects with them and to get to know their points of view overall. I learn from most people here.

    We are all just people who have different ways of finding explanation to things.
    Just because we disagree doesn’t mean we have to be condescendingly comtemptous or rude of others who disagree with one’s interpretation of reality.

    Which is what you are doing.

    You can question my “naivete” and “credulousness” all you want to. That’s the way it is.

    But do not question the integrity of this site and make all the people here victims of “credulity” when they obviously are not.

    Shame on you, Sir. :(

  27. kittenz responds:

    Sometimes, it is a zebra 😉 :

  28. DWA responds:

    Cryptidsrus:

    I think I have lancemoody sussed. He’s a former raging true believer who feels jilted, mainly because he clearly doesn’t know how science works (and big-time doesn’t) when it comes to this stuff. (I’m a SKEPTIC. Folks who don’t understand that don’t get out much, and they certainly don’t read.) No need to address him; I’ve done all with him I need to. (Why does he even come here? Either he has a real need to feel superior – and it, um, ain’t workin’ there, Lance – or it must be pain therapy.)

    Alcalde:

    Your position is what keeps science in narrow, narrow trenches for exceedingly long periods of time. To look at evidence only when it meets those requirements is, essentially, only to look at proof (something that the “skeptics” in this field seem to confuse frequently with “evidence.” Note again (and you guys seem to keep on and keep on missing this): the only scientists I’m knocking are the ones who mouth off when they know so little their mouths are better shut. Like the PHYSICIST who thought his degree gave him the right to ask for Jeff Meldrum’s tenure on a stick. They’re not Holy Men, guys and gals; they’re people, with biases and blinders and raging hormones and jealousy and complexes like everyone else. And even they frequently misunderstand that evidence comes before proof. If you only look at proof, you don’t have a job.

    Jerrywayne:

    Didn’t I tell you that I was taking this the way you steered it? This photo looks like a windsurfer to me; I wouldn’t give it a second thought. But I’ve addressed all your other stuff, at length, many times here, amigo.

    READ, guys, before you mouth off. It’s a real problem with scientists too, so don’t feel too too bad.

    I can’t help feeling smug. You guys are too EASY. Read. CHALLENGE. Make it TOUGH for me. (OK, alcalde and jerrywayne, you do work at it. Maybe you can take Lance out for a beer and some schoolin’.)

    “P.S. How can a genuine scientist declare an animal conslusively [sic] real without any DNA samples or non-fuzzy photos or non-controversial video footage?”

    As I have said here, many times, with emphasis:

    HE CAN’T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  29. DWA responds:

    oh, and I should add, cryptidsrus:

    GREAT job.

    People who have to be told off like that, well, you have to wonder why they’re even here. So little curiosity I see.

  30. DWA responds:

    Alcalde: like I said, some do work at this, although I have said what I’m going to say here before.

    “If the evidence is regarding something new, and it can possibly be explained by the existing paradigm, it isn’t considered strong evidence.”

    Then Pluto would still be a planet, and Eris would be, well, a smudge on the lens. Eris was new, and the “existing paradigm” was nine major objects orbiting the sun, of which Pluto was one. It isn’t anymore. Eris showed the existing paradigm to be dramatically wrong. Paradigms describe what we think exists; they don’t even address things we don’t know. The coelacanth was totally new; the existing paradigm was, that’s a fossil; and suddenly, one piece of evidence, meeting your criteria, serving as PROOF that the existing paradigm was dramatically wrong. Not applying this to any cryptid; just parsing the statement. And I think that’s a fair parse. (Nine Planets in the Solar System was just about the strongest and most unshakeable scientific paradigm there was.)

    “If the evidence could be scientific error, it isn’t considered strong evidence.”

    Not true. ALL evidence could be scientific error. And many, many conclusions science has come to based on evidence were erroneous, even though the evidence itself wasn’t scientific error. What I guess I’m saying is, that sentence is – if not a non sequitur – restricting science not to accept anything that could conceivably be wrong. We’d still be in caves. Science accepts stuff that could be wrong constantly. (Evolution, for example, which scientists – all their fuming at creationists to the contrary – still, very properly, call a “theory.”) “Scientific knowledge” is a very malleable phrase; it’s adjusted, well, every couple of days. That’s about how often I see the phrase “bigger/longer/shorter/etc. than previously thought” come up in the news.

    And I have said this many many many times: one piece of evidence, or two, or five, aren’t much at all. Scientists need FREQUENCY (lots of data points) and COHERENCE (they consistently describe something that seems to behave like a natural phenomenon).

    Just to use the sasquatch as the reference, it meets both tests; and it’s hard to brand as scientific error evidence at which science doesn’t even look.

  31. lancemoody responds:

    DWA,

    It may come as a surprise to you, but in the real world simply declaring yourself the winner of an argument is rarely impressive except perhaps to children.

    I wouldn’t have called myself a raging believer (as I now think of you) but I was, as a teen, interested in these topics and believed there might be something to them–especially Loch Ness.

    As I got older I became more and more skeptical as I read more and more books on the topic–some of them by Loren, I might add.

    At this point, I feel that the evidence (which I have carefully looked at despite your claiming otherwise using your typical manner of argumentation) is not convincing or compelling for things like Bigfoot or Nessie or Ogopogo. I could change my mind instantly if something new comes to light.

    I am interested in the topic now more from a sociological viewpoint but still interested.

    To my mind, a person who thinks that there still might something to Bigfoot is taking a perfectly reasonable stance. Maybe there is.

    But a person like you, who vastly overplays the quality of the evidence is a different matter. Having read your arguments (the ones that go beyond saying “I Win! ) I see a stubborn stupidity that reason is never gonna touch and that is why we can never agree.

    By the way, I am sure that you imagine that calling yourself a skeptic is the height of cleverness. In reality in underlines your lack of knowledge of what the word means.

  32. DWA responds:

    OK, jerrywayne, you get points for effort too. (Boy, so do I.) Here we go, again.

    “Your eye-witnesses “widely separated in space and time” see a similar “animal” because they generally know what they are supposed to see and call “bigfoot”, based on the pop-culture status sasquatch as acquired over the last few decades (thanks to advocates and the entertainment industry). Do I know this for a fact? No. But this interpretation does benefit from the realization that sasquatch territory and habitat has mysteriously expanded over the years in conjunction with the spread of pro-sasquatch “information” and images.”

    As I’ve said here, many times, including above, in the very graph you quote: the evidence for the sasquatch consistently displays (and no, I can’t list them, again) many things that are AT ODDS with that naïve public perception you cite as the model. And most sighters didn’t think the animal existed, and even the ones that did, didn’t think it existed where they saw one. So no, your explanation doesn’t wash. They’re seeing what they see, is what any person trained to review such things would say. (Or at least consider way too strong a possibility to dismiss.)

    “I think you commit a logical fallacy when you suggest that all scientists who have studied the apparent treasure trove of evidence for your cryptid agree with you. In fact, you have no rational reason to believe this, nor do you have any reasonable means to establish it.”

    Why sure I do! Every scientist who has expressed an opinion on the topic that I’ve read. It’s easy to tell – precisely from what they say – who’s reviewed the evidence and who hasn’t. If I can tell you you’re either a fool or can’t read, or haven’t bothered, to your face, you haven’t done your work as a scientist. That is, you haven’t looked at the evidence. Now, if scientists are keeping silent who have reviewed the evidence AND think it’s a crock, well, shame on them.

    “And, of course, if some scientist does look into the issue and comes to a conclusion the whole thing is a cultural myth, you will refuse to read and contemplate his (or her) argument, all the while ironically charging him (or her) with being a “know-nothing”).”

    I’m a skeptic. You constantly miss that, amigo. Here’s my skeptical take on you: you don’t read a thing I write. If you did, that conclusion would be impossible. When I have such a skeptical take on someone, I simply presume their conclusions uninformed, and stop responding to them as it appears a waste of my time. 😉

    “Let me add this: we cannot know if Patterson faked his film or not, or whether tracks are real or laid by hoaxers, and we know we cannot always trust eye-witness reports. These types of “evidence” may verify a new ape or be mere human artifacts. We do not know. I ask you, amigo, if you take these off the table, what do you have left?”

    RED HERRING ALERT! RED HERRING ALERT! No skeptic could possibly take it off the table, mainly because, if he/she were paying attention to it, a big “if” there, the thing to be MOST skeptical about would be the smug conclusion that it’s all a false positive. WHY would someone want to do that, barring a truly bizarre bent toward knowledge, as in: it ain’t true if I don’t want it to be? Scientists review evidence; and that for the sasquatch qualifies, in spades.

    “Do you have any real (hard) evidence? If not, you may still be intrigued by the sasquatch phenomena and think there is something to it. But what you can’t reasonably be, is CERTAIN that sasquatch exists.”

    And how many times have I said to you: couldn’t have said it better myself if I tried? Don’t MAKE my skeptical take on you look like fact. 😉

  33. DWA responds:

    lancemoody. Isn’t he CUUUUUTE when he’s angry? Couldn’t ya just chuck him under the chin?

    Lance, Lance, Lance. Come back when you’ve switched to decaf. But thanks for reinforcing that you’re not paying attention. (You do come here just to imagine you’re superior, don’t you. I guess as long as you feel that way, well, good for you.)

  34. cryptidsrus responds:

    I’ll make one more comment and then I’m thorugh with this thread:
    (BTW, this has been a very interesting conversation, to say the least. Most people made great points and we even got a little lesson on the meaning of Occam’s Razor.
    Who’d thunk it…) And thanks for the compliment, DWA.

    Anyway…
    Lancemoody:
    “It may come as a surprise to you, but in the real world simply declaring yourself the winner of an argument is rarely impressive except perhaps to children.”

    I can think of at least three instances where that statement you made proved to be false.

    The 2000 election, anybody??? (Rolls eyes.) :)
    How about the Norm Coleman/Al Franken brouhaha???
    The 2004 election???

    Btw, I’m not trying to start a “political discussion” here, Loren and everybody else. Just pointing out the real-life wrongness of that statement Lance made.
    People who are not “children” declare themselves the winner in disputes, contests, and everything else all the time.
    Not saying it’s necessarily “right” or “wrong,” just reality.
    I’ll go take my meds now…:)

  35. jerrywayne responds:

    DWA,

    I really don’t want to get into a Pee Wee Hermanesque “I know you are, but what am I” tit for tat with you. But, please, be more self aware in your responses. After all, when you charge folks with a whole host of infractions, such as smugness, anger, failure to really read posts, caffeination, being a raging true believer, and the like, there is a certain pot calling the kettle black aspect to your posts. (I say this as an amigo, not enemigo).

    Perhaps I do not make my points well, for you to so miss them. I never suggested that you accepted the latest alleged Ogo photos. I was trying to relate the eyewitness issue to Loren’s original post (and not go too far afield with bigfoot): I thought it was a teachable issue.

    (Young “monster enthusiast” sees something in the water he interprets as validating his belief in Ogo. Fortunately, he films it and we can actually see that his perception was erroneous. And if he had no camera and we had to rely on his eye-witness account, we would have been misled if we had accepted his “sighting” at face value. This, my friend, is directly relevant to your contention, indeed dogma, that people see what they say they see).

    On another issue I charge you with not reading my post carefully. On scientists and sasquatch,
    my point was that you have no idea how many scientists have privately looked into the issue and decided it was not really about biology and quietly dropped the issue. In other words, you can not say that every scientist who has looked into the sasquatch phenomena agrees with you because you do not know factually if that is really the case (unless you’re omniscient). Add to this your curious habit of denying scientists any legitimacy at all if they do not agree with YOUR conclusions, and we have nonsense compounded.

    Your remarks relating to sasquatch sighters is at its base naive. You say most sighters didn’t even know such an animal existed. Really? How do you know this? Well, they said so. Oh, OK. Must be a fact, uh. Truth is, you do not know the first thing about most sighters, other than what you read on an Internet site. They could be telling the truth, or pulling your leg. They could be clever and offer the “boy I don’t know what that thing was” scenario. They could mischeviously offer detail to seemingly authenticate their “sighting”. Do I know this for a fact. No. But you do not know the sightings are authentic either. That is the point.

    Sightings are either real, misperceptions, or deceptions. Why the skeptic has the upper hand in this issue is simple to understand: We KNOW that people have misperceptions (remember my “hamburger” hat). We KNOW that people deceive. We DO NOT KNOW that sasquatch exists. So, if you had to hedge your bet….! (Don’t misunderstand me: I am not saying that sightings are necessarily bogus, just that we do not really know if they are).

    Also, it is one thing to read sighting reports and determine, arm chair wise, they are authentic, and quite another to really try to ascertain if all the facts of the case hold together. I’m willing to bet that most sightings are accepted at face value by advocate researchers as long as there is no obvious problem with the accounts. Thus the sightings are not thoroughly examined, and certainly not skeptically examined, before they enter the canon of cryptic lore.

    “RED HERRING ALERT! RED HERRING ALERT!” May I offer a STRAW MAN ALERT! in reply. Of course, one may look at sightings, tracks, videos, and other such “evidence” when reviewing the sasquatch phenomena. Have at it. If nothing else, it is fun. My point is, however, since such “evidence” by its very nature can not be
    conclusive, the scientific community is within its
    methodological rights not to rely on such evidence.

    And, amigo, I know you don’t want to hear this, but….scientists may shy away from investigating the issue because they know that an animal as large as sasquatch is purported to be, seen as often and in as many places as it is alleged to have been seen, not deep in remote places but in heavily populated areas or the outskirts of such, and this animal leaves no conclusive trace, has left no trace in natural history and virtually no trace in the social history of western expansion, and has never been shot, captured, or trapped as any other large animal native to the continent has, is an improbable animal.

    My issue with you has always been about certainty. Maybe sasquatch is an improbable reality. But we do not know that it is a reality. Perhaps I have misunderstood you all along. Maybe your bravado blinded me to the fact that you are not really so sure that sasquatch truly lives. If so, we have a common ground, skeptic and faux skeptic (I’ll let readers decide who is who) (Smile).

    Amigo, take it easy.

  36. mystery_man responds:

    Well, it looks like this thread is dying down a bit. I’ve been mostly sitting it out because I said pretty much what I needed to say before, and things have unfortunately gotten a bit needlessly confrontational in my opinion. But I figured I’d give my own thoughts here.

    As far as the general “climate of belief” (man I hate to use the word “belief”), around here, I’d have to agree with cryptidsrus that most posters here at Cryptomundo tend to range towards the skeptical side. It is actually refreshing for me to see the critical eye often given towards evidence such as these Ogopogo pics here. I certainly wouldn’t paint the readership here at Cryptomundo as a bunch of staunch “true believers,” although some may be. Even though I don’t agree with some of the assumptions made here at times, I still think most commenters have not abandoned a critical approach entirely.

    There is certainly a need to remain critical, scientific, and yes, skeptical in any approach to evidence offered. After all, science is a skeptical endeavor. We are trying to get to the truth, not what we think the truth is, or what we’d like the truth to be. That’s why scientists always pick apart each others’ research and question even their own hypotheses and assumptions. They have to be sure that the evidence is solid, and this can entail an almost Darwinian process of peer review and cross analysis. This is one thing that I do think we could use more of in general in cryptozoology, but I think many here realize the need for this at some level.

    I’ll admit that the evidence presented for some cryptids is not what would be considered strong in the mainstream. It just hasn’t been tested and subjected to the kind of protocol that is expected. This sort of approach is absolutely par for the course in any scientific field, especially when entering groundbreaking territory that have not yet garnered wide acceptance.

    I’m pretty known here for a critical eye, I think. I agree in some respects to what those like jerrywayne and alcalde have to say. I can be harsh on the evidence, perhaps much to the chagrin of some posters here. That is the way it has to be for this field to be accepted by the scientific community at large. However, I will stop and say “now wait a minute,” when something is compelling without discarding it out of hand.

    Let me tell you why I’m here, even if it is to look at something as flimsy as these “Ogopogo pics.”

    The reason why I am here and involved in cryptozoology is that I value the concept of the possibilities of discovery beyond established paradigms. Every so often, something is presented for which the paradigms do not offer a satisfactory explanation for me. It is absolutely Ok tyo question the world we see. And when I have questions that are not easily answered, I want to find out more. Luckily for us, throughout history others have done the same, and it is in this spirit of discovery that we have propelled science forward, pushed at and expanded the limits of what we know or think we know. It is by questioning what we think we know that new avenues of inquiry are opened. Science is an ongoing process that continually builds upon what has come before.

    Of course this knowledge has to be approached in a proper manner. However, I am here because I have seen that a questioning mind can lead to great things. Although I am skeptical, my curiosity is not always appeased through knee jerk debunking. Oh I pick apart supposed “evidence” from every angle and am often not as impressed as some others here, nor as sure about what we are likely seeing, but my questions often lead me to think that we may find something surprising if some things are followed up on.

    I am here because I think the most exciting words in science are not “Eureka,” but rather “Well that’s odd.”

    These Ogopogo photos do not add up to much, and indeed much alleged evidence doesn’t, but I would hardly call cryptozoology a foolish pursuit or its research devoid of many merit. History has shown otherwise.

    Any way, for all of those in the trenches here, a parting word. I feel that coming to a civil understanding that it is this common essential value for the potential for discovery that keeps bringing us back here might be more useful than being at each others’ throats.

  37. kittenz responds:

    most exciting words in science are not “Eureka,” but rather “Well that’s odd.”

    – the late and sadly missed Carl Sagan said the same thing, m_m.

    I’m a skeptic too. I like to think that I keep my mind open, but not open so far that my brain falls out :) . But I also love the “what if?”. Most of the “evidence” presented for most cryptids is easily explained away as something more commonplace, and a lot of it is outright hogwash.

    But – there’s the occasional gleam of a gem of possibility among the vast quantity of dust and chaff. And that gleam of possibility is what keeps me coming to this site, to ponder and discuss the “what ifs”.

  38. DWA responds:

    Jerrywayne: I read yours.

    And you’re STILL not reading mine.

    Too many examples to go into here. But I can be brief on these.

    (I didn’t make this a sasquatch thread. 😉 )

    “On scientists and sasquatch,
    my point was that you have no idea how many scientists have privately looked into the issue and decided it was not really about biology and quietly dropped the issue.”

    If any have done that, all they have to do is come to me and I’ll show them why they’re wrong. 😉 How? By saying what I have [sigh] said many many times here: Scientists who look at the data – especially the anecdotal evidence – recognize that it shows all of the earmarks scientists look for in data that behaves the way a natural phenomenon behaves.

    “Your remarks relating to sasquatch sighters is at its base naive. You say most sighters didn’t even know such an animal existed. Really? How do you know this? Well, they said so. Oh, OK. Must be a fact, uh. Truth is, you do not know the first thing about most sighters, other than what you read on an Internet site. They could be telling the truth, or pulling your leg.”

    [sigh: Time No. 375…] KNOW? Shoot, Jerry, how do YOU know? But half of them doing what you say they all are doing? ALL of them doing it, even the ones who have gotten a grilling from a followup investigator? You want to bet those odds? Remind me not to lend you money.

    “Sightings are either real, misperceptions, or deceptions.”

    NO. They are either the first, or the third. The second is impossible for a normally functioning person. So you think all of us would see a bear in the woods and go, ape! Don’t think so, amigo. Here’s where a real skeptic has the upper hand in this discussion, because a real skeptic looks at the evidence. If you read sighting reports, you would know that to bet on all of them being fake, you’d have to postulate all liars; all physically-restrainable nuts; or an unlikely admixture of the two. MOST unlikely. How? All you have to do is determine how much dough you would bet on that cockeyed concatenation yielding a bunch of lies that read like biodata [time # 576 for that phrase. Sigh…] This is where the alleged ‘skeptics’ start looking like credulous bumpkins to me. They’d bet all their chips on a ‘mundane’ explanation that is over-the-moon unlikely.

    Wow. There are about seven other passages I have taken to task, over and over, here. But I need to sign off on this one.

    “My issue with you has always been about certainty.”

    Which means you aren’t reading. I’m a skeptic, remember? I’m just what a real skeptic should always be; someone who questions every uninformed, lazy assumption, regardless on which side of the issue it comes down.

    I also just know how to bet money. That’s what the issue is about; how to bet if it came down to a bet (and no, I haven’t been bet yet; people put their money away after talking to me on this). If certainty were the issue, would we be discussing the sasquatch HERE?

  39. DWA responds:

    m_m: I can go with that. 😉

    I think that a few folks here don’t show enough interest in what they are talking about before they start talking. That can be a problem. I’m skeptical about ghosts and alien abductions. But I also freely admit not spending time on either topic. And here is where people forget what skepticism involves. It’s OK to have reservations about phenomena that don’t exactly seem to abound in everyday life. But before you express an up-or-down opinion, and get in folks’ face about it, you have to be informed, at least if you want to be taken seriously. If paranormal phenomena are real, OK with me. I’m not going to call you names, because frankly I don’t have standing. If you are interested in the paranormal, then you’ve read more than I have on it, that’s for sure.

    I think a lot of people come to crypto from a paranormal background. For them, it’s all about Do you believe? Never been that for me. I respond to evidence, and only evidence. And knowing a lot about animals, and having spent a lot of time outside, I have a good sense for the circumstances surrounding cryptid reports. Especially so because I read them. OK, at least for the sas and the yeti I do, because they’re candy to me. They read like people’s experiences of an animal, an ape, in fact, much like the ones we know about. This is something that, frankly, lake-monster reports don’t do, to me. They read like funny things in the water, which, you know, can be mundane funny things.

    Much of the ‘literature’ on the sas and the yeti has been written by folks with that paranormal backdrop. It doesn’t seem to address the evidence properly. Which is why I stick to the evidence, and those of scientific bent who address it.

    And I can keep it as civil as anyone can; but they have to help. :-)

  40. mystery_man responds:

    Kittenz- You are correct, that quote is from Carl Sagan. It’s one of my favorites, and I’m sure I’ve mentioned it on this site before. :)

  41. kittenz responds:

    Carl Sagan was one of my favorites and still is :)

  42. straffordcrypto1 responds:

    it looks like a wind surfer but there is another story on this prooves it




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot 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.