More “Champ Video” Enhancements

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 12th, 2009

The following are more digital/video enhancements of the May 31, 2009 footage, the so-called “Champ video,” taken of something unidentified in Lake Champlain from a rock outcropping at Oakledge Park, Burlington, Vermont by Eric Olsen.
+++

++++

+++++

++++++

+++++++

++++++++

Short video of a river otter in Alaska:

++++++++

A visit with Sandra Mansi:

+++++++++

The Turtle of Hoan Kiem Lake:

++++++++++

Original Olsen footage stabilized:

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.


38 Responses to “More “Champ Video” Enhancements”

  1. adamn responds:

    My first post though I have read this site for a long time. I would love this to be truly film of something unknown. However, I may have found the culpret on youtube. View the video on this link of an otter [taped in Alaska].

    Are otters in the lake? Watch the way the body changes shape in the water, right down to the very end where the otter slows and drops down, almost exactly as the image in the Lake Champlain video.

    [Video has been added to this post above. ~ Cryptomundo editor.]

  2. grantmj responds:

    Great job finding that Otter footage Loren…to me, that looks an awful lot like the Olsen footage.

    My opinion, the Olsen footage : Otter.

  3. cryptidsrus responds:

    If this is an Otter, it has got to be the biggest “Super Otter” in all the history of otters. It actually resembles the sketch that you submitted from Bernard Heuvelmans showing the “Super Otter.”

    And looking at the new enhancements you showed, I’m more convinced than ever that this a “none-of-the-above.”
    It actually looks like we have “the real deal” here.

    I’m not 100% sure, of course—but instinctively I have the feeling that this is a Big Dude in a Big Pond.
    And those “wakes” sure look like humps to me.
    Am I the only one to think that?

  4. Brothermidnight responds:

    I must say that the river otter video really does pay a good deal of resemblance to what is in the “Champ video”.

  5. gavinf responds:

    Adamn:

    Great job in finding the video. It does look quite a bit like Olsen’s video. However, there are enough difference for me to keep the question open. In the river otter video, the otter is very active and playful. And that is in thirteen seconds. Olsen’s video is two-minutes long, and that behavior is simply not there. And if I’m not mistaken, that is common behavior for river otters. More importantly, river otters average 3-4 feet and maybe 20-30 pounds. Whatever Olsen videoed, it is considerably bigger. Even those convinced it’s a hoax/misidentification have not put forth an animal so relatively small.
    Also, the river otter has to flex quite a bit of its body to lift it’s head and neck out of the water. I would think that is due to it’s mass/volume? relative to the body of water. However, the Olsen creature shows very easy movement up and down in the water, which an animal with a larger body would be able to do, as it’s mass would keep the body stable while lifting up it’s head and neck.
    That’s not to say it isn’t a undiscovered species of otter. Heuvelman’s Super-Otter really does fit the video, especially in light of the river otter video. It would be awesome to prove that he was right, all these decades later.

  6. DWA responds:

    The otter footage is intriguing. Given the size of a river otter though, I see it a highly unlikely candidate to be mistaken for a cryptid.

    And the Olsen video? Even after seeing our known otter, this one doesn’t say otter to me.

  7. scaryeyes responds:

    I agree in outline it’s not dissimilar to the otter. But then in outline it’s not dissimilar to a deer, or to a seal, or to a turtle at different points. What makes me think it’s not an otter is it’s behaviour – I’ve watched otters in the water quite often and while they do cut a very serpentine shape, they move very fast and they move a lot, just like the one in the video. The animal in the Champlain video moves very slowly by comparison. I’ve said this before, but behaviour-wise it reminds me more of a seal; seals can move very fast when they choose, but they don’t always choose – I’ve seen plenty of seals lounging around and taking their time like this animal seems to be. But in the outline, the shape of it, it’s not at all like a seal, especially initially when it has so much of its back above water. There are lots of things this animal resembles in parts, but no explanation which totally satisfies me; that’s what’s so intriguing about this footage.

  8. Gothic_Thylacine responds:

    cryptidsrus I agree with you %100 🙂

    And like most of the responses so far I will agree- The otter video DOES look VERY similar…but the apparent size of the animal in the Olsen video makes me think it’s not an otter..unless it’s freaking huge. Also as gavinf has said, otters are usually very active.
    I myself live next to a river in Northern CA & I have seen many many otters. Either they are playing around or they are just exposing their heads or floating/napping lol.

    Still, very interesting! Some kind of pinniped may be a possible candidate. My bet is still on an unknown right now. but the Otter video gives us some great insight!

    I hope Mr Olsen doesn’t stay hidden forever! He has captured possibly the best “Champ” video to date & I’d hate to think that some small minded bullies ruined it for anyone.

  9. graybear responds:

    Anybody think it might be a swimming black bear? The head shape is about right, especially with the pixelization, and they don’t always keep their ears perked up, particularly if they aren’t very happy about something. A black bear can move similarly to an otter, but slower due to their greater size.
    Just a thought, I really don’t know about this one.

  10. mfs responds:

    I’ve seen river otters in zoos and in the wild.Their smaller size doesn’t compare with the Olsen footage creature. I agree with crytidsrus and gavinf that it would have to be an unknown species of “Super Otter” even larger than the Amazon River Otters that nearly reach 6ft. in length. My initial impression when I first viewed the footage was that maybe it’s a deer struggling to swim to shore and then eventually drowned but then as I viewed the footage more closely several times I ruled that out. The mystery continues.

  11. aastra responds:

    It’s been mentioned on Cryptomundo.com before, but just in case some people haven’t heard about it, see a report of an oversized otter not too far from Lake Champlain, in Maine.

    As I watch Mr. Olsen’s video I find myself liking the oversized otter theory more and more. And it wouldn’t disappoint me one bit, either. Could it be true that a supersized variation of an otherwise familiar animal has been living right under our collective noses for so long?

  12. Richard888 responds:

    If the Olsen footage creature seems like a super otter, it is not because of its size but due to its length which someone estimated as being 15 feet. Perhaps the length can be explained as 2 or 3 otters in a row such as a mother followed by her pups. Perhaps otters do not always make vigorous maneuvers in the water like the individual in the Alaska otter video. If the two “perhaps” statements can be proven then there is no reason why the Olsen footage cannot show an otter. The otter videos prove that its silhouette is very otter like.

  13. mystery_man responds:

    Well, otters are active, but not all of the time. They are not frolicking and darting about all hours of the day. Otters will also swim in quite a leisurely fashion when they feel like it. They will lounge about at the surface and otters I have seen doing this look very much as casual as the animal in this video. The level of activity being displayed isn’t what gives me doubts about the otter hypothesis. It’s the size of the thing.

    Otters can get pretty large, but not quite like what we seem to be seeing here in this clip. If it is an otter, it is a very big boy who has been taking his vitamins. 🙂 An unknown type of large otter or the “super otter” would perhaps fit in with the subject of this video, but I’m having trouble imagining it as being any known otter indigenous to that area. Perhaps size is being distorted or misunderstood here, but it sure does look like one heck of a big otter if that is what it is.

    The size is more indicative of some kind of pinniped than an otter in my opinion. However, the method of swimming and the way the thing carries its head is not very much like a seal.

    I’m continuously perplexed by this footage. I agree with the post by Scaryeyes above. There are various points in the video which give me the impression of different animals at different stages, but none of them really seem to completely fit, and the mystery creature never fully coalesces into something I can definitively put my finger on. There is just no one candidate for me at this point that totally satisfies me.

    Likewise, the still photos give a different overall impression than the video itself. In different stills at different stages, I can almost say I see a deer or turtle or seal depending on the particular still shot. However, when watching the animal in motion, with the clip playing from beginning to end, those impressions become less certain and none of them seem to fully stick satisfactorily.

    If we had just one or two photos of this animal, I feel almost certain that I would have been inclined to be pretty positive it was a deer. I think in the case of just photos, this evidence would not have had nearly the scrutiny it has gotten so far. The fact that we can see this creature in motion in and for a decent length of time is incredibly fortunate because now it can get the attention it deserves rather than being dismissed out of hand (as I admit I would have been likely to have done if we did not have video of it).

    I think this is certainly an important piece of footage whether it turns out to be a mundane animal or not.

  14. adamn responds:

    Great posts by all, However, is this subject really that big. If we look from the beginning of the original video we see the rocks that Olsen is standing on. Then he pans to the right and we see the swimming “something”. It doesnt appear to me to be that far away. Actually it looks to be similar in distance and size to the otter video, if we don’t assume the black spot behind the “something” that apears towards the later part of the clip is part of the “something”. As I said before, I read this site almost daily hoping for that big discovery of a large aquatic cryptid and am not a sceptic of their existance. I just think in this case we are dealing with an otter. I do hope im wrong though.

  15. kittenz responds:

    This is low-resolution video shot from a cell phone. The more it’s “enhanced”, the more chance for distortion and misinterpretation.

    Which of the animals, known to inhabit northern lakes or their surroundings, could this be? Moose – not likely. Deer – much more likely. I have thought “deer” from the beginning – but “bear” had not crossed my mind. After considering black bears, and remembering how odd they look with their fur slicked down while swimming, I think it could indeed be a bear.

    Otter? Otters can grow to be about 4 1/2 feet long but this animal’s body looks too bulky for an otter. Of course, there is really nothing to judge the true scale here, so maybe. Giant otter? Even the giant otters of South America don’t grow much longer than 6 feet, and they are not known from outside the Amazon region (where they are seriously endangered).

    I don’t think it’s a plesiosaur, giant seal, giant slug, or any other proposed “unknown”. I don’t think it could be a “super otter”. If there were huge otters in North America, I think that the fur trappers who nearly wiped out the river otters and beavers across the continent in the past 250 years would have mentioned them.

    I believe it’s a known animal, but unless someone was there who identified it at the time of filming (which would mean that this sighting is a hoax), the world will never know. There is just not enough definition in this video to be able to identify the animal with certainty.

  16. Loren Coleman responds:

    I wondered about the otter option from the very beginning, even if some interviewers did not wish to record answers and ponderings I have had in that direction.

    What is amusing is that, regarding the new Eric Olsen “Champ video,” [the formerly otter-happy Joe] Nickell has now been quoted, not as a skeptic, but as a “cryptozoologist” by the Associated Press. He allegedly told NECN/AP that the new Lake Champlain footage looks like a “young moose.”

    Meanwhile, I have been correctly characterized as a “cryptozoologist” by the media, but sometimes my careful and skeptical cryptozoological approach to this new video ~ even considering it might be an otter or a super-otter ~ have been ignored by reporters. ~ Loren Coleman, June 5, 2009.

  17. DWA responds:

    Good posts by everybody, particularly m_m and cryptidsrus.

    I agree with the latter that there is nothing “supernatural” in the traditional sense of that word; there is only “unexplained.” And some of that may never be explained.

    I also liked kittenz’s word about “enhancing” this footage. Forget it. It will never get clearer. This is it.

    What this is, is a fascinating example of our need to believe. Not in monsters, nor in the absence of them, but in the infallibility of our technology.

  18. KristyBeast responds:

    Hmm. The otter footage is helpful. It pretty much moves the same way but with a significantly lower level of enthusiasm.
    And I have to say, honestly, the creature in the Olsen video appears to be longer than the otter. Because even if it is an otter in the Olsen video and even if it is the wake behind it, instead of more of the body, why would the wake be so long?

    And honestly, it does look very much to me like a tail. It just does.

  19. Alligator responds:

    Kittenz and a few others suggested a swimming black bear. Here is some footage from You Tube of a pair of swimming black bears in Canada. It’s enough to make me give bear serious consideration for the swimmer.

  20. williambryan responds:

    I live near a lake inhabited by otters and it is common to see them playing around as in the river otter footage above, but it is even more common (in my experience at least) to see them swim in a calm manner in a straight path very much like in the lake champlaign footage.

  21. DWA responds:

    Alligator: funny, but if I wanted to rule out bear, at least as likely, I’d do it on the strength of that video.

    For one thing, the ears are visible from the first frame. For another, the animals are obviously moving with extreme vigor, like this is something they want to stop doing, and soon – the behavior I would expect for a land animal, and totally absent from the one in this video. For another, the head is very clearly about 90 percent or more of what’s above water in the bear video – something that is very clearly not the case in this one. (Unless that sucker is HUGE, and has a most unusual head.) And for finals, there is a LOT of animal out of the water in the Champ video, much more than there is for the bears, head notwithstanding.

  22. cryptidsrus responds:

    Kittenz:

    I’m willing to consider the fact it could be a “bear.”

    But I must say—
    If it is a bear, that has got to be the bear with the scrawniest, most elongated neck I’ve ever seen. 🙂 Not saying it could not be the case, but one has got to consider that.

    And since bears are bulky and wide, I did not get the impression of big “width” here. More bigness in relation to Elongation. And as usual, no ears. Mutated bear, maybe??? Who knows?

    Bears also have a more pronounced snout than what we see here. The nose structure here looks more tapered, smotth, less elongated.

    Also, most people here or elsewhere have not given a totally satisfactory explanation of the “wakes” seen near the back of the creature. Particularly with the enhancements, they look more and more like the could NOT be distortions of the camera phone. Could be the mother of all bears, though. (Shrug).

    Camera phones can distort images but when one takes an aggregate, composite, enhanced view of the pictures, the “wakes” look more solid than simply water effects.

    One also has to take into consideration the fact that Olsen stated he did not see the creature emerge from the water after he stopped recording.
    I understand that it is just his word here, but since no adequate evidence has come forward suggesting he’s a) lying, or b) he’s got a faulty memory—I see no reason why his story is to be disbelieved as of now. Not saying this could not be false, though, of course—just refusing to pass judgement on Olsen until I see more evidence to the contrary.
    I tend to believe him. Believer side of me. Poor me.

    I’m also pretty certain that Olsen would know a bear in the water when he saw one, seeing as he lives in THAT particular area of the USA.

    Remember, folks, Olsen stated pretty clearly from the beginning in his YouTube presentation that he considered this an UNKNOWN creature. He was actually trying to ask help of people out here in identifying this thing.
    I don’t think he would have gone to all the trouble of putting it up on YouTube and asking people people to identify something if he thought it fit the profile of creatures he knew about. I bet you 99% of the people in this country are able to recognize something from a distance that they see every day. Bear, Dog, Cat, Chicken, Horse, etc.—those creatures are not Zoo curiosities—they cohabit the space we live in daily.
    Perception is faulty but given the vehemency of Olsen’s claim and behavior regarding the “unknown” nature of the thing I’m willing to attest to his sincerity. Naive me, I know.

    Come to think of it, if the bear did NOT emerge on the other side like Olsen stated—what was he/she doing in the water? Taking a leisurely morning swim??? (Heck, could be). “Aqua-bear?”
    Maybe the bear was trying to keep from “drowning,” —but again, bears are powerful swimmers—would they be lounging around the water like this—almost “calling it in” knowing they were going to drown??? Hmmm…
    Laziest bear I’ve ever seen. 🙁

    I don’t think this “bear” was fishing—most people have watched enough nature shows to know they don’t fish while swimming. I’ve seen enough Wild America and Nature to know bears tend to fish outside the water.
    So yes, it could be a bear, but I just don’t think it fits the profile enough to say definitely it is that specific animal.

    Come to think of this—this pretty much reminds me of a child trying to fit the triangle block into a square peg—it just don’t quite “fit.”

  23. cryptidsrus responds:

    I’d like to make a suggestion—

    Since we still don’t know what this IS, how about we determine what this is NOT???

    Most people here have pretty much detemined it is not a Moose. Could be, but hardly likely given some experts and people who know about wildlife. The shape and behavior is wrong, too.

    Deer could be likely, but the shape and behavior doesn’t quite “fit.” Also, some people who know wildlife have expressed doubts. Could be a “super deer”—but that is very unlikely.

    Turtle??? Very unlikely. Again, the shape and behavior is not reminiscent of a turtle.

    Horse??? Nobody has suggested that.

    Dog??? Very unlikely. Too big. Head also is totally unlike a dog.

    Otter??? An oldie, but goodie. But the shape and behavior is too inconcclusive to classify easily as an otter. Also, too big, unless (as Mystery_Man has stated) the otter has been taking his her “vitamins.” 🙂
    Could be “Super Otter” but nobody has conclusively proven that.

    Seal??? Head is too elongated for that. Could be, but the shape and behavior don’t quite match with what is known about seals.

    Log??? Nobody has proven that. The log must be sentient to move around like it does.

    So we can’t even prove what this is NOT—how are we going to prove what this IS???

    Like I said before—It’s too ambiguous—why don’t we just call it a “Beautiful Unknown” and leave it at that until more evidence comes in???
    Just saying.

    I have a feeling we’ll be debating this footage for a long, long time.

  24. DWA responds:

    cryptidsrus: I can go with your post. Particularly the part about cellphone distortion.

    There is nothing on here, in my opinion, that can be “enhanced” to determine what this is. By the same token: there’s nothing on it that is so “distorted” that it could easily be chalked up to any animal I’m aware of, really badly shot.

    Sort of like Patty that way. 😉

    Oh. Brown bears regularly fish while immersed in the water. In fact, they are known to feel for fish with their hind feet. But they don’t swim, per se, while doing it; they tend to stay in water below – or not significantly above – their heads.

  25. cryptidsrus responds:

    DWA:

    Thanks for clarifying the information about Bear behavior. 🙂

    Like I’ve said before, I’m not an “expert.” Thats why I come here.

    To learn new things every day.

    Still think though, it is NOT a bear. Doesn’t look right.

  26. DWA responds:

    cryptidsrus:

    Oh, I’d go with you. If I had to guess what that was “bear” would join “deer” as: not on the list.

    In fact, I’ll go farther. This video is at the moment in pretty select company.

    OK, here’s my lifetime score on crytpid videos seen, personally, by me:

    Junk: almost all.

    Maybe something real and unclassified, and worthy of interest based on the evidence in the video alone: three.

    This joins the Patterson-Gimlin film and the Peguis, Manitoba sasquatch video.

    And I’m not aware of any others.

  27. kittenz responds:

    I didn’t say I think it’s a bear; I said I think it could be a bear. The image is so indistinct because of the low resolution, it could be practically any medium-to-large sized mammal.

    As to a bear looking scrawny when it’s wet: young bears do. It’s like a long-haired dog; ever seen a collie swimming? Bears’ necks do look sort of long and skinny when they are wet. Bears in springtime and early summer don’t have the thick layer of fat that accumulates by autumn. Black bears like to swim and can swim long distances without tiring. Bears are very common in the eastern United States. There’s nothing in this video clip that absolutely rules out a young bear swimming. Or a grown otter swimming, for that matter (although it does look bulkier than an otter). Heck, it could be a beaver; they grow quite large. Or a dog.

    Whatever this animal is, I believe that the ears are not distinctly distinguishable because of the poor resolution and lighting in the video. If you look closely at the “enhancements”, you can see two little bumps on the head that could be ears.

    I still think it’s most likely a deer.

  28. kittenz responds:

    And DWA, lumping this with the Patterson/Gimlin film doesn’t improve its standing in my estimation, because I think the P/G film is a hoax. (That’s a discussion for another thread, though 🙂 )

  29. DWA responds:

    kittenz: note I said the ones that INTEREST me, not the ones that are definitely (or even likely) real, unclassified animals.

    That there are only three, though, tells me that ‘fake’ isn’t the most-likely scenario for any of them, but instead distinctly against the odds. And what it could be other than genuine cryptid or fake, I have no idea. I still can’t make myself see any known animal – even otter – so far suspected for this one.

    (and on P/G I suppose I should note the scientists in relevant fields who come down on it with me; and that no one who has attempted a skeptical analysis has even halfway succeeded. Just tossing that in. Oh. And: read Bill Munns. 😉 )

  30. straffordcrypto1 responds:

    it looks like the real deal to me though the otter bears much simularities to the video but the enormitie of the footage is the key to champ

  31. DWA responds:

    I wanted to comment on something I’m seeing with this video that I find very interesting (and most of them are such obvious junk that I rarely get to make this observation).

    I see people’s basic incredulity at work here, rather than an attempt to analyze what is on the video.

    I have seen every known animal that has been guessed at on this thread, in the water, swimming. This one looks and behaves like NONE of them. I get the feeling that instead of thinking, what IS this? Hmmmmm….like I’m doing here with a few other people, a lot of folks are thinking: this can’t be unknown, so it’s a….hmmmm….
    No. You don’t want your mind so open that your brains fall out. But we all have an inner scoftic; I think crypto brings it out in most of us; and brains can fall in unsuspected directions. People seem, to me, to be closing off possibilities – like there could be something in this huge lake that the demonstrably error-prone antics of scientists could have overlooked – to come up with something, anything, known.

    Is it conceivable that this is a known animal? Sure. It could be a diver pushing a dummy. But it behaves and looks like nothing that has been speculated here does in the water.

    I believe that the inner scoftic is something that has to be educated away, and that it is possible that it’s engaged when one thinks one is being objective. Indeed, I think that many consider a cryptid to be so remote a possibility that ruling it out, out of hand, is, to them, being objective.

    Just a thought. I try not to engage my basic incredulity on anything. If you have evidence, show it to me; but I don’t rule things out without evidence telling me I should. Which I am not getting here.

  32. kittenz responds:

    DWA,

    You’ll never get what you call evidence telling you you should rule things out, because you refuse to believe that there is any such evidence, even when it’s presented. You explain it away as less enlightened people than yourself misinterpreting the data, or even as (in your characterizations of them) “jilted” “former true believers”; people willing to overlook your interpretation of data because they have siome kind of axe to grind, or a grudge they hold. It couldn’t be that their viewpoint differs from yours because >>>shudder<<< they may be right.

    Your interpretation must surely be the “right” one, and anyone who disagrees with you is being petty, I suppose. The evidence is there. The problem with this particular video is its low resolution & poor lighting … as well as its ?coincidental? occurrence right before a “Lake Cruise” is set to sail. The animal itself can be easily explained as any number of more or less common mammalian inhabitants of the area.

    That’s not being a scoftic (a made-up word that has no meaning). It’s called being a realist. I examined these films six ways from Sunday. I absolutely believe, on the basis of the evidence in the film, that it is a deer. Bear – maybe but not likely; I’m going with deer.

  33. DWA responds:

    Kittenz: I have to admit finding it a little funny – after all the evidence that proponents have presented that scoftics discard, out of hand, with counter-‘explanations’ that sound far sillier – to read something like your last post.

    I’m always open to evidence, when it’s presented. All I am looking for is one piece of evidence pointing to any of the speculated ‘known’ animals.

    Point me to one. Point me to one piece of evidence that this animal looks like, or behaves like, any of them. (That video is not so unclear that a deer would in no frame look like a deer.)

    It’s a common scoftical misperception that the proponents have to provide all the evidence, while their beliefs require none.

    That’s just wrong, it’s all. But it didn’t make your post any less amusing to read. 😉

    And I should add.

    If my posts frustrate you as much as they appear to….well imagine how a PROPONENT must feel.

    I’m a skeptic; who sticks up for the side presenting the evidence. A little heatedly, when the other side gets silly enough.

  34. DWA responds:

    OK, maybe I need to give an example.

    If that video looked like a deer, all the way through, except for about ten seconds, do you think anyone on here would come on here saying anything other than deer?

    I hear lots of speculation about what this is. But I haven’t heard anyone who has seen these animals in the water, in the wild, as I have all of them, defend their speculation with evidence. I saw the otter video; and the head and neck – and the size – are all wrong. Bear was slam-dunk wrong, both from the video put up here and from what I have seen of bears in the water.

    This whole clip, you can’t tell what it is. And everything else in the video – including the water surrounding whatever-it-is – is clear, more than clear enough.

    The reason that proponents can submit evidence more solid than anything short of actual proof, and get laughed at for it, is: we simply think that a cryptid is so unlikely that ANYTHING else – regardless the amount of actual evidence that it is truly that thing – gets consideration first, rather than simply putting, What is that? First and going from there. This isn’t science, people; it’s belief. And science can’t be about belief.

    It’s just that most can’t seem to see that, when the shoe is on the other foot, is all.

    This is why you need skeptics. Happy to oblige. 🙂

    P.S. Can’t apologize if you feel insulted. What was done to Roger Patterson was an insult, to him and to science; and I like to make sure everyone gets to feel that way occasionally.

  35. kittenz responds:

    DWA,

    I did not ask for nor do I want any apologies from you. If your intent was to insult me, you have failed. Your attempts to paint yourself as “the TRUE skeptic at this site” are generally pretty amusing. Frustrating? No. at worst, mildly annoying. You’re like any other True Believer; the one thing that you refuse to believe is that you are a True Believer. Calling yourself a skeptic, and then immediately jumping on the bandwagon of “it’s ill-defined and I can’t immediately identify it as any known animal, so it must be a cryptid! Can’t be anything else, ’cause I say so and I’M a SKEPTIC”. Sometimes it seems like you’re deliberately trolling to elicit reactions.

    As for Patterson, anyone who perpetrates a hoax deserves to be thoroughly questioned, investigated, hounded, whatever it takes, yes, in the name of Science, to get to the truth. If they feign insult when their hoax is questioned, that’s tough. If their claims are legitimate they”ll eventually be proven and accepted as such.

    Legitimate scientists rake one other over the coals and pick each others’ papers apart in the effort to strip away the fluff and get to the truth. If a bigfoot researcher or any other cryptozoologist considers him or her self a legitimate scientist, then he or she has to be willing to have their every finding and theory intensely scrutinized.

  36. DWA responds:

    Kittenz: it’s not like you to toss out uninformed opinions. You are disappointing me. Calling me a True Believer is Radfordesque, just as calling Patterson a hoaxer – never has a theory been backed by less evidence – is borderline libel. (When I say that you have crossed a line, and illustrated how much less than me you have thought about this. I have an uncomfortable habit of pointing out stuff like this. Don’t take it personally.)

    Your statement “If their claims are legitimate they”ll eventually be proven and accepted as such” is patently false. This will never happen as long as the public’s kneejerk response to anything like this is to stifle debate by tossing out uninformed IDs that aren’t backed by anything, and to kneejerk laugh (because that’s how you show you are “with it” and “cool”) at any other opinion.. Scoftics (it’s a word; see that thread; sorry 😀 ) live blissfully unimpacted by evidence. That’s ignorance, posing as arrogance, and I’m calling folks on it.

    “If a bigfoot researcher or any other cryptozoologist considers him or her self a legitimate scientist, then he or she has to be willing to have their every finding and theory intensely scrutinized.”

    And if scofitcs (WORD!!!) insist on unplugging their brains before opining, they need to be prepared to be mercilessly – how say in Ingles? – raked over the coals for it.

    I hate anti-intellectual thought. (Not sure thought is the word I wanted there.) Scofticism (WORD!!!) fills that bill. Don’t slide to that level. You don’t want to disappoint me, do you?

    I don’t like it when people whose posts blatantly show they have done far less homework than me start lecturing me. Don’t take that personally either. Proponents have gotten used to it. We skeptics will have to as well.

    For now.

  37. DWA responds:

    One more note for.all you young cryptos.

    Ever notice what happens to all these video flaps?

    No one figures out what it is. No one comes to any conclusion. The clip sinks out of sight, and the conversation dies away. (With whatever it is totally unidentified.) Over and over again.

    This serves, um, what?

    Scofticism. Expanding the World’s Knowledge That Nothing is Worth Knowing.

  38. Loren Coleman responds:

    Champ?

    What happened to Champ here?

    Please move and/or continue your discussions and polite disagreements about skepticism and scofticism to the one on “scoftics,” here.

    Thank you.




Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers



Creatureplica Fouke Monster 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.