Comments on: Update: Alaska Cadborosaurus Footage

By: nnnslogan

nnnslogan — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:16:22 +0000

If there were no profit motive they should have given the footage to any scientific foundation that showed interest, but that didn’t happen, so we all await the first viewing of a collection of sea dragons with bated breath.

They could have at least allowed some stills to be shown to chum the water a bit.

By: Mibs

Mibs — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:23:18 +0000

Today’s news mentioned that the Hillstrands and Discovery Channel have gone their separate ways over some legal/contract dispute and will no longer be part of the Deadliest Catch team.

By: watn6789

watn6789 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:45:42 +0000

In the future, agreements for footage could be made with time limits. Half of the money upfront, half when it airs; yet they have only a certain time to air it or then the rights go back to the original owner. That happens in logging.

By: fmurphy1970

fmurphy1970 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:31:24 +0000

Obviously it would have been better if the Caddy footage hadn’t been sold to a TV company given what has now happened. As a community of people with a real interest in cryptozoology, we probably know what we would have done differently if one of us had filmed the footage ourselves. We have to remember however, that not everyone shares our enthusiasm for the subject or has the increase of scientific knowledge as their priority. Who can blame the guy who filmed it for making a few bucks? Let’s just hope the TV company can find a suitable program to broadcast the footage soon, and we don’t have to wait until 2011 to see it.

I don’t think I can take the suspense any longer!

And by the way, I think its premature to assume this is a hoax. I think it’s just been an unfortunate set of circumstances that have compounded the delay.

Also I think the fact that John Kirk and Paul LeBlond have seen the footage and believe it to be genuine should give us hope that when this footage is shown, it will prove to be significant.

By: sonofthedestroyer

sonofthedestroyer — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:54:30 +0000

Selling the rights to a channel is one of the most idiotic thing anyone can do. Of course if money is more important then fine. But these TV channels they work in the interest of those who don’t want these creatures existence to be proven. Coverup artists.

I fear that the footage will be distorted and displayed so that no conclusion can be reached and the whole thing will be dismissed.

That is where this is heading, unless I am mistaken this time.

Bill and Bob Clark did the right thing by refusing to sell their footage to any channel. After watching the disrespectful way Nat Geo treated their video, I realized what kind of people run these ‘educational channels’.

By: coelacanth1938

coelacanth1938 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:11:12 +0000

This thing is just screaming hoax.

By: Mibs

Mibs — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 07:03:37 +0000

I can understand someone wanting to capitalize on something they deem a breakthrough not only in cryptozoology but natural biology in general, but from what I could gather this story hasn’t garnered ANY news coverage or even the slightest hint of interest from other fields of cryptozoology as far as I can tell from searching National Geographic, Science Magazine, or even Discovery Channel’s website.

By: BillyJoe88

BillyJoe88 — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:06:35 +0000

If this video was any good they’d have it on a show with or without the Hillstrands. The new season of DC doesn’t start until January or Feb usually, and if they are willing to sit on it that long, I’m sure its nothing special.

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 03:17:52 +0000

I’m guessing that the Discovery Channel bought the rights to the footage, but don’t really have any crypto-related shows on right now, and decided Deadliest Catch was the closest match.

However, I think this is a lesson in crypto-footage for all of us. Selling it to a network is all fine and good, and I’m sure it brought a decent paycheck, but now it’s caught up in some sort of legal nonsense. AND it could be a long while before anyone actually gets to see this footage.

I’m not sure what I would have done and would do if I caught something like that. Obviously most people go for selling the rights to it to make profit, but is that the best option? I know, it’s hard to turn down a check. Not saying I wouldn’t either, but again, if we’re here to discover the truth, what’s the best option?

I think that could be a goooood topic for discussion. Craig, Loren, John, Rick–in order to get evidence and footage to the right people, exactly where should I go when I get that elusive 2 and a half minute footage of bigfoot tearing off with my picnic basket, or Nessie lazily swimming by?

I know of the BFRO, and John’s group, but where else can or SHOULD you consider sending this stuff to if you actually get the holy grail? (And no, Tom Biscardi is not on the list)

Obviously if you hand it out to anyone and everyone, it becomes public domain, and then, yes, you get no selling rights, but is that really what cryptozoology shifted to be all about? Or is it the discovery of the unknown, and pursuit of the truth?

By: Steleheart

Steleheart — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:55:53 +0000

LOL@ MountD… I have seen those cows, sadly.
I’m curious, though, why “Deadliest Catch” is the wrong venue given the choices. I mean I do see the variance from their normal programing about the trials of catching my seafood that I comfortably get in a package, thank you. But a Fisherman supposedly shot the video – it’s not that big a stretch, but a place to start? I guess I am postulating that getting it out there for analysis is at least better than wasting time peddling the right venue?