AND, as was said above, it does appear that many people do not have much knowledge of animals and especially not in a deceased state.

That is why Nessie has come back having been described as having a dog’s, goat, turtle, horse and sheep’s head in sightings. People relate things to what they are familiar with (And yes, I know the scoftics at large will point to this as evidence that the eye witness cannot be trusted because of such, but of course this line of reasoning cannot be applied across the board to all sightings, which is the shortfall of this argument).

This is a good lesson for us here, and good example of what how and why you have to ask lots of questions of eye witnesses to make sure you are getting as accurate a description or sighting as possible. Heck asking the same question three times in different ways to see if information jibes is a good idea.

Chilean Chomper?

This kind of stuff makes me despair more and more about “mainstream” journalists. I can understand if it comes from the Enquirer, Daily Star, Midnight Globe etc. But too many supposedly “serious” news organizations are picking up and running with this nonsense.

Hey, maybe we’re just reverting to what papers did in the 19th century – filling space with their little oddball cryptid stories

One thing that this video provides that the still photos of the “Montauk Monster” didn’t is a sense of scale. When I first saw the “Montauk Monster,” I thought “raccoon,” but it was difficult to gauge the actual size of the carcass — it looked to big to be a raccoon. Last week I spoke to a young lady who saw and touched the Montauk carcass, and her estimation of the total length of the thing was between twelve and eighteen inches — considerably smaller that it appeared in the photos. Proof that even “good” photographic evidence can lead to erroneous conclusions.