33 Responses to “Davies Replies to Selma Film Critics”

1. mystery_man responds: June 9th, 2008 at 9:12 am

   I don’t think this footage is very useful for many reasons, and I disagree that it shows a large lake monster. However I do agree that maybe certain people were a tad harsh when criticizing it. One thing I like about this site is that for the most part people are civil and reasonable when disagreeing with one another’s views, as well as the general tendency for people who comment here to let their rationale for something as being fake or inconclusive speak for itself rather than devolving into ridicule, flaming, or vicious attacks. I can see how some people can want to laugh over less than spectacular quality videos, but the kind of ridicule this video got is the type that is going to want to make people not want to share what they have or come forward with new footage, which is not what I think people here want. Some of the bashing this video got was counterproductive, in my opinion.

2. DWA responds: June 9th, 2008 at 9:56 am

   Don’t want to sound like a broken record here.

   (Does anyone still know what that means? lol)

   But:

   1. Davies is right.

   I have ranted more than once at kneejerk debunkers here (and elsewhere). They frequently don’t know what the heck they are talking about. The Internet, combined with digital technology, has spawned, among other things, a generation of Instant Cryptozoologists, who think that the abillity to use Photoshop creatively and to log in to YouTube is the same thing as an advanced degree in a relevant field. Or, at a minimum, Just Reading Up and knowing a thing or two. Davies has more than a right to be upset at them, particularly when the word “fraud” accompanies the ignorance.

   2. He should expect some vitriol from this site.

   Science abhors the presentation of bumps on water as an unknown species. (From what I read here, “unknown species” could simply mean: we don’t know what species, exactly, that is.) Science (broken record time) waits until after the coelacanth is in the boat and verified as, yep, something that indeed has been extinct for 65 million years, only, well, not. It completes the research before the word “explosive” gets used in a press release. (Different blog.)

   Some people get tired of this, and think it sets the field back years, if not decades.

   And they are right too.

   Sorry, Adam. We’re not looking for traditional cryptozoology here. We’re looking for zoology, which cryptozoology has to become to come in from the cold.

3. jodzilla responds: June 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am

   I think the cryptozoology community needs to keep our standards high when it comes to photographic evidence, especially with all the new technology like camera phones and digital stuff so readily accessible. Maybe some people get a bit rough with their comments, but I think we all need to be willing to speak up when the emperor has no clothes. For me the problem with the film is NOT that it appears fraudulent or unscientific; the problem is I don’t see anything there. “Vitriol” isn’t something new to cryptozoology, but I don’t believe this site posted anything unfair. In fact, I feel the site is quite civil.

4. captiannemo responds: June 9th, 2008 at 10:17 am

   Bravo! Mysteryman.

5. rodrigo responds: June 9th, 2008 at 10:17 am

   honestly, i can’t see much of evidence in the video, that is my opinion. if perhaps we could also have the audio which is spoken for it would help. in regards to this site, this is a message board. i come here to enjoy news and updates. but overall, its the internet. people are going to say what they feel. i say keep working on what you are doing Adam and don’t take the internet to heart. Let your work speak for you. Wish you the best!

   rs

6. mantis responds: June 9th, 2008 at 10:37 am

   It’s just waves. Go film it again.

7. Shane Durgee responds: June 9th, 2008 at 11:46 am

   I mean, great, he’s had some experts look at it and determine that they don’t know what it is. It’s nice and thanks for sharing it, but there’s nothing so compelling that any significant data can be obtained from it, except a strange noise, but certainly nothing there to validate sightings of a large serpent in those waters.

   I would like to hear the sound either way.

   I agree that calling him a fraud is unwarranted and unusual. There’s no evidence of it.

8. Shane Durgee responds: June 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm

   Incidentally, to add to what DWA posted re #1…

   The internet is a decent way to test evidence and public reaction, but consider this: I’m just a guy working at a jewelry company waiting for lunch. I have ebay up in another tab, trying to sell some vinyl. I went to school for art. Why would you give any credit to what people on the internet have to say about your work? You end up arguing with a 14 year old juggalo who posts as Bigfoot_Loves_Cows instead of having any genuine discourse with (the seemingly small number of) genuine cryptos out there. If it isn’t someone with credentials attacking your charatcer WITH SOME PROOF then ignore it.

   Also, it’s often good to step back and ask why is the person even out there trying to capture “evidence.” Presumably it’s so that the animal can be taken seriously, studied by a larger group of professionals with better funding, and protected by local preservation laws regarding endangered animals.

   A lot of people react emotionally because they really want to see something neat in a video. Oh well. I’m sure there are set standards that all evidence needs to be held to for the above to happen, and criticism should be held entirely to that criteria.

9. DARHOP responds: June 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

   Well, I can see something in the first still photo above. And I must say that it looks like 3 humps somewhat. By the shoreline in the background the humps look fairly large to me. BUT, I still don’t think this proves anything. Keep on investigating Adam. Maybe someday!

10. DARHOP responds: June 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Hey… I just noticed that the photo I was talking about above, is acutally 3 photos side by side. So, actually their is only one humpish looking thing not three. So that serpant looking photo is actually three images side by side. No wonder it was kinda serpant looking.

11. red_pill_junkie responds: June 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Well, of course my opinion is that of a layman with no scientific credentials.

    But I still think it is a lousy video, and worthless for its intended purpose (i.e. proof that there are unknown animals in that lake).

    But I’m not attacking anyone of perpetrating a hoax, and I think it’s unfortunate that this team of cryptozoologists doesn’t have access to more professional equipment to conduct their research; but the fact of the matter is that if they can’t handle the criticism of a few amateur enthusiasts, how will they react to the scrutiny of experienced zoologists when presenting their evidence? Furthermore Cryptomundo is one of the most civil forums in the Internet, it would be interesting to compare the tone in the responses of Cryptomundians to those left by anons at Youtube after they saw this video.

    They say they got interesting sonar readings, I congratulate them and I would like to read the report of the Marine Research Institute that conducted the analysis.

12. PhotoExpert responds: June 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    I would like to start off my post with positivity and end it on a positive note as well.

    So let me start off by saying, Thank you Mr. Davies for your post and supplying your video for review!

    With that being said, I would like to address your most current post. One must remember that when supplying evidence, one must expect that evidence to be evaluated fairly and objectively. I believe the readers here at Cryptomundo did just that. For you see, criticism can be both positive or negative, depending on the analysis of the evidence.

    I read your post in it’s entirety. I then went back and read your original post and responses. I looked for remarks by posters that were vitriol in nature and could not find one. So I reread all the responses again in that original post. I saw no one attacking you personally. I did not see anyone calling you a fraud. I am perplexed about your statement. Please go back and read your original post and the responses. NO ONE attacked you personally or libeled you in any way. So I think that is an unfair statement.

    Now, what I did see is Cryptomundo readers objectively and sometimes subjectively offering their opinion of the evidence you presented, the video. Yes, that they did critique and with good cause. When you submit a video as you did, you open it up to scrutiny. As a researcher in the field, one must have thick skin. One must be open to criticism, both positive and negative of the people reviewing the evidence. If it does not go your way or the way you intended, you should not get upset about it.

    I feel the need to defend readers here at Cryptomundo when you lump us together and imply that we attacked your character. That did not happen! In fact, it would probably be safe to say that very few people here know you personally. So why would they attack you personally in the first place? That just did not happen, period!

    What I did see is readers here scrutinizing your evidence, the video. That did happen. So I ask you, what is wrong with that? Should we accept every video of a tall high school kid in a furry ape suit as proof of BF just because they said they saw it and submit blobsquatchery? Of course not! Well, that is what you would be asking us to do for you. So the “evidence” you submitted got some criticism. And yes, it was negative in most cases but it was not personal as you suggested. Don’t take my word for it, go back and read the original post and responses. I challenge you to find something that says something negative about you personally being a fraud!

    The readers here range from novice to expert and all shades inbetween. And almost all had the same opinion of the video. You said it was shaky yourself in point number 3 above. I believe you are damning the messangers because you don’t like the message or the criticism. But that video is what it is.

    I must say that some of the skeptism comes from other parties here posting absurd theories with lack of evidence. Recently, there was a post about a BF Massacre. It was a theory based on shoddy evidence. Unfortunately, your video and post followed soon after that one. So maybe your timing was a little off if you were looking for more positive posts. As an expert, I have to be fair, objective and balanced. I have no dog in the fight. I actually wish a saw a cryptid in your video. But I did not. And apparently almost everyone else responding to that post did not. Some amatures saw what I saw. Of course, you might say that we were not there. But even eyewitnesses can be tricked into seeing things that are not there. That does not make you a fraud or your video fraudulent. You might actually believed you saw Selma that day. I will not challenge your belief in what you thought you may have seen. But just because you believe you saw Selma does not make it true. That is subjective evidence. A video is objective evidence and therefore more reliable. Here at Cryptomundo, we base our analysis on objective evidence. And that is what was done. Again, some thicker skin might do the trick.

    I do appreciate people like you, myself and others that actually go out in the field and try to document cryptids as best we can. But just because I and others do not agree with your assessment of the video and what it shows, please do not put words in our mouth. NO ONE stated you were perpetrating a hoax or that you were personally a fraud. From the responses I read, all were referring to your video. You stated: ‘I don’t expect people to agree with me, but to look at an image on Loren’s site and then describe it as a “fraud,” thereby impinging the character of the person behind it, is disgraceful. I expect fair criticism, but I also expect a little more support from fellow cryptozoologists.’

    A common tactic for some posting here when the criticism does not go their way, is to victimize themselves. That way the attention is turned away from the shoddy evidence and readers feel they must apologize to the victim. But Mr. Davies, with all due respect, I reread those posts and no one called you a fraud. No one personally attacked you. They attacked the evidence. But you put yourself out there as being victimized personally when you were not. You grouped yourself with those that play victim here from time to time. I do not think that was your intention but that is what just transpired. Unless you can reread those posts as I did and show us in black and white where you were personally attacked on your character, it appears as if you are making yourself out to be a victim of a personal attack that never occurred. Your opinion that it was a serpent is just as valid as the opinion of most that they see nothing or just a wave. Both viewpoints are valid and maybe the wave theory is more valid given the evidence. It’s almost like one is crying foul or crying wolf. Then if someone does obtain good concrete evidence of Selma’s existence, maybe people will not believe it because “wolf” was cried, one too many times. I welcome the critiques and you should too. Because when you have good evidence, people here will support it. Notice I said support “it” and not support “you”. It is not about you but you seem to feel as if it is. I assure you, it is not. There are a couple of people here that post very well. Mystery_man is one of them. I enjoy reading his posts. I like the humor of red-pill-junkie and mantis. There opinion is just as important as mine even if I happen to be an expert in my field. And what you saw was people evaluating and criticizing your evidence, the video, not you personally.

    In point #1 above, you yourself critiqued your own evidence negatively. You stated the footage was shaky! You talked about why that occurred and I for one, believe your explanation. Next time, have Andy sit down in the boat. Not a problem. Chalk it up as a learning experience. We all understand that perhaps you had little money and did the best you could. You were justifying the equipment. But the problem was not with less expensive equipment, it was the shakiness of the hand of the camera operator. Again, don’t victimize yourself because no one here complained about the price of your equipment. That is a fact.

    In point #2, you talk about the film being shown on TV. That does not make it any more credible for me and others as evidence of Selma. I have seen blurry white lights on film that were suggested to be ghosts on TV. Anything of interest or curiosity is good for ratings. Just because it is on TV does not make it good evidence. The weathermen are on TV everyday but it does not make them right in predicting the weather. You stated the film was professionally analysed. Well, I just analysed it too as a professional. And if the professional that analysed your video says that it is a cryptid serpent, I just refuted his analysis as a professional since I am qualified to do that. So I take little credence in the analysis of your video by that professional. You said your hydrophone recordings were evaluated too and was concluded that they were from an unknown species. That is pretty interesting. That could be something but it could also be nothing. It could be that the creature they captured is from a known animal that they do not have on file for comparison. But that is better evidence than the video you submitted. Still, it could be nothing but I will give you that one as inconclusive evidence that needs to be evaluated further.

    In point #3, you talk about vitriol and personal attacks on your character. I saw none in the original post. I suggest you come up with some thicker skin or some better evidence. It appears as if you victimized yourself. I am not going to say that was intentional because that would be judging your character and that would be wrong. That would be vitriol as you put it. But I can not say that it was unintentional either because I saw not one personal attack in the original postings and your say there was. There was not! Your saying there were personal attacks when there were none does make people question your intentionality.

    However, I for one, will give you a pass. Although I do not know you, you appear or seem to be a nice guy that is interested in cryptozoology and have a true passion for it. That can not be said of others that sometimes post here. I do not see alterior motives in your postings. We appreciate you being out in the field and keeping us updated. Thanks for that! And although the evidence is not conclusive or what some may have hoped for, you did try! I give you an A for effort. You need to improve the grade for objective evidence. I totally disagree with your statement that appears to be a self victimization when the criticism of the video did not go the way you thought it was going to go. You have to grow some thicker skin in the future when you submit evidence or obtain better evidence that will not be critiqued negatively for what it is or what it is not.

    I will keep my promise and end my post on a positive note. Keep up the hard work in the field and good luck in your search for cryptids. And although we may not all agree on the evidence. I thank you personally for supplying it!

13. Loren Coleman responds: June 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    Actually, Photo Expert, I would re-read the comments made by yourself for June 6, 2008. You wrote:

    “Maybe it is a ripple from a bit of wind starting to kick up against the calm water or perhaps it is rebound wake from a passing boat. But a cryptid? I would not even waste my time enhancing such garbage. I believe this one to be fraudulent. It is definitely an attempt at deception or wishful thinking.”

    This specific passage is the one to which Adam Davies is referring.

    You happen to have been the person to introduce the words “fraudulent” and “deception” into this discussion.

14. TaishaMcGee responds: June 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Sound underwater? Analyzed by a professional? Isn’t enough for me to believe.

    I don’t AT ALL think Davies is a hoaxter, but I do think he may need to grow some thicker skin if he wishes to remain in this field. For example, Loren Coleman has had a lifetime of criticism and snarky readers, yet he still soldiers on, with an open, yet SCIENTIFIC mind (Much respect to you Loren).

    I WANT to believe, Mr Davies. Give me a scientific reason to believe. I’m looking forward to your future contributions to my belief.

15. cryptidsrus responds: June 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Video does not prove anything, but I do agree that the trashing of people’s motives is uncalled for.

    Snarkiness mixed with vitriol, particularly when there is no evidence that the video (as flawed as it is) was faked really tarnishes, however unintentionally and untrue, the reputation of this site.

    Loren—nice post.

    PhotoExpert—ooohhhh, burn!!!

16. Shane Durgee responds: June 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    haha I was gonna say I don’t actually remember anyone on the other threads calling him a fraud, but I guess that’s because I only skim PhotoExpert’s often longwinded comments.

17. ABLegler responds: June 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    I am a frequent visitor to this site, though I do not post much, but I have to agree that if Adam Davies feels he has been slighted because nobody believed in his footage, he needs to take a step back from it and evaluate things from a rational perspective.

    If I post a video of trees moving in the wind, and there is a vague, slender shape waving among the trees, and I declare that I have video evidence of a dinosaur I can’t imagine his reaction would be very receptive. For cryptozoology as a field to be taken seriously it is vitally important that the same rigors that are applied to zoology and other scientific fields are applied here.

    Everytime word gets out to the mainstream media that someone filmed “baby bigfoot”, or Nessie, or “mutant canines”, and the supporting footage shows either a blobsquatch or something that is clearly a dead dog, it makes everyone with an interest in Cryptozoology look like fools.

    There are many unknown species still to find out there and everyone wants to be the one who finally gets the evidence. Let us all remember though that we need solid, credible evidence - not shades in a dark forest and bumps on a wavy lake.

18. Point Radix responds: June 9th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

    It is the quality of the footage which makes it impossible to tell what, if anything, is shown on this clip. However, if this clip is all they were able to obtain, then they need to work with that, but also understand that there would be extreme skepticism to something that is just about impossible for the viewers to see…

    Having said that, I agree that “fraud” and “deception” are extremely harsh response to the video - the fact remains that if fraud and deception were intended they would have presented much “better” quality of evidence; it is very likely that we would have seen clear but extremely brief footage of “something” moving in the water - it would have been sufficient to the point that there would be no dispute whether anything was in the clip, but the time (or quality) would have been just short of conclusive.

    The point is, if a “hoax” was the genuine intent it is highly unlikely that they would use a clip which appears to the casual viewer to show nothing but shaky footage of water off the side of a boat…

19. PhotoExpert responds: June 9th, 2008 at 10:21 pm

    Loren–Thanks for the heads up. Yes, I can see where Davies might misconstrue my intentions in that paragraph, especially when it is taken out of context and not read in it’s entirety. If Mr. Davies feels that my intentions in critiquing the footage was a personal attack on him, I offer my apologies in advance for the misunderstanding. Mr. Davies, I was criticizing the footage, not you! I am only concerned with the evidence presented. I don’t even know you and would not comment about your personally. My original post was addressing evidence, red flags, intentions and trends at Cryptomundo when analyzing digital imagery. That is what it was about, not you!

    So let me clarify this post and the last post so that everyone understands it, including those who do not read my posts in their entirety such as cryptidsrus and Shane Durgee. That’s a prime example of why one needs to read posts from beginning to end. That is why it is important to read posts from beginning to end and take the meaning from the entire intentions of a post and not nitpick a sentence or two out of context and take potshots. That is why I take the time to write such long posts–so there is no misunderstanding. I actually care about people’s feelings. Perhaps I write more efficiently than some people read? If the posts are read carefully, they mean exactly what I intend them to mean.

    Unfortunately, as my moniker implies, some words used commonly do not mean the same thing or hold the same meaning, when applied to field of digital image analysis.

    If some had taken the time to read my original post more carefully, they would have seen that I was comparing Theories proposed here at Cryptomundo that had no, to little evidence to back up those theories. If some had read my posts in their entirety, they would have already known that and that I actually posted that I did not think Davies had malintent when posting as others had in the past. I actually put that in black and white too but no one picked that sentence out. A sentence or two was taken out of context. I would not even realize that had happened if Loren had not so helpfully pointed it out where there could be a misunderstanding of what I intended. If some had the energy to read my post in it’s entirety, they would have seen that in the case of Mr. Davies, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and that I was saying that there were intentions behind the Mr. Johnsen post and the BF Massacre Theory, not his. I believe I even wrote that if anyone took the time to read it. But unfortunately, some did not take the time or have the energy to read that post in it’s entirety. If they had, they would have realized that my subject of the post was giving reason as why we need to be critical of any visual evidence presented. I even stated that Mr. Davies probably had no alterior motives and differentiated between his Selma Theory and Mr. Johnsen’s BF Massacre Theory. Geesh!

    Loren, my words that you pasted above are in reference to the video footage supplied and do not address Mr. Davies’ character. I’ll get to that. But for those who are not computer savy or not savy in digital imaging, there is a phrase we use quite often–garbage in, garbage out. I think that phrase has been around since the early ’80s. I assumed most would know that is what I was posting about, especially when referencing digital image analysis. That is not to say that the footage is garbage. The PG footage is great footage. I think we can all agree on that. But if you asked me about the hernia being a gunshot, I would say that the enlarged images of the hernia are garbage as proof of an entry or exit wound. The PG film footage is great but the word “garbage” would be used by me for the enhanced hernia images being theorized as a gunshot. Hopefully Shane will take the time to read this long winded post and gain some knowledge from my expertise.

    So when we refer to garbage when analyzing digital images, the word “garbage” has an entirely different meaning and context for me as a professional than it would have to the layman. Garbage in this case, means that there is not enough pixel information to get a clear and recognizable image of something that we can identify positively. It refers to the ambiguity of the image. There is not enough there or what is there, is not enough to make a judgement as to what it is. If it is not useful information, my peers would call that “garbage”. That is not a reference to the film in it’s entirety. It has some value, in that it shows something. But what? Hopefully, cryptidsrus and Shane will get the subtle differences and meaning when words are used in another context or field of expertise. So no burn there! LOL

    Now let’s look at the Meriam-Webster meaning of the word fraudulent.
    fraud•u•lent \”fro-je-lent\ adj : characterized by, based on, or done by fraud : deceitful — fraud•u•lent•ly adv
    (c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

    I did not say that I think Mr. Davies was fraudulent. I never wrote that!!! I did write, in reference to the video, the following: I believe this one to be fraudulent. The words, “this one”, refers to the footage presented as evidence and not a person, since it was grossly apparent that I was referring to the footage. How could anyone confuse my words there, except for those who did not read the entire post? You know who you are because you are probably not going to read this one in it’s entirety and end up being more confused.

    I further wrote about the footage: It is definitely an attempt at deception or wishful thinking.”

    Just as I did not judge Mr. Davies intentions, no one should judge mine. Ahem! I do not know Mr. Davies’ intentions. Since I do not know him, I can not judge him personally. But I can judge the shaky evidence and why it was introduced as evidence of Selma. It could be an attempt at deception since I do not know Mr. Davies. I can not judge either way. But likewise, it could be “wishful thinking” for the same reason. That is why I used the word “or” in that sentence. So whoever read my words and picked out the words, “an attempt at deception”, obviously nitpicked and left out the words “wishful thinking”. Whoever did not take the sentence in it’s entirety, put words in my mouth that I did not write. There it is in black and white for you, as I wrote it and intended it. And again, the importance of taking intentions within the context of the ENTIRE post, I actually posted this sentence in my original post: “And although less compelled to speak up about this because I believe the intentions of Mr. Davies have little to do with an alterior motive, I still feel compelled to speak up. What I see is a trend here of similar scenarios”.

    There it is in black and white in my original post. (when not taking words out of context) I stated, I BELIEVE the INTENTIONS of MR. DAVIES have little to do with an alterior motive. In other words, I do not think he is intentionally or purposefully trying to deceive me. I am not judging him, I am judging the evidence, the footage itself. I was judging the footage based on similar footage that is not clear one way or the other. That was why I wrote about the red flags in the first place. It was an attempt at teaching some newbies on what to look for when considering data. Hopefully, I made myself clear. Hopefully Shane understands why posts need to be longwinded sometimes. And hopefully, cryptidsrus, you will realize there was no burn, well, at least this time.

    Anyway, I hope this clears up the misunderstanding of my intentions. And thanks to Loren for pointing it out. I had no idea Davies might have been referring to me. But when you pointed out where my words could be misconstrued by him, I wanted to correct the misperception of the subject matter of my original post.

    Have a great night all and sleep well!

20. springheeledjack responds: June 9th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Most of the good points have been made, but I am throwing my two cents in because I posted last time…

    I can see where Davies may see a lot of the criticism is harsh and negative. However, to me this site represents serious inspection of all things cryptozoological. We get fed information and have to make judgement calls based on the info presented to us.

    In the first post, there was almost no information about place, time, or even what the original video-ers saw to make them think they saw Selma in the first place. With that, we only had the stills and footage to make an assessment from, and from that I could only conclude that it was no support at all for Selma.

    Now the corroborating sound hits help, but again the footage and stills are not conclusive of anything.

    Secondly and more importantly, I think everyone at Cryptomundo, while objective, also has to take every account and weigh the hoax factor no matter how seemingly plausible a photo, video or encounter may be. Too many times people trying to be open minded are hit by people with nothing better to do than trying to trick the cryptozoology community with fakeries and what not.

    And what has risen up out of that is a certain wariness on the part of all cryptozoologists because of this–the scoftics love nothing better than to rub dirt in the wounds when cryptozoology does get fooled by footage and photos, and sadly it makes cryptozoologists all the more skitterish about giving an honest nod to something that may be bonafide footage, though it is grainy, doesn’t show much or is not that perfect shot.

    So, in the end, choose not to take it personally, but to look at your own stuff objectively as so many of us do, and give us our due…the footage was not conclusive by a longshot.

    And if people judge it harshly, don’t be so thin skinned, because the people that do get angry, or give snotty retorts are just disappointed that it wasn’t the pin-up shot or that it didn’t solve the mystery.

21. springheeledjack responds: June 9th, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    To DWA…Sadly I do know what the “broken record” reference means…does that make me old…does that make me old…does that…

22. gnome23 responds: June 10th, 2008 at 12:01 am

    Howdy,

    Frequent visitor, but first time poster here. Had to comment.

    This is awful video. Please try again. Also, please let us hear the hydrophone recording. If it has been vetted as well as was stated then it might’ve been better to submit that on its own. I think everyone in the community can appreciate the difficulty of getting good video of underwater cryptids. Likely they would’ve cut the presenter some slack.

    I had other comments on the argument at hand, but I’d rather end my first post on a positive note.

    Great site Mr. Coleman, thanks for giving us a place to learn and discuss. Also, to Mr. Davies, chin up, thicker skin (as has been said) and keep trying.

23. chrisandclauida2 responds: June 10th, 2008 at 1:10 am

    He is right, peer review is one thing, personal attacks are another.

    So by all means folks continue to display your ignorance, immaturity and complete lack of any ability at critical thinking and continue name calling and character assassination.

    Or lets do something novel. Let’s provide feedback on what you think is on the tape. I know this is foreign to many, but if you really want to play researchers then at least dress up and get into the role.

    I’m not one to trash so called arm chair researchers. usually because those that use the term are one step above nancy drew and the hardy boys playing researcher.

    This said, I can imagine a dark basement and an old computer being ones life and as such being so bitter they lash out at others.

24. steelcut responds: June 10th, 2008 at 3:35 am

    It’s just stupid, “we don’t have the money for a better cam”.

    No money for a cam, but a hydrophone and expeditions to Mongolia and Borneo, get a life!

25. shumway10973 responds: June 10th, 2008 at 9:10 am

    The still photos are better. Though I can’t get enough detail to say for sure what that/they is (are) out there.

    My main problem wasn’t whether it is a creature or not, time will tell, but that the video was put on youtube. I’m sorry to anyone who uses youtube, but I don’t like it. Usually the video is decreased in its quality enough that the item(s) seen in those beautiful still photos I can’t make out at all. We need our own video server. One totally capable of showing footage at the quality filmed.

26. Porkchop responds: June 10th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Not vitriolic? Are we reading the same original post? I started with the one that was ungenerously subtitled, “Blobdracontology?” I know blobsquatch is an inside joke, but it seems people are also construing it as dismissive? imho

    steelcut could have found more tact to say a thirty dollar tripod and planning to coexist with a tripod in a moving boat would have helped immensely, but that post also ignores the phenomenon we call “Buck Fever.” If there is a monster out there, and you just saw it, you would be shaking too, which gets us back to the tripod…

    Like others I’m philosophically opposed to Youtube, but where/why would Cryptomundo come up with money for a video server?

    finally,in the spirit of chris and claudia, in watersking when the boat turns around, and the wake inside the turn meets itself, we used to call it a pitchers mound, and the jetskis love to jump them!

    these look reminiscent of that, but absent evidence of a boat wake around these, might it be waves have some how been generated to meet oncoming waves naturally?

27. HOOSIERHUNTER responds: June 10th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    I have to say I agree with steelcut, although I wouldn’t have phrased it quite that way. If you’re equipment isn’t adequate to the task then you need to step back and get good equipment first, and practise with it so you can use it efficiently and without shaking in every situation. It will do no good at all if you have a creature right in front of you but the camera’s spinning all around like a fly on crack.

28. springheeledjack responds: June 10th, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    Hey, I’m not opposed to anyone trying for this stuff…it’s what IS needed in the field…more people to go out with the equipment they have on hand…incidentally, I am going out on a limb to say that most crypto’s are not independantly wealthy and able to shop for high end equipment to scan the waves and the forests or we would have some serious evidence on our hands.

    ON THE OTHER HAND (that’s my contribution to the ‘ye old phrases’ this post…and a salute to the one that knows the proper retort to said phrase…), using the equipment you have, you still have to come back with something better than blobsquatches and blobwaves if you want people to take more than a quick look at it–again, call me jaded, but most of us have seen dozens or hundreds of the “blob” style photos and vids, and it just isn’t enough to get excited about (now the ABC obtained footage on Lake Champlain by the two fishermen was pretty darn cool!)

29. Lyndon responds: June 11th, 2008 at 2:39 am

    I have ranted more than once at kneejerk debunkers here (and elsewhere). They frequently don’t know what the heck they are talking about. The Internet, combined with digital technology, has spawned, among other things, a generation of Instant Cryptozoologists, who think that the ability to use Photoshop creatively and to log in to YouTube is the same thing as an advanced degree in a relevant field.

    Tell me about it DWA. There is a well known bigfoot forum where some such people hold court. The gullible are swept along by their extravagant Gifs and animations without any independent and critical thinking of their own. It really has gotten out of hand these last few years.

30. mystery_man responds: June 11th, 2008 at 7:48 am

    I think you can be critical and debunk poor quality videos or less than sound hypotheses without resorting to attacks. It happens all the time in other fields. And you can analyze a video or other evidence and say the reasons why it is not worthwhile without spewing vitriol. Merely giving a video a look to see what it does (or doesn’t show) and then trying to deconstruct it in a meaningful way should not be equated with being sucked in or being gullible. Let’s not confuse being scientific and critical with ridiculing or scoffing, and likewise not confuse taking the time to rationally pick apart a video as being gullible or easily fooled. Who ever said that ruthlessly shooting down questionable videos out of hand or making cutting attacks is a more critical, rational, or scientific approach?

    To me the issue here is that some were attacking the video without really bringing anything to the table in the discussion, or making personal, ad-hominem attacks, which could be pretty damaging if the person is in actuality being honest about what they think they saw (even if it isn’t what they thought it was). With someone who I don’t believe has a proven record of intentional hoaxing, like Mr. Davies, it might be prudent to just look at the evidence and leave personal slights out of it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

    Saying a video is “Worthless. Next.”, or simply “What?!” without elaboration isn’t nearly as useful as saying “This evidence is of poor quality and the reason I think so is…..”. The latter can give use useful insights into analyzing evidence and can help to establish criteria on which such evidence can be judged. they are the comments I am interested in seeing. The former doesn’t accomplish anything at all, is in fact counterproductive for the reason I mentioned earlier, so why even bother to post it? To deter hoaxers? I’m fairly willing to say that a couple pot shots is not going to accomplish this. I say let your rationale speak for itself or let an obvious hoax speak for itself. Cutting remarks are really not needed.

    I believe myself to be (and other posters here who have been around awhile and know me might vouch for this) a fairly critical person when it comes to evidence like this, and in fact pretty skeptical in many cases. I value a scientific approach enormously. I also really think that this approach is still possible even with videos that obviously don’t show anything out of the ordinary and it is possible without degrading to ridicule while remaining critical. In fact, I think if you are to see a video like this, which I believe to show completely mundane things and point out why it might be mistaken for a cryptid, you can only strengthen cryptozoology by shedding light on just what DOES suck some people in and giving us things to look for in future evidence.

    Saying things like “Ho-hum. Next.” does nothing for cryptozoology in my opinion. I say let’s be critical, but in a useful way.

31. DWA responds: June 11th, 2008 at 9:28 am

    mystery_man:

    As someone who isn’t exactly perfect on that score, I say: A-MEN.

    Too often I see “hoax markers” inaccurately applied to a video. In one case - the Peguis sasquatch video - I kept hearing look, he pans right to where the animal is gonna show up. But the context - and the associated comments by the submitter, usually useless when it’s an obvious prank - very clearly showed how he knew it would be there.

    When you think it smells fishy, saying why can be very helpful.

    And the ones with the potential goods, we DO very much want to help.

32. Spinach Village responds: June 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am

    A basic principle might come into play here too-

    Innocent until proven Guilty or Guilty until proven Innocent?
    Authentic until proven Hoax or Hoax until proven Authentic?

    I have no problem with what Adam Davies had to say, I think he has a point.

    Also many scientist and researchers have lived before us and were roundly criticized by the “Scientific Community” and also the mainstream public, only to later be vindicated in there views, theories and declarations…However, I bet many of them weren’t, even though they might have been ‘right on’ in there assertions…

    I think expecting National Geographic type photos and videos OFTEN in this field is just too much to ask (that’s why its called “Crypto”-Zoology) ….. Unfortunately ‘YouTube type’ hoaxers exploit this.

    It would be nice if we could discourage hoaxers and at the same time encourage people with real evidence to come forth with there evidence and/or there stories… might be tough, but being respectful towards researchers such as Adam Davies, while maybe disagreeing with him seems easy enough.

33. springheeledjack responds: June 12th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

    I think the real problem, is as I’ve said before, the scoftics are always on the lookout for times to catch the crpyto-community when it is wrong and so, as a by-product, the crypto-community tends to be overly skeptical to err on the proper side of things.

    Personally, I judge each sighting as it comes in and make my own judgments. As I said in the first post, based on the info at hand, there was nothing there that led me to believe Selma was present (though I am first to admit that I do believe in the presence of water critters in Loch Ness, Champlain and a plethora of other places, based on previous evidence).

    Doesn’t mean Selma is not there or does not exist, it’s just that I do not believe the present footage backs that up based on the info at hand.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|