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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!)

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?

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.

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