Comments on: Skeptic Created Fake Pterosaur Footage?

By: alex_c

alex_c — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:11:29 +0000

Just my 5 cents worth but….

I understood “Skeptic” or “Sceptic” (Old world spelling) to relate to a person who maintains a balance between belief and non belief until such time as they witness convincing proof, or a substantial weight of convincing evidence leading them to accept and believe the initial argument, belief or factuality.

A “De-bunker” on the other hand is someone who is determined to remain “Anti” the argument, belief or factuality, regardless of the evidence or even proof that is presented in it’s favour.

A debunker is therefore the conceptual antithesis of a “believer” who is determined to believe, regardless of arguments or demonstrable facts against the subject proposition.

I get fed up with having language misused this way, because it makes intelligent interaction harder.

I am a skeptic regarding David Icke’s “Lizard shape shifters”, but I am open minded about exo terrestrial visitation.

This does not mean that I go around bad mouthing David, or saying that he is talking nonsense, as I am aware that his claims are still within the bounds of possibility, even though I do not believe his argument at present.

I hope this helps distinguish between a skeptic (open minded but unconvinced) and a debunker (closed minded and uninterested in the argument).

By: big mack

big mack — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:21:02 +0000

you could tell this was a fake. when is someone going to get a convincing video? hey if they do there could be a search. you never know.

By: jdwhitcomb

jdwhitcomb — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 04:33:19 +0000

Maybe I can clear up some misunderstandings:

1) The video was removed by the YouTube administrator, not by the one who put it there.

2) The account holder (not the explorer David Woetzel) had his (or her) account terminated by the YouTube admin.

3) The (apparent) hoaxer answered some of my questions about identity, but not all of them: Any time I asked about the Woetzel who searched for ropens on Umboi Island, I got no response at all; when I asked only about the name, the person maintained his name was “David Woetzel,” the same name as his father.

4) The YouTube apparent-impersonator never responded to the inquiries of the real (explorer) David Woetzel.

5) There never was any other name associated with the YouTube account holder, so we have nothing to go by.

6) Apparent impersonation was probably at least part of the reason that video and the account holder were removed and terminated from YouTube.

Put these things together and it seems most unlikely that the real David Woetzel ever had anything to do with that video. The motives of that YouTube account holder are hard to guess, but they seem very questionable regarding cryptozoological investigations.

By: Know it all

Know it all — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:42:10 +0000

Disreputable obvious hoax.
Pterodactyls, and bats for that matter, have the broadest or equal membranous wing width at the juncture with the body-tail-upper legs… not by far the narrowest as shown in this video.
“friggin” frigate bird.
Shameful.

By: Dr Kaco

Dr Kaco — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:19:57 +0000

I think a skeptic now a days is being seen as a total non-believer which is not the meaning at all. Debunking also is being interpreted as a non-believer when in fact it is being skeptical. You follow? There are alot a of HATERS out there but that’s life. I think it’s good there are alot of skeptics and whole hearted believers on these shows as to show no biased opinions throughout the show. Let’s the viewers make their own minds up, something that America needs to start doing again I might add.

By: Daniel Loxton

Daniel Loxton — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:14:16 +0000

Not to worry, I had no subtext in mind—and certainly not in regards to my esteemed colleagues at the Skeptical Inquirer.

But I do think it’s a good question: why, exactly, is this hoax said to have been created by “a skeptic”? Is that an outright guess, or is there known back-story I’m not aware of—or is just that any mischief-maker perceived as being anti-cryptozoology is labeled “a skeptic” by default?

By: jamesrav

jamesrav — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 02:04:31 +0000

if you want to see pterodactyls, the movie ‘The Mist’ features them as one of the invading creatures from another dimension. They’re miniature ones however, but rather nasty.

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:45:12 +0000

I agree with you, Loren, that the “bald assumption” comment may be an indirect jibe at Radford.

LOL—UP TO A POINT. While I am a “believer” and do not agree with most of the skeptical conclusions that old Ben reaches, I think it is “below the belt” to make belittle someone’s “follicularly challenged” constitution. Even if one disagrees with that person.

Particularly since I’m bald myself.
Unfortunate, but true.

I’m not saying YOU were doing that, Loren, or even that DANIEL LOXTON was doing that, but it could APPEAR that that was the intent.

Anyway, SHAME on the “skeptic” who did this.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:01:46 +0000

I take it that the casual use of the phrase “bald assumption” is not some pointed pun thrown in Ben Radford’s direction?

LOL.

By: AnimusRavnus

AnimusRavnus — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:37:33 +0000

That’s pathetic to sink that low. The skeptics are getting pretty sad and now what? Maybe next time they will go to Hollywood and make it a big budget movie.