Comments on: Cryptomundians Identified The Toy, Folks

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:58:09 +0000

Fhqwhgads:

More than you know. But like most who take your attitude, you reveal how much you know.

Do what I did. Read up. Because yes, people with scientific chops, in relevant fields, that I feel confident you won’t ever touch disagree with you.

Which is, btw, the only reason I even come here. Why do you, with that obvious level of incuriosity? Doesn’t this strike you as a waste of your time? Just asking.

And again I say it: ALL YOU EXPERTS OUT THERE WHO DON’T EVEN HAVE TO READ THE EVIDENCE TO PASS SENTENCE: ARGUE WITH THE SCIENTISTS WHO SAY IT’S REAL, NOT WITH ME. (I’d pay for a seat at that one.)

THANK YOU.

By: Fhqwhgads

Fhqwhgads — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:51:36 +0000

DWA: Oh, right. I forgot about the scientific credibility of the bigfoot investigations.

By: korollocke

korollocke — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:35:48 +0000

I have one of those, they came out about two years ago with a few other monsters in dollar stores, you find them on ebay.

By: SkepNet

SkepNet — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:30:49 +0000

Thank you for posting this update. Believers and skeptics all must apply critical thinking and honesty to contribute to the dialog.

PS. The photo reminds me so much of some book cover I’ve seen - I just can’t remember what book. Of course, our memories are so fallible that I could be completely wrong. For a good read on this topic, check out the NeuroLogica post “How Confident Are You?“

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 16:20:04 +0000

I don’t know about anybody else here, Loren, but I’ve never been one to “shoot the messenger.” Even I said it looked like a hoax. I just said I could not be totally sure. Maybe-maybe not. Almost certainly fake, BUT. Unlike many here, I follow Whitley Strieber’s advice: “Learn to live at a high level of uncertainty.”

By: Artist

Artist — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:12:52 +0000

Alligator, I’ll say aye aye to that comment.

By: DWA

DWA — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:16:13 +0000

Fhqwhgads:

No sasquatch costume that I have ever seen is a good match for what people filing reports describe. (“True believers” of any stripe should be excluded from a scientific discussion, where skepticism, and evidence, should rule.)

There’s nothing easier to shoot down than a sasquatch suit hoax; they make this one look very sophisiticated.

But of course people who haven’t read lots of sighting reports wouldn’t have a way of knowing that.

By: Alligator

Alligator — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 05:00:09 +0000

Loren, I suspect that sometimes you know the full story behind these photos and reports, but you put it out there to get people to analyze and think these things through. And it is just interesting to read the variety of opinions people have. Is it real or is it Memorex?

By: Fhqwhgads

Fhqwhgads — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:27:59 +0000

The toy is a good match; but then again, some Sasquatch costumes are a good match for the “real” thing as described by true believers. If a good Sasquatch costume doesn’t prove that Bigfoot is a fake, can you be so sure this toy proves the photo is a fake? Just being devil’s advocate (given the look of this thing, maybe literally!).

If its eyes weren’t so small, I’d say it was clearly Cryptotarsius alwatani.

One way or the other, the Al Watan photo is creepier. I’m not sure if it was lighting or processing or what, but the eyes in particular are more impressive. And it looks like the Al Watan booger has been given some hair.

By: Andrew Minnesota

Andrew Minnesota — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:20:53 +0000

Thanks for the update Loren, it’s nice to see the mystery solved. That would be a truly creepy cryptid if it did exist though!