but I believe you misunderstood me on the Montauk monster thing, I said there are still people who claim “there’s no way in hell that thing could possibly be a raccoon or a dog”…. of course it is either a raccoon or a dog…. possibly another carnivore such as an otter maybe, the point I was trying to make is that it is the corpse of a KNOWN animal and that there are still some people who remain unconvinced of that…. at this point I’d have to say dog or raccoon are the two best guesses.

DontCryBigfoot:

I’m one of those you rail about regarding the Montauk Monster—sue me. I love you, Loren Coleman, and most everybody else here—this site in some ways has changed my life, believe it or not—but I sincerely think it’s highly unlikely that is a racoon. I’m not saying it isn’t, either. I also think that it is highly likely that that could be canine. Normal animal, yes. Racoon, though? THAT decomposed? Highly unlikely.

Again, I agree that MM most probably is some sort of normal creature. I’m open to canine. One guess is as good as any.

And by the way, let’s remind ourselves that the carcass was never tested in any way. So we do not know what it was that that thing was. Could have been a badger that wandered too near a nuclear power plant for all we know. Could have been one of those “otters” everybody loves and cherishes around here (sarcasm)—and was exposed to gamma rays (more sarcasm).

We can absolutely speculate—but that is all that is—speculation. The wrong thing about all of this is that the body was never tested and allowed to totally decompose. That is the lousy part of the brouhaha.

Don’t get me wrong—if it would have turned out to be a raccoon—fine. I just think these people in the media (like Jeff Corwin) and folks like you saying definitively it is a certain thing is not only unscientific, but breaks the bounds somewhat of logic. Not to mention it being very condescending. And downright arrogant.

Oh yes—

Eyewitness testimony being the least reliable method of identifying something? I know scientists have their own standard and vision of what the truth is, but has anybody here had to serve in a jury here? Anybody been through a trial? How about you, DontCryBigfoot? I have. Divorce case, but a lot of “he said, she said”-type eyewitness testimony was presented.

SSchaper? Mystery_Man?

People have been convicted and cleared of charges in courts of law based solely on eyewitness testimony for centuries now. It has been a pretty reliable method so far. So if we follow your logic, I guess we should go back and invalidate all those verdicts because one “can’t trust one’s eyes?” I would say the same for you, Loren. Great guy you are.

I would bet you everything that if one were to put the case for (let’s say) the existence of UFOs or Sasquatch before a court of law, that legally one could prove it. Scientifically, probably not. But legally, yes. Of course, one can dismiss that as “those stupid non-experts and non-scientists who believe everything they hear,” but that is insulting to the 9th degree.

So let’s say anybody’s parents here were to see (let’s say for thought experiment’s sake) a “mermaid.” No camera. They simply were walking along the ocean shore one day and happened to witness what they claim was a mermaid-type creature happily gallivanting along minding its own business. It was near enough that they were able to get a good, reasonably long look at it before “it” went underwater. the Sun was high up in the sky—they were able to give a good description of this creature—-down to the fact she had (let’s say) blue eyes and black hair. Her tail was silvery like a mackerel’s, not like the standard image of a mermaid one sees in books and movies. she had breasts like a human female and looked to all intensive purposes like a female—except she had fish’s tail. According to them, it was not a manattee or dugong (they had seen them before). Once again, they had no camera or video recorder with them. Just their sight and their honor. What do you do, then???
Dismiss them as crazy? Drunk?

“Dad/Mom, it must have been a manatee/seal/dugong.”

“I know what we saw, and it was none of those things. Manatees do have white skin sometimes, but not black hair. And they do not have blue eyes. Same for dugongs. And by the way, son/daughter, the black hair was not seaweed—we recognize seaweed when we see it. We’ve lived near the ocean our entire lives. Seals have whiskers. This thing had none of those. It was not a walrus either. We’ve seen those before. And this had no tusks. It had arms the same size and circumference as humans.”

“Dugong, Dad/Mom.”

“We can distinguish between a female breast and a dugong breast, thank you very much. And as much as a dugong sort of looks like a man/woman, this thing was drop dead gorgeous, something a dugong is not, son/daughter. This thing also was slender, not stocky like a dugong. It also was holding up a fish in its hand. Five-fingered hand. I don’t think manatees/walruses/dugongs/seals/whatevers can do that, son/daughter. Dugongs also do not have milky white skin.”

“You were drunk/hallucinating, Dad/Mom.”

“We don’t drink, Son/Daughter. You know that. We also have no history of psychological imbalance, Son/Daughter. You’ve known us all your lfe. How dare you imply that.”

“Mistaken identity.”

“We’re certain we saw what we saw. It was, as shocking as it may seem to you, Son/Daughter, a mermaid.”

“You were that near to it?”

“Yes.”

“That is not possible, Dad/Mom. Science/Humankind would have discovered them by now.”

“I don’t know about that. We can only go by our experience. Isn’t it very arrogant, though, to presume that Mankind has discovered and catalogued everything there is this endless universe of ours? How do you know what is at the bottom of the sea? Or in the darkest, impenetrable reaches of the world?” Are you calling us liars, Son/Daughter? What is so hard in believing us in that we saw what we saw? Or at least don’t mock us.”

Now, what do you do then??? Dismiss them? Think they’re nuts?(Bad Son/Daughter.)
Say they were mistaken? Or just say “I don’t know, but I believe that you really believe that you saw a mermaid.” Is there no room in this world in believing in emotional sincerity anymore?

Or maybe just say “I don’t know.”
What is wrong with just saying that?

I would understand that their testimony would be scientifically “worthless,” because there was not physical or incontrovertible photographic proof of their sighting, but one has to admit, as an anecdote, it would be an excellent one, and it would also go a long way in rejecting the notion that “visual testimony” is worthless.

Tell you what, why don’t we put the parents up on the witness stand and see what conclusion a judge/jury comes up with?

I’m sorry this post went on for so long, Loren, but I’m tired of the smirking condescnesion of some who are quick to label anything that is not apparently identifiable as “this and that.” It is arrogant and illogical.

Maybe it is time to revamp the scientific method and account for pehnomena that cannot be “empirically” tested and repeatedly appraised. No matter how many times Shermer, Radford and others plead for “logic” and “rationality,” it does not work. And however many times Shermer or Radford or Randi or anybody else write about how people believe in “stupid things,” sightings still occur daily all over the world that are not empirically or scientifically verifiable but compelling. so whatever they are doing, it’s not working.

I was responding to DontCryBigfoot’s statement that these people do not know what the heck they are talking about because “eyes can be decieved.” gain, Loren, sorry for the length of the post. I’ll get off the soapbox now.

Multiple witnesses are no less susceptable… all it takes is for one witness to make a confident suggestion on what he or she believes it is to start the ball rolling for all types of rediculous speculation.

For the cryptzoologist, paranormal researcher, and UFO hunters…. witness reports of sightings do provide a valuable tool…… a place to start looking, but beyond that, ALL witness testimony should be taken with a grain of salt.

although I will admit that i am sometime baffled by what is the reality of a witnesses claim… i guess that is the grey area in listening to witness testimonies….. it could be, or maybe not…

“Animal in the grass, Hold on let me get my gun so i can shoot it”

interesting rational ~!#@

i think the map provided is very conservative if not misleading

i love the comments posted at the newspaper link, thats the raw stuff that i love to read, its hard to disprove all these folks with one giant swoop of rational