Comments on: The New York Times Attempts To Kill The Devil

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:38:22 +0000

Does the Times really think that it needs to do this sort of a priori debunking to be taken seriously or something?

I wonder whether people who do this sort of thing kinow that their ignorance is showing.

There is only one rational way to address something like this, if one doesn’t just want to bray like a donkey. And that is: seems there’s something going on there in New Jersey. But I’m a little shaky on the evidence. Show me.

Or, for Pete’s sake, just say nothing. Don’t devote a significant cross-section of a tree to this nonsense. The Times could have enlightened us on what Barack Obama and John McCain think about at least two or three issues with the column inches they wasted here.

By: Scott C.

Scott C. — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:57:00 +0000

Purely public interest. The GA incident garnered a surprising amount of attention, and the Times wants to sell papers.

I predict that we’ll see a little more of this kind of thing in the future…for awhile…but it will fizzle eventually, until something really is discovered.

Of course, this reaffirms what we already knew: our society at large sees absolutely no distinction between the cryptozoological and the paranormal.

The Jersey Devil is not fauna. I’m convinced of that.

I’ve talked with old-timers in the Barrens…I’ve been to old Mrs. Leeds house…had some scary stuff happen…etc.

The Jersey Devil is probably just as real as the North American Apes, but a different sort of creature altogether.

By: greybear

greybear — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:19:41 +0000

Reading the article I see that there are quotes from the Monty Python “dead parrot” sketch (references to an ex-bigfoot that has ceased to be). I think that this rather sets the tone of the article.
I find it worrying that efforts to investigate unexplained phenomena of any sort are being met with this “tongue in cheek” reportage. To me, if someone has had a brush with the unknown their reporting of it should be treated with respect, it was real to them and if they have made a mistake, well heck who hasn’t, they should not be humiliated.
Anyone who thinks that we know all there is to know and that there is nothing else “out there” is entitled to their opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. As they have not had the experience they should not deny that others may have.

By: Spinach Village

Spinach Village — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:24:33 +0000

Very annoying indeed… thats the mainstream media for ya
hopefully Amy Goodmans crew would approach a subject like this with more respect, but I digress

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:15:03 +0000

I think the NY Times is just trying to cover itself–print some other stories, say, ‘yeah, see we are always open to these kinds of things’ and then they don’t look so bad for getting hosed on the Georgia incident…I am still in disbelief that so many news agencies just went for the bait, lock, stock and proverbial barrel…sheesh!

By: cryptidsrus

cryptidsrus — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:38:41 +0000

Sigh…

Methinks the Old Gray Lady has fallen victim to the rapidly spreading disease of “FoxNewsItis,” meaning out-and-out skepticism of the “unusual.” Basically they’re saying – “Stop believing in childish nonsense. Reason rules.” How arrogant.

By: kagon

kagon — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:22:29 +0000

I am afraid the real legacy of the Georgia Hoaxers is that they made anyone who claimed to have discovered anything a laughing stock. Hopefully the stigma wears off quickly and we can put it in the past.

By: SamuraiWannaBe

SamuraiWannaBe — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:49:59 +0000

The sightings in the 60’s-70’s I KNOW are explainable because i met the ‘hoaxer’ he was a kid at the time playing in the woods, not trying to be the Jersey Devil, but thats what it turned into after he saw stories in the paper. Put two and two together (where the people said they saw, ‘the devil’ and where he was playing that day).

Regarding the news paper article, it is and will be rather annoying trying to fight the media to post positive articles about crypto realted activites after the GA Gorilla episode. But you’ll see that regarding anything that is not commonly accepted in society at large.

Activites and interestes that are considred to be on the fringe will always be treated as such untill they burst through into the main stream and are accepted by the public at large.

By: red_pill_junkie

red_pill_junkie — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 19:45:07 +0000

I don’t know. It could be that the editor wanted to write a witty comment on how the belief in cryptids is an interesting sign of the post-modern times we live in; how Bigfoot and aliens are beginning to overthrow other more institutionalized belief systems; how the need to believe in something beyond what we perceive in our ordinary lives keeps evolving as culture mutates.

…Or, it could very well be that the people who run the NY Times are no fools, and have noticed that Cryptozoology sells newspapers, since there’s a genuine interest in these mysteries. It really is inconsequential to these journalists whether these creatures actually exist or not. As long as folks keep buying their product, they’ll keep offering it. And they’ll do it with the customary giggle, to keep themselves in their ivory tower of “journalistic objectivity”.

By: slowwalker-32

slowwalker-32 — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:54:21 +0000

It seems the New York Times is moving from” Left Wing” into “Left Field”. It could be they suspect the Skunk Apes are Republicans.