I think that a few folks here don’t show enough interest in what they are talking about before they start talking. That can be a problem. I’m skeptical about ghosts and alien abductions. But I also freely admit not spending time on either topic. And here is where people forget what skepticism involves. It’s OK to have reservations about phenomena that don’t exactly seem to abound in everyday life. But before you express an up-or-down opinion, and get in folks’ face about it, you have to be informed, at least if you want to be taken seriously. If paranormal phenomena are real, OK with me. I’m not going to call you names, because frankly I don’t have standing. If you are interested in the paranormal, then you’ve read more than I have on it, that’s for sure.

I think a lot of people come to crypto from a paranormal background. For them, it’s all about Do you believe? Never been that for me. I respond to evidence, and only evidence. And knowing a lot about animals, and having spent a lot of time outside, I have a good sense for the circumstances surrounding cryptid reports. Especially so because I read them. OK, at least for the sas and the yeti I do, because they’re candy to me. They read like people’s experiences of an animal, an ape, in fact, much like the ones we know about. This is something that, frankly, lake-monster reports don’t do, to me. They read like funny things in the water, which, you know, can be mundane funny things.

Much of the ‘literature’ on the sas and the yeti has been written by folks with that paranormal backdrop. It doesn’t seem to address the evidence properly. Which is why I stick to the evidence, and those of scientific bent who address it.

And I can keep it as civil as anyone can; but they have to help.

And you’re STILL not reading mine.

Too many examples to go into here. But I can be brief on these.

(I didn’t make this a sasquatch thread. )

“On scientists and sasquatch,
my point was that you have no idea how many scientists have privately looked into the issue and decided it was not really about biology and quietly dropped the issue.”

If any have done that, all they have to do is come to me and I’ll show them why they’re wrong. How? By saying what I have [sigh] said many many times here: Scientists who look at the data – especially the anecdotal evidence – recognize that it shows all of the earmarks scientists look for in data that behaves the way a natural phenomenon behaves.

“Your remarks relating to sasquatch sighters is at its base naive. You say most sighters didn’t even know such an animal existed. Really? How do you know this? Well, they said so. Oh, OK. Must be a fact, uh. Truth is, you do not know the first thing about most sighters, other than what you read on an Internet site. They could be telling the truth, or pulling your leg.”

[sigh: Time No. 375…] KNOW? Shoot, Jerry, how do YOU know? But half of them doing what you say they all are doing? ALL of them doing it, even the ones who have gotten a grilling from a followup investigator? You want to bet those odds? Remind me not to lend you money.

“Sightings are either real, misperceptions, or deceptions.”

NO. They are either the first, or the third. The second is impossible for a normally functioning person. So you think all of us would see a bear in the woods and go, ape! Don’t think so, amigo. Here’s where a real skeptic has the upper hand in this discussion, because a real skeptic looks at the evidence. If you read sighting reports, you would know that to bet on all of them being fake, you’d have to postulate all liars; all physically-restrainable nuts; or an unlikely admixture of the two. MOST unlikely. How? All you have to do is determine how much dough you would bet on that cockeyed concatenation yielding a bunch of lies that read like biodata [time # 576 for that phrase. Sigh…] This is where the alleged ‘skeptics’ start looking like credulous bumpkins to me. They’d bet all their chips on a ‘mundane’ explanation that is over-the-moon unlikely.

Wow. There are about seven other passages I have taken to task, over and over, here. But I need to sign off on this one.

“My issue with you has always been about certainty.”

Which means you aren’t reading. I’m a skeptic, remember? I’m just what a real skeptic should always be; someone who questions every uninformed, lazy assumption, regardless on which side of the issue it comes down.

I also just know how to bet money. That’s what the issue is about; how to bet if it came down to a bet (and no, I haven’t been bet yet; people put their money away after talking to me on this). If certainty were the issue, would we be discussing the sasquatch HERE?

most exciting words in science are not “Eureka,” but rather “Well that’s odd.”

- the late and sadly missed Carl Sagan said the same thing, m_m.

I’m a skeptic too. I like to think that I keep my mind open, but not open so far that my brain falls out . But I also love the “what if?”. Most of the “evidence” presented for most cryptids is easily explained away as something more commonplace, and a lot of it is outright hogwash.

But – there’s the occasional gleam of a gem of possibility among the vast quantity of dust and chaff. And that gleam of possibility is what keeps me coming to this site, to ponder and discuss the “what ifs”.

As far as the general “climate of belief” (man I hate to use the word “belief”), around here, I’d have to agree with cryptidsrus that most posters here at Cryptomundo tend to range towards the skeptical side. It is actually refreshing for me to see the critical eye often given towards evidence such as these Ogopogo pics here. I certainly wouldn’t paint the readership here at Cryptomundo as a bunch of staunch “true believers,” although some may be. Even though I don’t agree with some of the assumptions made here at times, I still think most commenters have not abandoned a critical approach entirely.

There is certainly a need to remain critical, scientific, and yes, skeptical in any approach to evidence offered. After all, science is a skeptical endeavor. We are trying to get to the truth, not what we think the truth is, or what we’d like the truth to be. That’s why scientists always pick apart each others’ research and question even their own hypotheses and assumptions. They have to be sure that the evidence is solid, and this can entail an almost Darwinian process of peer review and cross analysis. This is one thing that I do think we could use more of in general in cryptozoology, but I think many here realize the need for this at some level.

I’ll admit that the evidence presented for some cryptids is not what would be considered strong in the mainstream. It just hasn’t been tested and subjected to the kind of protocol that is expected. This sort of approach is absolutely par for the course in any scientific field, especially when entering groundbreaking territory that have not yet garnered wide acceptance.

I’m pretty known here for a critical eye, I think. I agree in some respects to what those like jerrywayne and alcalde have to say. I can be harsh on the evidence, perhaps much to the chagrin of some posters here. That is the way it has to be for this field to be accepted by the scientific community at large. However, I will stop and say “now wait a minute,” when something is compelling without discarding it out of hand.

Let me tell you why I’m here, even if it is to look at something as flimsy as these “Ogopogo pics.”

The reason why I am here and involved in cryptozoology is that I value the concept of the possibilities of discovery beyond established paradigms. Every so often, something is presented for which the paradigms do not offer a satisfactory explanation for me. It is absolutely Ok tyo question the world we see. And when I have questions that are not easily answered, I want to find out more. Luckily for us, throughout history others have done the same, and it is in this spirit of discovery that we have propelled science forward, pushed at and expanded the limits of what we know or think we know. It is by questioning what we think we know that new avenues of inquiry are opened. Science is an ongoing process that continually builds upon what has come before.

Of course this knowledge has to be approached in a proper manner. However, I am here because I have seen that a questioning mind can lead to great things. Although I am skeptical, my curiosity is not always appeased through knee jerk debunking. Oh I pick apart supposed “evidence” from every angle and am often not as impressed as some others here, nor as sure about what we are likely seeing, but my questions often lead me to think that we may find something surprising if some things are followed up on.

I am here because I think the most exciting words in science are not “Eureka,” but rather “Well that’s odd.”

These Ogopogo photos do not add up to much, and indeed much alleged evidence doesn’t, but I would hardly call cryptozoology a foolish pursuit or its research devoid of many merit. History has shown otherwise.

Any way, for all of those in the trenches here, a parting word. I feel that coming to a civil understanding that it is this common essential value for the potential for discovery that keeps bringing us back here might be more useful than being at each others’ throats.

I really don’t want to get into a Pee Wee Hermanesque “I know you are, but what am I” tit for tat with you. But, please, be more self aware in your responses. After all, when you charge folks with a whole host of infractions, such as smugness, anger, failure to really read posts, caffeination, being a raging true believer, and the like, there is a certain pot calling the kettle black aspect to your posts. (I say this as an amigo, not enemigo).

Perhaps I do not make my points well, for you to so miss them. I never suggested that you accepted the latest alleged Ogo photos. I was trying to relate the eyewitness issue to Loren’s original post (and not go too far afield with bigfoot): I thought it was a teachable issue.

(Young “monster enthusiast” sees something in the water he interprets as validating his belief in Ogo. Fortunately, he films it and we can actually see that his perception was erroneous. And if he had no camera and we had to rely on his eye-witness account, we would have been misled if we had accepted his “sighting” at face value. This, my friend, is directly relevant to your contention, indeed dogma, that people see what they say they see).

On another issue I charge you with not reading my post carefully. On scientists and sasquatch,
my point was that you have no idea how many scientists have privately looked into the issue and decided it was not really about biology and quietly dropped the issue. In other words, you can not say that every scientist who has looked into the sasquatch phenomena agrees with you because you do not know factually if that is really the case (unless you’re omniscient). Add to this your curious habit of denying scientists any legitimacy at all if they do not agree with YOUR conclusions, and we have nonsense compounded.

Your remarks relating to sasquatch sighters is at its base naive. You say most sighters didn’t even know such an animal existed. Really? How do you know this? Well, they said so. Oh, OK. Must be a fact, uh. Truth is, you do not know the first thing about most sighters, other than what you read on an Internet site. They could be telling the truth, or pulling your leg. They could be clever and offer the “boy I don’t know what that thing was” scenario. They could mischeviously offer detail to seemingly authenticate their “sighting”. Do I know this for a fact. No. But you do not know the sightings are authentic either. That is the point.

Sightings are either real, misperceptions, or deceptions. Why the skeptic has the upper hand in this issue is simple to understand: We KNOW that people have misperceptions (remember my “hamburger” hat). We KNOW that people deceive. We DO NOT KNOW that sasquatch exists. So, if you had to hedge your bet….! (Don’t misunderstand me: I am not saying that sightings are necessarily bogus, just that we do not really know if they are).

Also, it is one thing to read sighting reports and determine, arm chair wise, they are authentic, and quite another to really try to ascertain if all the facts of the case hold together. I’m willing to bet that most sightings are accepted at face value by advocate researchers as long as there is no obvious problem with the accounts. Thus the sightings are not thoroughly examined, and certainly not skeptically examined, before they enter the canon of cryptic lore.

“RED HERRING ALERT! RED HERRING ALERT!” May I offer a STRAW MAN ALERT! in reply. Of course, one may look at sightings, tracks, videos, and other such “evidence” when reviewing the sasquatch phenomena. Have at it. If nothing else, it is fun. My point is, however, since such “evidence” by its very nature can not be
conclusive, the scientific community is within its
methodological rights not to rely on such evidence.

And, amigo, I know you don’t want to hear this, but….scientists may shy away from investigating the issue because they know that an animal as large as sasquatch is purported to be, seen as often and in as many places as it is alleged to have been seen, not deep in remote places but in heavily populated areas or the outskirts of such, and this animal leaves no conclusive trace, has left no trace in natural history and virtually no trace in the social history of western expansion, and has never been shot, captured, or trapped as any other large animal native to the continent has, is an improbable animal.

My issue with you has always been about certainty. Maybe sasquatch is an improbable reality. But we do not know that it is a reality. Perhaps I have misunderstood you all along. Maybe your bravado blinded me to the fact that you are not really so sure that sasquatch truly lives. If so, we have a common ground, skeptic and faux skeptic (I’ll let readers decide who is who) (Smile).

Amigo, take it easy.

Anyway…
Lancemoody:
“It may come as a surprise to you, but in the real world simply declaring yourself the winner of an argument is rarely impressive except perhaps to children.”

I can think of at least three instances where that statement you made proved to be false.

The 2000 election, anybody??? (Rolls eyes.)
How about the Norm Coleman/Al Franken brouhaha???
The 2004 election???

Btw, I’m not trying to start a “political discussion” here, Loren and everybody else. Just pointing out the real-life wrongness of that statement Lance made.
People who are not “children” declare themselves the winner in disputes, contests, and everything else all the time.
Not saying it’s necessarily “right” or “wrong,” just reality.
I’ll go take my meds now…:)

Lance, Lance, Lance. Come back when you’ve switched to decaf. But thanks for reinforcing that you’re not paying attention. (You do come here just to imagine you’re superior, don’t you. I guess as long as you feel that way, well, good for you.)