Comments on: Skeptical Monster Hunting

By: BuffytheVamp

BuffytheVamp — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:52:46 +0000

Thanks for the update Saquatchery. Another verification that I am living in the future. PS has anyone tagged any part of the “Loch Ness Monster” or any other lake monster, excepting that giant tooth?

By: purrlcat

purrlcat — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:35:09 +0000

I have an old real photo postcard of some kind of sea creature I would like identified. Is there a way I can post a photo to this site? If so, make it easy - I am no rocket scientist when it comes to computers. Thanx.

By: Sasquatchery

Sasquatchery — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:17:26 +0000

I’m not saying just serious Sasquatch researchers, but any researcher into mysterious animals or “paranormal” topics who’s serious about what they do. As for the skeptics, it’s their problem to address, not mine. Skepticism is vital to any research because we have to be aware of alternative explanations. My only beef is with the Skeptical Enquirer-type bunch, “skepticism for it’s own sake”. It’s one thing to point out a possible alternative explanation for a phenomenon that may be more mundane than the original one, like what Loren discussed in his blog. It’s another to say that by doing so, they have somehow conclusively disproved the original hypothesis, which in most cases is quite impossible.

By: DrX

DrX — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 02:53:59 +0000

Sasquatchery, it’s important that credit go where it’s deserved. Perhaps you could write to as many skeptics as you can find addresses for. Point out to them that their arguments are illegitimate and that they should have known that. Tell them that the greatest and most able debunkers in your field are the serious Sasquatch researchers. It’s time you reminded the skeptics who deserves the credit for doing their job for them.

By: Sasquatchery

Sasquatchery — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 00:33:11 +0000

BuffytheVamp, DNA tests have been a viable way to identify tissue only in the last few years. Most of the incidents Loren refers to are decades old, and the specimens involved have either been lost or destroyed. In fact there actually was some tissue preserved from the 1896 beaching but it’s a very small amount and in poor condition (it’s been preserved for over 100 years). I’m interested to hear what Loren has discovered about that.

By: BuffytheVamp

BuffytheVamp — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:55:37 +0000

Forgive me for my “affrontery” but whatever happened to good old fashioned DNA tests for verifications?

By: Sasquatchery

Sasquatchery — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 03:28:15 +0000

I always felt that the greatest and most able debunkers of questionable evidence were the more serious researchers in our field. For example, if a serious Sasquatch researcher sees a footprint that is in his/her mind suspicious, he/she can base their opinion on real analyses such as heel-to-ball ratio, signs of mid-tarsal break, measured stride etc. etc. A skeptic who hasn’t bothered to really study any of the evidence (I have yet to hear of one who has) will give an answer that simply amounts to “it simply can’t be real, therefore it isn’t”. Since it is practically impossible to scientifically prove that Sasquatches do NOT exist this argument can have no legitimacy, and one would think the skeptics should at least know that. But they don’t seem to…

Sorry, I’m just in one of those moods today.

By: bccryptid

bccryptid — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:55:38 +0000

I have seen a less famous photo supposedly from the St. Augustine beaching that clearly showed a large cephalopod arm, complete with giant suckers. Is that lesser-known photo a hoax?