Cryptozoology
- Thread starter CZJimmy
- Start date
I do like the sound of a skunk ape. I don't believe in it but I do wish there were such a thing.
Sir Peter Scott believed in the Loch Ness Monster and even gave it a scientific name (though it's open to question whether, in naming it, he was just showing a sense of humour). From accounts it appears he thought there might be up to 50 Nessies in that most famous of Scottish lochs. I did believe in it as a child after seeing that very famous 1933 photo of it, which did indeed seem to show a prehistoric reptile. Howevr, that photo has now been conclusively distredited as a hoax, albeit a very clever one, so I no longer believe in a giant reptile in Loch Ness; but how marvellous would it be if there were one, or rather a pair or even a herd (is that the right term, or should it be shoal?) after all?
The idea of a Yeti or Abominable Snowman is slightly more credible, but even here the available "evidence" has been found to be wanting. The "skull cap" proved to be hair from a mountain goat, and the giant footprints can be explained by the impression of a smaller footprint getting bigger as the snow thawed. Anyway, if there is a Yeti, or family of Yetis, surely it's more likely they live in the forests at the base of the Himalayas and only stray occasionally up the mountains, as there is little food to be found at higher elevations. So, all these years, people have been looking in the wrong place. Apparent sightings are easy to rig up; all it takes is a prankster in a white Army-issue snow uniform viewed at a distance in less than favorable (i.e. snowy or misty) weather.
Sir Peter Scott believed in the Loch Ness Monster and even gave it a scientific name (though it's open to question whether, in naming it, he was just showing a sense of humour). From accounts it appears he thought there might be up to 50 Nessies in that most famous of Scottish lochs. I did believe in it as a child after seeing that very famous 1933 photo of it, which did indeed seem to show a prehistoric reptile. Howevr, that photo has now been conclusively distredited as a hoax, albeit a very clever one, so I no longer believe in a giant reptile in Loch Ness; but how marvellous would it be if there were one, or rather a pair or even a herd (is that the right term, or should it be shoal?) after all?
The idea of a Yeti or Abominable Snowman is slightly more credible, but even here the available "evidence" has been found to be wanting. The "skull cap" proved to be hair from a mountain goat, and the giant footprints can be explained by the impression of a smaller footprint getting bigger as the snow thawed. Anyway, if there is a Yeti, or family of Yetis, surely it's more likely they live in the forests at the base of the Himalayas and only stray occasionally up the mountains, as there is little food to be found at higher elevations. So, all these years, people have been looking in the wrong place. Apparent sightings are easy to rig up; all it takes is a prankster in a white Army-issue snow uniform viewed at a distance in less than favorable (i.e. snowy or misty) weather.
I've heard of iCarly. Does that count?nanoboy said:What are you? A time-travelling hippie who has never heard of an iPhone?
not always, sometimes I just speak gibberish nonsense (see my post aboveKifaru Bwana said:
)the same ones who denied the existence of mermaids?! I call foul!nanoboy said:
absolutely! Surely if any Nessie photo is going to be called "best ever" or "best proof" it would need to better the underwater "flipper shot"!Devi said:
not sure if you've read through the whole thread, but we talked about Nessie earlier (er, might have been a couple of years back now...) and Sir Peter Scott's scientific name for the monster was discussed. The "surgeon's photo" still has as many for as against (as always in such matters, whether you believe it is explicitly proven to be a hoax depends on whether one believes the "admittance" of it as a hoax is true or not!).zooman64 said:
I thought the 'surgeon's photo' was also suggested to be in reality a diving Otter? The 'neck' being the otter's tail and the 'head' the tip kinked backwards. There is nothing in the photo to give any scale to what does look rather like something alive.
What I am concerned primarily is that most of those in cryptozoology rather want to believe (sometimes with intense religious zeal) that what they discover is ..., rather than being scientific and trying to discover what you are dealing with.
In any photographic competition these pictures would be sent down the developer's black colouring drain ... (if I may say so)!
In any photographic competition these pictures would be sent down the developer's black colouring drain ... (if I may say so)!
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
The so-called surgeon's photo (guy wasn't a surgeon, but a gynecologist) was confirmed to be a toy submarine bought at a popular British store retrofitted with a plasticine hear and neck. The photo everyone knows is a highly cropped version of a larger image. I mean after all, the original photo came from the Daily Mail.
Pertinax said:
there is no "confirmation" of the photo being a hoax, only one man claiming it to be so. A 90-year-old chap called Christian Spurling claimed before his death that he had helped Robert Wilson (the "surgeon", as he became known with regards to the photo) fake the photo by attaching a model head made of "plastic wood" onto a toy submarine. There are actually two photos from the event and the second less-well-known one shows an object in a different position because, the claim goes, some people were approaching and so the hoaxers stood on the model to sink it and took a photo as it did so. None of this really makes sense. For one thing, the object in the second photo has a completely different shape from the object in the first photo. And what did they do - walk into the water, stand on it to sink it, and then walk back out, turn around and take another photo rather than just sinking it entirely if they were trying to hide it? There's also the matter of the "death-bed confession", never a good idea to base a confirmation on!! Lastly, apparently plastic wood wasn't even invented when the photos were taken!jbnbsn99 said:
There is no proper scale in the photo but in the full-size photo (not the crop usually seen) you can see clearly from the ripples around the object that it is not large. I don't believe in the monster at all, but the "surgeon's photo(s)" are as likely to be a live animal (if so, most likely an otter or cormorant) as they are to be deliberately faked. I don't think there's any way to say one way or the other with certainty.
Anyone have a link to where you can see the 2nd photo?(was unaware of this)
the second and third images on this link: Untitled
(Actually not as different as I remembered them being, but that's memory for you!)
(Also note the shadow below the object makes it appear as if there is more length above the water than there actually is)
I agree with that.
Whether it is a live animal or a model, you can't escape the conclusion that the photographer and his associates knew very well this was a small object near to the shore and they were deliberately representing it as something very different. Either way its a hoax.
Still a classic image though.
Whether it is a live animal or a model, you can't escape the conclusion that the photographer and his associates knew very well this was a small object near to the shore and they were deliberately representing it as something very different. Either way its a hoax.
Still a classic image though.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
It is indeed a hoax.
I read a good article on Discovery News the other day: New Nessie Photo: Proof of Loch Ness Monster? : Discovery News
stop policing the police nanoboy. Actually, if you look through my thousands of posts (go on, I know you want to!) you'll find hundreds of instances where I've put "its" instead of "it's"; also, embarrassingly enough, where I put "it's" instead of "its" or even sometimes "their's" (!). Usually (for the former situation) it's because I've just become accustomed to writing "its" even if the apostrophe is supposed to be in there. Sometimes (for the latter situation) it's because my brain is fading as old age creeps up on me......
Anyway, back to the monster. I think it's important to point out that the Loch Ness Monster itself is not a hoax - the legend has been around since at least the 7th century - it is only reported sightings and photos that can be considered hoaxes. (Whether the monster is real or not isn't directly relevant to discussion of hoaxes, except in that the legend of its existence is the impetus for the hoaxers to create hoaxes).
That article brings up some good points about this most recent hoax/claim.
Anyway, back to the monster. I think it's important to point out that the Loch Ness Monster itself is not a hoax - the legend has been around since at least the 7th century - it is only reported sightings and photos that can be considered hoaxes. (Whether the monster is real or not isn't directly relevant to discussion of hoaxes, except in that the legend of its existence is the impetus for the hoaxers to create hoaxes).
That article brings up some good points about this most recent hoax/claim.
the problem is with old existing legends that some older cultures did not have the concept of fiction like we do today.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
You're already there, old man.
tschandler71, I think that many cultures did indeed have a concept of fiction as we do. Unfortunately, somehow the ignorant masses appropriated it into religion and what was supposed to be fiction or allegories, turned into miracles and doctrine. I wonder if anyone ever saw a unicorn or a Leviathan? Maybe the legend of the Loch Ness Monster was meant to be a fictional story back in the day.
You're already there, old man.
bah! Don't make me come over there and hit you with my walking frame you no-goodnik!!
they have electric wheelchairs now? You mean I've been needlessly using my hands to propel myself all this time, like an idiot?!
