OK, Bigfoot enthusiasts...new footage...

[Brazoo]

Here's my take on that. The headline should read Sea Serpent Carcass Found. But that means science must admit what they've said doesn't exist-really does exist. There's egg on their faces and a reluctance to admit people who are non scientists were right about something. Best to keep the "official" name which would nevercome up on someone's radar if they were looking for a real seas serpent.

Oarfish corpses were found/recorded over 200 years ago, and originally thought to be sea serpents because of the way they looked, (which makes sense at first glance) but if this story has moral it's that looks can be deceiving. This is exactly why science is so important, it probes for deeper understanding than first impressions.

The legends of sea serpents include the ability to attack people and entire ships. The oarfish is a huge but harmless creature that doesn't even have teeth. If people did see an oarfish and thought they were being attacked by sea serpents that exactly describes how wrong people can get things without deeper understanding. Aside from its size and monstrous look, it fits none of the other features of the legendary sea serpents.

For a description of how the oarfish actually got its name check out the Wikipedia entry. There is no conspiracy here. In fact every description of the oarfish I can see online explains that it is believed to be the source of some sea serpent legends - so where is the cover up?

Plus, what about all the other creatures that may be responsible for sea serpent legends? If anything you should be pleased that science is leaving open the possibility of a creature who actually fits the description of a sea serpent, instead of jumping to conclusions because of the oarfish's superficial appearance.

By the way, science is not a process that eliminates the possibility of error - science is a process that constantly finds error and attempts to correct itself. Unlike pseudoscience, which only stays to one track of reasoning without ever shifting from its course no matter what the data says.

[Brazoo]

Yep, this made me think of this thread too. And prior to this one, there was a story about the dead giant squid washing ashore. Both of which were dismissed as legends and tall tales at one point.

To be clear: The fact that other creatures, thought to be the stuff of legend, were discovered to be real does not mean that all legendary creatures are real.

But it should give pause to some that so glib as to dismiss the possibility.

I used to believe the popular story: 'giant squids proved science wrong', and there's a lot of exaggeration in that story when you look closer at the history. It fits with the pop culture myth we all like to hear - like the story of the underdog. Basically, that 'root for the underdog' mentality is what makes the common guy vs. the brainy scientist such a compelling story in pop culture.

It's not entirely untrue, there was skepticism of the historical eye-witness accounts, but the truth is that we've been recording data for giant squids for a long time through physical evidence: body parts, and corpses through the 19th century. Over the last 150 years we've established many of these species, though recording a living giant squid has been an insane challenge, and I believe the first video recordings were only made a few years ago.

There was controversy surrounding giant squids. A lot of the controversy was about how big the animals could get, and I believe there is still some controversy about how many of these should be considered new species, and how many are just giant versions of other species.

A different and still unanswered question is whether or not giant squid has ever been responsible for attacking a ship - to fit some historical claims. Since giant squids have been responsible for taking down large whales, I'd assume they're sufficiently capable of at least posing a threat to some ships, as oppose to something giant but harmless, like an oarfish ---- but just because it might pose a threat to ships doesn't confirm that it ever happened.

--

Here's the thing - I often hear cryptozoologists claim that "science thinks it knows everything" - which is just not true. The popular scientific view is that we have only identified about 15% of all the earth's species. ONLY 15%. So what are the crypto guys basing their claim on?

Sometimes it takes the consensus of science a long time to adopt new ideas - that's true. Especially when it comes to highly theoretical breakthrough ideas, like multiple universes. Identifying new species is not that kind of field. The process is slow, methodical and mundane. Apparently there are an INSANE amount of wasp species (Wikipedia says over 100,000). It's not always easy to identify a wasp as a new species just because it might initially look like a new species - so the process of going through the records - checking and double checking available resources, checking physical attributes and analyzing it's genetics, peer review... It's painstaking, nit-picky work. Within the field there are apparently brutal controversies over seemingly tiny boring details. And most of these controversies are not about mainstream newspaper headline grabbing discoveries - we basically never hear about these species, because they'd bore us if we did.

According to this article in 2009 we discovered 52 species a day: http://io9.com/5877595/meet-the-2000...-a-single-year

From that same article, here's an informative depiction of which types of new species were the most common:


What a lot of cryptozoologists often want to do is ignore that whole process and introduce brand new unproven techniques for introducing new species they believe in. When scientists point out that it's not how that research has ever been done, you don't see cryptozoologists learn from that, back up, review their lines of evidence, try to falsify their theories - what they do instead is frankly, complain about how science is bias.

It's logical fallacy called "special pleading". Here's a link to the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Specifically in Bigfoot, so far none of the lines of evidence offered have been proven to work, and some of the lines of evidence have been clearly established NOT to work. (Like eye-witness testimony.) It's as simple as that. If better lines of evidence are used to establish Bigfoot then the way science regards Bigfoot will change. Any complaints about the existing process don't hold any water. If science is late to identify a species it means the proper evidence wasn't available yet - it does't mean the process is broken. Those are two separate things.

[Captain Big Trousers]

never mind.

[enyawd72]

LOL...more wikipedia entries Brazoo?

I'll give you a logical fallacy.
To NOT exist, EVERY SINGLE Bigfoot sighting, footprint, video, photo, unclassified hair sample, etc. EVER DOCUMENTED would have to be a misindentification or hoax. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
We're talking THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS, going back HUNDREDS of years on nearly every continent.
That is statistically IMPOSSIBLE.

[johnmiic]

I'm not saying tall tales are better than science. Clearly tho, we do have an animal which is what people call sea serpents. The name should fit the animal I think. Oarfish doesn't do it justice. We do have giant squids, regardless.

You still continue to look at the glass as 1/2 empty instead of 1/2 full.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end." - Mr. Spock

[Werewolf]

British scientist claims the Yeti is a bear hybrid.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24564487

[Brazoo]

LOL...more wikipedia entries Brazoo?

If you don't agree with the Wikipedia definition of "Special Pleading" then please post an alternate one.
I actually liked the Wiki entry because it goes into more detail with examples and sites multiple sources, but here's the Oxford Dictionary definition of the term:

special pleading
noun
[mass noun]
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view:
he has produced a piece of special pleading that does not wholly stand up.

I'll give you a logical fallacy.
To NOT exist, EVERY SINGLE Bigfoot sighting, footprint, video, photo, unclassified hair sample, etc. EVER DOCUMENTED would have to be a misindentification or hoax. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
We're talking THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS, going back HUNDREDS of years on nearly every continent.
That is statistically IMPOSSIBLE.

There are actually a surprisingly huge number of beliefs people have held for hundreds of years (the speed of falling heavy objects vs. lighter objects, bleeding for medicinal purposes, the study of alchemy, belief in fairies...) so it wouldn't be unprecedented by any stretch - again, this why we NEED science.

BUT, my main argument (which I think I've gone to lengths to state clearly and in as much detail as possible) is that the evidence we have isn't strong enough to make a good assessment yet. I'm not dismissing the evidence, it's just not strong enough yet. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these sitings are people seeing an unusual animal - jumping to the conclusion that the animal is a new species is a whole separate scientific issue. Identifying a new species requires an examination of the animal in question. You want a new unverified method to be accepted - and that's the problem.

[Brazoo]

I'm not saying tall tales are better than science. Clearly tho, we do have an animal which is what people call sea serpents. The name should fit the animal I think. Oarfish doesn't do it justice. We do have giant squids, regardless.

You still continue to look at the glass as 1/2 empty instead of 1/2 full.

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end." - Mr. Spock

I agree with the Spock quote you posted. Ironically I think it underlines my view very well. I think one new piece of knowledge should open more doors - not shut other doors. Since the oarfish is clearly NOT the creature that reportedly attacked ships why not leave that door open for new discoveries? I'm not sure where you think I'm being pessimistic about this.

Like, if a previously unknown species of mammals were found in North America - and they were kinda like Bigfoot, but half the size of a reported Bigfoot - would you want them to be called "Bigfoot" just to get the debate over with? Or would you want science to leave a door open for an animal that fits Bigfoot better?

I think what you're saying does underline a fundamental difference here though: I'm fine with leaving things open until I have better data. I don't understand why that's considered a negative attitude. I'm PRO Bigfoot research. I just want the research to get better.

[Zemo]

Oar fish can get to 50' that is documented. It's not that much of a rarity. I wish someone show 1 Bigfoot skeleton or 1 alien skeleton. They can't cause they don't exist.

[johnmiic]

I agree with the Spock quote you posted. Ironically I think it underlines my view very well.

I rather think the opposite. Your all about making logical statements and argument after argument but real life is not always logical. Things do not always fit neatly into a view you are comfortable with. Perhaps closer to the point the quote was making.

Since the oarfish is clearly NOT the creature that reportedly attacked ships why not leave that door open for new discoveries? I'm not sure where you think I'm being pessimistic about this.

Whether oarfish attacked ships or not it looks like a serpent and likely was responsible for some sightings. Were any ships ever attacked by any sea creature? Do we have documentation of that? You seem to selectively accept that but reject that the fish was/is a sea serpent even tho it "clearly" fits that description.

I think what you're saying does underline a fundamental difference here though: I'm fine with leaving things open until I have better data. I don't understand why that's considered a negative attitude. I'm PRO Bigfoot research. I just want the research to get better.

To consistently knock people down and smack-down the argument time and time again, just because you can, is not leaving the argument open-it's trying to get the last word instead of allowing for the possibility that something exists. To have someone keep coming back relentlessly and saying there's no good evidence, which is an opinion, is a negative attitude.

[Zemo]

I rather think the opposite. Your all about making logical statements and argument after argument but real life is not always logical. Things do not always fit neatly into a view you are comfortable with. Perhaps closer to the point the quote was making.



Whether oarfish attacked ships or not it looks like a serpent and likely was responsible for some sightings. Were any ships ever attacked by any sea creature? Do we have documentation of that? You seem to selectively accept that but reject that the fish was/is a sea serpent even tho it "clearly" fits that description.



To consistently knock people down and smack-down the argument time and time again, just because you can, is not leaving the argument open-it's trying to get the last word instead of allowing for the possibility that something exists. To have someone keep coming back relentlessly and saying there's no good evidence, which is an opinion, is a negative attitude.

Really? People that continue gp with theory should provided Concert evidence, it's all ways lacking. I believed in Santa, till the ole man told me it was him...

[sprytel]

Really? People that continue gp with theory should provided Concert evidence, it's all ways lacking. I believed in Santa, till the ole man told me it was him...

I have Concert evidence, but I admit it is All Ways lacking... because it was a One Direction concert.

(Sorry, I'm immature and apparently easily amused by autocorrect)

[Zemo]

lol

[Brazoo]

I rather think the opposite. Your all about making logical statements and argument after argument but real life is not always logical. Things do not always fit neatly into a view you are comfortable with. Perhaps closer to the point the quote was making.

I'll concede that I don't remember the context of the quote, so it's likely I misinterpreted it based on what you wrote. I think we can both agree that Spock is a fictional character, and not an actual expert on real-world "logic". I love Spock, but his philosophy doesn't really represent what I'm talking about.

I'm not arguing for the mis-termed and misappropriated "logic" of movies and TV shows, I'm arguing for critical thinking, scientific process and reason.

The whole point I'm making is that sometimes the facts don't "neatly" fit into views we're comfortable with (so we agree completely there). I'm saying sometimes we have to reserve our opinions rather than fill gaps of knowledge with stuff we invent just to get a complete picture. That would be making things "neat" in my opinion. What I'm proposing is that we sometimes have to wait for more data to solve mysteries - it's sometimes messy complex stuff - and we have to learn to be fine with that and not jump to conclusions to just fill a gap.

Whether oarfish attacked ships or not it looks like a serpent and likely was responsible for some sightings. Were any ships ever attacked by any sea creature? Do we have documentation of that? You seem to selectively accept that but reject that the fish was/is a sea serpent even tho it "clearly" fits that description.

I'm saying the claims of sea serpents attacking ships and sailors are documented in many historical sources and legends - which YOU also alluded to. I'm not arguing that what was documented was accurate - accurate or not, oarfish doesn't answer the whole mystery. It might answer part - but we may never have more understanding of that mystery - or a new creature may show up to answer everything tomorrow - who knows?

ADDED LATER: I'm reading now that oarfish were discovered and categorized before giant 20' to 30' deep sea oarfish we are discussing were identified - which sheds new light on how it got it's name. (It's proper scientific name is Regalecus glesne, by the way.) Again, not to be overly combative, but I don't see a conspiracy here, they just identified that these were gigantic versions of creatures that already had a common name.

Let's say they find a big primate in North America, and it's got little feet that look nothing like the ones Krantz claims to have verified, or the animal looks nothing like the one in the P&G movie - I think it would be wrong to call that creature a Bigfoot. Even though I don't believe those lines of evidence are strong enough to confirm, I'd want to leave that name open for the possibility that they might. To me that seems fair - plus, it would totally suck if we called something Bigfoot and it had tiny feet! What a let down!

To consistently knock people down and smack-down the argument time and time again, just because you can, is not leaving the argument open

First of all, it's not my intention to "knock people down" at all. The only reason I got involved in this thread was because MY beliefs were being misrepresented here. I've tried to defend my position respectfully without making any accusations or insults - but if I have not I apologize.

-it's trying to get the last word instead of allowing for the possibility that something exists.

I guess it doesn't matter how many times I carefully articulate my actual position - you keep going back to your original assumptions. I find that disrespectful, but fair enough. For the last time: I think Bigfoot IS possible, I just don't think the evidence is strong enough to believe in it yet.

To have someone keep coming back relentlessly and saying there's no good evidence, which is an opinion, is a negative attitude.

Okay, I have no interest in debating you further about the strength of Bigfoot evidence since you are offended. Again, the only reason why I'm here is to defend the scientific skeptical opinion because I don't think it's cool that it keeps being misrepresented or misinterpreted by people here. Since you're accusing me of having a negative attitude I think I have the right to defend myself though:

My heroes use skepticism in positive ways, people who are open to the mysteries of the universe and who passionately encourage the search for truth.

People who think like this:

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”
— Galileo

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."
— Carl Sagan

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

[hawkmike]

amazing, and on the same week yeti was shown to be an long dead polar bear, the proff is out there.....why don't they just add benny hill music to the videos??!! i originally come from the pacfic nw and have heard stories and have own opinions it's just you get a couple of loons on the news and it's a circus.
as far as getting ribbed a nephews nickname for is sasquatch and a friend took of map of sighting in northern idaho and matched the sightings to towns i lived in 10 of the 12 cities in fact,the reason this is kinda of funny to me is i'm 5 feet 6 inches tall.