IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abominable snowmen , chupacabra , cryptids

Reply
Old 26th January 2013, 06:34 PM   #161
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
Zippy,

The piece about chupacobra was to show the quality of some cryptid "research and analysis," in this case, linked to Clifford Paiva, a supporter of the Clark video. If "woo" means anything, it means the stuff on Paiva's page.

Here is the sea serpent footage, around the 11 minute mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODcUE1080XE
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2013, 06:42 PM   #162
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
Looks to me like a skein of geese flying very low to the water and then landing.
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2013, 07:16 PM   #163
Zippy Omicron
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 51
Jerrywayne, I agree that the Paiva stuff is woo. I at first didn't understand that this was not a tongue-in-cheek website that concerned the alleged Chupacabra.
Zippy Omicron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2013, 08:33 PM   #164
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
Jerrywayne, I agree that the Paiva stuff is woo. I at first didn't understand that this was not a tongue-in-cheek website that concerned the alleged Chupacabra.
Zippy,
Yes, it is so bad (woo), I can see why you thought it was tongue-in-cheek.
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 09:13 AM   #165
Zippy Omicron
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 51
I thought I would post this item here, so that people understand where I am coming from.

I will reiterate what I said before: I am not a refuse-nik, but a Skeptic. Skeptics not only keep an open mind, but they welcome new data--whether pro- or con--about the topic of discussion. A better, more encompassing, more accurate assessment can be made with more data (although one has to use discernment as to what "better, more encompassing data" is). And true Skeptics will welcome that.

That is why I have asked for more data in regards to Shrike's and other posters' mention of the trawling. If we can get maps, and if we can get more data on where in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans that this takes place, and on what types of timetables (is this year round? seasonal? etc.) that will help to ascertain what type of human activity is going on in this watery segment. And it may possibly aid in narrowing down (or expanding up) places in the oceans where there is either hardly, or zero, human activity in the depths. Whether it is merely regional, or in actuality seasonal.

That is also why I asked about what size of live creatures do these trawling activities capture. I am aware that porpoises are caught up in it, but I am asking about larger creatures--since the "Sea Serpent" concept is dealing with large creatures. Have live basking sharks (approx 35-40 feet or more) been caught in trawling nets? Have sperm whales? How often has this type of thing taken place? Commonly? Uncommonly? Rarely? That type of data will also aid in what is being caught (in relation to size of ocean life) in the trawling nets as well.

Also, a Skeptic will accede when they are mistaken. I am not beyond that. If anyone can provide data (not an opinion, not a belief) that disproves my notion that the oceans are not well explored (just like NOAA states--95% of the world's oceans are not well explored by Mankind), I will change my viewpoint on that. Refuse-niks will not do that--they will (for example, like some woo believers who continue to this day think that the Patterson film is an authentic, non-staged film of an authentic creature, despite much information to the contrary) continue to find rhetorical ways to say the data presented isn't correct--perhaps to the end of time. "Well, what about this?" "Well, what about that?" Finding a nit to pick doesn't prove or disprove things. But data (hopefully data connected to a peer-reviewed study, or data coming from a grouping or agency that deals in scientific methodology) does.

Skeptics have to be flexible--that is, even if they think some argumentation is incorrect or bunkum or similar in kind, they cannot cling to that viewpoint if the data for the counter-argument is more abundant, and/or points to more fruitful data acquisition that can be had that has potential to provide more insights and clarity of definition to the discussion (for example, I don't like the term "Sea Serpent"--it's a terrible labeling, but it has been used for so long, so it remains in use, and is used by nearly everyone for shorthand for "outisde-the normal-spectrum" type creatures not catalogued by science).

The evidence/data for the argumentation should drive the debate--not merely rhetoric.

That's where I am coming from. Not all Cryptozoology is woo (even if one believes or can show that most of it is), and not all woo is Cryptozoology.

Last edited by Zippy Omicron; 27th January 2013 at 09:15 AM.
Zippy Omicron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 10:00 AM   #166
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
 
jerrywayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,083
George Gaylord Simpson on cryptozoology: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21101714762667

A free account is required.
jerrywayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 12:02 PM   #167
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
The view that the world is fully explored is incorrect.
When I say that the most likely explanation for the 1905 "sea serpent" report is that the witnesses misidentified something that was not, in fact, a sea serpent, that is not the same as me saying that the "world is fully explored."

Do you see that now, or is your angle willful argumentation via the strawman fallacy?
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 03:18 PM   #168
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,300
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
When I say that the most likely explanation for the 1905 "sea serpent" report is that the witnesses misidentified something that was not, in fact, a sea serpent, that is not the same as me saying that the "world is fully explored."

Do you see that now, or is your angle willful argumentation via the strawman fallacy?

I find this position very reasonable.

An observer sees something that they cannot identify. There are only two possible reasons for their inability to identify it:

► What they have observed is something that is unknown to science and therefore they have no frame of reference, or

► What they have observed is something known to science, but the viewing angle, lighting, nature of proximate objects or some other physical phenomena causes the object to appear differently from normality.

While the former is not excluded, the chances of the latter being true are far greater.
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 03:44 PM   #169
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
Skepitcs have to use critical thinking.
And my use of critical thinking indicated the odds are these cryptids are nonsense.

Sea serpents at San Francisco bay? Really?

Arguments on ignorance are not exactly the thing the good use of critical thinking would result in. Neither reliance on anecdotes. Not to mention that regadless if blue whales and giant squids are or nor caught in fishing nets, the fact is that their specimens are available. Any specimen of sea serpent around? Any reliable footage available?
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2013, 04:01 PM   #170
Zippy Omicron
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 51
Shrike,

I see no strawman. I have yet to put up one. However, I am responding to Parcher's comment (posting #150 in this thread) that "But surely we have dragged huge nets through more than 5% of the world's oceans. You can explore and catalog the biodiversity of an ocean by dragging nets through it. We do that already.... It is incomplete but it is still there. The figure "95% unexplored" suggests a complete blankness. As if we have no biodiversity samplings at all for 95% of the oceans."

as well as your comment (posting #151 in this thread) about such drag-net harvesting (and akin activities) that "...When you do things like this in earnest, and globally, for about 5 centuries, you don't leave much of a window open for something large to escape notice and capture."

Which seemed to me to be presupposing that just by the basic mention of the term trawling (without having data in hand about where this is done, how often it is done, how many months of the year is this done, how deep is it done, and the frequency--pelagic or bottom harvesting?, whether creatures of 30, 40 or 50 feet plus have been caught in such trawling nets, how often has that type of event happened, and so on) was an attempt to state that the world's oceans have pretty much--via human activity--been explored, and that the oceans are indeed, pretty much "well explored."

I don't think I misinterpreted the aim of the postings. If I have, you can correct me, and I will accept that I misinterpreted the aim of the comments (that goes for both Parcher and Shrike).

Jerrywayne, I will have to get some more time and read the URL link to the JSTOR article.


Here's an interesting URL link (http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzool...eal-described/) to an article about long-necked pinnipeds, from 2008 by Darren Naish, a paleontologist mentioned earlier on in this thread. Of special interest is the discussion of a publication from 1755 that mentions long-necked seals. Although I have not seen the original piece, Dr. Naish's blog provides an illustration that shows this seal variant from the publication Philosophical Transactions. I don't consider this "absolute proof" (or actionable evidence) of the existence of long-necked seals, but it is another data point of another discussion about it--unverified to be sure.

The concept is/has been floating around (long necked ocean creatures, not from the Mesozoic)--and apparently scientists have been thinking about it. (Not merely/only woo believers.)


And in relation to eyewitness sightings (including a few by scientists) of animals uncatalogued by science, I visited this link only today (from a website provided earlier by Jerrywayne) http://home.access4less.net/~sfseaserpent/id3.html, one can download for free this PDF that is a "special issue" of a periodical named Dracontology. There is an article in there entitled "Cryptocetology and Mathematics: How Many Cetaceans Remain to be Discovered?" by a Michel Raynal. (Starts on page 81 of the PDF.)

I am not highlighting the article for his statistical analysis, but for the listing of sightings of creatures not yet catalogued, including some photographs and technical drawings of the creatures sighted that appears in this particular article. I can't say that all of these are "new" creatures, but some of them just may be (and that there may be a possiblity that the creatures are not misidentified).

Like I said, if you have more data--no matter whether it supports the hypothesis or contra-indicates--post it here in this thread. I read it all. And I think about it all.
Zippy Omicron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 07:31 AM   #171
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
Shrike,

I see no strawman.
Neither Parcher nor I claimed that "the world was fully explored" but that is what you distilled our comments to and argued against. You are arguing against a position that I do not hold, and it's one of your own creation. That is textbook strawman.

Further, I wrote that the lack of such sea serpent creatures through 65 million years of pre-history is a strong indication that these creatures do not exist. If your response to that is "95% of the oceans are unexplored" then you are committing the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance, i.e., "We don't know what's down there - it could be sea serpents."

Despite the logical fallacies, you're right: there could be sea serpents. I acknowledge that and at no point have I indicated that such creatures could not exist. But if they do, then there are some real world problems in explaining the lack of physical evidence for such creatures. For example, if they're big and they need to eat lots of fish, the places our fishermen and whalers have been active for so long are the places with the lots of fish. Productivity and biodiversity in the oceans are not evenly distributed, and the parts that we have explored well are the parts where most of the life resides. If you postulate that these sea serpents reside in the bottom of the Marianas Trench or something, then you've got issues of how they obtain oxygen, how one was happily swimming at the surface that day in 1905, etc.

So the issue is not that such creatures could not exist, it's that the likelihood is very small given the lack of physical evidence for them. When all we have to suggest they do exist are anecdotes from humans - that we know are often incorrect despite how good they might seem - then it's a no brainer as to which scenario is the more likely.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 09:28 AM   #172
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Zippy Omicron, there's an extremely simple way to answer this: go out and look. You know where the thing was seen--simply go to that spot (or, rather, an area a few miles around that spot, the exact size and shape dependant upon the local conditions) and see if you can spot it. See if you can spot any evidence of it. If you can't, the most likely explanation is "The eye witnesses screwed up". There are a myriad of ways for an eye witness to screw up, but an extremely small number of ways to be a large marine predator, after all.

As there been any follow-up work done on any of these sightings? If so, what does that yield? If the follow-up work fails to yield evidence of the critter, the critter probably doesn't exist (and that holds true for ALL critters; it's the reason the ivory-billed woodpecker is convroversial, for example).

It really doesn't matter if you can find a plausable explanation or not. This is science, not a courtroom--reasonable doubt is not the standard here. And plausable explanations lead to Just So Stories, a very dangerous territory for a researcher to wonder into. There is a hypothesis. The next step in science is to seek out evidence that will confirm or refute the hypothesis--NOT to find ways in which the hypothesis can be shown to be plausable.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 10:09 AM   #173
Zippy Omicron
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 51
Shrike,

You are postulating that due to the amount of human activity on the surface of the oceans that more reports of creatures uncatalogued by science should be in hand. What I would say in response is this: How much of a literature search has been conducted to ascertain exactly what has, or has not been reported (have you yourself engaged in such a literature search attempt? If so, please let me know what you have so far uncovered)? I mentioned the 2001 article by Michel Raynal--in that piece he mentions approximately ten sightings of creatures apparently not catalogued by science, although these are not as exotic as the 1905 sighting by Nicoll et. al.

But I also am pointing out that in regards to ocean-based commerce traffic, there are standard shipping lanes, and most times these shipping lanes are the ones used (and creatures can be surfacing, etc. outside of those standard shipping lanes). And although we do not have in hand the data that I mentioned we should make an attempt to have, I suspect that there are particular areas or regions that the trawling--whether pelagic or bottom--is conducted, and even then we do not have data in hand as to whether they have ever caught in their nets ocean denizens of 30 or 40 or 50 foot size. But I would like to actually have in hand that data. And I am making some inquiries as to whether this data can be located.

But I will additionally say that what you are saying is incorrect--I am not making a false argument, or arguing against myself. I am responding to your statements.

But even if I have misinterpreted what you Shrike initially meant, my postulation still stands, and you have not disproven it. I based (in part) my reactions on your comment where you claimed that 5 centuries of fishing proved the likelihood that no large creatures unknown to science exist (and I think that I am interpreting that correctly) because allegedly no reportage/records is/are in hand; I think the 2001 article by Raynal proves that large creatures uncatalogued by science (even if they these appear to be forms of known cetacean species) can exist, even with human activity about the area--and although a comprehensive literature search has not been done, it appears that these creatures were not reported before (in published format) the sightings mentioned, or claimed to be commonly known in the literature.

But again, one of the limiting factors is that there has not been a comprehensive literature search conducted. Otherwise, the 18th century document that mentioned long-necked seals would have been quoted by you (or any Skeptic interested in this topical discussion) earlier on.

Dinwar, I can point to one case of a sighting of a creature unknown to science (and it is not disputed as far as I can tell, and it seems to be of an exotic type also) that they did indeed go back and attempt to track the critter down and capture it within a contemporaneous time frame of the sighting. But it didn't happen, as far as I can tell. They exactly did what you suggested. The sighting took place in the summer of 1963, off the coast of New Jersey (New York City?), of all places. Dr. Lionel Walford (at the time director of the US Fish & Wildlife Research Center) was one of the eyewitnesses, and it involved crew of the Challenger oceanographic research vessel.

See this link to a UPI newspaper article that contains contemporaneous reportage. You can click on the article, and then move the cursor left-to-right, and up-or-down to read all of it. http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5492,3602322

Note added: However, Dinwar, I do agree with you that a place needs to be chosen. I don't know if the open ocean is the best place, since there are no limiting geographical constraints. Animals travel and migrate over long distances. But I did mention in passing the sightings in the SanFrancisco Bay area, over a number of years by the Clark brothers (the most recent I have seen mentioned is around 2004). And that has land all around it, which would be advantageous for having observation stations on.

Last edited by Zippy Omicron; 28th January 2013 at 10:27 AM.
Zippy Omicron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2013, 12:52 PM   #174
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
Shrike,

You are postulating that due to the amount of human activity on the surface of the oceans that more reports of creatures uncatalogued by science should be in hand.
No I'm not.

1) I'm not merely talking about activity "on the surface". My opinion on this matter includes what we know from fishing nest and trawls, oceanic exploration of the sea floor, deep sea exploration of trenches, oil and gas exploration, dredging, examination of oceanic sediments now exposed, etc. Why do you keep trying to belittle the sum total of oceanic exploration of our species over the past few centuries? Oh wait - I think I know . . .

2) "Reports" of creatures uncatalogued? No, that's not my position either. I never suggested that people don't report seeing strange things at sea, including strange things that could be large creatures thusfar uncollected and described.

3) Why should there be "more" reports if no such creatures actually exist?

Sorry, you're 0-3 on what I think about this which is startling considering how clear I've been: For the 3rd (4th?) time, I find it more likely that the 1905 expedition misidentified something as a sea serpent than that the expedition actually encountered a sea serpent.

Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
What I would say in response is this:
Translation: "My response to my distorted summation of your position is . . . "

Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
How much of a literature search has been conducted . . . I mentioned the 2001 article by Michel Raynal--in that piece he mentions approximately ten sightings of creatures apparently not catalogued by science, . . .
Do you mean this "literature"?

Heinselman, C. (ed) Dracontology Special Number 1: Being an Examination of Unknown Aquatic Animals.

The literature that concerns me about the likelihood of the existence of some cryptid du jour is encapsulated here with the ICZN. The lack of a recognized "sea serpent" on the list tells me that no such creature has ever been collected (whether extant or from fossil remains) since the days of marine reptiles in the Mesozoic. This doesn't mean that one couldn't be collected tomorrow, but it does mean that the likelihood of that happening is exceedingly low, and certainly lower than the likelihood that two guys looking at something across the waves could mistake it for something else.

Yes, Parson's description of a long-necked seal includes measurements suggesting that he actually examined a long-necked seal, a species from a group otherwise known only from fossils. With the original specimen and any other details lost to antiquity, however, there's not much we can do with that information other than "duly note" it and be vigilant for the next opportunity to collect one, should that ever happen.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 08:08 AM   #175
Zippy Omicron
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 51
Shrike,

You said this:

"....

1) I'm not merely talking about activity "on the surface". My opinion on this matter includes what we know from fishing nest and trawls, oceanic exploration of the sea floor, deep sea exploration of trenches, oil and gas exploration, dredging, examination of oceanic sediments now exposed, etc. Why do you keep trying to belittle the sum total of oceanic exploration of our species over the past few centuries?

..."

My response (which has been the same over the entire litany of postings here):


Provide some data. Not merely a statement. Provide some URL links. Or provide some bibliographic citations so I, or anyone else, can go and access that. If you have data that backs up your claims that human activity on the world's oceans (and including the trawling in the oceans, deep-sea oil drilling, and visits from time to time by ROVs, etc.) precludes large animals unknown to, and uncatalogued by, science, then post it. To what I am reading, you appear to be saying that humans are everywhere on the oceans, and apparently by extension, in the oceans--chasing those "pesky sea serpent phantoms" away.

It is not of utility to anyone if you only want to engage in thought experiments. And that is what I am seeing. Provide some data.

That is why I asked you to aid in the search for:

a)--maps of where trawling is done (for example, what particular regions see the most; which regions see both pelagic and bottom-dragging); data/information on frequency of the trawling in the specific oceans--year round? Seasonal? You have not provided any data in response.

b)--data that indicates that large creatures of over 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 feet in length have been captured by these trawling nets--whether pelagic or bottom-drag. Whether basking sharks have been captured in this manner. If this has happened, there has to be at the least some observation reports. You have not provided any
data in response.

c)--provide some conclusions from any literature searches you may have conducted in regards to what you claim as contra-indicating. You have not provided any data in response.

c)—Let me ask you for this as well: Deep-sea oil drilling, usage of oceanographic equipment undersea (like ROVs), even trawling—how much actual space do you think those activities occupy in the ocean, versus the size and volume of the ocean overall? (Whether Pacific, Indian, or Atlantic) Is there a way to find out volume occupied by the human activity versus the overall volume of the particular ocean? There has to be a way to find the answer to this. If we can get the answer to this question, that should go a long way to defining the “boundary” of what you believe is contra-indicating evidence. But you have to do some spade work to do so.

I am asking for your participation in locating this material because I think that this data does exist, and would be helpful to the discussion/debate that is on-going in this thread. I am asking for your participation in garnering data that will help better define the answer to the Ocean Cryptid debate. It may indeed help provide the "boundaries" of where searches (whether literature, or actual physical exploration) will have to go to get further answers.

For you to cogently argue your contra-indicating viewpoint, you have to provide data. Not merely a statement of what you believe (as you say, your "opinion").

I have been providing data. I have been providing data that skilled observers (yes, I attempted to provide those where the eyewitnesses are scientists) have seen creatures unknown to, and uncatalogued by, science. A number of these are in the "large" category. 40 feet, 50 feet, and that includes this July 1963 sighting off of New Jersey that was estimated to be from 40 to 70 feet in length. I have provided several examples now. I have provided Raynal's listing of about 10 creatures for everyone to read, that also include "large" creatures. You have not responded to that data being presented.

And yes, the logic that if 95% of the world's oceans remain unexplored by Man (that is NOAA data, which I provided a link to), then yes, it also means that there is a very high likelihood that there are creatures occupying those oceans that scientists know nothing about. (Are you willing to bet against that?) And yes, the volume and depth of these oceans is not inconsequential. It is not like walking along a sidewalk on Wall Street in Manhattan. There is not any boundaries in the ocean. Creatures maneuver all over the place. Whales (and many other types of ocean denizens) travel thousands of miles in a year. If known creatures are recorded in doing that, what makes you think that other creatures--bound by the same open geographical architecture--wouldn't do the same? Not a semantic debate, not arguing with myself. It is in response to your postings that I am writing this down.

The giant squid has been described for centuries. Some carcasses from time to time wash ashore. But it wasn't until the last few years that a live one was filmed--first by catching one on a hook, and then, even more recently, one in situ in its habitat. What did that take--several hundred years (going from sightings to carcasses to actually have imaging of the creature in its habitat)? Technology helped drive the positive conclusion to this particular "giant creature" search.

Shrike, if you wish to argue semantics, be my guest. But what I would rather get from your postings is the providing of data. Not just statements. Provide some data backing up what you think is contra-indicating evidence. I would welcome that.

Please do that. Even if your view is that my position is bogus, you still have to provide data to back up your point of view, or your opinion doesn't have much value to the discussion/debate here.

Why do you think I spent the time providing URL links. I am not worried about your critique or criticism of the overall intent of the Draconology periodical itself, I am pointing to one specific article that I mentioned, and even more specifically, the listing of creatures uncatalogued by science that appeared in that article that was authored by Raynal.
Zippy Omicron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2013, 12:46 PM   #176
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
Provide some data.
What would like to see for data, the package of "dolphin-safe" tuna on my shelf? Photos of unemployed fisherman in Newfoundland after the Grand Banks' cod fishery collapsed? Do I need to provide "data" to demonstrate for you that some whales are rare because we got too good at chasing and harpooning them?

You seem to be asking for some kind of confirmation of self-evident information. If you seriously are having trouble locating such information, I'll direct you to start here: http://www.noaa.gov/organizations.html.

I also provided you with a link to the ICZN. If you'd like some more user-friendly databases, you might try http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/ms.../msw/index.cfm, http://www.reptile-database.org/, or http://www.seadb.net/. At none of those sites, however, will you find a species matching the description of the object reported in 1905 off the coast of Brazil.

Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
To what I am reading, you appear to be saying that humans are everywhere on the oceans, and apparently by extension, in the oceans--chasing those "pesky sea serpent phantoms" away.
I think the subject of this thread has gone from trawling to trolling, 'cause this looks like the 3rd time you've tried the same strawman.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 08:57 AM   #177
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
Big nets aren't the only way to capture a sea serpent. We also use baited longlines and even individual poles. I figure that you could catch a sea serpent that way but what the hell do I know about sea serpents.

Maybe they are Sea Serpents of the Gaps. They exist in the space-time gap between their continual existence and our confirmation of their existence. Examples: We don't catch them on longlines because they don't take the bait we use. They examine it and swim away. We don't confirm them...that was a Gap. Or we pull the net but miss the serpent by 28 yards. We were that close but no cigar.... that was a Gap. Some guys in 1905 see one but it can't be used as a confirmation... that was a Gap.

This is where they have lived for all of history. They are not intentionally hiding from us. They are just Gappers. This allows hobbyist believers to always say they could be out there. Slam the Skeptic and put them in their place. Get them to admit that the Monster could just be a simple Gapper.

It's the same thing with Bigfoot. You can argue for that just the same as with the sea serpent. Bigfoot lives where we don't go. A guy walked near a complete exposed Bigfoot skeleton in the woods but he missed it by 28 yards. Bigfoot remains a Gapper. Just like the sea serpent.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 10:57 AM   #178
Zippy Omicron
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 51
More data, and more data....

Shrike and Parcher,

You can believe what you would like. You can express any opinion that you like. The JREF forums tolerate all kinds and all points of view. Including Refuse-nik woo (yes, there is not only believer woo on the one end of the spectrum of belief, but on the opposite side of the spectrum the mirror image of such logic as well, that includes the same erroneous assumption architecture, and I think I am seeing some of that here (solely) in this thread). But your opinions are of not much utility if you can't or are unwilling to provide the data that I have asked for. Neither of you have done that up to this point. Don't give me arm waving or thought experiments, or point me to a large database that you yourself haven't provided condensed data extractions from. (When I post things, I attempt to get people to the exact piece of bolstering information/data. And if something shows up in a PDF, I attempt to get them to the pages of interest.) Get the exact sections/pages and provide a URL link if that's possible (if it exists in the database), or cut-and-paste the relevant parts here to this thread so we all can see what bolsters your contra-indicating claims. If you have direct bibliographic citations to the stuff, post that.

I haven't seen either of you do that.

And Shrike, when you resort to name calling, you have lost your argument. So good luck with that.

Since apparently neither Shrike or Parcher truly wish to pin this down, I will point out where you can (hopefully) go to get some of this data. I am gong to do this procedure so that others who are interested can pursue these avenues. And then actually post what they find.

First of all, you have to do a literature search. Any good scientist would do this (including fellow biologists of Shrike's acquaintance). You go to journals. What journals? Good question.

Here is a link that interested parties can go to. It is to Urlich's international periodical index/directory: ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com Many of the periodicals are in English, but many are in foreign languages as well.

And this is where a literature search becomes international in scope. If interested parties in say, Japan or Indonesia or China or Chile or Peru find periodicals in the language familiar to them, it would go some way in reducing the tasking.

Secondly, what type of journals would provide the data that I have asked for earlier on? For example, these kind: Ocean engineering periodicals, and commercial fishing periodicals. And yes, even Congressional reports (USA) about pelagic and bottom-dragging trawling, if they exist. If one visits a unversity library, one can ask the librarians there for some aid in locating these periodicals, and to see if there are any existing Congressional reports about the topics.

Thirdly, I mentioned this previously, is that I would encourage people to write to scientists and those who have expertise in ocean stuides (oceanographers, cetacean specialists, those with an interest ocean eco-systems, etc.) and ask them the question: "Do you think that there remain in the oceans large creatures that are unknown, and uncatalogued by science? If so, why do you conclude that? If not, why not?" That will take the whole discussion here out of the Refuse-nik woo, and place it squarely where I think it should be--people who don't have a vested belief that nothing of significance remains to be discovered in the world's oceans relating to large animals unknown to science. They would be neutral parties.

Another thing that I brought up previously was the URL link to the 2012 article about a paper that was published in a peer-reviewed journal (also in 2012) that estimated that there are upwards of one million species in the oceans, with about two-thirds of those (600,000) unknown to, and uncatalogued by science. That's pretty damning, considering that Shrike and Parcher can't deny/refute that. Additionally, we have NOAA statements stating that 95% of the world's oceans remain unexplored. That also cannot be refuted by either Shrike or Parcher. And considering how much scientific data we do have on hand from ocean studies (and it's considerable), this is a very good indicator about how large these oceans/ocean systems are--there are substantive areas of these realms we don't know anything about.

But that's a good thing. Science is a wide-open field, and the ocean sciences are also wide-open for further research and investigations.

Now I am moving on to linked subjects.

One of the previous issues I said I was going to attempt to explore was the notion of whether there have been a single eyewitness sighting of a creature that resulted in the creature being catalogued by science.

With the help of some others who are interested in this topic as well, I have been able to get an answer to this. And the answer is yes. The proviso is that there was a collection specimen gathered at the time of the sighting, in most of the cases that were presented to me. Although I would add that, interestingly, one of the collection specimens was let go, and another was lost. These collected specimens are identified as holotypes in the literature.

This URL link (to Darren Naish’s blog) is to a bird seen in central Somalia (and is the one that was let go again):
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzool...-burti-boubou/

Interestingly, in the comments there is a reference to ocean topics by a person with a handle of “Jerzy” (January 2009): “Interesting case was Mr. Craig Venter of human genome fame. He collected pelagic sea water when yachting around Bermuda. He found that open tropical sea, which is considered nutrient-poor biological desert, has a lot of DNA of microorganisms too small and uncultivable to find by traditional means. In at least 3 cases, he could make complete microbial genomes from it. So you have complete genetic information of a thing, which nobody ever seen and doesn’t know how it looks like!” Again, this is only an anecdote, but it shows that not everything is known about what is in the oceans and seas.

This URL link is to a recording of a shark, only one caught off the coast of northern Chile, and it seems that this was in 2003: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/44515/0

This URL link is to a single holotype of a fish caught off of Papua New Guinea in 1941, and then later, the specimen became lost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_whiting

This URL link is to an amphibian that was collected in 1969 (Costa Rica) when it was in the midst of laying eggs: http://amphibiaweb.org/cgi/amphib_qu...pecies=obscura

This URL link is to an amphibian (frog) from Tanzania, in approx. 2007 time frame: http://africanamphibians.lifedesks.org/pages/25937

This URL link is to an octopus collected in 1910, off the (eastern?) coast of South Africa: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...20001/art00005

What this tells me is that (from time to time, on occasion) animals can be seen only once, but to be catalogued you have to have a specimen. In regards to once-seen (or rarely seen) creatures that live in the ocean, this “see and grab” activity apparently hasn’t happened as of yet due to the fact that some daunting logistics are involved—how does one capture a large creature (40 feet, 50 feet, or more) upon a chance encounter. I don’t have the answers to that.

Shrike has provided the opinion that no large creatures unknown to science live in the ocean, because of all the human activity in many places around the world. He seems to be making the assumption that large, creatures unknown to, and uncatalogued by science don’t exist where there is human civilization (a lot of human activity) nearby, due to a lack of evidence of such sightings.

I don’t know if we can say that. In my view, the actuality may be the lack of evidence of sighting the creatures may be (in part) a lack of literature searching to find out whether the assumption is so, or not. One may ask whether if there are any such cases currently extant.

I think that we have potentially (notice the conditional word) such a scenario. I think that the sightings by the Clark brothers in the San Francisco bay area (inside the area where the Golden Gate Bridge is) are an indicator that the bay may be a good place to focus activities upon. In a series of recent e-mails with the brothers, I learned that, when they spent the time, the brothers were able to have sightings now and again, and even videotape from the shoreline (in some of their sightings, for minutes at a time) activities out in the bay. They informed me that the last two sightings that they had were on February 8 and 19, 2009 when they went out looking. They are attempting to start up their viewing of the bay again soon, as a number of their sightings have been in the early months of the year, although currently they told me that the main area where they had been parking to look for the animals is being used for the America’s Cup races, and parking has already been restricting cars from parking in the area that they usually use. Since the brothers are doing this on their own free time, without any sponsorship, using equipment that they can afford (which means consumer-type electronics and cameras, and this in turn provides inconclusive, long-distance views of something out in the bay), may indicate that if a more “all in” approach could possibly provide better data.
Zippy Omicron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 11:46 AM   #179
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
It's pretty common here at JREF to get believers wanting to debate and they present themselves as non-believer or fence-sitter or simply in the "evidence gathering stage". But they are believers. I wonder if you Zippy actually are a sea serpent believer but come here saying "I'm just checking it all out" with the idea that you'll get better traction that way.

The Clark Brothers put a hook in your heart and only stacks of data from Shrike and Parcher will pull it out.

I've said in years past that you can't justify the existence of a hypothetical creature just because some other creature was found. They find new frogs pretty frequently so this gives an increased chance to the existence of the Loveland Frog. It's just another species of frog out there waiting for the pickle jar. The discovery of the Saola gives hopes to the discovery of a living Unicorn (a horse species with a horn). They are both very rare ungulates with the Saola having been confirmed very recently. But then we could wonder about a Unicorn Saola and it's like "Dude, after the no-horn variety showed up I'm not willing to rule out the future discovery of a one-horner. You think otherwise? You got any data proving that we would have already found the One-Horn Saola?"
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 12:24 PM   #180
The Shrike
Philosopher
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
Originally Posted by Zippy Omicron View Post
Shrike has provided the opinion that no large creatures unknown to science live in the ocean, . . .
So what should we call it when someone intentionally misrepresents another's opinion in an attempt to bolster their own, and the person does this repeatedly even after it has been pointed out?

I think this is the 4th time, Zippy.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2013, 12:40 PM   #181
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Zippy,

the possibility of unknown creatures of whatever size being found in the oceans is a fascinating one. The stories of eyewitness reports are intriguing, as are reports of creatures that have apparently been seen, analysed and then lost. Your research into these old sightings is exemplary, and your posts are long and well constructed.

Given all that, what I simply don't understand is why you don't put as much effort into reading what others have written as you clearly do into every other aspect of this thread. Misrepresenting The Shrike is entirely unnecessary, and harmful not just to your proposition, but also to the general interest in the thread. I don't want to read about your arguments and misunderstandings, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

So, can I suggest that you give us less poorly thought-through critique of what others aren't actually saying, and more of the reports which don't seem to fit known creatures?

Mike

Last edited by MikeG; 30th January 2013 at 12:41 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.