As far as I know Mansi stated this thing moved around---as in the "neck" moved. Last time I checked floatings logs do not do that.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that maybe this was NOT a plesiosaur but something totally different???
Some people have debated it is prehistoric, but not a plesiousaur---more like an amphibian creature that can live on both land and sea. Champ has been seen on both. How about that? We're the ones that are supposed to be thinking outside of the box...
Depending on the distance from the shore, that must be the BIGGEST floating log in existence.
I actually think the flipper of a whale is actually more credible that a floating river log, Nick.
I know we're discussing the photograph, but how does Radford explain the echo-location sounds that were recorded in the Lake? Do we have a hitherto-unknown colony of dolphins and whales in the Lake?
And countless other sightings that have been witnessed in the Lake throughout the years and centuries?Are they all delusions of local, impressionable yokels?
Taken together, it adds up to a pretty good circumstancial case. Hate to be come off as the "true believer" here, but let's face it, people get convicted in court on FAR less evidence than this. And people can be dismissive all they want that scientific standards do not stack up to legal standards, but---if it's good enough for a court of law, shouldn't it be good enough for us?
I understand that that statement would be construed as "slippery," so to speak, but I would not make it unless I felt there was enormous overwhelming evidence for it. I mean, look at UFOS...
You are an investigator of UFOS, Nick---I'm pretty sure you would state (correct me if I'm wrong) that if there was a trial right now to determine the existence of UFOS, legally we could PROVE the existence of them, right?
SOMETHING is on that Lake. People are trying to get to the bottom of it to settle this once and for all. And this SHOULD be investigated. I like Radford. I even think he gets "ganged up" on Cryptomundo too often for my taste---but at the same time his explanations for what was witnessed or what is happening in an area often make less sense than the "unbelievable" explanation he does not want one to accept. He's saying it is a possibility, not a fact, I'll give him that, but a LOG? Really?
From the interviews and articles that I've read about Mansi it strikes me as her being pretty sure whatever she saw was not a "log." Correct me if I'm wrong. She may not be an expert on marine life, but sure sounds like she could tell the difference between a log and an animate being.
Are we saying she is simply mistaken? Or mistaken AND stupid? Let's do this---why don't we ask her about what she feels about Radford's estimate of what she saw? What does she feel this is???
What is it that Friedman often says about debunkers---"Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up!!!"
I don't agree with everything Stanton says---but on this he is right.
More "horizontal" world thinking to explain something that appears to be "vertical."
C: Yeah, I think the most important point (as you note) is that the case for something weird in the lake doesn't (or shouldn't) stand or fall on the strength (or otherwise) of one photo. Not that the post says that, of course. But I think sometimes there is a tendency for people to dismiss all the data if one famous piece is called into question. Rather, we should look at all the data and determine the overall percentage that suggests yes or no.
As far as I know Mansi stated this thing moved around---as in the "neck" moved. Last time I checked floatings logs do not do that.
ReplyDeleteHas it ever occurred to anyone that maybe this was NOT a plesiosaur but something totally different???
Some people have debated it is prehistoric, but not a plesiousaur---more like an amphibian creature that can live on both land and sea. Champ has been seen on both. How about that? We're the ones that are supposed to be thinking outside of the box...
Depending on the distance from the shore, that must be the BIGGEST floating log in existence.
I actually think the flipper of a whale is actually more credible that a floating river log, Nick.
I know we're discussing the photograph, but how does Radford explain the echo-location sounds that were recorded in the Lake? Do we have a hitherto-unknown colony of dolphins and whales in the Lake?
And countless other sightings that have been witnessed in the Lake throughout the years and centuries?Are they all delusions of local, impressionable yokels?
Taken together, it adds up to a pretty good circumstancial case. Hate to be come off as the "true believer" here, but let's face it, people get convicted in court on FAR less evidence than this. And people can be dismissive all they want that scientific standards do not stack up to legal standards, but---if it's good enough for a court of law, shouldn't it be good enough for us?
I understand that that statement would be construed as "slippery," so to speak, but I would not make it unless I felt there was enormous overwhelming evidence for it. I mean, look at UFOS...
You are an investigator of UFOS, Nick---I'm pretty sure you would state (correct me if I'm wrong) that if there was a trial right now to determine the existence of UFOS, legally we could PROVE the existence of them, right?
SOMETHING is on that Lake. People are trying to get to the bottom of it to settle this once and for all. And this SHOULD be investigated. I like Radford. I even think he gets "ganged up" on Cryptomundo too often for my taste---but at the same time his explanations for what was witnessed or what is happening in an area often make less sense than the "unbelievable" explanation he does not want one to accept. He's saying it is a possibility, not a fact, I'll give him that, but a LOG?
Really?
From the interviews and articles that I've read about Mansi it strikes me as her being pretty sure whatever she saw was not a "log."
Correct me if I'm wrong.
She may not be an expert on marine life, but sure sounds like she could tell the difference between a log and an animate being.
Are we saying she is simply mistaken? Or mistaken AND stupid?
Let's do this---why don't we ask her about what she feels about Radford's estimate of what she saw? What does she feel this is???
What is it that Friedman often says about debunkers---"Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up!!!"
I don't agree with everything Stanton says---but on this he is right.
More "horizontal" world thinking to explain something that appears to be "vertical."
O ye of little imagination...
C:
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think the most important point (as you note) is that the case for something weird in the lake doesn't (or shouldn't) stand or fall on the strength (or otherwise) of one photo. Not that the post says that, of course.
But I think sometimes there is a tendency for people to dismiss all the data if one famous piece is called into question.
Rather, we should look at all the data and determine the overall percentage that suggests yes or no.