The Fortean/paranormal/conspiracy thread

[Surf Digby]

I had Patterson-Gimlin, the surgeon's picture, Japanese plesiosaur carcass, and massive tadpole in shallow water. The first one I got was of a guy sitting on a bench against a wall, with what appeared to be hands coming through the wall and holding onto his waist. According to the back of the card, the negative was examined by Kodak and was therefore ABSOLUTELY GENUINE!Despite this, I don't remember ever seeing it anywhere else.

[matbro1984]

That bloody ghost photo still scares the shit out of me. You fuckers.

 

An old favourite: The cumberland Spaceman

 

[chokeout]

I had Patterson-Gimlin, the surgeon's picture, Japanese plesiosaur carcass, and massive tadpole in shallow water. The first one I got was of a guy sitting on a bench against a wall, with what appeared to be hands coming through the wall and holding onto his waist. According to the back of the card, the negative was examined by Kodak and was therefore ABSOLUTELY GENUINE!Despite this, I don't remember ever seeing it anywhere else.

That one always used to be my fav. Also this one used to freak me out even though its just a monkey on a stick

[WWFChilli]

 

This sonafabitch.

[Loki]

I've just spent a merry 1/2 hour reading about that Hook Island tadpole monster. Seems to have been debunked pretty much at the time as a hoax, weighing down some plastic on the sea floor with sand:

 

 

Much more convincing than a modern photoshop would be though!

[Astro Hollywood]

I've just spent a merry 1/2 hour reading about that Hook Island tadpole monster. Seems to have been debunked pretty much at the time as a hoax, weighing down some plastic on the sea floor with sand:Much more convincing than a modern photoshop would be though!

I'm in two minds about that picture. The weighted plastic was just the typical Fortean 'explanation'. One guy's opinion was that it looked like that, with no smoking gun and nothing beyond his opinion, and suddenly, the case is solved. It's just like how localised mini whirlwinds are the cause of frogs or fish or whatever else raining from the sky, because one scientist suggested it once, even though nobody's ever seen or experienced one of these whirlwinds, or seen the frogs being sucked into the sky, or reported their frogs missing and their ponds empty, nor does it explain why the only thing that comes down is the frogs or fish, and nothing else that would have been there with them at the time. So every time frogs fall from the sky, a whirlwind did it. One more win for the sceptics! People are so quick to smugly cut everything down that the hand-waftings of people in labcoats are blindly accepted immediately, with none of the thought you'd apply to the original claim of the unexplained. None of this is a dig at you, btw, it's just the biggest bee in my paranormal bonnet. It probably is a hoax, but one guy's "it's plastic" carries no more weight with me than some other guy's "it's a giant sea monster". As Fort himself said:

"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere."

For its age, that photo is super convincing. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any modern, Photoshop-era pictures that had half the impact the pictures on this page did, or looked half as convincing.

This sonafabitch.

Now this one is a confirmed hoax, by one Anthony 'Doc' Sheils, self proclaimed conjurer, wizard and mischief maker. He's basically the Fortean Andy Kaufman; wildly eccentric, he was behind the Cornish Owlman, which was sort of a British Mothman, as well as these famous photos of the Cornish sea monster, which he claims to have summoned (with the aid of sexy naked witches cavorting in the moonlight).The Doc himself: Edited May 16, 2012 by Astro Hollywood

[Pinc]

It probably is a hoax, but one guy's "it's plastic" carries no more weight with me than some other guy's "it's a giant sea monster".

But we know for sure that plastic exists, while we don't know for sure that giant tadpoles exist. So in the absence of any further evidence either way the application of Occam's Razor means the former hypothesis does carry more weight than the latter, no?

[Loki]

Yeah, plus the close-up shots certainly look like something with its sides buried in the sand. The other thing is that the posture of the sea monster is identical in all photos from all angles, i.e it's not moving. For something that is so rare it's only been photographed once it's sure happy about sitting motionless in a shallow lagoon.I love cryptozoology as it's one of the few areas of fortean shit that actually stands a chance (and regularly does) cross over into mainstream science. So I'd love that photo to be true. I just reckon it isn't.

[DJ Kris]

It probably is a hoax, but one guy's "it's plastic" carries no more weight with me than some other guy's "it's a giant sea monster".

But we know for sure that plastic exists, while we don't know for sure that giant tadpoles exist. So in the absence of any further evidence either way the application of Occam's Razor means the former hypothesis does carry more weight than the latter, no?

Not necessarily. Is it not true that the oceans are believed to be full of yet to be discovered creatures? Like Astro I think this is probably a hoax too, but someone saying it's plastic doesn't mean it is and I don't see the fact that we know plastic exists adds anything to it that arguement.

[King Pitcos]

Not necessarily. Is it not true that the oceans are believed to be full of yet to be discovered creatures? Like Astro I think this is probably a hoax too, but someone saying it's plastic doesn't mean it is and I don't see the fact that we know plastic exists adds anything to it that arguement.

That's largely because you've dimly misunderstood what Pinc's saying. He wasn't saying "it's definitely 100% a plastic object." He was responding to Astro's comment about the "equal weight" of the two theories (which is something I think a lot of us have mocked the likes of Duane and Kenny about before). "Madeleine McCann was taken by a paedophile ring" and "Madeleine McCann was teleported to a planet where everyone looks like unicorns" are both statements that we can't verify, but that doesn't mean they are both equally valid theories or avenues of investigation as to her fate.

[Loki]

That's spot on Pitcos. In the absence of verifiable facts, not all theories carry the same weight. We can't prove what that thing is in those photos to anything like scientific rigour. However, there is some visual evidence that it could be a cleverly constructed underwater hoax, and that theory is hugely more plausible and re-creatable than it being a previously undiscovered giant sea creature, for which the only evidence is this photo.It's a similar problem with the "argument" for UFOs. "Well", says the believer, "with all these sightings and photos and suchlike, there's definitely SOMETHING out there". Whereas in fact an accumulation of unverifiable and plausibly reinterpreted data means absolutely nothing.

[Pinc]

[Pinc] wasn't saying "it's definitely 100% a plastic object." He was responding to Astro's comment about the "equal weight" of the two theories.

Ta, la.

[DJ Kris]

That's spot on Pitcos. In the absence of verifiable facts, not all theories carry the same weight. We can't prove what that thing is in those photos to anything like scientific rigour. However, there is some visual evidence that it could be a cleverly constructed underwater hoax, and that theory is hugely more plausible and re-creatable than it being a previously undiscovered giant sea creature, for which the only evidence is this photo.It's a similar problem with the "argument" for UFOs. "Well", says the believer, "with all these sightings and photos and suchlike, there's definitely SOMETHING out there". Whereas in fact an accumulation of unverifiable and plausibly reinterpreted data means absolutely nothing.

That's fair enough, I understand your point a lot better now. On the UFO subject the insistance that "all these sighting" is hard evidence of existance is very poor, but so is the flip side of the arguement that I've heard a lot of, that being because we don't have the technology to travel any significant distance in reasonable time it's assumed no one else has or the arguement of if someone out there did, they wouldn't be interested in us.

[Astro Hollywood]

That's spot on Pitcos. In the absence of verifiable facts, not all theories carry the same weight. We can't prove what that thing is in those photos to anything like scientific rigour. However, there is some visual evidence that it could be a cleverly constructed underwater hoax, and that theory is hugely more plausible and re-creatable than it being a previously undiscovered giant sea creature, for which the only evidence is this photo.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, of course, I just hate the blind, instant acceptance of every debunking theory with nobody ever bothering to see if it even makes sense before sticking their nose in the air and yelling "CASE CLOSED!" Again, I'm talking in general terms, that's not a knock on Loki.Don't get me started on that Surgeon's Photo bullshit. Maybe I'll make an unverifiable deathbed claim I was the hoaxer behind some famous case and get to be known forever as the guy who fooled the world. Edited May 16, 2012 by Astro Hollywood

[Loki]

Love cryptozoology. I think the hope of Nessie being real has pretty much faded, but we've got a very plausible hominid Orang Pendek to get excited about:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Pendek