jimbow8 Wrote:And I was essentially agreeing with him .... which may have been what threw him off. :p

jimbow8 Wrote:And I was essentially agreeing with him .... which may have been what threw him off. :p

Ken Valentine Wrote:Jim, your comment was, to me, a complete non sequitur. Mike effectively said that these sorts of critters don't hold still for photographs, and I asked; "Not even dead ones, like this one?"

You responded to my question with: "Yes, dead ones WILL hold still for photographs. The recently found giant squid comes to mind, __.

"There have been several articles in recent years about newly discovered creatures ..... with pics. In other words, there are many previously unknown/unseen "critters" which have had there pictures taken"

That just didn't make any sense to me . . . it still doesn't.

Ken V.

jimbow8 Wrote:Like I said, maybe the fact that I agreed with you threw you off, being so unusual. Let me clear it up:
A post which quotes your post isn't necessarilly a a direct refutation, but occasionally just a continuance of the conversation.

Ken Valentine Wrote:I never said it was photoshopped, it was Clueless Mike who made that accusation. It could be a lot of things. I never made any sort of comment on what it was, or wasn't. Now THAT one is just plain ridiculous. A turtle's shell is an outgrowth (and part) of its spine on its top side, and its "breastbone" on its underside. The only way to remove a turtles shell is to butcher it.Why are you telling me all this? It was Clueless Mike who made those sorts of allegations.

I was wondering why you were telling that to me, when you should have been addressing these comments to Mike.

Again, you should be telling this to Mike. He's the one who made the "obliging" reference. I just questioned him on it.

Ken V.

Ken Valentine Wrote:Perhaps, but your comment didn't even do that. As I said, to me it was -- and still is -- a non sequitur.

Ken V.

jimbow8 Wrote:It's quite obvious that we don't communicate on the same wavelength.

Quote:Or maybe I'm just drunk?!!??

jimbow8 Wrote:You see, in this post you are defending a position which I was not refuting.

Quote:I wasn't "telling you all this" I was merely posting it subsequent to your comment. It's not all about you.

Ken Valentine Wrote:Clueless Mike wrote; "I suspect that's a photoshop artifact. Anomalous creatures aren't obliging enough to let you get an unambiguous photo. (See the Patterson Bigfoot film, for example.)"

I answered; "Not even dead ones, like this one?"

With that in mind, I don't understand what your referring to here.

Creatures that "aren't obliging enough to let you get an unambiguous photo?" I would imagine that if the critter's dead, you would very likely be able to get all the photo's that you would want.

Ken V.