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

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: "The recently found giant squid comes to mind, and another escapes me.

"There have been several articles in recent years about newly discovered creatures ..... with pics."

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

Ken V.

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

LOL, it threw me too.

Like I said, maybe the fact that I agreed with you threw you off, being so unusual. Let me clear it up:

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.

A post which quotes your post isn't necessarilly a a direct refutation, but occasionally just a continuance of the conversation.

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.

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

Ken V.

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.

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

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

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

Ken V.

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

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

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

That's possible -- likely even. It could also be that you missed the post that I was responding to.

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

I don't think so, but it might help if you went back and reread the posts in linear mode, beginning with post number 8. Or maybe number 7.

Ken V.

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

Similarly, you were refuting a position which I did not take.

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

Then why didn't you address your replies to the one who actually made the comments, instead of to me?

Ken V.

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.

In your place, Ken, I'd ask, "Please go on, Mike. Share your Fortean knowledge with us." But of course, you aren't interested in learning. Much easier to type "Clueless Mike" than ponder unfamiliar concepts.

Poor old Gunny Ken! His slide into dribbling confusion continues unchecked. Oh, the humanity!:cryin:

Could it be a Sphynx Cat, bloated by decomposition?

http://www.moggies.co.uk/breeds/sphynx.html