Not even dead ones, like this one?

Ken V.

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.

Not even dead ones, like this one?

Ken V.

Nope. The Cosmic Jester doesn't play that way. As William James said about Spiritualism, (paraphrasing), "There's just enough evidence to convince believers, never enough to convince skeptics."

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

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.

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

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.

Nope. The Cosmic Jester doesn't play that way. As William James said about Spiritualism, (paraphrasing), "There's just enough evidence to convince believers, never enough to convince skeptics."

Are you drunk again?

Ken V.

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.

The worlds smallest snake? That was pretty recent. In fact I read about it just today. Maybe you meant the "celeocanth". (but that's kinda old news now.) The list is long on newly discovered species.

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.

Fisherman recently caught a giant squid. I forget if it was off of Japan or Antarctica or where. Before that, there had been speculation of its existence, but none had ever been seen. SO my point is merely that just because it's odd, doesn't mean it's necessarily photoshopped. It could be a severely deformed pig or raccoon or other animal as has been speculated. Or in an accelerated state of decay. Some place speculated that it may be a turtle without its shell. There's NO way of knowing without having the specimen. And if we don't get the specimen, that doesn't automatically make it a fake; it just continues to be an unknown.

I'm still not sure if that is what you were getting at.

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.

Since when has the critter being "obliging" had anything to do with it? Several DEEP sea species have recently been found. They didn't "oblige." We just haven't had the ability to get that deep or find them before. There's still a LOT down in the deep oceans that we don't know about .... yet.

Since when has the critter being "obliging" had anything to do with it? Several DEEP sea species have recently been found. They didn't "oblige." We just haven't had the ability to get that deep or find them before. There's still a LOT down in the deep oceans that we don't know about .... yet.

I believe that was Ken's original point. He responded to Bluesman saying that animals weren't obliging enough to have their pictures taken, and Ken said approximately not if they're dead. I think.

Fisherman recently caught a giant squid. I forget if it was off of Japan or Antarctica or where. Before that, there had been speculation of its existence, but none had ever been seen. SO my point is merely that just because it's odd, doesn't mean it's necessarily photoshopped.

I never said it was photoshopped, it was Clueless Mike who made that accusation.

It could be a severely deformed pig or raccoon or other animal as has been speculated. Or in an accelerated state of decay.

It could be a lot of things. I never made any sort of comment on what it was, or wasn't.

Some place speculated that it may be a turtle without its shell.

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.

There's NO way of knowing without having the specimen. And if we don't get the specimen, that doesn't automatically make it a fake; it just continues to be an unknown.

Why are you telling me all this? It was Clueless Mike who made those sorts of allegations.

I'm still not sure if that is what you were getting at.

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

Since when has the critter being "obliging" had anything to do with it? Several DEEP sea species have recently been found. They didn't "oblige." We just haven't had the ability to get that deep or find them before. There's still a LOT down in the deep oceans that we don't know about .... yet.

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.

I believe that was Ken's original point. He responded to Bluesman saying that animals weren't obliging enough to have their pictures taken, and Ken said approximately not if they're dead. I think.

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

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

Yep.