Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

norseman
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Champ has gills like a big fish and eats whatever really big fish eat because it’s prob just a big fish of some kind.

 

Probably?

 

Fish do not echolocate..... while I take great interest in cryptids and the evidence people capture? Physical proof is still required for obvious reasons.

 

That does not mean science has all the answers and there is nothing left to discover. I take great interest in the evidence available.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ The correct phrase there, imo, might be: 'no fish species has been proven to echolocate'.  I get a kick when 'Science' makes definitive statements regarding subject matter that can never logically be denied 100% and so many statements which are proven later to be patently wrong.  

 

Still looking for an Ape costume that convincingly disguises the articulation point of a human elbow.  I think we haven't seen such a costume because the elbow location (and many other aspects of the PGf subject) are impossible to replicate realistically.  If it was possible to replicate the PGf subject realistically then, that would have been done at least a dozen times by now. 

Edited by xspider1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Looks like sturgeon, but there are only occasional, unconfirmed reports of sturgeon north of Southeast Alaska. Many believe the Lake Illiamna monster is a giant sturgeon (there's video out there of that guy taken from aircraft). Fairbanks is approaching a thousand miles from the Bering Sea, which is another thousand miles or more from Southeast. The same authority I'm trying to find to bless sasquatches and Nessie's echo location apparently prefers to remain hidden regarding monsters in the Tanana River, too. Video, even from an "authority" like a BLM government guy, isn't going to cut it. Gotta' kill it, find this secretive authority figure, surrender the dead monster, then pray he doesn't throw you in jail for killing it.

 

5 hours ago, Twist said:

The term "definitive" (aka decisive) is brought up by Sweaty, as far as what authority is deemed as "the" "authority" that is up to Sweaty to define.........

 

The individual operating the audio equipment is the authority. He has already written that. He has found it "definitive".

 

Quote

........My term I brought up and could be debated is "skewed"  as you acknowledged by the "quotation marks" and your own statement,  

 


"So, I accept your premise that Sweaty's definition is "skewed", I stand by my idea that his idea of "definitive" is skewed.  

 

 

If you cannot provide your "authority, it is not skewed. It is "definitive".

 

Do you claim to be an authority on echo location or vocabulary? I've already posted the definition of "definitive" from an appropriate authority.

Edited by Huntster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
18 hours ago, norseman said:

 

CORRECT!

 

How many chromosomes does Champ have? Does it have lungs or gills? What does it eat? What genus does it belong too? 

 

 

It doesn't matter, Norse....the creature echolocates

 

Quote

If no one can provide physical evidence of a unknown creature in the lake? Science will begin looking for alternative explanations for a recording that seems to be a one-off event.

 

A clue for Norse.....'sound' is a physical thing. It is a vibration of the physical substance called 'water'....(caused by a physical object/being.)

 

There is physical evidence supporting the claimed sightings. There is a creature in the Lake which echolocates. 

 

 

Quote

Maybe someone was playing Flipper down at the other end of the lake. Maybe it was a new propeller that is responsible for the noise?

 

Maybe it was...."a coincidence"....as Curly used to love to say. ;) 

 

The woman giving the presentation, Elizabeth, gave examples of what people would suggest for alternate explanations...."You heard a boat"...etc. And you did exactly the same thing....producing alternate explanations, on the ridiculous side.  

 

The signal was not produced by someone under the water playing a tape of Flipper.  :wacko: 

 

 

Quote

You really do not understand how science works or what the definition of proof means. You CANNOT prove a new species exists based on some audio recordings. You can be compelled enough to go look and try to locate the animal and get a dna sample or capture it or kill it as a type specimen. 

 

'Science' works by analyzing the available evidence...and assigning 'weights/probabilities' to the bits of evidence analyzed.

 

In the case of 'echolocation signals', in general....the probability would be extremely low that they'd be caused by people playing cassette tapes underwater....or that they were caused by boat props....or, by commonly-known fresh water fish. 

 

In the case of this particular signal...the probability of it being caused by a resident lake creature is extremely high....and, therefore...we can say with reasonable certainty that there is an unidentified creature in the waters of Lake Champlain.

 

While the echolocation signal does not rise to the level of 'hard proof', which can get the creature catalogued...and recognized/accepted by Official Scientists....it does rise to a level of 'proof' which can cause the general public to be certain that an unidentified, echo-locating creature exists within the Lake.

 

Again...my point is that scientific analysis of video, and audio evidence can provide definitive enough results for the 'average person' to be certain of what is being seen, or heard....regardless of what is required by accredited scientists in order for them to recognize, and catalogue new species.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Travis

^^ Count the fallacies, win a prize!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
3 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

It doesn't matter, Norse....the creature echolocates

 

 

A clue for Norse.....'sound' is a physical thing. It is a vibration of the physical substance called 'water'....(caused by a physical object/being.)

 

There is physical evidence supporting the claimed sightings. There is a creature in the Lake which echolocates. 

 

 

 

Maybe it was...."a coincidence"....as Curly used to love to say. ;) 

 

The woman giving the presentation, Elizabeth, gave examples of what people would suggest for alternate explanations...."You heard a boat"...etc. And you did exactly the same thing....producing alternate explanations, on the ridiculous side.  

 

The signal was not produced by someone under the water playing a tape of Flipper.  :wacko: 

 

 

 

'Science' works by analyzing the available evidence...and assigning 'weights/probabilities' to the bits of evidence analyzed.

 

In the case of 'echolocation signals', in general....the probability would be extremely low that they'd be caused by people playing cassette tapes underwater....or that they were caused by boat props....or, by commonly-known fresh water fish. 

 

In the case of this particular signal...the probability of it being caused by a resident lake creature is extremely high....and, therefore...we can say with reasonable certainty that there is an unidentified creature in the waters of Lake Champlain.

 

While the echolocation signal does not rise to the level of 'hard proof', which can get the creature catalogued...and recognized/accepted by Official Scientists....it does rise to a level of 'proof' which can cause the general public to be certain that an unidentified, echo-locating creature exists within the Lake.

 

Again...my point is that scientific analysis of video, and audio evidence can provide definitive enough results for the 'average person' to be certain of what is being seen, or heard....regardless of what is required by accredited scientists in order for them to recognize, and catalogue new species.

 

What creature!?

 

Im laying in bed right now listening to my cattle moo on the mountain. I cannot grill a moo. It’s absolutely NOT physical evidence of anything. Unless I can follow the moo back to the cow. Easy. Unless in reality I don’t own cattle and there isn’t a cow within 50 miles of my house..... Then I have two options. I heard something that sounded like a moo but is not. Or it’s all in my head.

 

What’s ridiculous is that you fully accept a unknown creature is in the lake based on ONE recording. If a breeding population of Chappies live in the lake? Then you should be able to record echolocation every time you through a mic in the water. Triangulate it and find the creatures using it to hunt. 

 

You understand that science is based on repeatable results, yes? Not one offs?

 

Your interest isn’t in providing scientific proof.... but instead to perpetuate a myth to the masses. I hate that.

 

If your reasonably sure a unknown creature uses echolocation in lake Champlain? Go buy a boat and a harpoon. If you score I will proclaim you victorious!

 

Im from Missouri..... show me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
39 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

What creature!?

 

The one echo-locating:) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
7 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

..........While the echolocation signal does not rise to the level of 'hard proof', which can get the creature catalogued...and recognized/accepted by Official Scientists....it does rise to a level of 'proof' which can cause the general public to be certain that an unidentified, echo-locating creature exists within the Lake..........

 

More importantly, while this "definitive evidence" doesn't qualify as indisputable proof, it DOES add to the COLLECTION of evidence that clearly JUSTIFIES continuing scientific funding to determine the truth regarding the legend and reports.

 

The above statement also is the primary indictment of official government resource management agencies with regard to sasquatchery. Their intentional neglect rises to the level of criminal corruption, especially if this species is going extinct, even if just in particular locales like Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

The one echo-locating:) 

 

 Awesome! I got a sailfish on my wall myself. Show me a dock scale pic!?

 

Examples below.

79F144D5-3CA8-489C-B2A0-F2DCBAD73BA4.jpeg

58DBB5EC-0CDB-42ED-BFC1-2FF8756BE5F9.jpeg

4 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

More importantly, while this "definitive evidence" doesn't qualify as indisputable proof, it DOES add to the COLLECTION of evidence that clearly JUSTIFIES continuing scientific funding to determine the truth regarding the legend and reports.

 

The above statement also is the primary indictment of official government resource management agencies with regard to sasquatchery. Their intentional neglect rises to the level of criminal corruption, especially if this species is going extinct, even if just in particular locales like Florida.

 

Absolutely. But it will fall to amateurs who are willing to go out on a limb long before any scientist with a reputation to uphold will touch it.

 

Ive been watching the History channel’s unidentified. (UFO) They deal with the exact same stigma as we do. Except I have no idea how they can prove anything. If FA 18 super hornets can not engage these things? What’s Joe Schmo supposed to do about it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
3 hours ago, Travis said:

^^ Count the fallacies, win a prize!

 

Your prize:

750B47AE-47F3-49C9-8914-EDA7AD616A24.jpeg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
19 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

58DBB5EC-0CDB-42ED-BFC1-2FF8756BE5F9.jpeg

 

Holy crap! That's the biggest thresher I've ever seen!

 

It's a hoax. It's a white shark in a thresher shark suit.

 

Prove otherwise. In the spirit of sasquatch denialists, the burden is on you to actually prove that is a real thresher shark, and guess what? The testimony of the photographer, fisherman, and spectators don't count. Only that carcass will do.

 

.........Absolutely. But it will fall to amateurs who are willing to go out on a limb long before any scientist with a reputation to uphold will touch it.........

 

Correct. It's my intention to ruin or challenge those "reputations" well before discovery so that discovery will finish them off, alive or dead and "esteemed".

 

.........

Ive been watching the History channel’s unidentified. (UFO) They deal with the exact same stigma as we do. Except I have no idea how they can prove anything. If FA 18 super hornets can not engage these things? What’s Joe Schmo supposed to do about it? 

 

Yup, except fighter pilots can and would engage (ever meet some of those guys?.......they're nuts, and I mean that with the utmost respect)........except they have strict rules of engagement. 

 

I'm repeatedly suggesting that government resource managers also have strict rules of engagement with respect to sasquatches and sasquatch reports from the public, and their behavior almost scientifically proves my suggestion.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
10 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Probably?

 

Fish do not echolocate..... while I take great interest in cryptids and the evidence people capture? Physical proof is still required for obvious reasons.

 

That does not mean science has all the answers and there is nothing left to discover. I take great interest in the evidence available.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not the best person to comment on these lake monsters.  On their face, I just consider them unlikely to be any new unusual Dinosaur-like creature.   If there is some impressive stuff going I say great.  I would love it to be the case.   I am not an informed watcher of that issue I will gladly admit.  Animal Sonar or chirp (like a bat under water) being picked up by some scan is an important thing to look into.  Something has to be making the noise if accurately picked up by the scanner.

 

Take the Loch Ness monster.  For me, a Nessie -in the spirit of how we would all hope Nessie would be- has a 0% chance of being real.  There are some hoaxes here and there but most of the time I think it is wishful thinking observers, cases of mistaken identity of wave action, and so on.  Loch Ness has had some fairly serious study devoted to it.  Think if that level of study was devoted to the issue of Bigfoot.  

 

As far as Champ is concerned I leave it possible there is some large regular fish(s) in any big lake that occasionally make activity which we might view as something bigger/ unusual.  Big waves and big splash. who knows.  Yes, there could be a creature of some sort but I am not betting on it.  Also, I highly doubt these would be air- breathing the way a whale has to come up for air at some point.  That would make Champ seen on a regular basis.

 

I hope Champ is there with a bunch of little Champs.  

 

I compare it to a whale watching tour I had in Mexico a few years back:

 

Admittingly, whales have to come up for air so that part of their need makes it a bit of apples and oranges example.  Still, when under water whales are a large creature under water hidden.  I think how easy it was for my "boat capt." to use sonar to go right where the whales were.  Eventually they surfaced and we got to see them.  It was super easy for the boat crew to go right to them.  Anything at least whale- sized can be tracked or followed under water at least in the case of whales.  This was not some $$$$ full of scientific equipment like National Geo but standard tour boat in Mexico using whatever basic systems they processed. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

If "Lilly" (Lake Illiamna monster" is a huge sturgeon, that is a huge biological discovery.

 

If a large sturgeon traveled a thousand miles up the Yukon and Tanana Rivers, that is also a huge biological discovery. 

 

Look what happened here a few years ago when a California grey whale foolishly decided to travel up the Kuskokwim River in Alaska.......

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/native-hunters-kill-whale-that-made-its-way-to-alaska-river/

 

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-alaska/2017/07/31/animal-hunted-in-the-kuskokwim-river-identified-as-a-gray-whale/

 

https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/US-wont-prosecute-Alaskans-for-gray-whale-kill-484996411.html

 

Now, do you think you could have gotten away with killing that whale had you done so to prove that it travels over a hundred miles upriver? 

 

Why is the federal government all over this (even though every Alaskan alive knew there was going to be no criminal prosecution, because these people get away with this time and time again), yet they were so perfectly quiet when Patterson published his film in 1967.......and since? To this day, not a peep from USFWS or the California Dept of Fish and Wildlife (they changed their name some years back to remove "Game" from their title..........words and perceptions are important, don't you know............)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
54 minutes ago, Huntster said:

If "Lilly" (Lake Illiamna monster" is a huge sturgeon, that is a huge biological discovery.

 

If a large sturgeon traveled a thousand miles up the Yukon and Tanana Rivers, that is also a huge biological discovery. 

 

Look what happened here a few years ago when a California grey whale foolishly decided to travel up the Kuskokwim River in Alaska.......

 

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/native-hunters-kill-whale-that-made-its-way-to-alaska-river/

 

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-alaska/2017/07/31/animal-hunted-in-the-kuskokwim-river-identified-as-a-gray-whale/

 

https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/US-wont-prosecute-Alaskans-for-gray-whale-kill-484996411.html

 

Now, do you think you could have gotten away with killing that whale had you done so to prove that it travels over a hundred miles upriver? 

 

Why is the federal government all over this (even though every Alaskan alive knew there was going to be no criminal prosecution, because these people get away with this time and time again), yet they were so perfectly quiet when Patterson published his film in 1967.......and since? To this day, not a peep from USFWS or the California Dept of Fish and Wildlife (they changed their name some years back to remove "Game" from their title..........words and perceptions are important, don't you know............)

 

From Iceland.

 

 

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Holy crap! That's the biggest thresher I've ever seen!

 

It's a hoax. It's a white shark in a thresher shark suit.

 

Prove otherwise. In the spirit of sasquatch denialists, the burden is on you to actually prove that is a real thresher shark, and guess what? The testimony of the photographer, fisherman, and spectators don't count. Only that carcass will do.

 

 

 

 

Correct. It's my intention to ruin or challenge those "reputations" well before discovery so that discovery will finish them off, alive or dead and "esteemed".

 

 

 

 

Yup, except fighter pilots can and would engage (ever meet some of those guys?.......they're nuts, and I mean that with the utmost respect)........except they have strict rules of engagement. 

 

I'm repeatedly suggesting that government resource managers also have strict rules of engagement with respect to sasquatches and sasquatch reports from the public, and their behavior almost scientifically proves my suggestion.

 

 

 

 

 

I’ve ate thresher shark in my life. Cannot say I liked it much.... But I’m pretty sure Thresher shark exist. I believe the photo I posted came from Brazil.

 

Well let’s shoot one and watch these government managers get egg all over their face. The more the merrier. If there is a cover up? They will freak. So will the majority of the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
10 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

From Iceland.

 

 

 

Looks just like what was filmed in the Chena River. Must be a rope, huh?

 

........I’ve ate thresher shark in my life. Cannot say I liked it much.... But I’m pretty sure Thresher shark exist. I believe the photo I posted came from Brazil........

 

Oh, yeah, thresher sharks exist. I've caught one. California has a significant thresher shark fishery. But I've never seen one that BIG!

 

Sasquatches exist, too. I've seen trace evidence. Thousands of people have seen them. They are part and parcel of aboriginal history. 

 

Thus, in accordance with the denial entitled to me that so many others have expressed with sasquatchery that we see regularly, I say that the thresher shark in your pic is a hoax. Using the exact same logic (verbatim) that the genius Faenor used on this form, I suggest that your pic depicts a white shark in a thresher shark suit, and by their rules, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the thresher shark in your pic is real.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×