Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

15 Cadborosaurus's on film..coming September


Zero2Hero

Recommended Posts

Wow; the scientific methos in action!

My guess is you wouldn't know or understand the scientific method if bit you in the rear end and gave you a slow motion PowerPoint presentation designed for preschoolers explaining it.

I didn't see any mention of real scientists reviewing this vid. No real scientist would make such extraordinary claims based on this sort of evidence.

How did they hoax it? have the courtesy to see it before calling it a hoax. Likewise, those who are already speculating as to what it could be (certainly not a cadborosaurus) before seeing it despite that claim of an expert that it is an "unknown animal" are professional level sceptics.

It is more than likely a hoax. We have seen these incredible claims before only to have them die on the vine without explanation, or to have them proven hoaxes, or to have them turn out to be indiscernible video of a subject that could be anything.

What are your supposed expert’s credentials?

As far as I can tell Loren Coleman is just another shyster self proclaimed expert cryptozoologist with a Masters in Social Work, trying to make a dishonest buck off of the gullible.

The idiots making these claims should be more courteous to us by providing a better description of the film, rather than providing the usual vague sensationalism.

This is just a publicity stunt to get us to watch monster quest or one of those BS shows. I strongly suspect this film is of the blurry, grainy, and shaky ilk as all purported crypto films are.

The author states;

If these are whales, moose, otters or other known creatures then they are subtypes that no one has ever seen before

The above statement alone tells me that they can’t tell what it is they are looking at in this film, otherwise the chance that the animals in question could be whales, moose, or otters would not have been brought up. The listed animals range in size from huge to small which tells me there is no size reference.

Whatever the film will ultimately show, it is clear that both the ancient Romans and the ancient American Mound builders knew about Caddy as they memorialized him/her it in their art. That's a pretty good feat to accomplish on a mythological creature!

Take a breath experts!

http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=2193

Your link is a creationist website that states;

The s8intcom Blogger

A Biblical Perspective on Science, Without Apology!

Not even close to credible.

If this is where you get your information then you are on very shaky ground when it comes to real science, and the real world. I would suggest you find a better more realistic source for you to back up your arguments.

Edited by evancj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • sinewave

    22

  • Zero2Hero

    17

  • Pauly Dangerously

    11

  • Grape Soda

    10

Wow; the scientific methos in action! How did they hoax it? have the courtesy to see it before calling it a hoax. Likewise, those who are already speculating as to what it could be (certainly not a cadborosaurus) before seeing it despite that claim of an expert that it is an "unknown animal" are professional level sceptics.

Whatever the film will ultimately show, it is clear that both the ancient Romans and the ancient American Mound builders knew about Caddy as they memorialized him/her it in their art. That's a pretty good feat to accomplish on a mythological creature!

Take a breath experts!

http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=2193

Where do I preorder the DVD?:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see any mention of real scientists reviewing this vid. No real scientist would make such extraordinary claims based on this sort of evidence.

Seeing as the footage has now been sold to a TV company, this would be up to the TV company who they show it to and would hardly discredit the orignal witnesses, nor the story.

What are these extraordinary claims? Are you saying if a real scientist saw a Sasquatch he would convince himself that he had seen otherwise as he had no physical evidence?

What are your supposed expert’s credentials?

As far as I can tell Loren Coleman is just another shyster self proclaimed expert cryptozoologist with a Masters in Social Work, trying to make a dishonest buck off of the gullible.

Don't let your personal opinion get in the way. The man is not the author of the piece, he is just relaying information. Would it make him more credible if he had a masters in cryprozoology? This is just scientific snobbery raising it's ugly head again.

The idiots making these claims should be more courteous to us by providing a better description of the film, rather than providing the usual vague sensationalism.

This is just a publicity stunt to get us to watch monster quest or one of those BS shows. I strongly suspect this film is of the blurry, grainy, and shaky ilk as all purported crypto films are.

The author states;

The above statement alone tells me that they can’t tell what it is they are looking at in this film, otherwise the chance that the animals in question could be whales, moose, or otters would not have been brought up. The listed animals range in size from huge to small which tells me there is no size reference.

I would suggest that these animals were brought up due to them frequently being mentioned as the source of Caddie sightings. For example if I see something in the forest I might state that it was not one of the animals commonly seen ie. a fox or badger etc. This doesn't mean that I am claiming that the animal is similar to a fox or badger. I would think that by not trying to explain what the animal was based on such little evidence, there is more credibility to the account rather than us just having wild claims.

No one here has seen the footage yet, there seems's little point trying to discredit the footage at this point, wouldn't it be better to maintain an open mind and view and draw your own opinions? It's just a shame that intensley negative/skepical views tend to dominate on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here has seen the footage yet, there seems's little point trying to discredit the footage at this point, wouldn't it be better to maintain an open mind and view and draw your own opinions? It's just a shame that intensley negative/skepical views tend to dominate on this forum.

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. The disproportionate influence of skepticism here is due to years of claims such as this not panning out. Why do believers always fall back to the "open mind" defense when they generally only accept a single hypothesis and ignore all of the other possibilities? There is simply no reason to believe this footage is what they claim it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but that is nonsense. The disproportionate influence of skepticism here is due to years of claims such as this not panning out. Why do believers always fall back to the "open mind" defense when they generally only accept a single hypothesis and ignore all of the other possibilities? There is simply no reason to believe this footage is what they claim it is.

The whole open/closed mind things swings both ways. Skofftics are too ready to instantly dismiss sightings/reports etc, often posting their opinion as fact and mentally closing the case. There is no reason to blindly believe it, no, but there is reason for further investigation. There have been over 300 reported sightings of Caddie, thus a reported sighting is not too out of the question, no? We also always talk about how everyone has access to video camera's etc, thus video footage in such a circumstance is not beyond the realm of possibility. It is after all what everyone shout's when someone reports something, however when the videos/photo's surface people scoff or shout, "FAKE!".

Sure this will probably turn out to be BS, but surely the scientific method is about investigation not scoffing when data doesn't fit a certain theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...surely the scientific method is about investigation not scoffing when data doesn't fit a certain theory.

The scientific method is really open for debate as to what actually constitutes the bones of the method, but basically it breaks down as

Observation: Gathering data through the senses or sensory enhancing technologies.

Induction: Drawing general conclusions from the data. Forming hypothesis.

Deduction: Making specific predictions from the general conclusions.

Verification: Checking the predictions against further observations.

So in essence, there is nothing really scientific at all about this whole thing. This is "Hey some guy has a video to sell. Can I look at it? Yep, definitely not an animal I've ever seen. Must be one that only 300 other people have seen. We're special and will rub it in the face of all these skeptics now!"

Somebody saw something. That's it. They made a video and now we are all being told that this is "it", the big reveal...in a month or two. Depending on whether this part time fisherman gets the sum of money he's asking for or not. It's sensationalism, not science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole open/closed mind things swings both ways. Skofftics are too ready to instantly dismiss sightings/reports etc, often posting their opinion as fact and mentally closing the case. There is no reason to blindly believe it, no, but there is reason for further investigation. There have been over 300 reported sightings of Caddie, thus a reported sighting is not too out of the question, no? We also always talk about how everyone has access to video camera's etc, thus video footage in such a circumstance is not beyond the realm of possibility. It is after all what everyone shout's when someone reports something, however when the videos/photo's surface people scoff or shout, "FAKE!".

Sure this will probably turn out to be BS, but surely the scientific method is about investigation not scoffing when data doesn't fit a certain theory.

No! Any resemblance between this and scientific method is purely coincidental. Real scientific endeavor derives from careful planning and hard work followed by published findings in peer reviewed journals. Is there any evidence this has been done? No! Ultimately any findings are tested to establish reproducibility. Has this been done? No! No reputable scientists would create a media circus in lieu of due process. Has this been done? Yes! This unprofessional conduct is deserving of all the scorn and ridicule it has received and more even if it can prove results. This is simply not the correct way to disseminate information about a potentially significant discovery. The demonstrated unwillingness to follow established protocol is very troubling and suggestive of fraud and scientific misconduct of the highest order. If reasonable people are expected to accept this as a valid hypothesis, reasonable methods must be used at every juncture otherwise it is nothing more than a farce.

Sightings are anecdotes. Anecdotes are practically worthless as scientific evidence because they rely solely on the observer's perception which cannot be scientifically verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not buying this at all! A huge find like this, and they are saying you can see it on a tv programe in september. This, by itself tells me that something dodgy is going on here. Chances are, its going to be a bad quality video of something that could be anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here has seen the footage yet, there seems's little point trying to discredit the footage at this point, wouldn't it be better to maintain an open mind and view and draw your own opinions? It's just a shame that intensley negative/skepical views tend to dominate on this forum.

We have seen it all before, amazing fantastic claims that don't even amount to a stinking pile of crap.

Just last month this very same web site reported that a man had a bigfoot family living in his yard. Turns out the guy was mentally unstable and made the whole thing up. What ever happened to the Orang Pendeck proof that was reported by these same people a few months ago? Nothing that’s what!

We hear these incredible reports every few months and none of them ever pan out.

How many hyped up irresponsible, and unverified reports are you going to fall for before you figure it out?

If you read my post carefully you would have understood why I came to the conclusion I did. The author of the article whom saw the footage (and was deliberately vague in his description of it) in so many word told us he could not tell for sure what he was seeing or how big it was.

You go ahead and keep that mind of yours open to whatever you are told and before you know it will be filled with so much bogus crap you will not be able sort out the truth.

Edited by evancj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen it all before, amazing fantastic claims that don't even amount to a stinking pile of crap.

Just last month this very same web site reported that a man had a bigfoot family living in his yard. Turns out the guy was mentally unstable and made the whole thing up. What ever happened to the Orang Pendeck proof that was reported by these same people a few months ago? Nothing that’s what!

We hear these incredible reports every few months and none of them ever pan out.

How many hyped up irresponsible, and unverified reports are you going to fall for before you figure it out?

If you read my post carefully you would have understood why I came to the conclusion I did. The author of the article whom saw the footage (and was deliberately vague in his description of it) in so many word told us he could not tell for sure what he was seeing or how big it was.

You go ahead and keep that mind of yours open to whatever you are told and before you know it will be filled with so much bogus crap you will not be able sort out the truth.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it weird that they were being chased by beluga whales. I thought beluga whales only ate medium to small fish and squid, as well as bottom dwelling crabs, and mullusks? Why would a 5 meter whale be chasing a much longer, but similarly sized overall, creature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it weird that they were being chased by beluga whales. I thought beluga whales only ate medium to small fish and squid, as well as bottom dwelling crabs, and mullusks? Why would a 5 meter whale be chasing a much longer, but similarly sized overall, creature?

New Post from Cryptomundo addressing the [fair] concerns brought up about the supposed footage ...

"Having read the comments on my earlier post regarding purported Cadborosaurus footage from Nushagak Bay, Alaska, I wish to address and clarify some of the points raised by readers of Cryptomundo.

It is not the greatest footage in the world and certainly not on a par with the Patterson/Gimlin film for clarity. However, it is good enough to see the salient points that I have mentioned that Paul and I observed. The final product is in the hands of the production company and I really hope they do it justice. They can choose to show whatever they wish and it may not be what we would have chosen to show to the viewers.

It is difficult to estimate the exact number of creatures in the footage. 10 to 15 seems reasonable from what I could count on and off during my viewing of the footage. It could be less as what we may perceive to be two creature might be humps of just one creature.

You can be obsessive and hold onto numbers as much as you want, but I want to make it clear that these are only estimates. I hope the company had the time and facilities to give us an accurate count of how many animals there were.

The enhancements and magnifications I looked at it were pretty good. I don’t know what the agenda of the production company is and how they intend to portray the incident. All I can say is that from what we were shown, Paul Leblond and I thought these animals were cryptids.

Paul went up to Alaska to be in this program and you will likely see him comment on the creatures in the show. There is the slight possibility that we are mistaken, but that would be choosing the less-likely option as these animals really look like Cadborosaurus.

As for the comment that they were sturgeons, they were not despite the serrated backs. These were not sturgeon type backs. There is another action that I forgot to include which is spouting. It was hard to tell where the spouting came from as far as one of the creatures is concerned as the camera was a bit fuzzy at this time. It could have been from its mouth or elsewhere, but what is clear is that it originated from the animal. I have never heard of beluga whales hunting sturgeon, as was the case in this video.

When the production company elects to announce the program and the particular episode in which the footage will air, I am sure viewers will immediately recognize the program and the network as being reputable and scientific as opposed to sensationalist and idiotic. I have watched the program in question and watch teh channel fairly often and admire both. I would be very, very surprised if they sensationalized this footage.

I would also like to clear up my relationship with my dear friend Loren Coleman, with whom I a, still a close cryptozoological colleague. I used “erstwhile” in the sense of Cryptomundo. I have not been able to post here as often as I wished over the past few years and so I am sort of like an ex-colleague on this forum. My thanks to Craig Woolheater for so graciously allowing me to post on this forum whenever I have need to, such as on this occasion.

Be assured that I will advise the readership as soon as I have any news about the show"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it weird that they were being chased by beluga whales. I thought beluga whales only ate medium to small fish and squid, as well as bottom dwelling crabs, and mullusks? Why would a 5 meter whale be chasing a much longer, but similarly sized overall, creature?

I had the same thought, could simply be that whatever is in the footage is chasing salmon or char and the belugas are simply chasing them as well. I find this to be extremely exciting as this could very well be related to the Iliamna lake monster, one of the more likely cryptids IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?... HOAX!

This footage doesn't exist. end of.

I'll be on here to see you retract that next month :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be on here to see you retract that next month :tu:

I do so hope you'll be here as well to hear the deafening chorus of "told you so".

I for one will proudly admit my error if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how all cryptid photography and videos are always blurry to high hell. You have to imagine where these people find their cameras. Hell a low end cell phone can take pretty amazing pictures these days. I think a cryptid chaser could make a blurry picture out of a brand new canon powershot on "stupid mode"(auto).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be on here to see you retract that next month :tu:

Give me an example of one of these extraordinary claims turning out to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Post from Cryptomundo addressing the [fair] concerns brought up about the supposed footage ...

"Having read the comments on my earlier post regarding purported Cadborosaurus footage from Nushagak Bay, Alaska, I wish to address and clarify some of the points raised by readers of Cryptomundo.

It is not the greatest footage in the world and certainly not on a par with the Patterson/Gimlin film for clarity. However, it is good enough to see the salient points that I have mentioned that Paul and I observed. The final product is in the hands of the production company and I really hope they do it justice. They can choose to show whatever they wish and it may not be what we would have chosen to show to the viewers.

It is difficult to estimate the exact number of creatures in the footage. 10 to 15 seems reasonable from what I could count on and off during my viewing of the footage. It could be less as what we may perceive to be two creature might be humps of just one creature.

You can be obsessive and hold onto numbers as much as you want, but I want to make it clear that these are only estimates. I hope the company had the time and facilities to give us an accurate count of how many animals there were.

The enhancements and magnifications I looked at it were pretty good. I don’t know what the agenda of the production company is and how they intend to portray the incident. All I can say is that from what we were shown, Paul Leblond and I thought these animals were cryptids.

Paul went up to Alaska to be in this program and you will likely see him comment on the creatures in the show. There is the slight possibility that we are mistaken, but that would be choosing the less-likely option as these animals really look like Cadborosaurus.

As for the comment that they were sturgeons, they were not despite the serrated backs. These were not sturgeon type backs. There is another action that I forgot to include which is spouting. It was hard to tell where the spouting came from as far as one of the creatures is concerned as the camera was a bit fuzzy at this time. It could have been from its mouth or elsewhere, but what is clear is that it originated from the animal. I have never heard of beluga whales hunting sturgeon, as was the case in this video.

When the production company elects to announce the program and the particular episode in which the footage will air, I am sure viewers will immediately recognize the program and the network as being reputable and scientific as opposed to sensationalist and idiotic. I have watched the program in question and watch teh channel fairly often and admire both. I would be very, very surprised if they sensationalized this footage.

I would also like to clear up my relationship with my dear friend Loren Coleman, with whom I a, still a close cryptozoological colleague. I used “erstwhile” in the sense of Cryptomundo. I have not been able to post here as often as I wished over the past few years and so I am sort of like an ex-colleague on this forum. My thanks to Craig Woolheater for so graciously allowing me to post on this forum whenever I have need to, such as on this occasion.

Be assured that I will advise the readership as soon as I have any news about the show"

I would have to say I have a hard time trusting this person if he thinks the Patterson film has good clarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me an example of one of these extraordinary claims turning out to be true.

Man walked on the moon using computers that have roughly the processing power of my wristwatch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man walked on the moon using computers that have roughly the processing power of my wristwatch.

thats hard to believe aint it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man walked on the moon using computers that have roughly the processing power of my wristwatch.

Throw in the discovery of a lunar Bigfoot and you many have something there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the second over-explanation of the footage just solidified what i already suspected. this is just shakey, blurry footage that's been sold to "monsterquest"; a show that's lasted for 4 seasons and has YET to yield ANY findings whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say I have a hard time trusting this person if he thinks the Patterson film has good clarity

Considering the Patterson film was taken in 1967 with the subject in focus for the entire duration, I'd tend to agree that the film is about as good as anyone could have wished for, even in the light of modern technology it's probably still the best footage around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the second over-explanation of the footage just solidified what i already suspected. this is just shakey, blurry footage that's been sold to "monsterquest"; a show that's lasted for 4 seasons and has YET to yield ANY findings whatsoever.

I think the footage has been sold to the Discovery channel, so we can probably rule out Monsterquest. The problem with shows of this nature is that one has to be incredibly lucky to chance meet a rare cryptid during the few days spent exploring the area and filming the shows. So in reality, these shows were always highly unlikely to make groundbreaking findings. Some were relatively successful though, python's in america, discovery of large crocodile's, mysterious elongate sonar images in the Congo, the infamous rock throwing Sasquatch (lol!)....

Anyway, here is John Kirk's latest, and last post on the Caddie footage....

Cryptomundo

This will be my last post on this subject until I have further news on when the show will be aired. I have asked the producers for a still from the footage, but am not expecting they will comply with my request.

When readers have seen the footage they will be able to write in these forums of their thoughts and impressions of what they have seen in the footage. If they disagree with the conclusions that Paul Leblond and I have reached from seeing the original footage and enhancements, then that is quite alright.

I don’t have any problem with anyone disagreeing with our findings, that is anyone’s right to do so.

Cadborosaurus is the generic name that we use in British Columbia to describe a north Pacific megaserpent. While some have claimed that Leblond and Bousfield have posited this creature may be a plesiosaur, there is no truth to this. It was a mistaken inference by a couple of scientists that Paul and Ed had said this and has now been widely and erroneously disseminated.

While Ed has said he thinks that this creature is a reptile, Paul is not so sure. Nor am I. I find it hard to believe that a reptile is able to endure the cold waters of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. I don’t know what it is, but I have doubts about reptilian origins.

The idea that the Naden Harbour carcass is a decomposing basking shark is off base. Jim Wakelin – who may yet be alive today – worked at Naden Harbour in October 1937 and told our team a few years ago about his experience with that carcass and he was sure that it was not any known animal. As a flenser, he had seen all types of carcasses and marine animals. This one was so unusual that F.S Huband, the station manager at Naden Harbour, felt the need to photograph it and send tissue samples to Victoria and Nanaimo.

I have no trouble saying that the head of one of the Nushagak Bay creatures and the Naden Harbour carcass looked identical. Paul Leblond and I both spotted this even though we viewed the footage separately.

I do not get the people on this forum that think that this is a hoax. I have been in the cryptozoological community for over 20 years and have been wary about all sorts of claims and hoaxes. I am only coming forward with this information as I feel fairly confident that there are cryptids in the Nushagak Bay footage.

At worst this could be a horrible misidentification on the parts of the man who shot the footage, Paul Leblond, myself, the producers from Discovery Channel and tech people who worked on the footage and a select few others who have viewed the footage and have concluded that this is a group of unknown animals.

For one reader to say that he hopes this is not “Johor Bigfoot the revenge” is uncalled for. That was an outright hoax. This is not a hoax.

I would suggest that people consider the reputation of the Discovery Channel. Do you think that they would perpetrate a hoax? I don’t think so. Discovery Channel – at least here in Canada – have dealt with cryptozoology from a very skeptical perspective, much to my chagrin. However, I understand where they are coming from. For some people to come on this forum and say that Discovery is not an appropriate medium in which to convey footage of a possible new species of animal is ludicrous. It is a much better forum than the other programs one person suggested would be more appropriate.

Paul Leblond and the Hillstrand brothers from Deadliest Catch discussed this creature for the program. Paul then told them to go and catch these animals if they could for the sake of science. I hope this makes it into the program.

Watch the footage when it comes on. If you don’t think it is an unknown species say so. I’ll disagree with you, but I’ll shake your hand afterwards and say you have the right to think whatever you wish to about what you have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.