SkinWalkers

[JesseCuster]

Now that doesn't surprise me.

So why don't you explain the methodology you used to conclude that this particular video was a cryptid that is much bigger than a dog and not just what it appears to be - a black and white dog walking down a road at night.

Until you can actually do that, you have no reason to include it as a piece of your jigsaw puzzle. You are applying absolutely no critical thinking to what you are doing, you are so credulous to every single thing that claims to be evidence of a cryptid that you are shoehorning it into whatever man-snake-whatever-rax monster of the week you are trying to argue for, plenty of the evidence is beyond shoddy, it's either blatantly fake like the bird snatching the fox video or it just seems to be something utterly boring and prosaic like the video of a black and white dog posted in this thread.

You seem to think that adding "imv" to the end of a post somehow qualifies it. Saying "this is much bigger than a dog imv" doesn't make an argument.

So can you actually provide an argument for why the crappy video of a black and white dog on a road at night posted above isn't a crappy video of a black and white dog on a road at night but is instead a cryptid that is much larger than a dog? How did you conclude it isn't a dog, is much bigger than a dog and is an undocumented species of animal?

[Rafterman]

So why don't you explain the methodology you used to conclude that this particular video was a cryptid that is much bigger than a dog and not just what it appears to be - a black and white dog walking down a road at night.

Until you can actually do that, you have no reason to include it as a piece of your jigsaw puzzle. You are applying absolutely no critical thinking to what you are doing, you are so credulous to every single thing that claims to be evidence of a cryptid that you are shoehorning it into whatever man-snake-whatever-rax monster of the week you are trying to argue for, plenty of the evidence is beyond shoddy, it's either blatantly fake like the bird snatching the fox video or it just seems to be something utterly boring and prosaic like the video of a black and white dog posted in this thread.

You seem to think that adding "imv" to the end of a post somehow qualifies it. Saying "this is much bigger than a dog imv" doesn't make an argument.

So can you actually provide an argument for why the crappy video of a black and white dog on a road at night posted above isn't a crappy video of a black and white dog on a road at night but is instead a cryptid that is much larger than a dog? How did you conclude it isn't a dog, is much bigger than a dog and is an undocumented species of animal?

I haven't really paid much attention to this thread, but since T-Mane (think T-Pain) brought it up in the Rhode Island thread, I thought I'd come over and have a look.

And yeah, that's about as obvious a dog running down the road as I've ever seen.

As for the Navajo Cops - do any of us really think that proof of the paranormal is going to be found on shows like this that get shot months in advance, sit around an editing room, and then get released to almost zero fanfare?

[keninsc]

I haven't really paid much attention to this thread, but since T-Mane (think T-Pain) brought it up in the Rhode Island thread, I thought I'd come over and have a look.

And yeah, that's about as obvious a dog running down the road as I've ever seen.

As for the Navajo Cops - do any of us really think that proof of the paranormal is going to be found on shows like this that get shot months in advance, sit around an editing room, and then get released to almost zero fanfare?

Who said it was proof of anything? I thought it interesting what they showed and yet no one took a shot or followed it up. Besides, I seriously doubt it's anything paranormal.

[Q-C]

I haven't really paid much attention to this thread, but since T-Mane (think T-Pain) brought it up in the Rhode Island thread, I thought I'd come over and have a look.

And yeah, that's about as obvious a dog running down the road as I've ever seen.

As for the Navajo Cops - do any of us really think that proof of the paranormal is going to be found on shows like this that get shot months in advance, sit around an editing room, and then get released to almost zero fanfare?

Sure, true of any tv show or movie, but still fun to watch. I can enjoy a scary movie, but know it's fake too. Also, these shows like to find "something" and then wander off never to dig any deeper to leave their audience wondering. I'm convinced these shows could find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, and would leave it there.

They are all like a bad joke, yes. But worth watching for some of us for whatever reasons. And some of us like to cling to a very tiny drop of hope that whatever it was that they walked away from could be something?

Edited March 27, 2012 by QuiteContrary

[Q-C]

I just watched the video clip of the cop car footage. Did they stop and turn around? Why not? Or, like most "not even notice it" standing up until they viewed it later? I think the vertical image could be the dog's owner standing on the side of the road the dog ran to after they called it to get out of the road. Then that would explain the cop continuing on.

Can skinwalkers be dogs or are they always in the form of people?

[Rafterman]

Who said it was proof of anything? I thought it interesting what they showed and yet no one took a shot or followed it up. Besides, I seriously doubt it's anything paranormal.

Our friend T-Mane seems convinced.

[NatureBoff]

Our friend T-Mane seems convinced.

Depends what you mean by "paranormal". I'm not a believer in just anything, although it may seem like it. A flesh and blood animal which is smarter than a dog, that's all.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Please answer this "So, how did you conclude that the footage isn't just crappy footage of a dog and that it is a cryptid much larger than a dog?"

[NatureBoff]

See post #47

[JesseCuster]

See post #47

You didn't answer the question in post 47, you were talking about something else - how you view the evidence of cryptids as part of a large jigsaw puzzle.

The question being asked of you is how did you determine that the video footage of a dog wandering down a road at night is actually video footage of a cryptid that's much larger than a dog.

Surely you must have applied some sort of critical thinking and reasoning that allowed you to analyse this video in such a way as to conclude that it is indeed a piece of your cryptid jigsaw puzzle, and not just crappy video footage of a dog.

So why do you think this video footage of a dog at night is part of your jigsaw puzzle - what lead you to conclude it is a cryptid species that is much larger than a dog and thus makes up part of the jigsaw puzzle you are trying to solve?