It's here in this thread. Some people have chosen to ignore it completely. Take Cuddles for instance. I gave links to bona fide examples of shot and caught alien cats that were at large in the British countryside. Cuddles ignores this and then proceeds to ask me if the photos William Parcher poster was the only evidence there is?
See what I mean?
..I'm saying they shouldn't be dismissed and poo poo'd out of hand. This is what seems to be occuring here by a number of people.
I'm certainly guilty of being over-dismissive at times, due to the sheer weight of woo out there, but I don't think that's the problem here. It's that most of us don't think the available evidence shows what you think it shows...
What do you class as significant? 10? 20? 50? I wouldn't be adverse to that. I don't think there are 10,000 or 20,000 of them wandering around the countryside though.
...that there are 10-50 big cats at large in the UK today. I think that's absurd. I don't think the evidence you have suggests that even one big cat is
currently at large, perfectly plausible though that might seem (absence of evidence etc etc).
I'm looking at the idea that there 'may' be something to the 'legend'. What that something is, I'm not certain about. I'm not even certain there is a something. I am posing the idea that there may be a correlation between giant eels or giant fish and what some witnesses have supposedly seen.
I get that. It's an intuitive theory. It seems to be what drives the whole "field" of cryptozoology. But at least in this case, your evidence doesn't support it, and it's just as likely (if not more) that the stories and photo interpretations NOT associated with physical evidence (bodies, perhaps
hair and droppings), can be put down to boring old human fallibility.
I didn't start the thread and I didn't "dress it up" like that at all. The thread title was already here. I just popped in and it went from there. I even pointed out to some earlier posters that we were merely talking about the 'possibility' of freak eels and not plesiosaurs etc etc.
True, you have tried to tread the more plausible, less sensational "perhaps this could explain the legend" path. However, it's clear that it's the same thing you're hunting, whether "monster" is an accurate label or not. You're looking for an explanation for a myth. If the eels are there, then what? How do you know they were the "monster" of myth that was seen and/or photographed by people? How many of them saw eels, how many were just fallible? This is the problem with your proposal.
There are scientists using scientific methods to evaluate the 'evidence' and postulating it as authentic or at least pointing in it's favour. Of course, to the ultra scoftics, even these scientists then become "woos", notwithsanding the fact that their (the scoftics) rebutals are no more proven than the methods the scientists they have criticised for being "woos" have used.
The great thing (for us "scoftics") is that our rebuttals don't have to be "more proven". Only your claims, if you expect to be taken seriously, have to be proven, or at least supported by good quality (as opposed to quantity) evidence. You've established for those that didn't know, that we have had dead (smaller species of) "big cats" found in the UK. You haven't established any meaningful correlation between the proven cases and the "rural myths" that make up the majority of reports. As to experts that have lent their support to photos and the like, I will look into this for my own interest. If any of your lot feel like posting links to point me in the right direction, so much the better.
No other kind [of proof than "100%"]. However lack of proof is not evidence for lack of subject thereoff.
Classic logical fallacy that you continue to fall into the trap of using. Critical thinkers call it
argument from ignorance, and it blows "absence of evidence not not equal evidence of absence" out of the water as far as reasoned discussion goes.
Ah but some do corroborate each other. The only way to verify a report is to what? See what I mean. What you want in these cases are bona fide bodies for each and every report isn't it? Only then can it be verified. We have seen so many times that even photos and footage is not enough for the ultra scoftic. What you mean by verification is a body. Nothing less. Even multi witness accounts are not deemed verifiable to the scoftic. Worse, they are not even worthy of consideration.
Nope. I mean corroborating, quality pieces of evidence that can be associated. Witness reports and quality photography or film, tied to a time and place where lab-verified physical evidence (hair, poo, wounded livestock) has been found. And/or verified prints. If there are anything like the numbers of exotic cats out there that you claim, why has no assemblage of evidence like this been put together? Why does your idea hinge upon the few dead bodies that have been found? It shouldn't need to, surely.
No no no. Not to 'believe' at all but to at least 'consider' the 'possibility' that there 'might' be 'something' behind it apart from lies and misidentifications.
That's great for cryptozoology as a hobby, but ultimately it's meaningless. There "might" be alien visitors, ghosts, unicorns and so on, but do you assume that there must be a real creature or being behind those (eyewitness) stories too? Of course this is different; it's not a paranormal phenomena any way you cut it, especially when you twist the myth from "monster" to eel, from Beast of Bodmin to escaped leopard cat (or whatever). You still want the excitement and recognition of proving a myth to be somehow true, without offering evidence to scientific standards.
Yes, that ["that some of the Nessie stories may have come about because of sightings of creatures that aren't recorded as being there"] is what I am saying.
Perfectly possible, as I've said, but completely without evidence in the case of Nessie, and with no clear causal link in the case of the cats.
...and verifiable means a body first right? Nothing less right? Like I said, I don't think you want evidence, you want proof. Even a close up piece of video footage would likely be considered hoax without the body.
Plenty less than a body, but
verified and
corroborative. Just like a police investigation, an archaeological dig, or the actual discovery of a new species.
Says you. Thankfully there are plenty of other people who don't feel this way. Witness reports, sonar contacs etc are not 'nothin'. They are 'something'. What they actually are is a matter of debate, but don't say there is 'nothing' because that is incorrect.
Perhaps that was uncharitable of me. By "nothing", I mean you lack evdience as I have described it. It's semantics really; I'm preferring not to call it evidence, feel free to do so yourself.
But not all cases right? Bigfoot has an 'assemblage of connected evidence' (probably moreso than any other cryptid) and still the ultra scoftics will not even consider the possibilty, even though some scientists and even well known biologists do so.
Yes, I'm aware of your belief in Bigfoot as well. That one's a little harder to twist and rationalise, isn't it? Uncatalogued hominids are hard to blame on sightings of previously unknown lesser apes. No doubt there is a lot of cynicism and prejudice out there regarding that and other "cryptids", but is that any surprise given the lack of quality evidence? Regardless, we've already veered off into phantom cats, let's not "go there" with Bigfoot also.
You mean shot or caught? Getting on for a dozen alien cats I think. At least half a dozen.
However, the caught and shot examples do not mean that's all there was. I should think a fraction of the number of alien cats actually out there would be caught/shot. This means there are obviously many more out there than have been caught/shot. Just because the police catch X amount of shoplifters doesn't mean they were the only shoplifters around. In fact, law of averages say that won't be the case.
Bit of a circular argument, don't you think? Again, intuitive, but based entirely on your subjective assessment of the situation. Looking at
this DEFRA table of reported escaped exotic cats, you can see that contrary to your assessment, only 3 out of 27 were not accounted for. I realise you're talking about animals NOT reported by zoo or owner, but the success rate for 27 animals not reported ought not to be wildly different. And that presupposes that zoos, wildlife parks and supposed private owners are still allowing these animals to get out, which I find preposterous and without evidence in itself.
You can't. Some people in this thread HAVE [doubted there being any big cats found] though. That is my point.
If they appear to be doing so, my assessment is because they think you're claiming that these finds (plus the other evidence) proves that there are lots more out there. That it's a "phenomenon", as I said originally. I also disagree with that extrapolation you've made.
Many more? Well like I said I wouldn't say there are 10,000 out there but for sure I don't see a problem with a few dozen or, say, 50 or so. This number could account for the number of reports, particularly if the cats are being seen again and again by different people.
And in my opinion much of it isn't dubious so we'll have to agree to disagree there.
Could. COULD. Don't you see the problem with the assumptions you're having to make to fill the gaps? If we can agree on anything more, it should be that, quality of the evidence notwithstanding, the subject is simply unquantifiable as it stands. Without concerted resourced research, you can't know whether there's anything out there, what they are, how many there are, or what they're doing. For whatever reason there's not the impetus to get such research going. Thus you can speculate as you are doing, but shouldn't expect anyone thinking critically to agree with you. Deal?
Huh? When did I say that? I've never once mentioned zoos and wildlife parks not reporting escapees.
My bad; I inferred from a reply of yours to the Atheist above; he said there would be the odd escape from zoos, you said "and idiots who release them". As I couldn't see how there could be that many rogue illegal exotic pet owners doing that, I assumed you to be apportioning some blame to zoos. I apologise.
Yes, that's more like it. Illegal trade in exotic animals goes on. I'm sure idiots who get tired of their illegal pets have released them into the countryside. I'll go further. I wouldn't be adverse to the idea that areas which have been the location of past association with alien cats might even induce idiots to play on this, get a kick out of it and even release their own cat. Places like Bodmin or Exmoor for example.
That's what I'm talking about. Above I made an incorrect assumption about something I thought you believed. Here, you make a massive assumption, that there are sufficient illegal exotic pet owners to account for your 10-50 UK phantom cats. Again, it's an interesting and intuitive theory, but you need evidence for that kind of claim.
It doesn't work against it at all. Who is going to corroberate a sighting with somebody who owned an illegal pet and then illegaly released it? They are not going to broadcast the fact that they released an alien cat into the British countryside are they? They are going to keep it quiet. In which case, we are not going to know that they have released an alien cat. We are not going to know about it until somebody reports seeing it, or it kills some animals.
I quite agree. It was those subsequent sightings that I was talking about when I said "corroborated".
Those who have looked into the reports themselves and been investigated...A number of them....Knowledge and mark one eyeball. The so called Fen Tiger for example is clearly not a moggy. It's too big and has all the wrong proportions. It's definately feline though.
I simply cannot believe that you think blurred, scale-less offerings such as
this are possible to peg as exotic cats and not one of the many, many domestic breeds of feline. It's way out of my area of expertise, and I know that one zoologist felt able to call it as a puma, but sorry, I and others here at least, just don't see that it's possible to verify photos like that.
Dull? Well I don't think it is all that spectacular that some dopes have released their exotic pet cats into the countryside and people have sighted them.
Agreed. Why were we arguing about it again?
It is if you are claiming the witness is wrong.
That's about the size of it. Not that they definitely ARE wrong, just that occam's razor says it's more likely that the majority of witnesses are mistaken, than it is that 10-50 big cats are out there being spotted.
If you have no opinion and are not claiming anything then no, there is no onus on you.
True. Except that you have, and you are.
And vice versa just because I can't prove particular points doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Doesn't mean you're right either. It's not proven either way that there are ANY exotic cats out there. Instead of taking that as your default position, or that as things stand, there's little reason to believe that there are (my position), you claim that it's likely that there are.
But in the midway, how about this? That there are more than you might think there are?
Like the multi eyewitness reports on more than one occasion in Cambridgeshire of the so called Fen Tiger backed up by footage which clearly isn't showing a moggy and which a zoologist says is a large catlike animal? Yet even after all this, some people here poo poo it. They aren't even saying "Hmmmm, interesting. Maybe". No, they are saying "Rubbish, it's just a moggy!. Nothing more". Now do you realise how frustrating these super scoftics are to me and people like me???
I do, putting myself in your position of belief over critical thought. I've been there myself; common sense over reasoning, plus some good old fashioned failure to communicate. Now, can you see it our way? That the footage isn't conclusive? That it would take more than one zoologist, stating their reasons for calling it a puma? That there should be some sort of physical evidence, independently verified?
Easily misidentified? I wouldn't go that far, else people would be mistaking moggies for panthers all the time and we would have millions of reports and thousands of them coming in daily.
Another oversimplification of what's been said. You and I can both call a fox at 100yds in a darkened lane. But plenty of people, us included, could find themselves looking at a feline or even canine, several hundred yards away in the middle of a field, and calling it something exotic. You continue to underestimate how fallible we all are in this respect.
I say again, I find it hard to see people mistaking a normal moggy for a panther or puma.
The Lynx suggested to be the size of an Alsatian dog is not too outlandish. Their heights at the shoulder are not too disimilar. Pretty much the same actually. Yes the Lynx might have been underweight, but it still would have stood near enough as high as an Alsatian so the witness wasn't altogether wrong.
I also like the story of the guy who thought a moggy was a puma. He ran after it. Excuse me, if he really thought it was a puma, would he be chasing after it? Would you? Would I? Not on your life. I'd be running the other way. Thought it was a puma?? So he chases it across a car park? That made me chuckle.
I also liked this bit:
""We can judge size and distance well enough with ordinary objects, but presented with something strange, our ability to estimate becomes unreliable.""
What is strange about a moggy? We all, or at least most of us do, see moggies every day. Is not a moggy an 'ordinary' subject???
You've lost me there. The whole point is that the witnesses
think they seeing something unusual, which
turns out to be an ordinary cat or dog. We think we're looking at something unusual, and we overlay our expectations onto what we're taking in. Our vision is a imperfect simulation of what's happening in front us, and is subject to interpretation by our fallible minds.
Like I said some interesting points in that link but nonetheless not persuasive at all that moggies can easily be wrongly misidentified as panthers and pumas time and time again.
And yet, they are. You've already acknowledged that some of the sightings could be mistaken. We just happen to think that most, if not all, are mistaken.
On that note I think I am going to have to leave this discussion for the time being so apologies in advance for not replying to any more posts. LOL, I'm spending too much time here as it is and we are all going around and around in circles.
Agreed. I'm struggling in particular with the quote function, and going nearly point-for-point, things are getting unwieldy to say the least. Plus your mind is clearly made up, and ours will only be "opened" by better evidence. I'll still do my own reading around the subject, and post my findings where of interest. Feel free to chime in. I might start with my childhood fave, the
Beast of Bodmin.
). Because you need proof to be able to say "big cats are roaming the UK" or "Nessie is actually a some sort of large eel". By all means use your own resources to investigate whatever you please, but just be careful that you don't over-reach your evidence, which (to bring us back on topic) as far as Nessie is concerned, is sadly lacking.
