Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Smgbad, Mar 24, 2013.
Great link!!!! Lots of interesting reading. Thanks for that.
The shoebill has a prehistoric thing going on.
Actually it works the other way.
Are you, Smgbad, menstruating right now?
Some photographic evidence would be nice, if they are flying in our skies, why then do we not have decent photographs of them?
With this post, my faith in TGP has been restored.
I love this place.
Was anyone in the vicinity playing an instrument tuned to A=432hz? Playing in A=432 has an affect on the 5th dimension, and can open a temporary portal to an alternate dimension.
Now we are getting somewhere.
If anything is possible... then it's possible... you're wrong?
Science relies on verifiable evidence, not some guy claiming something happened. Anybody can claim anything happened. Hey, I just saw Godzilla. Now it's science! No amount of anecdotes can possibly amount to real scientific evidence. There are tons of people who claim they saw ghosts, aliens, angels, leprechauns, etc. None of that comes close to being science, primarily because it is all crap.
Coelacanths live underwater. If they flew around and ate rabbits you could be sure we'd have realized it some time ago. And guess what? We don't accept the existence of coelacanths because someone told a story about seeing one. We caught them. You want people to accept the continued existence of pterodactyls? Go shoot one.
I'll shoot one!
Meanwhile, I resent the implication that leprechauns aren't real. Heck, I saw several riding pterodactyls just last Sunday....
Very poetic, but misapplied. I'm actually not blind to evidence and should some real evidence come forward that a pterodactyl or pterosaur of some variety (or Big Foot or Nessy, etc.) is still around, I'll be on board. But none has been presented.
Actually, anything is not possible (but that's another discussion). In this case, it is theoretically possible that pterodactyls are still around. Theoretically. But if you boil it down to how possible, given what we know about animals, their habitat, etc., the likelihood becomes so remote that it is essentially impossible. You could also argue that unicorns exist or that T-Rex still inhabits some remote place. And theoretically, those are possible. But rationally, we can be as close to certain as we can reasonably be that they do not.
That's where cryptozoology generally fails. That is, they take the "anything is possible" to a degree that's silly. As though someone who thinks they saw a pterodactyl suddenly makes it a 50/50 proposition. It's not. There is a reason that eyewitness accounts are not considered scientific proof. It's because people often mistake what they see (and other are dishonest and others are delusional and ... well, you get the picture).
Ah yes, our good friend the Coelacanth. Its discovery is truly a fascinating story, but comparing a marine species and a land species (or bird) is fundamentally different. Why? Because the ocean is a vast place and we have not been to most of it. In some ways, we know as much about the moon as we know about the oceans. So it is no great surprise (to me or other scientists) when new marine species are discovered, even large creatures. It's exciting, no question, but not really a shocker.
In contrast, the land and air we know quite well. We've been to the vast majority of the surface of the planet, and large things rarely escape our notice for too long. There are certainly species on land (or the air) that we haven't identified, but they are typically a) living in extremely remote places (not NC), b) have been mistaken for similar species, and/or c) they are small and have escaped our notice. A pterodactyl does not fall into any of those categories (at all).
If there were pterodactyls flying around North Carolina, it's not plausible to think we would not have some good photographs/video, specimens, etc. In the case of the OP (and other sightings), it's far more plausible that they are misidentifying known species.
But I know I'm not going to change your mind. You keep looking.
What about West Virginia? Could there be pterodactyls in West Virginia?
Jordan Maxwell claims to have seen a pterodactyl in the 50's or 60's. Not at all unheard of. Wonder if they taste like chicken?
"But I know I'm not going to change your mind. You keep looking."
That is exactly my point! I'm not ruling anything out at this point. I will keep an open mind and will keep looking.
Just because you do not believe it, does not make it not so.
Maybe it was Mothman.......
Start by questioning the veracity and/or accuracy of the OP's account, just saying.
I don't see what's so far fetched about the pterodactyl surviving for the past 150 million years since its alleged extinction, and maintaining a North Carolina population throughout the entirety of human history while pretty much flying below the radar. I dont see competition with birds as an issue - as birds are the pterodactyl's friendly cousin.
Heck, there are fish we haven't discovered yet....
There is a difference between being open-minded and just believing any damn thing anyone says. That's called gullibility. You don't appear to be questioning anything; just believing everything.
What if I told you there was a 100-mile tall statue of Oprah Winfrey on the other side of Jupiter?
"Just because you do not believe it, does not make it not so."
To all those who at least are willing to humor the thought I saw what I saw, thank you for your thoughts, and even to those who are helping to try to figure out exactly what it may have been (if NOT a pteradactyl). To all those who just cannot believe it, I say to you that there is no way for you to be 100% sure I did or did not see what I saw. I understand that open-mindedness is not a trait everyone shares. If things aren't documented fact or popular knowledge, then they cannot be true. Through that thinking, the world would still be flat.
The only problem is - you didn't see a pterodactyl.
I have no idea who the OP is or his motivation. I'm basing my whole point of view in this particular topic on the my perceived authenticity of his story and the conviction and detailed observation with which he told the story. If that is less than truthful, he got me big time. But I have a tendency to trust people until they prove otherwise.