Reply to the Skeptics on my book

Hello,
I posted something about the book I wrote. It seems that most of the members here are skeptics. Below is my reply to your responses:Did you know that researchers found artifacts in South Africa depicting Ceolacanths? But of course that species of fish died out 70 million years ago. Those artifacts can’t really be of Ceolacanths - they must be of another fish - are you crazy? The artifacts must be hoaxes! But then again, in 1938 the Ceolacanth was discovered alive and well and had not evolved one bit!Let me ask you a question? If you were at a court of law and over 20 films and photographs to prove what you are saying; would that convince the judge? What if you had thousands of credible eyewitnesses to support your point? Guess What! There are many videos and photographs of dinosaur-like creatures. I’m not talking about some unknown photograph from somewhere on the internet, I’m talking about credible photographs that are not found on the internet and have been thoroughly examined.A Few Documented Photographs and Films:Date: 1996. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: (Last name) Zaiser
Date: 1990. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: DeMara
Date: 1987. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Kirk
Date: 1989. Region: Lake Okangan. Witness: Chaplin
Date: 1968. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Folden
Date: 1979. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Gaal
Date: 1980. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Thal
Date: March 9, 2000 Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Berry
Date: 1980. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Francey/Gaal
Date: 1990. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Paskal
Date: 1989. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Gaal
Date: 1992. Region: Lake Okangan. Witness: Johnson/Rolston
Date: July 12, 1981. Region: Lake Okanagan Witness: Wachlin
Date: 1980. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Allsup
Date: 1976. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Fletcher
Date: 1984. Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Svennson
Date: 1982 Region: Lake Okanagan. Witness: Boiselle
Date: 1990 Region: Lake Okanagan Witness: Simmons
Date: 1993 Region: Lake Champlain. Witness: N/A
Date: 1977 Region: Lake Champlain. Witness: Mansi
Date: June 3, 1990 Region: Lake Champlain Witness: Hall
Date: November 8, 1992 Region: Lake Champlain Witness: Hall
Date:1985 Region: lake Champlain Witness: Hall
Date: June 19, 1999 Region: Lake Champlain Witness: N/AYou say claim that there is no way that dinosaurs could evade detection and still be living today. Here are a few points you use:
-This Planet is completely explored; there is no room for new animals to be discovered; especially large creatures.
-If there undiscovered animals living then where are the carcasses, films, photographs, and dung to prove their existence?Below are list of a few newly discovered animals. Please note that most of these animals are large.--------------------------------------------------------------------1)MegamouthShark - a 16 foot shark; discovered in 1976.
2)Okapi - a large, giraffe-like animal; discovered in 1903.
3)The Congo Peacock - a new species of bird; discovered in 1937.
4)Vu Quang ox - a deer-like creature; discovered in 1994.
5)Chrysaora - a jellyfish over 20 feet long; discovered in 1989.
6)Large Cirrate Octopus - an octopus with 8-foot “arms”; discovered in 1984.
7)Crested Iguana - a new species of Iguana, over 2 feet in length; discovered in 1979.
8)Coelacanth - a scaly fish thought to have gone extinct for 70 million years; discovered in 1938.
9)Neoplilina - a mollusk-like creature thought to have gone extinct over 350 million years ago; discovered in the 1950’s.
10)Cephalocardia - a shrimp-like creature thought to have gone extinct over a half billion years ago; discovered in 1955.
11)Sea Daisy - a relative of the Starfish thought to have gone extinct over before the Age of the Reptiles; discovered in 1985.
12)Tutara - a lizard-like reptile whose fossils have been found among the dinosaurs; discovered in New Zealand.It has been proved that these creatures are still living and went undiscovered for many years. So now let us look at the Skeptics/Evolutionists questions again:-This Planet is completely explored; there is no room for new animals to be discovered; especially large creatures.
-If there undiscovered animals living then where are the carcasses, films, photographs, and dung to prove their existence?Now you skeptics have some explaining to do!On July 19, 1896, there were over two-hundred people who saw a giant sea reptile off the New England coast. In the years following reports continued - in the hundreds. It is nigh impossible that all could have been lying or misidentified what they saw. One witness, Nathan Chase, reported that “I saw the creature just as truly . I have not doubt that the uncommon , strange rover, which has been seen by hundreds of men and boys, is form of . Plesiosaurus, or such marine animal. An officer on board the warship, H. M. S. Daedalus said that the gigantic sea animal they had seen was “rather a lizard than a serpentine creature . propelled by fins, not by undulatory power.” Now what is over 50 feet long, is a lizard, and has fins? If you guessed Mosasaur then you are correct!At 10:15 AM, December 7, 1905, zoologists and members of the Zoological Society of London, Nicoll and Meade-Waldo observed a large plesiosaur-like creature off the coast of Brazil. The creature had a large fin on it’s back with a long neck and turtle-like head. The next day the crew of the ship reported seeing a strange creature. Meade-Waldo added “It made a wave as went along, and under the water behind the neck I could see a good sized body.”Whether the skeptics want to admit it or not, the fact is that dinosaur-like creatures still living today is NOT impossible. Really, it is very possible. I have researched living dinosaurs in cryptozoology for over 5 years now, I have read hundreds of accounts which point to similar creatures of reptilian origin (Possibly dinosaurs). I have spoken with people who have seen these creatures, others who have done expeditions to remote areas of the earth in search of these shy animals which evolutionists refuse to accept their existence. I have seen some of the Ica Stones and various other artifacts that depict dinosaur-like creatures.Carl Sagan (a famous evolutionist) believed the pervasiveness of dragon legends in so many cultures is no accident. He says that the dinosaurs were so terrifying that primitive mammals passed on the memory and accurate pictures of the beasts through over 65 million years of evolution. And the skeptics/evolutionists call me crazy for being a creationist. That is a lot crazier than saying that dinosaurs lived recently with man. One evolutionist paleontologist, when he saw the photo of the carving of a Stegosaur made in a Cambodian temple by Khmer people in 1200 A.D. exclaimed, “Its beyond me, but that Khmer didn’t sculpt that stegosaurus from fossilized bones. He had to have seen a living stego, and that’s downright scary to think about.” He is right, dinosaurs living in recent times IS VERY SCARY for evolutionists (even though many claim that living dinosaurs is no problem for evolution). But Evolutionists do have explanations for this. One said that the stegosaur depiction was actually of a scared cat with its fur sticking up in the shape of plates. An Irish writer in 900 A.D. wrote of a large beast with “iron nails” on its tail that pointed backwards and triangular plates running along it’s humped back. It also had a head shaped similar to that of a horse’s, and had thick legs with strong claws. Now what animal would you call that? I bet the skeptics don’t want to know!Also the skeptics have been accusing me of being “biased” or having a “creationist agenda.” Yes, I am biased toward the evidence. Really everyone is biased towards something! Either you are a creationist (YEC), Evolutionist, or theistic Evolutionist. So biased evolutionists are accusing me of being biased.-Dinoman Phil"Scores, perhaps hundreds, of trustworthy mariners...have seen what they believe to be such a creature, but they refuse to publish any account of their observations, knowing that they will be insulted and publicly gibbeted as fools and liars if they do."PS. Any open minded-researchers who have questions on living dinosaurs can e-mail me (phillip@livingdinos.com) or visit my website.

quote:

---

But then again, in 1938 the Ceolacanth was discovered alive and well and had not evolved one bit!

---

Actually, this isn't quite true. The extant (i.e. currently living) Coelacanth species are quite a bit different than the Mesozoic species -- in fact, they aren't even in the same family.--

quote:

---

Carl Sagan (a famous evolutionist) believed the pervasiveness of dragon legends in so many cultures is no accident. He says that the dinosaurs were so terrifying that primitive mammals passed on the memory and accurate pictures of the beasts through over 65 million years of evolution.

---

I have a great respect for Carl Sagan, but this was one of his nuttier ideas.-By the way, considering how many of my college age students are barely literate, I have respect for the fact that you have written a book, self-published or not.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

If tomorrow absolute proof of living dinosaurs was presented, what effect would that have on the TOE?You do understand that it would support the TOE don't you?You do understand that it would offer us opportunities in genetics that have been unavailable to us before?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Since my parents lived over looking the lake for a couple of decades and I spent many summer weeks there enjoying the paradise I have always been a bit interested in Ogopogo.How about showing the actual pictures? Everyone I've ever seen were worthless as evidence for anything other than poor photographers. Maybe you have some that are better than what I've seen.I have, however, seen the Ogopogo on many summer evenings.

Birds are dinosaur-like creatures still living today. If fact, some birds have even been photographed; and some of these photographs are credible, are not found on the internet, and have been thoroughly examined. I happen to have some 'credible photographs that are not found on the internet and have been thoroughly examined'. I sell them on the street corner for two bucks each. What exactly does it mean for a photograph or film to be "Documented"? I'm thinking of getting my photographs Documented if that raises their price.Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the The Book Nook forum.

i am not as well versed on ogopogo as i am nessie. i have almost certainly seen every nessie film and photo ever published anywhere. i have found none especially convincing. now, i have not seen as much for ogopogo, but i have seen a fair share. and again, nothing really good.did you see that scientists recently captured the first images of a giant squid alive in the wild? those were pretty cool. science was skeptical of giant squid for years, even though our circumstantial evidence is much better than anything for lake monsters. we knew that sperm whales were eating something, and we knew it left rather nasty sucker-shaped scars on them too. we knew that if you dissect a dead sperm whale, you'd find a few dozen beaks in its stomach -- they're neither digested nor expelled. but nobody really considered that credible until scientists examined giant squid carcasses that had washed up on the beaches. at this point, it became something of a curiosity that we had never scientifically observed them in the wild (nevermind that sea captains had been reporting them for 200 some years).compare that to nessie. we've got some out-of-focus of things that could be logs and motorboat wakes (and an obvious hoax or two, ie: the surgeon's photo). we've got a blip on the radar. and we've got anecdotes. we have no food chain, no carcass, no good photos, no scientific observation, no live animals... we have a legend, not an animal.don't get me wrong, i love giant lake monsters. i wold be the first person to get in line to see a live on at the zoo. i would be all over legitimate, good photos. but i have to tell you, anecdotes simply aren't reliable.i don't live on okanagan, or loch ness, or even near a lake. but i did have an experience once that was indeed comparable to a lake monster sighting. we have a prominent canal here in south florida called the intracostal waterway. it's brackish, muddy, dark poop-colored water that separates a line of islands from the mainland. once as a child, i was playing on the docks of a local park, and say a rather large hump come through the water. very round, with a very odd looking fin attached. looked sort of like an umbrella. it was a grayish brown mottled color, and had lots of bumps. it acted intelligently, dodging the legs of the dock, and came around to make a second pass against the current. definitally an animal. it rolled over laterally, like a barrel roll.i saw this thing up close, in the presence of a half-dozen other people (most of whom did not seem to notice). it was maybe six feet away from face at the nearest. to this day, i cannot tell you what it was, because i simply did not see enough of it. the bits i saw (the fin) do not match any creature i have ever seen before, and i am a paleo nut. but if i wanted to read "loch ness monster" into, i could pretty easily. and you will notice that by and large most lake monster sightings and photos are just humps in the water -- could be anything, really. i have a better question. where are the recent pictures of ness, ogo, champ, etc? the newest picture on your list is more than 10 years old. and since that time, photography as a consumer recreation has exploded. everyone and their mother has a digital camera, and the average person takes better and better pictures these days. grainy out-of-focus amateur film is out. prosumer high quality digital is in.loch ness is a frequent tourist destination. lakes champlain and okanagan are well populated. where are the nessie, ogopogo, and champ pictures shot within the last 5 years?are lake monsters simply a byproduct of bad photography and poor memories? dinosaurs are alive today. people eat them, keep them as pets, watch them in their yards -- and take some pretty good photos of them with long lenses. but again, you do not answer the point i have made -- i would love to see plesiosaurs and pterosaurs and suaropods alive today. i am skeptical because i am a skeptic, and the evidence presented is simply not very good. cryptozoology is fun and all -- it does get us looking for some interesting things well worth checking out -- but it's also filled with a lot of crackpots and nutballs who go off on the worst evidence possible, without careful examination: such as the ica stones, which are well known forgeries. had you studied paleontology and not cryptozoology, they would not look like dinosaurs to you. they would look like 1960's children's coloring books versions of dinosaurs. these sorts of things are harder and harder to defend as the pop culture becomes more aware of what dinosaurs really were. children today don't think of t. rex like this, they think of t. rex like this. it's harder and harder to convince anyone of the old upright lizard stance when we've all seen jurassic park. if someone had seen these guys in person -- their drawings would look more like the real animals than the popular misconceptions of the times. and their drawings would probably have feathers, too. if you saw an ancient artifact depicting an upright tyrannosaur, when we know they balanced themselves horizontally across their hips, wouldn't you question it a bit more? yet here is one such depiction on an ica stone. did the artist see a real dinosaur? i think not.however, i am very interested in more, real information -- don't just hit and run. i'd like to see those stegosaur carvings, for instance. do you have photos of that? or any of those ogo or champ photos?

---

one. get back on the old thread. it's not hard to find. stop mussing up our board.two. don't list photos. show them to us.three. living dinosaurs doesn't mean anything against evolution. congrats. there are loads of places we haven't explored on this planet. there's a whole island off the coast of india that no one has EVER been to, and i mean NEVER, EVER because of the stories about it from people who went near it way back in the way back when. some crazy shit about hell on earth and demons and evil and who knows. i wanna go. with a really big gun. did you know that there were stories of an ape man in china for EVER and then we finally figured it out in like the late 1800s? it was the giant panda. if you ever watch them move, they look like people from a distance. however. evolution doesn't really depend on things going extinct. it depends on things managing to stay alive. and clearly lots of things have done that. so when you understand evolution enough to make a real case about how this unseats evolutionary though, give me a call. in the mean time, go back to school and stop making unsupported claims.four. courts don't actually trust eyewitness testimony. it's notoriously unreliable. people remember what they want to remember.five. don't tell us about how well these photos and videos have been examined. until we can see them ourselves and examine them for ourselves, we won't buy it. and i've seen a lot of discovery channel pop-science and i've probably seen all of your photographs. i'm already not convinced. i know what smudgey silver nitrate can do. i use it on a regular basis. we don't tend to just believe shit people tell us. crazy, i know.six. for god sake, answer people specifically one at a time. we're not impressed with your preaching. kent hovind spoke at my middle school. i told him he should take my science class and then try talking to people. i was 11 and knew he was full of crap. when you actually take the time to answer specific concerns with real evidence instead of lists and outrageous claims and half-truths and intimations, then maybe you'll get a little respect.seven. i don't think anyone claimed those things on this board. you're creating your own arguments. address the questions we asked.eight. mariners tend to be known drunks. especially those of days gone by. you'd be a drunk if you spent all that time looking at water you couldn't drink and nothing else. but. evolution-believing scientists have long accepted the idea that some sea animals may be difficult to find because they have learned that our mechanized boats tend to bring along big explosions. likewise, i'd imagine that our mechanized land vehicles have the same effect on land animals who have learned that big scary trucks bring stupid americans with big guns, cameras, and logging machinery.nine. for god sake if you start a new thread every time you have something to say, i'm gonna e-stab you. i mean it. i'm not stable. you don't know. [these are the insane ravings brought on by the new batch of little kids who think they suddenly have all kinds of new ideas and can disprove all science EVAR and do not constitute any actual threat of harm.]Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

A sturgeon maybe? Those motherfuckers can get huge and freaky looking.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

no, the fin was flat against the animal's top, or possibly side (pectoral fins are flattened against the body). my best guess was a really big example of a something like a wreckfish, but it was way rounder than than the side of a fish. and fish don't swim sideways. and they don't inhabit shallow, brackish water, either.if anyone's especially interested, i could draw picture and scan it in tomorrow. maybe some marine biologist here could identify what it was and clear up a minor mystery from my childhood.eitherway, the point is that i don't know what the heck it was, and it could easily be interpretted as a lake monster. when in reality, it's probably just some fish or something i've never heard of. or maybe my eyes were playing tricks on me. or something.

---

Then why can't you produce any of these videos or photographs? If you were a court of law and the council for the prosecution insisted that the crime was documented by "over 20 films and photographs", but refused to produce a single one of them, would that convince the judge?You say you have evidence? Splendid. NOW SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.Put up or shut up. So, no actual dinosaurs then? Actually, he was an astronomer, not a biologist. You still haven't explained where you got this idea from. As I have pointed out, just because a statement about biology is wrong doesn't make it an argument for Creationism. It has to be wrong and related to the fairy story about the talking snake.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This is not actually true. The living species of coelocanth are Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis. The genus Latimeria is not known in the fossil record.Try learning the difference between a species, a genus, a family, and an order. Coelacanths are an order. Latemeria is a genus. Talking about "the Coelacanth" is biological illiteracy, like talking about "the Carnivore".You will find it easier to find accurate information on coelacanths if you first learn to spell the word. The "o" comes before the "e", not after it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Seek and Ye shall Find. The Stego on the Rocks

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Can you blame him, though? I grew up especially intellectually deprived. When I was about 16 or so, I had this crazy idea that noone else in the world had ever thought of. I had this idea that perhaps I should start questioning what other people say rather than just believing everything that seemed to support my preconceived ideas. So, really, I was the first person to have invented skepticism, not the ancient philosophers.Now, imagine what I would have become if nobody kicked my butt. I would have been through life thinking I invented skepticism.This kid is obviously brighter than your average 15 year olds, considering how many college papers I have graded that were little better than human feces. But for now, noone has ever demonstrated to him that he's not the smartest person in the world and that he doesn't know everything. It seems like he's surrounded by "yes" people.Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

other old pictures of boara real live boaranother real live boarnotice the emphasis on the bristles in the old pictures? notice how scary looking those assholes are?further, that bottom creature looks like a lion which is clearly larger than this other animal. i'm probably wrong on that, and it's some god or another, but lions and boar still live in the same place (and lions used to live in asia), so this makes perfect sense. while there are no bones of stegosaurs from the time period in question. where are all the dead dinosaurs supposed to go?Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.