 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Bearwolf Investigation |
| From: | |
Karl
|
posted
Sun, Dec 3 2006, 12:43pm
|
Kim, when it comes to extraordinary creatures, it's no secret that I'm a strong disbeliever, and when I announce that disbelief, I can occasionally be, as one emailer put it, "not a very nice man". But I can't help but be nice now, despite my disbelief. I have to say I very much enjoyed your latest blog. Like your first blog, you kept it real and you kept it focused. The lack of sensationalistic extras and/or embellishments may have disappointed some of the other readers, but I greatly appreciated their absence in lieu of a more intellectually stimulating article.
Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: Bearwolf Investigation |
| From: | |
Kraken
|
posted
Sun, Dec 3 2006, 9:26pm
|
|
Karl could not have stated my own views better. I may be a skeptic, but I want to believe there are unknowns out there (that is why I am here). I cannot however accept findings without some collaborating evidence. For me, having eyewitness reports is a good start but only marginally useful unless backed up by some physical evidence. I am always a bit suspicious when an investigator goes out and on the first attempt comes back successful with sightings and out-of-focus pictures. Since I suspect that most encounters are completely by accident and if cryptids by their very nature are that elusive, it will take much time and patience to get any real evidence. I admire you for getting out in the field and at least trying Kim. Nothing would please me more (well - maybe winning the lottery) than your success in proving an unknown. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
