Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey had to be founded in some fact.
Notably, astronauts find a monolith on the moon. During this same time period artificial like structures were being captured in film by the Moon mission. Structures such as the Tower, Castle and miscellaneous towers.
Sorry points of fact with some speculation.
You have that backwards.
This entire thread and most that i have seen from you are more aptly labeled
Points of speculation with some questionable facts thrown in
But since you are so skeptical I will google for you.
Next on michael list of bullshit conspiracy theories..
Lunar landing a hoax
Big foot secret Islamic extremist spy
Loch ness monster REAL and looking for love.
Alaska had it's own Nessie lately.
To ridicule those coming forward with these clips will discourage others from doing so. hoax or not scientific inquiry should not be inhibited by people being in fear of ruining their reputations.
Nope sorry the ridiculous should be ridiculed.
Assuming this is a sea monster is in no way promoting scientific inquiry, its promoting sales of tourist merchandise and wack jobs who feed on bullshit.
You're no fun. This stuff is more enthralling then sci-fi.
Everyone needs a good Sherlock Holmes mystery now and then.
So they are promoting tourism. Humor them and entertain yourself debunking it. That's what this forum is for.
Your first proposal might be sea mammals swimming in tandem and giving the appearance of a single 30 foot monster then re-examined the clip then point out observation in the clip to support your claim. There is also a phenomena that occurs with the sun at a particular angle and the wave rolling a certain way that could generate serpentine appearances and is responsible for many false Nessie sightings. I can go own at length but I am ruining the fun.
No my first proposal is to quote Sagan.
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary evidence.
In other words (explaining here since i know this is concept lost on most Believers of supernatural hokum) You claim its a unknown creature of extraordinary physical characteristics its on you to Have extraordinary proof of such a claim...
The burden of proof is on the nutjobs not the logical rational human beings.
You can smugly take the skeptical higher ground when anything is introduce that shatter the paradigm. But that inhibits fun and an opportunity to exercise critical thinking. The Skeptical Inquirer does it all the time. The only thing I don't like is that they only publish their victories thus given the illusion that they can debunk all anomalies, when in fact we know the unexplained still does exist.
There is a vast universe of unexplained. Guess what we dont need supernatural, cryptozoology, or ET theories to fill that gap.
Then just shut this topic down with your last statement and continue to live un-entertained. Boring and uninteresting