Talk:Lake Worth monster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Very credulous in tone, without any mention of skeptical/scientific viewpoint. The lack of any sources reinforces this. Cje 14:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
my_wan Agreed. Particularly egregious characterizations attributed to unknown persons or groups.
- Do you really need a skeptics view for a cyptid like this? After all, if it's not real, then it can only be down to three things.
A) Mistake by wittnesses B) Embelishment/hoax by witnesses C) Hoax perpetrated against witnesses
Unless somebody actually finds a rubber mask or a pair of monster feet made out of plaster, or some long lost ape creature, then any skeptical or scientific view will be as speculative as the existance of the creaure itself.
I vote that we treat this as an urban myth. Report the myth as a myth, and the creature as being 'real' within the scope of the myth (but not being a proven animal).
perfectblue 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)