Talk:Thunderbird (cryptozoology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

I've moved this article from Thunderbird (cryptid) because there is no need to use the slang term "cryptid" in article titles, especially where a real word will suffice! 80.255 08:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That, 80.255, is exactly the point. By describing it as Thunderbird (animal), you are trying to insert the point of view that it exists. That is simply pushing your point of view. It would be equally wrong—though doubtless much more accurate— to title his Thunderbird (dreamed-up-fantasy). I moved it back to cryptid (and will continue to do so) because that is the correct and neutral term. It both recognises that the claim is regarded as fanciful/fictional, and that there are people who take it seriously. It strikes an appropriate balance. Tannin 11:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Classifying it as an "animal" does not imply that it exists; if there were an alternative meaning of the word "dragon", then I would do exactly the same thing - I certainly do not believe that dragons exist, but there is no denying that, in their mythological sense, they are animals. That you object to calling something by an easily understood, correct and simple term (animal) but then wish to use instead a slangy non-word used exclusively by a small group of cryptozoologists is utterly inconsistent! Whether or not thunderbirds exist is irrelevant - they are nonetheless animals. If I claimed to see such a creature, then I would be claiming to have seen an animal, irrespective of whether I was, in fact, lying.

If you would like to suggest a better, non-slang, term to replace "animal" in parentheses, then please do. However, I shall continue to move "crypid" labels back in the absense of any better ideas. An encyclopaedia should not use slang terminology, least of all in its fundamental indexing structure. To do so would be being unencyclopaedic in the extreme! 80.255 11:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3000 Google hits and you are calling this a "small group" and a "slangy term"? If it is slang, why do we have an article on it?

There are articles on all sorts of slang terms, and (in most cases) rightly so - they simply document the meaning and usage of informal language, and there is nothing unencyclopaedic about that. It is very unencyclopaedic, however, to actually write articles using slang terms.

As for "small groups' - ask a dozen random people what is meant by "cryptid" and it is likely that the overwelming majority would not be able to define it; it is a term used almost exclusively by those in the cryptozoological field, and even then, informally - you would never see it used in scientific papers. 80.255

I got 16.4 million hits for "phat" and 4.09 million for "kewl". So mothaf***ing what? Aragorn2 18:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Photo

I swear I've seen that photo, and I know it was before 'freaky links' existed, but it might have still been a fake made to illustrate the idea of the original. Actually it looked more like an old-timey drawing, like the original political cartoons.

I felt like I've seen it too when I read about it in another book, but when I tried to figure out where, I just couldn't. And I have read quite a bit about cryptozoology and other strange phenomena, starting in the '60s. (ok, now I'm dating myself!). I'm certain it cannot be in any of the major books and I do not have a great range of newspaper sources. If I did REALLY see it, it must have been in one of the magazines, such as Fate or one of the UFO mags I picked up when I was a kid. But Fate and the rest have been searched with no results. As much as I think I've seen it, as long as it can't be found I have to put my memory down to psychological causes, such as what's suggested. And let it be a good example of how tricky human memory is, even my own. CFLeon 08:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: There's a sketch based on descriptions of the 'photo' at Cryptozoology.com. I don't know their copyright policy, but if it's ok, perhaps that culd be posted here- making clear it's an artist's conception. As an aside- it's certainly not MY recollection: I remember seeing a pic outside with cowboys just standing around, not stretched alongside. And the critter I remember was much less obviously birdlike and limp. CFLeon 03:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plausibility check

He claimed to have seen it fly over a thunderhead cloud that was over a group of hills to the south that was approximately one and a half miles from where he was standing. The boy claimed that from his point of view it looked the size that a crow-sized bird would at twenty feet away. From this it could be assumed that the flying creature reported had a wingspan of around twenty-five feet.

One and a half miles, that's 7920 feet, which means by the rule of three that an object appearing to be the same size as a crow at a distance of 20 feet must be about 400 times the size of said crow. If our assumed typical crow has a wingspan of 2 feet, than said larger bird would have to have a wingspan of almost 800 feet, more than twice that of the infamous Spruce Goose. Even a really open-minded cryptozoologist should find the thought that such large birds exist anywhere in the world ludicrous! As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the number suggested here ("twenty-five feet") just makes no sense at all in relation to the other numbers. Aragorn2 19:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Aragorn2 is correct. Article text changed. 64.122.41.167 03:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)