Hmmm…I've been away for a while and now I see there is still some life in this owl theory.  Curious…

Sullivan said at the end of his very nice response: "As I said previously, this is pure entertainment and what JM presents is not skeptical but speculation."

I absolutely agree.  Again…the normal disclaimer…nothing against JM or anything, just his owl speculation…

As I said in my first response, there is simply NO evidence that Evan was attacked.  The camera attached to him shows his face and then goes black.  The side-view camera…again…shows him in a sitting position, he rises quickly, throws up his hands and promptly goes out of view.  There is NO evidence that he was attacked by anything.  To simply come up with something because it lives near the location…is not being skeptical.  That is only speculation. 

I am disappointed in some of the responses in this thread.  Medals and praise and adulation are generally not heaped upon speculation around these parts.  I kind of thought that the website sort of leaned towards a critical examination of the evidence.  I mean right off the bat…giving any show the "benefit of the doubt" simply isn't done.  Why should it?  Evidence must speak for itself. 

If one wishes to indulge in speculation…then one can look at motive or human nature.  For example:

Common Raven said: "What bothers me in part is this: Presumably, if paranormal this is is remarkable evidence to me; you could easily do an entire 1/2 hour of analysis, discussion, show any competing camera angles, etc. Even Ghost Hunters knows to stretch the segment into an entire hour if they have something interesting. Instead, they treat it as they do all other evidence, like the faked footprints, etc. One quick segment, and on to the end of the show. I've already begun to question DT's sincerity."

Now one can definitely do a bit of hefty speculation on this aspect.  If the incident had truly occurred, either paranormal or attacked by wild animal (or…..owl…), then why not show the video clip over and over again?  Why not include it in the actual start of every show?  Why not hoist it to the heavens and tell the world that you either have proof of the paranormal (since what he was "apparently" attacked by was "obviously" invisible <— that's some swanky speculation on my part )?  Or…look how dangerous it is for us and see how we got attacked trying to bring you the best shows possible?

But what happens?  A bunch of nothin'.  And that, my friends, speaks volumes about the integrity of the show and what really happened.  THAT is why we do NOT give the "benefit of the doubt" to any paranormal show right of the bat. 

Again…not going after JM in the least.  Seems like a nice enough person.  I simply disagree with his "owl theory" and view it as speculation rather than a valid explanation of the events as the evidence does not support it.

To Common Raven:  So, sadly, no my friend…Ockham (I prefer that spelling) would not be proud.  Given the evidence and the possibilities, the most likely explanation is that Evan faked the entire encounter.  I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

To Stealth: I found your addition to the thread quite curious.  Curious indeed…

Lastly, General3 had this to say: "As far as people pointing to science to explain off everything is a joke. Science is still very much so in its infancy. The more we think we know the more questions that arise that are not answerable. It seems that no matter what day and age we live in people always seem to think that we know everything there is to know."

Absolutely.  I couldn't agree more.  I don't see the point in trying to understand the world around us either.  It's just way too hard.  I mean, it's way easier to scrunch up one's face, wave one's hands about in the air, and just believe anything the guy next to me says just because he says it with conviction.  I'm right there with you.  Gathering all that empirical evidence and proving junk is for suckers.  Hmmm…on second thought, that owl theory is sounding better and better…. (I kid, I kid…but not really…).   

Tonight was the season-finale for DT.  While watching it, a couple of things kind of jumped out at me and I was reminded of this thread.  For the record…just food for thought here.  You know, conjecture and speculation…

The first thing that I noticed were the personal camera packs that some of team wears.  The one where an arm actually protrudes past the person's shoulder to view them.  Anyway, on Easter Island, Josh starts sprinting with it on.  Perhaps "sprinting" is a strong word to describe it, yet I have to believe that those personal camera packs do carry some weight, he's running on unfamiliar and an uneven surface as well as it being quite dark.  Through the awkward movements, the camera remains on him and films him quite well.

While in New Zealand, once again Josh is wearing the unit and slides down an embankment.  The unit slides with him and captures the footage of his shocked and scared face.

Now lets return to Romania and Evan out in that "Circle of Death."  We see maybe a couple of seconds of video and then his personal camera unit goes blank.  Hmmm…curious isn't it?  In both New Zealand and Easter Island, the camera units are moved about quite a bit and they still work fine.  Evan, the camera man…., his unit instantly quits on him the very moment that we need it the most.  Hmmm…what are the odds on that?  And just for the record…no explanation was ever given as to why that camera shut off.

And speaking of our buddy Evan…let's talk about the second interesting part of tonight's show and how it relates to the Romanian incident…

On Easter Island, Evan suddenly and abruptly "freaks out" and as Josh said "went banana's."  Why?  Because apparently he felt a hand on him.  So he yells and quickly tears off his shirt.  The actual movement that he displayed…hmmm…where have we seen that before? 

Some have stated that Evan couldn't have moved that fast (referring to the side-camera view of him in Romania) on his own.  Or that he wouldn't have moved in that manner unless something was "attacking" him.  I have to believe that if one compares the video of Evan on Easter Island and then the video in Romania…it seems to be awfully similar, doesn't it?  Sure, on Easter Island he isn't starting in a sitting position, but the ability to move really quick is there.  He does have some athletic ability.  One can also make the argument, I suppose, that he's quite capable of scaring himself…unless you believe that an invisble hand actually touched him.

So…we have personal camera units that seem like they can take a beating and still film yet Evan's (the camera man) fails him at the most curious time.  We've also seen now on Easter Island that Evan has the rare and quite funny ability to scare himself silly.  He yells like he's being murdered and moved with quite impressive quickness.  Curious, no? 

Just food for thought…you know, just some speculation…

I believe that Common Raven brought up Ockham's Razor.  It's been re-worded 800 times, but a generally accepted version is "with all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one."  In science, it's used as a logical principle…that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. Of course, that may change with future data thus accepting more complex explanations.

JM, my friend, you are still hoisting speculation above fact.  In fact, you end your response with this: "Please do find me a better explanation than the one I've put forth (aside from DT faking the whole thing….I think at this point we've admittied the possibility and are furthering the discussion as excluding that, unless you have smoking gun evidence…like say, Collargate, or any given episode of Paranormal State or Ghost Adventures),  I'd be …very, very interested to hear and consider it(no sarcasm there, honest)."

You are discounting the evidence and replacing it with speculation and will only accept other speculation.  As I've said countless times now, there is no evidence that Evan was attacked by anything.  Nothing on video.  No physical evidence of any other creature.  This is what we have to work with yet you do not accept this.  For some reason, you believe that the incident being faked is "copping out" in a way.  I am uncertain as to why when a critical examination of the given evidence points us to not accepting the physical attack as true.

You mention the scratches.  You state that they are "relatively deep."  Hmmm…are they?  What makes you say that?  The total and utter lack of blood gushing out?  The fact that they were not immediately bandaged?  The fact that we are viewing them in crappy night-vision and can't really tell anything about them?  Do you see where I'm going here with this?  Again…more speculation.  There is no evidence that these scratches were "relatively deep."  In fact, with what I've just mentioned, quite the contrary. 

If one wishes to speculate about these scratches, using the evidence that we have seen…or not seen (lack of blood and that they weren't bandaged immediately)…the logical assumption would be that the scratches are superficial.  So, how did he get them?  Glad you asked.  Let's speculate…

He's dead center in the "Circle of Death."  There's only grasses growing in the circle where "nothing grows."  Essentially, there is nothing for him to "accidentally" scratch himself on, at least not causing multiple scratches like we saw.  However, he is not found in the center of the clearing is he?  He's found at the edge of the clearing, the edge denoted by all the trees with low hanging branches.

Now, one can speculate that in during his panic attack (real or not)…he could have simply ran into a tree.  After all, he was found by the trees. 

And of course, he could have just scratched himself.

Now…according to Ockham's Razor, given the evidence that we have…which is more likely true about the scratches?  Self-inflicted, he ran into a tree, or he was attacked by an owl which was not seen on video and who left claw marks on his arm but no damage was shown to the jacket sleeve?

For some reason, you believe that I am talking about some sort of "elaborate hoax."  As if everything was planned ahead of time.  That would be speculation on my part and crazy hard to prove.  My position is that what we are seeing is "untrue."  The evidence that we have points to something untrue.  You want a bit of speculation?  Fine…

SPECULATION —> Evan sat in the circle.  Two things could have occurred.  He was told by producers to freak out at some point in the investigation (the GH version of "I just saw a shadow").  The other thing, Evan simply scared himself like we saw on Easter Island.  Either way, he freaks out and makes for the trees.  At this point, he knows the team is coming for him.  If planned, he scratches himself to provide physical evidence.  If not planned, he falls into a tree.  At the time, Evan says little.  Either he's holding back on purpose to further "good clips" by the team being scared and in shock or he's just really embarrassed and figuring out how to explain it.  Whichever happened, the show still edits it and puts out it in the manner that they did on purpose.  To create speculation over what really happened. —> END OF SPECULATION

So…no great big elobrate hoax needed.  It could be as simple as that.  As easy as that.

This is also why I am fighting so hard against the owl theory.  The evidence that we have points to the incident being untrue.  JM is proposing that what we are seeing is true based upon the mere fact that owls may live in the area.  Again…for the umpteenth time…no evidence of any owl attacking Evan.

Lastly, JM had this to say: "That said, I think Sullivan, and a few of the other of the hypothesis' critics would do well to familiarize themselves with were on the web they are.  Skepticalviwer dot com…implies…skepticalviewing."

I am a critic of the owl theory/hypothesis/speculation/conjecture.  I am also quite familiar with where I am on the web…you can tell by the number of posts below my name.  And I do believe that I am viewing both DT and your owl thing in a skeptical manner.  Can you please explain why you choose to call me out in such a fashion and how I am not being skeptical? 

~Revenant <—not cracking knuckles or cleaning messes or busting heads…just viewing the evidence in a critical fashion in order to arrive at the truth.