Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Explanations for Cryptids and the paranormal


Lucas Cooper Merrin

Recommended Posts

I dont try to hide the fact I am on the sceptical side of the fence, i firmly believe there is always a natural logical explanation for every paranormal phenomenon there is!

The Human variable is the weakest link in the believers chain, we lie, we misinterpret, we fall victim to mental illness, we suffer from hallucinations and other sensory malfunctions, fear can consume us, even just basic lack of knowledge has caused people to go through situations which to them are "unexplained".

Ive yet to come across anything paranormal that cannot be disproved either by hoax or the inconsistent, unstable, unreliable human element.

The only unexplained mystery is the human mind!

http://listverse.com/2015/10/18/10-real-life-explanations-for-famous-myths-and-cryptids/

http://listverse.com/2014/11/30/10-mystery-monster-finds-with-perfectly-rational-explanation/

http://listverse.com/2013/09/30/10-scientific-explanations-for-ghostly-phenomena/

http://theweek.com/articles/457992/4-possible-scientific-explanations-ghosts

http://listverse.com/2014/07/18/10-infamous-ufo-sightings-with-unbelievably-simple-explanations/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to have a somewhat different view.

Please give me a paranormal instance that cannot be explained by logic and reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont try to hide the fact I am on the sceptical side of the fence, i firmly believe there is always a natural logical explanation for every paranormal phenomenon there is!

The Human variable is the weakest link in the believers chain, we lie, we misinterpret, we fall victim to mental illness, we suffer from hallucinations and other sensory malfunctions, fear can consume us, even just basic lack of knowledge has caused people to go through situations which to them are "unexplained".

Ive yet to come across anything paranormal that cannot be disproved either by hoax or the inconsistent, unstable, unreliable human element.

The only unexplained mystery is the human mind!

http://listverse.com...s-and-cryptids/

http://listverse.com...al-explanation/

http://listverse.com...stly-phenomena/

http://theweek.com/a...anations-ghosts

http://listverse.com...e-explanations/

if you're a reader, try out this one:

http://www.amazon.com/unidentified-Notes-toward-solving-mystery/dp/0446787353/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445168159&sr=1-8&keywords=unidentified+jerome+clark

It tries to give you somewhat of a "unified field theory" of all things paranormal that doesn't involve anything but the human mind ;):tu:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you're a reader, try out this one:

http://www.amazon.com/unidentified-Notes-toward-solving-mystery/dp/0446787353/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1445168159&sr=1-8&keywords=unidentified+jerome+clark

It tries to give you somewhat of a "unified field theory" of all things paranormal that doesn't involve anything but the human mind ;):tu:

Instantly orderd! Good find Jacques, it sounds to be of great interest to me.

Have you read it yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instantly orderd! Good find Jacques, it sounds to be of great interest to me.

Have you read it yourself?

i just finished it. it was mentioned in Jacques Vallee's "passport to magonia" and it heavily relates to the work of Carl Gustav Jung, so i was thrilled to get a copy as fast as i could.

It might be not everyone's cuppa tea, but i enjoyed it a lot. Hope you do, too!

edit: them pesky spelling errors

Edited by Jacques Terreur
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest. I've never been terribly interested in Bigfoot, the thought I had seen the Patterson-Gimlin footage over and over, but I sat down with a friend and we really watched it and I'm still unsure what to think. The body and hair and everything is way more like a primate than any suit, especially anything any Hollywood production had at the time, like Doctari or whatever the wildlife gorilla show was. I am not sure if we can easily make something that good STILL. That's frustrating to me. I do ask you to really look at some of the movements and compare it to any suits and then to actual primates. It will be fun if nothing else. I'm still not a Bigfoot believer, but whatever it was, it was a lot more impressive than I used to think.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the world, unfortunately, is full of stuff that is/was seen as THE piece of evidence,

analyzed by experts and claimed to be genuine. Still, in the end, most of that stuff was found out to be staged.

LIke the Rex Heflin Saucer photos.

They'll find that hairy suit at some point....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest. I've never been terribly interested in Bigfoot, the thought I had seen the Patterson-Gimlin footage over and over, but I sat down with a friend and we really watched it and I'm still unsure what to think. The body and hair and everything is way more like a primate than any suit, especially anything any Hollywood production had at the time, like Doctari or whatever the wildlife gorilla show was. I am not sure if we can easily make something that good STILL. That's frustrating to me. I do ask you to really look at some of the movements and compare it to any suits and then to actual primates. It will be fun if nothing else. I'm still not a Bigfoot believer, but whatever it was, it was a lot more impressive than I used to think.

That video has always impressed me, for being staged in the mid 60's the suit was was very well designed and made. Its quite a believable piece of footage, but thats all it is...footage

Until one is captured, shot or found dead and is able to be studied and confirmed then its all hoaxes and misidentification

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing things beyond these explanations disproves this theory to me.

"Seeing" being the word that disproves yours

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Seeing" being the word that disproves yours

Ah! Now I believe I understand your meaning. Here I was wondering how you would observe a phenomenon if you immediately ruled out anything related to the primary human sense of sight, but then I remembered that all Canadians are sense-oriented around echolocation.

Look, there are plenty of drunken sightings and people who got way too close to a reared up bear than they should have, but it's the epitome of anti-scientific to make blanket statements like all anomalies being the result of human perceptions failing. Mountain gorillas were a mythical race of wild men for a couple millennia before they were rediscovered. Similar with pandas, okapi, coelacanth, etc. Just as one doesn't make a definitive statement about an unverified phenomenon until sufficient supporting evidence has been presented, you don't assume something is a hoax until sufficient evidence has been provided to the contrary. In the meantime, they're maintained in a conditional flux until enough information can be gathered to form a better working hypothesis or a theory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah! Now I believe I understand your meaning. Here I was wondering how you would observe a phenomenon if you immediately ruled out anything related to the primary human sense of sight, but then I remembered that all Canadians are sense-oriented around echolocation.

Look, there are plenty of drunken sightings and people who got way too close to a reared up bear than they should have, but it's the epitome of anti-scientific to make blanket statements like all anomalies being the result of human perceptions failing. Mountain gorillas were a mythical race of wild men for a couple millennia before they were rediscovered. Similar with pandas, okapi, coelacanth, etc. Just as one doesn't make a definitive statement about an unverified phenomenon until sufficient supporting evidence has been presented, you don't assume something is a hoax until sufficient evidence has been provided to the contrary. In the meantime, they're maintained in a conditional flux until enough information can be gathered to form a better working hypothesis or a theory.

Fair point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mountain gorillas were a mythical race of wild men for a couple millennia before they were rediscovered.

No no no no non no NO!!!

i'm so sick of this lie. Gorilla and Mountain Gorilla have been known about for thousands of years. A specimen of Mountain Gorilla was not obtained until 1902. That's it. They are no different from the eastern lowland gorilla with the exception of longer hair and being more gregarious. They were not a wholly unknown or unexpected animal and were certainly NOT a mythical race of wild men.

Trust me on this one. I know a thing or two about Gorillas.....

Edited by Imaginarynumber1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is no doubt that LOTS of People see LOTS of things. Everyday, all the time.

I've had my share of crazy stuff as well.

But that doesn't mean these things are physically present. Do aliens REALLY travel billions of light years to play a nightly hide and seek with farmers? Does an elusive 8ft hairy ape really roam woods all over the world and randomly scares tourists?

This is not dismissing peoples' experiences or encounters, this is rather a suggestion to double-check their origin

People tend to underestimate the power of the human brain and its capabilities to summon up archetypical imagery.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no no non no NO!!!

i'm so sick of this lie. Gorilla and Mountain Gorilla have been known about for thousands of years. A specimen of Mountain Gorilla was not obtained until 1902. That's it. They are no different from the eastern lowland gorilla with the exception of longer hair and being more gregarious. They were not a wholly unknown or unexpected animal and were certainly NOT a mythical race of wild men.

Trust me on this one. I know a thing or two about Gorillas.....

Good to know the difference between the two, don't see the relevance though. My point is that the animal was described as a stereotypic wildman by Hanno the Navigator in about 500 BCE and was promptly relegated to the mass grave of mythological beasts until the past couple centuries. There have been plenty of local accounts of them in that time, but these were dismissed until a White person could get out there and bring back a specimen.

It was a similar story with pandas. Only instead of it being a mythological tribe of hirsute women, it was a breed of Taoist bears that lived as hermits in the mountains, gave up eating meat, and were marked with the yin and yang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to know the difference between the two, don't see the relevance though. My point is that the animal was described as a stereotypic wildman by Hanno the Navigator in about 500 BCE and was promptly relegated to the mass grave of mythological beasts until the past couple centuries. There have been plenty of local accounts of them in that time, but these were dismissed until a White person could get out there and bring back a specimen.

Yeah, In 500 BCE. 2500 years ago, Lowland gorilla have been known about for a looong time. It's the oft touted "discovery" of the mountain gorilla in 1902 that always gets brought up. It's a poor example because, again, gorillas have been known about for a long time.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the shadows slink and slither,

And the goblins all parade;

Then reason is a broken reed

At the devil's Masquerade.

Don't believe the human eye

In sunlight or in shade.

The puppet show of sight and sense

Is the Devil's Masquerade.

I cant conceive that all reports and sightings can be explained by any one idea or theory. There are many reasons and dynamics at work. I prefer the 'Daimonic Reality' theory, although I dont give as much creedance as to the 'reality' of the many events used to demonstrate that theory . My view is that we have a 'perceived reality' , and that changes over time .... and is strongly influenced by the current philosophical and/or technical paradigm ( we used to see angels and devils ... now we see UFO's and good and bad aliens .... shamans would go into a dream state, get 'pulled apart' by 'entities' that live in that state, have crystal rods inserted into their bodies that stayed there, showed marks left by it on their return - people get captured by aliens ( and usually describe being in a 'dream state' , even if they think they are awake, get probed and come back thinking they have 'implants' . The themes and motifs are the same, they are just clothed with different interpretations.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, In 500 BCE. 2500 years ago, Lowland gorilla have been known about for a looong time. It's the oft touted "discovery" of the mountain gorilla in 1902 that always gets brought up. It's a poor example because, again, gorillas have been known about for a long time.

Such is life :)

In 1777 Captain Cook landed here and informed the Aboriginals that they had been 'discovered' . The fact that they existed before that ... for about 50,000 years ? Pfffft .... now, time to name everything anew ..... New South Wales .... New Hampshire ... New England ... :-*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such is life :)

In 1777 Captain Cook landed here and informed the Aboriginals that they had been 'discovered' . The fact that they existed before that ... for about 50,000 years ? Pfffft .... now, time to name everything anew ..... New South Wales .... New Hampshire ... New England ... :-*

To "discover" something really just means that someone was at a place and was also white.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, In 500 BCE. 2500 years ago, Lowland gorilla have been known about for a looong time. It's the oft touted "discovery" of the mountain gorilla in 1902 that always gets brought up. It's a poor example because, again, gorillas have been known about for a long time.

Yes, known about, just like any number of other species that holds some level of cryptid status or another. Western lowland gorillas were known by locals, but not identified to Western science until only fifty or sixty years before mountain gorillas were identified, even then, it was only by a collection of their bones.

Until the mid-nineteenth century, by the strict metrics that are applied to cryptids, gorillas were only as "real" as that tribe of Africans that had no heads and their faces on their torsos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...., gorillas were only as "real" as that tribe of Africans that had no heads and their faces on their torsos.

uuhhhm, WHAT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To "discover" something really just means that someone was at a place and was also white.

Pretty much. But in all fairness, it's more of an issue of failing to live up to the ideals of scientific objectivism than any targeted racism.

Everyone's a little bit racist on a fundamentally biological level. It's the natural human impulse to more easily accept new information from someone who comes from the more similar background; someone who's more likely to be one of "your people." In Western society, it's just a numbers game that says the guy telling you the information is going to be White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.