[Slave2Fate]

I think your question is valid evan, if you base it on the similarities of evidence between cryptids and not necessarily belief. I have found that most cryptids have, as you say, somewhat vague eyewitness accounts coupled with the occasional blurry pic/vid. Sometimes there is even physical evidence, of course it is rarely verifiable or inconclusive at best. With all of this in common between most cryptids, how does one determine which cryptid has plausibility? Is it the person backing the claim that has made a convincing argument? Or does one use basic rules of ecology and biology to weigh the validity of a claim? Who knows in the end, some obviously simply believe to believe while others try to gather more evidence in an effort to justify their belief. Still there are others who are somewhere in the middle, which is fine 'cause that's where you'll usually find me.

[thylacoleo]

I believe in the possibility of life elsewhere but that doesn't mean I believe in Abductions etc...So, along this line no I don't believe in all cryptids at all. I take most everything on common sense, evidence and eyewitness accounts and other factors; such as, did the creature/animal/insect/arachnid ever exist.

This post has been edited by thylacoleo: 07 October 2009 - 06:14 AM

[Spend]

evancj, on 10 February 2008 - 01:44 AM, said:

<!--quoteo(post=2143235:date=Feb 9 2008, 02:52 PM:name=doesnt_matter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (doesnt_matter @ Feb 9 2008, 02:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2143235"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So because some people believed the gorilla existed when it was considered a cryptid , <u><b>then those people believed all cryptids exist</b></u>?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The gorilla is the exception not the rule. In this case sightings resulted in evidence (a body) that proved their existence. Why hasn't the same been found in the case of others cryptids?

I don't know if those people believed in other cryptids, but thats pretty much what I am asking in this post.

So there are muiltiple exceptions, take giant squids was a cryptid for a long time despite bodies and footage of these animals they were not formally identified for a very long time as there was no defining evidence. there are other accounts (mainly of megafauna or apparently extinct species) that now have been proved to exist but were considered cryptids

anyway saying this whole argument is based on flawed logic and a poor understanding of cryptids, for example I believe a unknown large animal lives in lake champlian (pictures video, sonar contacts, recordings of strange underwater sounds) I personally think its a species of large fresh water aquatic mammal because the sounds and some of the footage resemble a whale like creature. where I don't believe in the loveland frog 1 sighting in the 50's the media got hold of it but that was the only confirmed sighting (the police sightings in the 70's were of a large non native lizard but the local media reported as the loveland frog)

according to the flawed logic of the OP these 2 crypids have the same chances of existing where as anyone with some common sense can see they don't while I'm not saying it does exist champ is much more likely than the loveland frog

[evancj]

Slave2Fate, on 06 October 2009 - 11:43 PM, said:

I think your question is valid evan, if you base it on the similarities of evidence between cryptids and not necessarily belief. I have found that most cryptids have, as you say, somewhat vague eyewitness accounts coupled with the occasional blurry pic/vid. Sometimes there is even physical evidence, of course it is rarely verifiable or inconclusive at best. With all of this in common between most cryptids, how does one determine which cryptid has plausibility? Is it the person backing the claim that has made a convincing argument? Or does one use basic rules of ecology and biology to weigh the validity of a claim? Who knows in the end, some obviously simply believe to believe while others try to gather more evidence in an effort to justify their belief. Still there are others who are somewhere in the middle, which is fine 'cause that's where you'll usually find me.

Here we go again.

Be warned everyone whom wants to get ugly on me over this post like the others, I am far more knowledgeable and better prepared to defend myself and my logic this time. So flame away if you must, I can take it but that is not the intent of this post.

Please do not do as the others did before this and tell me my logic is flawed but can’t tell me why. If you can’t explain it then as far as I am concerned you are just reacting out of emotion or a threat to your belief.

I will also say as psyche did that some so called cryptids are more plausible than others. For instance in my opinion bigfoot is more plausible that the jersey devil. However they both have the basic same evidence to support their existence.

Hello Mr. Fate,
Good to see you again (so to speak). I am glad that at least you and psyche understood what I was getting at. Thanks for your post, and I agree with what you had to say on this subject.

[DieChecker]

I think the idea that if you believe in one cryptid, you need to believe in them all is silly. That is like saying you have to believe in all religions if you follow one religion. Or, that you need to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy if you believe in the Easter Bunny. They are mutually exclusive with differing amounts of evidence and support. The Flying Spagetti Monster does not have as much evidence as Sea Serpents. Bigfoot has been seen by multiple hundreds of people, while Nessie has been seen by only dozens, and many cryptids have been seen only by one or two people.

It is possible to believe in even just parts of a cryptid legend, such as only beliving in Bigfoot in Orange County California. Or only in Nessie as the only Lake Monster. There does not need to be belief in anything else. You can even believe that a gnome lives under your bed and no where else and still it is a cryptid. Not a very believable one, with less evidence, but still an unexplained creature.

[psyche101]

Spend, on 07 October 2009 - 07:03 PM, said:

So there are muiltiple exceptions, take giant squids was a cryptid for a long time despite bodies and footage of these animals they were not formally identified for a very long time as there was no defining evidence. there are other accounts (mainly of megafauna or apparently extinct species) that now have been proved to exist but were considered cryptids

There are not multiple exceptions, there are multiple interpretations. For instance, here you call Architeuthis Dux a cryptid. How so? We have had physical remains since the 1800's. Steenstrup coined Architeuthis at the time. We have descriptions going back as far as Aristotle.

How is it a cryptid? It seems that it does not come under the banner of hidden animal.

Spend, on 07 October 2009 - 07:03 PM, said:

anyway saying this whole argument is based on flawed logic and a poor understanding of cryptids, for example I believe a unknown large animal lives in lake champlian (pictures video, sonar contacts, recordings of strange underwater sounds) I personally think its a species of large fresh water aquatic mammal because the sounds and some of the footage resemble a whale like creature. where I don't believe in the loveland frog 1 sighting in the 50's the media got hold of it but that was the only confirmed sighting (the police sightings in the 70's were of a large non native lizard but the local media reported as the loveland frog)

So, you categorise credibility on personal opinion and anecdotes? Don't take offense, just putting things in perspective here.

Spend, on 07 October 2009 - 07:03 PM, said:

according to the flawed logic of the OP these 2 crypids have the same chances of existing where as anyone with some common sense can see they don't while I'm not saying it does exist champ is much more likely than the loveland frog

Flawed logic of the OP? How so?

It is entirely dependent on how one defines the term "Cryptid". You disagree with his interpretation. That does not make his logic flawed, in fact, if anything, I would say it is a little over your head going by the above.

Is Champ more plausible than a Loveland Frog? If so, why? One sighting? How do you know Loveland Frogs do not Pilot UFO's? What about Reptilians? As ridiculous as the notion of a Reptilian is (did I say ridiculous? That does not really cut the mustard with Reptilians I suppose, but you know what I mean, incredibly stupid or worse), could that not be also Frog Confusion? There is no way to be absolute when speculating.

This post has been edited by psyche101: 08 October 2009 - 01:35 AM

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 08 October 2009 - 11:26 AM, said:

I think the idea that if you believe in one cryptid, you need to believe in them all is silly. That is like saying you have to believe in all religions if you follow one religion. Or, that you need to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy if you believe in the Easter Bunny. They are mutually exclusive with differing amounts of evidence and support. The Flying Spagetti Monster does not have as much evidence as Sea Serpents. Bigfoot has been seen by multiple hundreds of people, while Nessie has been seen by only dozens, and many cryptids have been seen only by one or two people.

It is possible to believe in even just parts of a cryptid legend, such as only beliving in Bigfoot in Orange County California. Or only in Nessie as the only Lake Monster. There does not need to be belief in anything else. You can even believe that a gnome lives under your bed and no where else and still it is a cryptid. Not a very believable one, with less evidence, but still an unexplained creature.

Would you call the flying Spaghetti monster a cryptid?

Bigfoot had to get to Orange County California, Nessie has to have a population to survive, and if Nessie was proven, by this logic that means it is no influence on Champ, to which I disagree. To be happy to think Biff magically appeared in Orange County and had the best hidey hole on the planet is every bit as ridiculous as believing in a Minotaur. Or perhaps, even a flying spaghetti monster. Just because we have Apes does not mean anything, we also have spaghetti, half ape-men do not exist, .
I do not feel the above Gnome example describes a cryptid. If it lives in someone's head, how is it still a real creature? I know you would not believe a claim in that instance, why would any thinking person, It is not a cryptid, you are describing a mental condition there.

There is being thorough, and then there is just wasting time.

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 07 October 2009 - 06:47 PM, said:

Would you call the flying Spaghetti monster a cryptid?

I would if people reported seeing it. Or, if there were otherwise evidence of it, such as spaghetti looking organic materials left at cattle mutilation sites, or whatever.

Quote

Bigfoot had to get to Orange County California, Nessie has to have a population to survive, and if Nessie was proven, by this logic that means it is no influence on Champ, to which I disagree. To be happy to think Biff magically appeared in Orange County and had the best hidey hole on the planet is every bit as ridiculous as believing in a Minotaur. Or perhaps, even a flying spaghetti monster. Just because we have Apes does not mean anything, we also have spaghetti, half ape-men do not exist, .

I do not believe that to be a limiting factor. A cryptid can be a one off mutant freak, or a displaced regular animal. Such as an Orang living in the Everglades (Skunk ape). There does not have to be fossils locally, or a population to entitle belief or cryptid status, there only has to be a honest eyewitness report or evidence.

Quote

I do not feel the above Gnome example describes a cryptid. If it lives in someone's head, how is it still a real creature? I know you would not believe a claim in that instance, why would any thinking person, It is not a cryptid, you are describing a mental condition there.

I did not say his head. I said the Bed. I would still call it a cryptid, if the person reporting it was logical and sane and honestly appeared to think something was there. It could easily be a raccoon that was hairless, or a weird opossim. The fact only one person saw it and that the location was very small is not a factor in its status as a cryptid, it only makes investigating it easier and faster. It is by investigation that cryptid reports are eliminated, and not chiefly by logic and skepticism alone.

[Slave2Fate]

DieChecker, on 07 October 2009 - 06:26 PM, said:

I think the idea that if you believe in one cryptid, you need to believe in them all is silly. That is like saying you have to believe in all religions if you follow one religion. Or, that you need to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy if you believe in the Easter Bunny. They are mutually exclusive with differing amounts of evidence and support. The Flying Spagetti Monster does not have as much evidence as Sea Serpents. Bigfoot has been seen by multiple hundreds of people, while Nessie has been seen by only dozens, and many cryptids have been seen only by one or two people.

It is possible to believe in even just parts of a cryptid legend, such as only beliving in Bigfoot in Orange County California. Or only in Nessie as the only Lake Monster. There does not need to be belief in anything else. You can even believe that a gnome lives under your bed and no where else and still it is a cryptid. Not a very believable one, with less evidence, but still an unexplained creature.

So is it the amount of evidence that sways opinion? What about the quality of evidence? IMO even if you had 1000 vague eyewitness reports they wouldn't hold a candle to one distinct focused picture. If it is the amount, then how much evidence is enough to say 'OK, now I believe', even if some of the evidence is questionable at best?

[evancj]

thylacoleo, on 07 October 2009 - 12:12 AM, said:

I believe in the possibility of life elsewhere but that doesn't mean I believe in Abductions etc...So, along this line no I don't believe in all cryptids at all. I take most everything on common sense, evidence and eyewitness accounts and other factors; such as, did the creature/animal/insect/arachnid ever exist.

Thanks for your post thylacoleo,

I'm not sure that the common sense approach to filter evidence is a valid one. What is common sense to one person my be a complete lack there of to another. Can you give me a more specific example using one cryptid you believe in against one you don't, and please specify the common scene evidence that compels you to believe.

I don't think eyewitness reports and foot prints can be considered evidence, as they have never resulted in a confirmed discovery of a cryptid. Which brings me to the point of what criteria do you use to determine what a cyrptid is exactly?

My criteria for determining a cyrptid is simple; animals of fairy tales, and myth that have no scientific or physical evidence (past or present) to support there existence. I will use some of the well known cyrptids as a baseline example; bigfoot, and other bipedal ape like men, the lochness monster, and like lake monsters, unicorns, fairy like creatures, the jersey devil, lizard/frog men, moth man, I am sure the list goes on but I think I have made my point.

I don't think known extinct animals are cryptids, they are already known to science so in my opinion they can not be cryptids. I will agree that there is the possibility that some species considered recently extinct may still be living, but I do not believe that there are still giant dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and the like still running around out there.

I don't think newly discovered species are cyripdis either as they are always just unknown variations of already known species, such as insects, lizards, snakes, birds, monkeys etc.

I'm sure a lot of you will pick my criteria apart and that ok as I am sure I have not covered everything, and I am open to suggestions, or criticism. I will address both as they come.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 08 October 2009 - 11:57 AM, said:

I would if people reported seeing it. Or, if there were otherwise evidence of it, such as spaghetti looking organic materials left at cattle mutilation sites, or whatever.

But made out of spaghetti? Spaghetti is inanimate. If someone reported a creature made out of Spaghetti, and Spaghetti was found at the site of sighting, I would call hoax. No way I would believe dough is sentient. Even if it spoke to me. I would be straight off to the looney farm by my own hand in that case.

DieChecker, on 08 October 2009 - 11:57 AM, said:

I do not believe that to be a limiting factor. A cryptid can be a one off mutant freak, or a displaced regular animal. Such as an Orang living in the Everglades (Skunk ape). There does not have to be fossils locally, or a population to entitle belief or cryptid status, there only has to be a honest eyewitness report or evidence.

Definition again, I would call it an out of place animal. I think when the Skunk Ape is found people will go, it wasn't a cryptid, it was just an Orangutan. If an animal is displaced, it is displaced by human intervention. I do not feel one can make their own cryptids. As I say, the term "cryptid" is loose, and depending on ones personal opinion of the interpretation. Whilst the Skunk Ape is unknown to science, it is merely unknown because it only exists in Anecdotes, when science catches the thing, it will not be a cryptid, it will be an escaped Orangutan. It is hype that has given the thing the name of Skunk Ape. Surely any serious researcher that has seen the photo would look for an Orangutan.

DieChecker, on 08 October 2009 - 11:57 AM, said:

I did not say his head. I said the Bed. I would still call it a cryptid, if the person reporting it was logical and sane and honestly appeared to think something was there. It could easily be a raccoon that was hairless, or a weird opossim. The fact only one person saw it and that the location was very small is not a factor in its status as a cryptid, it only makes investigating it easier and faster. It is by investigation that cryptid reports are eliminated, and not chiefly by logic and skepticism alone.

I know you said bed , but that scenario is describing a thing that lives in someone head.

If I may borrow from your post

Quote

It is by investigation that cryptid reports are eliminated, and not chiefly by logic and skepticism alone.

So in the above example, does not investigation show the "Gnome" which turned out to be a Raccoon (or Opossum), was never a cryptid at all? Was not skepticism correct in the first instance?

This post has been edited by psyche101: 08 October 2009 - 02:18 AM

[psyche101]

Slave2Fate, on 08 October 2009 - 12:11 PM, said:

So is it the amount of evidence that sways opinion? What about the quality of evidence? IMO even if you had 1000 vague eyewitness reports they wouldn't hold a candle to one distinct focused picture. If it is the amount, then how much evidence is enough to say 'OK, now I believe', even if some of the evidence is questionable at best?

Yes. As per Hairy Man/Yowie/Biff/Sasquatch/Yeti/Yeren.

[Slave2Fate]

psyche101, on 07 October 2009 - 07:24 PM, said:

Yes. As per Hairy Man/Yowie/Biff/Sasquatch/Yeti/Yeren.

I agree that the sheer amount of evidence can often be mistaken for good evidence, but in my opinion it isn't the same thing. As in the example I posted, 1000 vague eyewitnesses or one clear picture. To me there is only one of those things that could actually be considered evidence (Hint: it isn't the eyewitnesses)

[DieChecker]

Slave2Fate, on 07 October 2009 - 07:11 PM, said:

So is it the amount of evidence that sways opinion? What about the quality of evidence? IMO even if you had 1000 vague eyewitness reports they wouldn't hold a candle to one distinct focused picture. If it is the amount, then how much evidence is enough to say 'OK, now I believe', even if some of the evidence is questionable at best?

Any evidence is enough for crytid status. It is not a factor of everyone believing in the crytid. It could be only the old men of an African village in Camaroon, and it would be a crytid. It could even just be legend that no one has ever seen. The point is that it is an unidentified creature. The fact that it can not be identified or has no evidence does not exclude Crytid status from a creature. Unicorns, Harpies, Fauns, Dragons, Fairies and such can be considered crytids, though it would be hard to find people who have seen or photographed them.

evancj, on 07 October 2009 - 07:14 PM, said:

I don't think eyewitness reports and foot prints can be considered evidence, as they have never resulted in a confirmed discovery of a cryptid. Which brings me to the point of what criteria do you use to determine what a cyrptid is exactly?

Yet footprints and eyewitness reports can be used to track the movements and ranges of bears, cougars and wolves? If a forest ranger sees a bear track he KNOWS there was a bear there. If he sees a Bigfoot track or maybe a giant bird track, then all of a sudden it is not evidence? Eyewitness and tracks can lead to experts going out to look for more evidence under controlled scientific conditions. So they are evidence in that they can be evidence to lead to further research, and thus more evidence. Is this not the scientific method? Following up on observed phenomena to understand that phenomena.

Quote

I don't think known extinct animals are cryptids, they are already known to science so in my opinion they can not be cryptids. I will agree that there is the possibility that some species considered recently extinct may still be living, but I do not believe that there are still giant dinosaurs, woolly mammoths and the like still running around out there.

They are still a crytid, because they are an unexplained animal. Once they are explained, then they are not a crytid.

Quote

I don't think newly discovered species are cyripdis either as they are always just unknown variations of already known species, such as insects, lizards, snakes, birds, monkeys etc.

They are if they are reported, but have little or no evidence to support them. If for example those people that explored the crater in New Guinea and found the Giant Rats, if they had only reported the ROUS (Rodents of Unusual Size), but had not collected any or taken pics, then that would be a crytid till someone else did collect such evidence.

Quote

I'm sure a lot of you will pick my criteria apart and that ok as I am sure I have not covered everything, and I am open to suggestions, or criticism. I will address both as they come.

psyche101, on 07 October 2009 - 07:17 PM, said:

But made out of spaghetti? Spaghetti is inanimate. If someone reported a creature made out of Spaghetti, and Spaghetti was found at the site of sighting, I would call hoax. No way I would believe dough is sentient. Even if it spoke to me. I would be straight off to the looney farm by my own hand in that case.

I said a spaghetti looking substance. Perhaps it is just a weird pile of horsehair worms (link). Or perhaps tendrils off a creature such as a jellyfish. The point being why discount evidence because you think it ridiculous? The evidence should be anylized and then kept or tossed.

Quote

Definition again, I would call it an out of place animal. I think when the Skunk Ape is found people will go, it wasn't a cryptid, it was just an Orangutan. If an animal is displaced, it is displaced by human intervention. I do not feel one can make their own cryptids. As I say, the term "cryptid" is loose, and depending on ones personal opinion of the interpretation. Whilst the Skunk Ape is unknown to science, it is merely unknown because it only exists in Anecdotes, when science catches the thing, it will not be a cryptid, it will be an escaped Orangutan. It is hype that has given the thing the name of Skunk Ape. Surely any serious researcher that has seen the photo would look for an Orangutan.

But, all such creatures are crytid in nature till they are found or confirmed. Just like Shrodinger's Cat the out of place animal is not an out of place animal till it is found. You can not call something normal till the evidence says so. Otherwise it falls into the vortex of being crytid in nature and status.

Quote

So in the above example, does not investigation show the "Gnome" which turned out to be a Raccoon (or Opossum), was never a cryptid at all? Was not skepticism correct in the first instance?

I was a cryptid during the 24 hours it took to capture it from the attic and have a vet look at it. Then it was a hairless raccoon, but not before. Before that it was a crytid. The Montauk Monster is a crytid which turned out to be a raccoon that had decomposed. But while it was unexplained it was a crytid. It is a status that exists between existing and not.

[DieChecker]

Slave2Fate, on 07 October 2009 - 07:29 PM, said:

I agree that the sheer amount of evidence can often be mistaken for good evidence, but in my opinion it isn't the same thing. As in the example I posted, 1000 vague eyewitnesses or one clear picture. To me there is only one of those things that could actually be considered evidence (Hint: it isn't the eyewitnesses)

And yet it is considerably easier to fake one pic then to fake 1000 individual experiences.