33 replies to this topic

[Twin Personalities]

hello everyone....

i have a statement and i would like to hear your thoughts about it:

i think that Cryptozoology/cryptids are fake, why? let me tell you, why didn't we ever find some proof about a real cryptid?
why didn't we ever find something like a bigfoot? we may hear the truth and see "documentarys" but that still doesn't proof that they actually exist....
people think just random thoughts about creatures, melt them with existing animals and then you have your profit. i also made a disturbing discovery about the monster of
lochness, i was messing around and the same day i learned in biology class how marine animals......"mate"(disgusting )
the lochness thingy looked like the..... killer whale's/orca's..... di**, and so a question mark above my head was born i researched it and looked to pics of the di** of those animals
(no homo) and but them side to side with the monster of lochness........ and saw that they almost literally almost looked the same........ just a orca upside down with a...... let me say
a "burst of hormones". here is the link for the orca's di**(they are shortened urls from google images): goo.gl/0PwFb   and this one is for the monser of lochness:http://goo.gl/zKSwz
i could be wrong but but those 2 images side to side and see it for your self

or let me put this the religious way.....


about the period of 1000 and 1500, creatures and man lived side by side, god saw it and thought: if this going the continue like this, bad things are likely going to happen, but first god stood and watched as mankind further developed their capacities, they became smarter and saw(mankind) that the creatures are evil, god did also saw this and he decided to split the realms, all the creatures(vampires, werewolves, weird animal stuff etc.) were send to another realm while the humans stayed where they were.......

it might look like some child's draft but who cares,
what do you think?

[Bling]

Cataclysmic faith, on 14 November 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

hello everyone....

i have a statement and i would like to hear your thoughts about it:

i think that Cryptozoology/cryptids are fake, why? let me tell you, why didn't we ever find some proof about a real cryptid?

I think you'd better read this, just because we haven't captured the remaining cryptids we have reports about, doesn't mean they don't exist.

http://listverse.com...out-to-be-real/

[Twin Personalities]

no offense but that aren't exactly what you can say cryptid......... the owl however......

[Bling]

Cataclysmic faith, on 14 November 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

no offense but that aren't exactly what you can say cryptid......... the owl however......

They were once considered cryptids....I suggest you read more about what cryptids are instead of just looking at the pictures!

Edited by Bling, 14 November 2012 - 09:58 PM.

[Hilander]

You are willing to believe in a god no one has ever seen but not Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.  We all have our selective beliefs.

[Sakari]

Bling, on 14 November 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

They were once considered cryptids....I suggest you read more about what cryptids are instead of just looking at the pictures!

I disagree with that.....



In cryptozoology and sometimes in cryptobotany, a cryptid (from the Greek "κρύπτω" (krypto) meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is unrecognized by scientific consensus and often regarded as highly unlikely.^[1] Famous examples include the Yeti in the Himalayas and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland. Other examples include the famous Bigfoot.





You are looking for more on the lines of :

Un-discovered Species/Animal
Un-recorded Species/Animal

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well if we class cryptids as creatures whose existence is mocked until proven then we've our old friend the Platypus and to a lesser extent the mountain gorilla (which was, admittedly, more in the realms of "we don't believe you, find us proof" rather then "you can't find proof, it doesn't exist").

[keninsc]

That's very true, all of the creatures in the article Bling posted were once considered to be the stuff of myths and legends........until they were found. Now, to be fair, the term "Cryptozoology" hadn't been coined at the time many of these creatures were considered to be the stuff of legends. However, once "discovered" then they aren't "Cryptid" creatures any more, they're real creatures that zoologist (a real scientific discipline) can then study, get samples from and learn about their dietary requirements, mating habits, etc. For instance, you can't go to any accredited college or university and study for and receive a degree in "Cryptozoology", in fact all you have to do is simply say you're a cryptozoologist and like magic you pretty much are one. I often get a bit of a laugh when some person is on TV and the first thing they do is open with a line like, "Hi, I'm Joe Smith and I'm a Cryptozoologist.........." My first reaction is usually, "Oh yeah, and where did you go to school to get that degree?" And that's usually followed by, "Did you go to college?" Cryptozoology isn't a real scientific discipline, at best it's a pseudoscience, which means it depends on witness accounts, anecdotal evidence, legends and questionable evidence. Edit to add: another favorite thing I hear all the time is when some hair or scat or something it taken in for DNA testing the results come back as "inconclusive" which is often made to sound like it's a positive term. It isn't, that term means we didn't come up with anything that says it's something we can identify or the sample was too badly degraded in order to get solid results from to begin with, however in a narrative they often make it sound like, "We got results and we don't know what it is."

Footprints of a Bigfoot are easily faked, fuzzy, out of focus "blobs" on a video or in still pictures can be just as easily faked or simply misinterpreted, meaning the person who had the sighting was fooled but they are completely convinced it was real. A person can believe with all their heart and soul they have seen a Bigfoot, but that doesn't mean they really saw one. Belief is not proof, sincerity is not proof, only real evidence is proof.

What would be real proof? A body, a skeleton from which DNA could be extracted, fossil evidence that they once existed......that's a bit of a reach because just because they once existed doesn't mean they still do exist. An example would be dinosaurs, they once existed but we don't have any T-rex's running about now. (and thank Heavens for that). Real, clear sharp videos of Bigfoots in the wild doing what they do, interacting, eating, mating.......ok, maybe not mating but you get what I mean. We don't have any of that.

Edited by keninsc, 14 November 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[Bling]

Sakari, on 14 November 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

I disagree with that.....



In cryptozoology and sometimes in cryptobotany, a cryptid (from the Greek "κρύπτω" (krypto) meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is unrecognized by scientific consensus and often regarded as highly unlikely.^[1] Famous examples include the Yeti in the Himalayas and the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland. Other examples include the famous Bigfoot.





You are looking for more on the lines of :

Un-discovered Species/Animal
Un-recorded Species/Animal

The animals in the link I provided were once considered cryptids....and then their rumoured existence was proven and they became a recognised species and not labelled a cryptid anymore.

[Slave2Fate]

Do we need another thread about what exactly constitutes a cryptid?

[keninsc]

Oh absolutely! For the same reason most here quote the person right above them when replying.

[Bling]

keninsc, on 15 November 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Oh absolutely! For the same reason most here quote the person right above them when replying.

Are you referring to anyone in particular? Maybe two people have the same views, and are typing at the same time, but don't press POST straight away because something comes up in the real world!

[keninsc]

Now, now.......

Don't get upset, it's a pet peeve of mine really and it doesn't apply to this message board alone............and no, as a matter of fact, I wasn't refering to anyone in particular. However, if the shoe fits......

I have a college debree in mechanical engineering and an IQ of 156, odds are I can usually figure out who you're replying to unless it was five or so replies earlier or on a previous page.

Edited by keninsc, 15 November 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[Sakari]

keninsc, on 15 November 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Oh absolutely! For the same reason most here quote the person right above them when replying.

How would you know why a person quoted someone?


And most of the time, if someone quotes someone, it is to show they are answering them, and not someone else, thus not causing confusion as the poster above has as to whom you are refering to.

And who cares......

[Bling]

keninsc, on 15 November 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Now, now.......

Don't get upset, it's a pet peeve of mine really and it doesn't apply to this message board alone............and no, as a matter of fact, I wasn't refering to anyone in particular. However, if the shoe fits......

I have a college debree in mechanical engineering and an IQ of 156, odds are I can usually figure out who you're replying to unless it was five or so replies earlier or on a previous page.

You have a 'debree'? Good for you! Nice to meet you by the way