Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
pokingjoker

Other cryptids out there....proof?

43 posts in this topic

If it comes to pass they are confirmed to be a real flesh and blood creature, then you know the answer.

I think we all know the answer, but some of us don't wast to admit it.

I call bs. It is however common knowledge that bigfoot is one of santa's giant elves, related to the tooth fairy by marriage.

No wonder the DNA results are always inconclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, it's also common knowledge that bigfoot cant kill people. Sex slave? I think your safe, your far to ugly for that.

True, but a Bigfoot might think I'm Marilyn Monroe.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, your killing me LOL.

BTW I support you in killing bigfoot. PM me if you ever find one and I'll come out and help you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defining "cryptozoology" is certainly problematic. The science definition being "the scientific investigation of animals whose existence or identity has yet to be confirmed by science" largely excludes the monster hunting side of Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster yet the popular definition - "the study of hidden animals" - Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster are the big ticket definers of what is cryptozoology. The broader definition, with it's tawdry association with showmen, cranks, and fakers, hinders the appeal of "cryptozoology" to science while the science definition excludes much of what cryptozoology actually is at ground level.

I think that much of the definition problem stems from the actual beginnings of "cryptozoology" and it's two key founders: Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan Sanderson.

Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with scientific rigor, but with an open-minded, interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric sources regarding such creatures, arguing that while often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding undiscovered organisms.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Cryptozoology

Whereas Sanderson paid special attention to the evidence for lake monsters, sea serpents, Mokèlé-mbèmbé, giant penguins, Yeti, and Sasquatch.

http://en.wikipedia....an_T._Sanderson

From it's very beginnings, "cryptozoology" was divided and inadequately defined.

I could not agree more, and yet I still do not understand the difference between a hidden animal, and an animal not yet catalogued by science after all these years and debates. The so called "hidden animals" according to all reports are not hidden, and in fact rely totally on hearsay, suggesting a sighting, and the number as we know for Bigfoot alone is claimed to be about 400 a year. Again, the definition contradicts itself even though I am using a very popular sample, this was where the Loch Ness Monster resided a few short decades ago. Now, I think one would be hard pressed to find a true Nessie believer today.

Hidden from science? Hidden from common sense perhaps?

I think Cryptozoology could be defined as an emotion even. People put a lot of passions into defending and describing Cryptozoology when they seem to be talking zoology.

The late 60s and 70s experienced the rise of sensational cryptozoology via the big ticket items - Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster. This newfound interest was then met by an attempt to legitimise "cryptozoology" via the establishment of the International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC) which published it journal Cryptozoology from 1982-1996. Monster claims declined significantly in this era. However, by 1998 the ISC was defunct and social communication via the internet was exploding as were monster claims. This time, the monster hunters became organised largely facilitated by the new horizons offered by the internet and groups like the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) have sprung up wherever monster claims were coming from (everywhere!).

They had to do something with things like the Minnesota Iceman making the rounds. Easy enough to fool people, heck, Piltdown Man fooled some of the best. As did the Cottingley Fairies. Aliens on earth seem to be the current thing to believe in. I suspect with NASA's great achievements many like to think they are being "intellectual" in their pursuit of nonsense. LOL. But that will be the next step. Earth is only so big, and eventually it will be debated out of the picture eventually. I think Bigfoot saw this coming and has hoped on the Alien Bus in time for a good seat. I really think Bigfoot is on borrowed time, as Nessie was. Loch Ness while big took quite some time to rationalise, with Bigfoot being purported as global it will take longer, but I suspect the end result will be forthcoming. I feel it will diminish into a fringe whacky group, like the flat earthers or similar.

Eventually.

I like to think these snake oil salesmen have shot themselves in the foot, to an extent at least by using the Internet. While they baffle people with BS those very people have solid sources of information at their fingertips. I like to optimistically hope that a number of these people utilise that resource and challenge the unsupported extraordinary claims as well as listening to them. Interesting results are sure to ensure.

Yes, the ISC although officially defunct continued with a web presence up until about the time I joined this board. Loren is carrying the torch though. He has kept groups like the BFRO in business, and I am sure history will recognise that. Funny these guys see themselves as some sort of hero, treading where angels fear, however years and years of extraordinary claims have resulted in zip. One has to ask the people like Coleman and Dr Meldrum, would you pay someone decade after decade to provide no more than promises that remain unfulfilled? They need fresh meat, because you can only spin a story for so long before someone will ask them demonstrate a claim. Enter the Internet and the angsty teen with an attitude that "knows" these claimants are "onto something". Meh. How long can that last and maintain credibility?

The popular appeal for the monster hunting type of "cryptozoology" has once again conflated enough to warrant the publication of a new science publication - The Journal of Cryptozoology. I have the first issue on order but have yet to receive it. Will monster claims once again go on the decline with the intervention of science "cryptozoology" or does the popular appeal of monster hunting "cryptozoology" ensure the monsters will live on? Perhaps we are about to be witness to the clash of the "cryptozoologies" - Science v Monster Hunting. The line dividing the two sides is not so clear cut within "cryptozoology" (see Meldrum's upcoming version of Finding Bigfoot) so any stoush would inevitably get messy. Or will "cryptozoology" evolve into something else entirely?

You might have a point, whilst there is some decline in the area of interest, Nat Geo has sold out and produced such nonsense as Is It Real, which is not at all objective, but speculative. Unsupported at that. We could be witnessing an evolution indeed. I'd like to hope that easy access to academic information will curb this, but it will continue for some time. Cryptozoology os not out for the count yet. I watched a Nat Geo on Atlantis the other day. I was very sad to see such a great resource decline so badly. More nonsense than I could stand. I could not finish watching the entire episode.

Interesting times we live in...

To say the least........

Who is going to be the next Gilroy?

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder the DNA results are always inconclusive.

Without a match in the genbank that's the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Al was a cryptid himself, the Portly Carbonized Tree Stump.

:w00t:

You know, I am not going to argue the point..............................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a match in the genbank that's the way it is.

Part human though remember :lol:

Common ancestor.

If such existed, we would have a common ancestor, and would be able to make comparisons based on that. The Bili Ape was identified as a fifth sub species of chimp through a scat sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a match in the genbank that's the way it is.

Correct, one might be able to get the family or order, such as canidae, but without a known reference to compare to, getting the genus and species is likely impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well back to the original focus of the post... i personally do not feel there is any strong evidence for any cryptid being in existance hence why they are probably all still considered to be cryptids....but that is just my opinion

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but one has to keep an open mind as well, but not so open that your brain falls out on the floor.

Proof, real proof is what is needed and getting that proof shouldn't be frowned upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part human though remember :lol:

Common ancestor.

If such existed, we would have a common ancestor, and would be able to make comparisons based on that. The Bili Ape was identified as a fifth sub species of chimp through a scat sample.

Yeah, that's what is being touted at this time, part human, part novel somethingorother. But without that novel somethingorother being identified and placed in the genbank we'll not know. But personally I don't put much stock in Ketchum report at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one alleged cryptid that i believe could be a real possibility would be the giant snake in the amazon and in the congo

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's what is being touted at this time, part human, part novel somethingorother. But without that novel somethingorother being identified and placed in the genbank we'll not know. But personally I don't put much stock in Ketchum report at this time.

If it is a great ape, and by all reports that is really the only option in our tree, then we must have some genetic commonality.

Remember we did manage to identify the Bili Ape as a fifth sub species of Chimp by way of a scat sample. It seems to me there has to be something recognisable from a primate. Even if it was a marsupial, we have enough on record to trace down a family tree.

And if it is part human/part something else, that something else has to be very, very close to human to provide a viable offspring in the first place.

But it all sounds like a steaming pile of Bigfoot scat anyway.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one alleged cryptid that i believe could be a real possibility would be the giant snake in the amazon and in the congo

2 things to consider

1 - If it got out of the water, it would probably crush it's own ribcage, they have delicate bone structures

2 - it would have to eat a great many small animals, because snakes digest slowly, a cow or something would probably go rotten before digestion is complete. Which does not sound to viable for a large creature.

The biggest snake on record is the fossil of titan boa, which attained a size on 42-45 feet. Is that the magnitude you are thinking, or much bigger?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well back to the original focus of the post... i personally do not feel there is any strong evidence for any cryptid being in existance hence why they are probably all still considered to be cryptids....but that is just my opinion

Again it comes dow to the definition of the word "Cryptid" which really is a very ambiguous description. It seems to mean different things to different people.

Confusing yes, but that is the nature of Cryptozoology.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to be totally honest i dont recall where i read it but there was a book when i was in school that got me interested in cryptids as there were lore in the amazon i think for a giant ass spider, going back centuries for reported sightings and the same for this gigantic snake, and being as snakes have been known to like other species grow to the size the environment allows, really got me wondering as to the real possibility, i know there are photos that were taken in like the early to mid 1900's that show a huge snake but no reference points to truly show size, just a real WHAT IF....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few cryptids some of the evidence will showed that the cryptid where mised identified as the case of cryptid such as the Blue dogs a cryptid known from the United States under the name chupacabra this are just coyote with mange. There are many examples of a cryptid being a known animal, or mised identified .Don't think you where looking for them So for unknown animals the orang-pendix and the batuttut have strong anadoltal evidence which suggest that they exist. I start with that one cryptid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they are interesting to read about and fun to watch programs about, but they aren't real. No-one has any evidence aside from hearsay and pictures of blurry pixels which could be anything.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.