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 -

Bizarre Accounts of Living Dinosaurs- Africa


rashore

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

Is anyone here familiar with the story of early paleontologists discovering a pterosaur encased in stone that when released suddenly returned to life?

I recall reading this years ago in an Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology. The incident allegedly took place in France during the 1800s.

Yes, it is an obvious hoax.

https://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/12/23/pterosaurs-alive

Quote

Perhaps the earliest 'living pterosaur' account dates to 1856 when, according to the Illustrated London News, a live pterodactyl with a 3 m wingspan emerged alive from within a rock dislodged during the construction of a French railway tunnel. The emergence of live animals from 'within solid rock' was not an unfamiliar idea at the time, as various Victorian reports described the discovery of frogs, toads and other animals within rocks or stones. This story is clearly a hoax: the pterosaur allegedly represented a new species dubbed Pterodactylus anas. Anas means duck; in France (where the pterosaur was allegedly found), a duck is called a canard. Canard is another word for hoax.

 

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2019 at 7:42 AM, stereologist said:

A long and detailed study of the Jersey devil has been produced and it is far more  interesting than the silly stories and fiction so often told.

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_jersey_devil_the_real_story

 

That was a great read, i always thought the jd was myth but this wraps it up really well,

Of course true believers have their tar and feathers ready at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, the13bats said:

That was a great read, i always thought the jd was myth but this wraps it up really well,

Of course true believers have their tar and feathers ready at hand.

As is so often said there is some grain of truth to the tales. In this case it happens to be a kangaroo with wings tied to it. I noticed that was not in the tale. It comes in the early 1900s when someone went to capitalize on the tales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall the poor kangaroo gaff...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2018‎-‎12‎-‎31 at 12:23 AM, Lord Harry said:

Will do so. Most accounts of living dinosaurs are likely hoaxes or exxagerations. On that I will concede.

The Loch Ness Monster in particular could not be a plesiosaur simply because their isn't enough fish in the loch to support a single large predator of that nature much less a breeding population. If Nessie is a cryptid, I find the giant salamder hypothesis to be far more plausible.

 

What makes you think its a constant resident ? Not just coming into breed btw when do those resident fish spawn ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2019‎-‎01‎-‎04 at 6:36 AM, the13bats said:

Perhaps my dr narkeris quote is taken a bit out of the context of how i was using it and even perhaps how she meant it, she has discovered like 6 new species of primates.

And when we get past myth and spirtuial beings i do not believe all indigenous people lie about things they see.

If you read much of my posts you know i rate eye witness reports and anecdotal evidence as worthless, that is worthless to me to prove something in a scientific way,

Any human can and some do lie, and some are very sincere just mistaken, in the case of living dinosaurs in the congo, no, i see zero to prove it to me something with a footprint 3 feet across is living there, however, a reptile of 20, 30 maybe 40 feet could be, and being open minded to that is far easier for me than saying all the natives are lying.

As far as jersey devil i find it an abomination, a hodge podge of mixed creatures that vary sighting to sighting and not the same as big lizards in the congo,

Remember the monsterquest episode in PNG looking for pterodactyls one non local was such an overbearing walking pile of fertilizer i couldnt take anything he spewed with any merits

However again the indigenous peoples insist they see something described as a pterodactyl i have a hard time saying 100% of those people are lying, but a huge flying reptile would not stay hidden so where does that leave me?

Funny how you are one that's needs a dead specimen dropped at your feet bleeding to recognize it exists. Then you will say what ?

Use google and look at all the forest territory that lacks virtually little or no human activity. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CuCulaine said:

Funny how you are one that's needs a dead specimen dropped at your feet bleeding to recognize it exists. Then you will say what ?

Use google and look at all the forest territory that lacks virtually little or no human activity. 

Nothing ironic about the fact i need scientific proof not true believers faith,

I need nothing bleeding at my feet and have zero clue why you are making up stuff, ( again )

Brian sykes did a great job to prove to me and what most monks knew all along the yeti is a type of bear, and no bloody remains, just dna.

What did i say then? Way to go doc sykes,

You worded tha last partt oddly,

You said "lacks" virtually any or no human activity, so do you mean places people are in abundance,

Assuming what you meant to say, so what if few or no people there, so what ? doesnt mean a creature is either.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/6/2019 at 12:13 PM, CuCulaine said:

Funny how you are one that's needs a dead specimen dropped at your feet bleeding to recognize it exists. Then you will say what ?

Use google and look at all the forest territory that lacks virtually little or no human activity. 

I fail to see how that is "funny." Yes, we do need some kind of specimen to prove its existence. How is that unreasonable? Are you telling me to accept blurry beyond recognition photos, unbelievably shaky videos, and unconfirmed reports as undeniable proof of its existence?

Let me tell you, if they ever drag a body out of there and it's confirmed by multiple reputable scientists as being real, I will personally buy you dinner and apologize while saying that you were right all along.

But only after we get proof. Until then, it doesn't exist to most.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2019 at 1:13 PM, the13bats said:

That was a great read, i always thought the jd was myth but this wraps it up really well,

It was actually invented in a parody and nut shot to Daniel Leeds written by Ben Franklin which the 'London Gentlemen's Gazette' ran as a true tale. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be great if we could have our own explorers go have a look otherwise it is just conjecture really.

I mean, I have heard that the Congo is like 80% uncharted but I can't really say that's true.

We should send in groups of teenagers to look, lol x

 

Edited by Anna101
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Anna101 said:

It would be great if we could have our own explorers go have a look otherwise it is just conjecture really.

I mean, I have heard that the Congo is like 80% uncharted but I can't really say that's true.

We should send in groups of teenagers to look, lol x

 

I'll volunteer mine!  :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I'll volunteer mine!  :D

Lol. Little sods would love it. Obviously, we'd make sure they're safe but I think kids are smarter than we know and should be FULLY encouraged to be explorers. They are our true explorers, not those ****s on TV who don't even live near us all and are all funded by the same people for like, hundreds of years. Duhhh, as if you can believe what they say anyway. They're just capitalists.

Encouraging teens to be explorers would stop loads of unnecessary deaths too. I mean look how many die during the holidays from jumping in deep lakes to see how deep they are?! Those questions really do need to be answered so I can understand why they do it. I think we are supposed to step inwards towards mystery, not be afraid.

I was like that as a kid anyway. I reckon they'd be ACE.

Yeah, send some teens I say. Ok, a couple may get munched but they'd film it well and the research papers would be interesting lol x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

First: what makes me shake my head in disbelief is this: a local hunter (or any other local inhabitant) says: "I saw a deer".  Do scientists and sceptics say: "Well, I wouldn't be so sure, perhaps it was an elephant, or maybe a squirrel, have you got any proof other than an anecdotal second-hand account?" No, of course they won't say that.  They will accept it at face value or they will simply not comment on it at all.

The same hunter (or any other local) says: "I saw a mokele-mbembe".  What happens then?  Questioning. Doubting. Ridiculing. Mocking.Requiring irrevocable proof.  Images (nay, images are not good because if they were present, most surely it would be Photoshop, right?). Videos (naaah, videos aren't good enough, after all anyone with sufficient computer/software knowledge can create a CGI, right?).

So my question is: why is that?  Why do you accept when a local says they've seen a deer or an elephant but you do not accept when they say they've seen a mokele-mbembe (or kongamato, amali, jago-nini, you name it, the name and the animal doesn't matter)? Do you seriously think that a person who has spent all their life in the jungle, whose father, grandfather and countless forefathers have lived in the same jungle for hundreds and thousands of years, do you think then that such a person is really unable to differentiate between an elephant, a hippo, a frigate bird etc. and a mokele-mbembe, an emela-ntouka or a ropen? Not to mention non-native (or non-local) eyewitnesses from Europe and America who have also seen something which was definitely not an "ordinary" animal (as you will see on the map here https://dyiwg8.webwavecms.com/, there have been some such accounts/eyewitnesses as well).

I simply cannot understand the resistance of scientists and skeptics to such information. Let me remind you that - for example - the okapi has been similarly ridiculed until finally it was encountered, photographed, captured and catalogued, hence that fact that a given animal is rare or extremely rare (or perhaps that only the sightings are rare or extremely rare) does not mean that the animal doesn't exist.

Is mokele-mbembe a "living fossil" or a living sauropod? Most likely not (although, you never know).  Perhaps it is hitherto-unknown kind of a reptile or a mammal.  But the thing is, until sceptics and/or scientists move their asses from their comfy chairs to research and find the animal - something that they obviously won't do - any such research is relegated to what they contemptuously call "amateurs".  Amateurs who - at least - have passion and drive to find the truth behind those mysterious animals. If ever a day comes when some such passionate amateur researcher actually does find, photographs and films such a mysterious creature (and/or possibly captures it) - then, I am absolutely positive about it, suddenly scientists will flock in, claiming it has actually been very likely for many years that such a creature could exist, and skeptics will fall silent.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because deer are known to exist. Known to live in areas X, Y, Z. With many physical samples. 

The Mokele Membe has no physical remains in scientific hands. And has no known range, frequency, or ecology. So some skepticism is warrented.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WojciechB said:

First: what makes me shake my head in disbelief is this: a local hunter (or any other local inhabitant) says: "I saw a deer".  Do scientists and sceptics say: "Well, I wouldn't be so sure, perhaps it was an elephant, or maybe a squirrel, have you got any proof other than an anecdotal second-hand account?" No, of course they won't say that.  They will accept it at face value or they will simply not comment on it at all.

The same hunter (or any other local) says: "I saw a mokele-mbembe".  What happens then?  Questioning. Doubting. Ridiculing. Mocking.Requiring irrevocable proof.  Images (nay, images are not good because if they were present, most surely it would be Photoshop, right?). Videos (naaah, videos aren't good enough, after all anyone with sufficient computer/software knowledge can create a CGI, right?).

So my question is: why is that?  Why do you accept when a local says they've seen a deer or an elephant but you do not accept when they say they've seen a mokele-mbembe (or kongamato, amali, jago-nini, you name it, the name and the animal doesn't matter)? Do you seriously think that a person who has spent all their life in the jungle, whose father, grandfather and countless forefathers have lived in the same jungle for hundreds and thousands of years, do you think then that such a person is really unable to differentiate between an elephant, a hippo, a frigate bird etc. and a mokele-mbembe, an emela-ntouka or a ropen? Not to mention non-native (or non-local) eyewitnesses from Europe and America who have also seen something which was definitely not an "ordinary" animal (as you will see on the map here https://dyiwg8.webwavecms.com/, there have been some such accounts/eyewitnesses as well).

I simply cannot understand the resistance of scientists and skeptics to such information. Let me remind you that - for example - the okapi has been similarly ridiculed until finally it was encountered, photographed, captured and catalogued, hence that fact that a given animal is rare or extremely rare (or perhaps that only the sightings are rare or extremely rare) does not mean that the animal doesn't exist.

Is mokele-mbembe a "living fossil" or a living sauropod? Most likely not (although, you never know).  Perhaps it is hitherto-unknown kind of a reptile or a mammal.  But the thing is, until sceptics and/or scientists move their asses from their comfy chairs to research and find the animal - something that they obviously won't do - any such research is relegated to what they contemptuously call "amateurs".  Amateurs who - at least - have passion and drive to find the truth behind those mysterious animals. If ever a day comes when some such passionate amateur researcher actually does find, photographs and films such a mysterious creature (and/or possibly captures it) - then, I am absolutely positive about it, suddenly scientists will flock in, claiming it has actually been very likely for many years that such a creature could exist, and skeptics will fall silent.

I'm glad you asked.

Skeptics and scientists are not going to blindly believe. If a local hunter in Africa says they saw a deer then skeptics and scientists are going to want proof. There are no native deer in Africa except for the Barbary coast. Suppose they report an animal native to the area. We would not think much about it would we?

But they tell us they saw mokele mbembe. No one knows what that is. Do you know? I don't. No one really does. So our interest is piqued. Mine is. So what did they see? Some people claim it is a dinosaur. Some people think it is a forest rhino or a forest elephant. People that are adamant about what it is such as being a dinosaur are really out of touch with reality. Why? Because it has not been identified. That of course does not stop some people from being absolutely certain it is a dinosaur of some kind.

Where are the footprints? Where are the scat? Where are the herds? Where was the animal feeding? Where is there anything other than a story?  If you want stories there are plenty of them. 

You mention the okapi. You claim "the okapi has been similarly ridiculed". I don't believe that is correct.  The people looking for it had a piece of hide. Did you know that? They had something tangible and wanted to find the animal the hide came from. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi

Quote

Although the okapi was unknown to the Western world until the 20th century, it may have been depicted since the early fifth century BCE on the façade of the Apadana at Persepolis, a gift from the Ethiopian procession to the Achaemenid kingdom.[2]

For years, Europeans in Africa had heard of an animal that they came to call the African unicorn.[citation needed] The animal was brought to prominent European attention by speculation on its existence found in press reports covering Henry Morton Stanley's journeys in 1887. In his travelogue of exploring the Congo, Stanley mentioned a kind of donkey that the natives called the atti, which scholars later identified as the okapi. Explorers may have seen the fleeting view of the striped backside as the animal fled through the bushes, leading to speculation that the okapi was some sort of rainforest zebra.[citation needed]

When the British special commissioner in Uganda, Sir Harry Johnston, discovered some Pygmy inhabitants of the Congo being abducted by a showman for exhibition, he rescued them and promised to return them to their homes. The Pygmies fed Johnston's curiosity about the animal mentioned in Stanley's book. Johnston was puzzled by the okapi tracks the natives showed him; while he had expected to be on the trail of some sort of forest-dwelling horse, the tracks were of a cloven-hoofed beast.[3]

Though Johnston did not see an okapi himself, he did manage to obtain pieces of striped skin and eventually a skull. From this skull, the okapi was correctly classified as a relative of the giraffe; in 1901, the species was formally recognized as Okapia johnstoni.

 

Your repeated claims of ridicule are incorrect. 

Your assumption that the stories as presented to you reflect what is happening is likely the cause of the trouble. The stories you are hearing are stories told by someone collecting stories and providing you with their narrative. It is likely that the original stories are not like the stories you are hearing and tell the tale of an animal that the people encountered that was well out its territory and unfamiliar to the locals. Their tale is then warped by someone into a fantasy tale. 

Mokele mbembe is unlikely to be a large unknown beast. It is more likely a known animal that has been distorted in its description.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2018 at 6:20 PM, seanjo said:

Pretty sure all of Africa is pretty much inhabited and explored and is no longer the "dark continent"...

Well, you are completely wrong. We have large parts of africa that still hasn't been explored throughoutly yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WojciechB said:

First: what makes me shake my head in disbelief is this: a local hunter (or any other local inhabitant) says: "I saw a deer".  Do scientists and sceptics say: "Well, I wouldn't be so sure, perhaps it was an elephant, or maybe a squirrel, have you got any proof other than an anecdotal second-hand account?" No, of course they won't say that.  They will accept it at face value or they will simply not comment on it at all.

The same hunter (or any other local) says: "I saw a mokele-mbembe".  What happens then?  Questioning. Doubting. Ridiculing. Mocking.Requiring irrevocable proof.  Images (nay, images are not good because if they were present, most surely it would be Photoshop, right?). Videos (naaah, videos aren't good enough, after all anyone with sufficient computer/software knowledge can create a CGI, right?).

So my question is: why is that?  Why do you accept when a local says they've seen a deer or an elephant but you do not accept when they say they've seen a mokele-mbembe (or kongamato, amali, jago-nini, you name it, the name and the animal doesn't matter)? Do you seriously think that a person who has spent all their life in the jungle, whose father, grandfather and countless forefathers have lived in the same jungle for hundreds and thousands of years, do you think then that such a person is really unable to differentiate between an elephant, a hippo, a frigate bird etc. and a mokele-mbembe, an emela-ntouka or a ropen? Not to mention non-native (or non-local) eyewitnesses from Europe and America who have also seen something which was definitely not an "ordinary" animal (as you will see on the map here https://dyiwg8.webwavecms.com/, there have been some such accounts/eyewitnesses as well).

I simply cannot understand the resistance of scientists and skeptics to such information. Let me remind you that - for example - the okapi has been similarly ridiculed until finally it was encountered, photographed, captured and catalogued, hence that fact that a given animal is rare or extremely rare (or perhaps that only the sightings are rare or extremely rare) does not mean that the animal doesn't exist.

Is mokele-mbembe a "living fossil" or a living sauropod? Most likely not (although, you never know).  Perhaps it is hitherto-unknown kind of a reptile or a mammal.  But the thing is, until sceptics and/or scientists move their asses from their comfy chairs to research and find the animal - something that they obviously won't do - any such research is relegated to what they contemptuously call "amateurs".  Amateurs who - at least - have passion and drive to find the truth behind those mysterious animals. If ever a day comes when some such passionate amateur researcher actually does find, photographs and films such a mysterious creature (and/or possibly captures it) - then, I am absolutely positive about it, suddenly scientists will flock in, claiming it has actually been very likely for many years that such a creature could exist, and skeptics will fall silent.

This is a hopelessly naive view as is typical for many cryptozoologists. Deer and elephants have been documented in countless photographs and videos and have numerous physical specimens in museums. We know they exist, which is why no one doubts encounters with them. On the other hand, extant non-avian dinosaurs have never been photographed, videoed, or captured alive or dead. There is no compelling evidence to suggest their existence; the two situations are not even comparable.

The fact of the matter is that reports of living dinosaurs in Africa have been heavily influenced by colonialism. These alleged encounters describe dinosaurs not as we know them to have looked today, but instead how they were portrayed in European and American artwork pre-1970. Cryptozoologists have had a bad habit of leading witnesses into describing dinosaurs this way, something they freely admit to in ignorance of how ethically questionable this practice is.

I recommend you read these articles and actually learn something about this topic before going on another rant.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/misreading-the-mokele-mbembe-the-mokele-mbembe-part-1/

https://www.skepticblog.org/2011/06/29/a-living-dinosaur-in-the-congo-part-2/

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it could be that populations of dinosaurs survived in impact craters. At first the dinosaurs died there because of the impact but because of the climate change after the impacts they went into this area because the crater is a different ecological system.
They hunt maybe outside and come back. They profit from this that at normal the body is visible in the flat africa prairie. They can hide better in the crater vegetation.
The crocodiles survive all impacts in small lakes in africa and live further until today. The small lakes are different ecological system. That means that in the crater can survive the dinosaurs like the crocodiles in the african lakes.
Possible is Velociraptor. Maybe he can glide through the air now to reach spots in and outside the crater faster.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, acdrnx said:

it could be that populations of dinosaurs survived in impact craters. At first the dinosaurs died there because of the impact but because of the climate change after the impacts they went into this area because the crater is a different ecological system.
They hunt maybe outside and come back. They profit from this that at normal the body is visible in the flat africa prairie. They can hide better in the crater vegetation.
The crocodiles survive all impacts in small lakes in africa and live further until today. The small lakes are different ecological system. That means that in the crater can survive the dinosaurs like the crocodiles in the african lakes.
Possible is Velociraptor. Maybe he can glide through the air now to reach spots in and outside the crater faster.

John Hammond, is that you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, acdrnx said:

it could be that populations of dinosaurs survived in impact craters. At first the dinosaurs died there because of the impact but because of the climate change after the impacts they went into this area because the crater is a different ecological system.
They hunt maybe outside and come back. They profit from this that at normal the body is visible in the flat africa prairie. They can hide better in the crater vegetation.
The crocodiles survive all impacts in small lakes in africa and live further until today. The small lakes are different ecological system. That means that in the crater can survive the dinosaurs like the crocodiles in the african lakes.
Possible is Velociraptor. Maybe he can glide through the air now to reach spots in and outside the crater faster.

The Chicxulub impact crater was in the Gulf of Mexico, so think again.

Edited by Carnoferox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said before, why a dinosaur?  Why not a therapsid?   Or, for that matter, a woolly mammoth?   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Essan said:

 Why not a therapsid?  

Our bad tempered ancestor would certainly be more fun. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2019 at 11:12 AM, stereologist said:

This notion that there is something there because the locals claim there is something there is rather a poor decision.

An example of this is talking animals. There are plenty of stories of talking animals yet we know that is not possible. Animals in general do not have the ability to produce the range of sounds necessary for speech. Despite this there are tales of talking animals across the globe.

There are also tales of dragons. Large winged reptiles that fly and might spit fire out of their mouths are told but that does not mean they exist.

As pointed out in this thread numerous times the idea that there i a non-avian dinosaur in the Congo is simply a western spin on stories from the area.

I'd like to expand on this if I may. In the Congo and some other neighbouring countries there is still a lot of mythical belief applied to various reptiles and invertebrates even though most of these are species known to science for quite a few centuries. Size is often greatly exaggerated.

For instance, there is a folklore in Gabon what talks of giant snakes which look like leaves and are as thick as a person. In actuality, these are Gaboon Vipers (Bitis gabonica) which are huge snakes especially by venomous standards but they certainly don't get as thick as a person. It could likely seem that way to someone who isn't from a zoology background though as they can easily be as thick as a humans calf.

It is also important to bear in mind many of these tribes are of considerably short stature and this also likely contributes to overestimation of size in many animals. I think that the so called dinosaurs of the Congo are likely large lizards or crocodilians if they are indeed something people have seen. Last I heard many of the Ada tribesmen were telling recent visitors to the area they thought the dinosaurs had gone extinct because they hadn't been seen for years.... 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2020 at 11:13 PM, Carnoferox said:

This is a hopelessly naive view as is typical for many cryptozoologists. Deer and elephants have been documented in countless photographs and videos and have numerous physical specimens in museums. We know they exist, which is why no one doubts encounters with them. On the other hand, extant non-avian dinosaurs have never been photographed, videoed, or captured alive or dead. There is no compelling evidence to suggest their existence; the two situations are not even comparable.

The fact of the matter is that reports of living dinosaurs in Africa have been heavily influenced by colonialism. These alleged encounters describe dinosaurs not as we know them to have looked today, but instead how they were portrayed in European and American artwork pre-1970. Cryptozoologists have had a bad habit of leading witnesses into describing dinosaurs this way, something they freely admit to in ignorance of how ethically questionable this practice is.

I recommend you read these articles and actually learn something about this topic before going on another rant.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/misreading-the-mokele-mbembe-the-mokele-mbembe-part-1/

https://www.skepticblog.org/2011/06/29/a-living-dinosaur-in-the-congo-part-2/

So, cryptozoologists (of which I am not one, by the way) show the local people a "wrong" image of a brontosaurus or apatosaurus.  Through great devotion and dedication, logical reasoning, and scanty material evidence, they deducted that this mighty dinosaur actually looked differently than what was thought before.  Not only did they ridicule (yes, given the circumstances, it IS my favourite word) the previous portrayal and notion of a brontosaurus/apatosaurus, but now this older image has become "colonialist", whatever it means (I didn't know that science whose main concern are dinoaurs, not humans, could imagine/portray such dinosaurs in a "colonialist" way, but let it be).

So, what does it prove?  Even if the way such dinosaurs were portrayed prior to the 1970s is outdated and "colonialist" (By the way, did you see the images cryptozoological researchers have shown to the locals? You seem so sure they are/were outdated, it almost feels you were part of the expedition), are such animals as the pre-1970s artwork presents any less "weird", mysterious and interesting than in if it reminded instead the post-1970s artwork?  Witnesses all confirm a bulky body, a long neck, a snake-like head, a masive long tail. And they point out to an image of a brontosaurus/apatosaurus, even if it is from pre-1970s.

This is exactly what I am talking about: you speak from science.  Science has convinced you that your viewpoint is the only one.  Hence, there is no point in going to Africa and researching this animal at all, because it does not exist at all, or is in fact a well-known animal.  They, in turn, speak from observation and experience.  Now, if they were not some forest-dwelling hunters from a small village that time forgot, but instead if they were established scientists from leading African, or perhaps even European or American universities, but if they still claimed that they saw what they saw, would you still disbelief them or contest/dicredit it?  Why do you descrespect them, but first of all, their experience, sense of observation, etc?  And who says it MUST be a dinosaur?

As to no non-avian dinosaur (once again, I do NOT claim the Mokele-Mbembe, or any similar creature, MUST be a dinosaur, I claim it reminds a dinosaur) not having been filmed, photographed etc. First, I hope you realise just how vastly unexplored some areas of the African jungle are?  Secondly, who says the Mokele-Mbembe must live in herds, perhaps they are very solitary? Third, if you say about lack of photo/video, you are mistaken, such photo/video exists, although - admittedly - the images are just too blurred to prove anything for, but also against, the existence of the animal.

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.