Bizarre Accounts of Living Dinosaurs- Africa

[stereologist]

19 hours ago, WojciechB said:

  Witnesses all confirm a bulky body, a long neck, a snake-like head, a massive long tail. And they point out to an image of a brontosaurus/apatosaurus, even if it is from pre-1970s.
 

I just wanted to point out that this is not correct. You wrote 'Witnesses all confirm". Not even a little bit true.

Be careful in posting and not overstating your case.

[Grim Reaper 6]

I personally find these account interesting, but they hold no weight with me. If there was any validity to these accounts some form of phiycial evidence would be found. To date nothing has been found, and witness accounts can be taken seriously which most of us understand.

peace

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Manwon Lender

[simplybill]

If you’re interested in Mokele Mbembe, the 1998 book ‘No Mercy’ by Redmond O’Hanlon is a great read. He and a fellow adventurer went into the Congo to search for evidence of the cryptid. I don’t want to reveal their conclusions, because I don’t want to spoil the ending.

https://www.amazon.com/No-Mercy-Journey-Heart-Congo/dp/0679737324

[Myles]

 

 

Also there is the true documentary.

 

https://youtu.be/Wy58kS1Deb4

 

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

6 minutes ago, Myles said:

 

 

Also there is the true documentary.

 

https://youtu.be/Wy58kS1Deb4

 

 

I watched that movie so many times when I was little!

 

[WojciechB]

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

I just wanted to point out that this is not correct. You wrote 'Witnesses all confirm". Not even a little bit true.

Be careful in posting and not overstating your case.

It is every bit true.  Unless of course we assume that the researchers (o no, I'm sorry, amateurs) who talked with those natives all lie.  Obviously, there have also been accounts of "something" which was too far away to discern what it really was.  But these are not what I have in mind.  I am not overstating anything.  You have every right to disbelieve and remain grossly sceptical, just as I have every right to know otherwise. And maybe I'm stupid or short-sighted but I still fail to understand why accounts of the natives are so much underestimated and neglected, and at the evry best treated on the "myth" level, if at all. I fail to understand why and how someone who has never been to Africa - no, not to Africa, but to its "heart of darkness", with swamps, rivers, lakes, snakes, mosquitos, elephants and a myriad of other lesser and larger dangers - why and how then someone like that should be treated ANY more seriously in their claims that the Mokele-Mbembe does not exist or is just a myth or a case of mistaken identity than those to whom the jungle, those very swamps, rivers and lakes are a home, THE home, in their claims that they have seen/encountered the Mokele-Membe.  Yes, scientists (I am not even mentioning plain skeptics as this is an entirely differet group of people altogether although most scientists are also skeptics) do not say things just for the sake of saying them.  They claim they have proof of non-exitence.  They ask where the spoor, tissue sample, breeding grounds etc. is, they say that no herd has been found, they say there is no way a dinosaur could survive to our times (has anybody ever claimed that the Mokele-Mbembe MUST be a dinosaur and nothing else?). They have theories, lots of theories which stem from scientific experiments, field research (but obviously not where the Mokele-Mbembe is said to exist) etc.  Oh yes, they have lots of words for their claims.  And a iot of cynicism as well,.Or perhaps not cynicism.  Perhaps THIS, in fact, is what needs to be called some "patronising post-colonialism".  Why? Because they (mostly, though not always, white Americans and Europeans) are best informed and who are those "primitive" locals with their "myths" to say that they have seen such an animal?  After all, it's just stories, right?  Who in their sane mind would believe some primitive African hunter or peasant while I have read all those hundreds of books and I have a PhD. or a Prof. title?  These stories, at the very best, MUST be myths and nothing more, or perhaps those poor people have mistaken a crocodile, a snake, an elephant or a hippo for some mythical creature as - we al know it - they don't know sh*** about the local fauna.  By the way, it must be some hell of a myth: people from countries as far away from each other as Cameroon and Zambia or Congo and Uganda,who don't speak each other's language and who obvioulsy call the Mokele-Mbembe very different names, claim to have seen an animal with a bulky body, long neck,massive tail which is NOT a elephant or a hippo (which, by the way, we know to have very short and massive necks and which, as we know, do not have a massive tail). Huge myth it must be, spreading not just borders but langage and cultural differences and barriers.

[Myles]

1 hour ago, WojciechB said:

It is every bit true.  Unless of course we assume that the researchers (o no, I'm sorry, amateurs) who talked with those natives all lie.  Obviously, there have also been accounts of "something" which was too far away to discern what it really was.  But these are not what I have in mind.  I am not overstating anything.  You have every right to disbelieve and remain grossly sceptical, just as I have every right to know otherwise. And maybe I'm stupid or short-sighted but I still fail to understand why accounts of the natives are so much underestimated and neglected, and at the evry best treated on the "myth" level, if at all. I fail to understand why and how someone who has never been to Africa - no, not to Africa, but to its "heart of darkness", with swamps, rivers, lakes, snakes, mosquitos, elephants and a myriad of other lesser and larger dangers - why and how then someone like that should be treated ANY more seriously in their claims that the Mokele-Mbembe does not exist or is just a myth or a case of mistaken identity than those to whom the jungle, those very swamps, rivers and lakes are a home, THE home, in their claims that they have seen/encountered the Mokele-Membe.  Yes, scientists (I am not even mentioning plain skeptics as this is an entirely differet group of people altogether although most scientists are also skeptics) do not say things just for the sake of saying them.  They claim they have proof of non-exitence.  They ask where the spoor, tissue sample, breeding grounds etc. is, they say that no herd has been found, they say there is no way a dinosaur could survive to our times (has anybody ever claimed that the Mokele-Mbembe MUST be a dinosaur and nothing else?). They have theories, lots of theories which stem from scientific experiments, field research (but obviously not where the Mokele-Mbembe is said to exist) etc.  Oh yes, they have lots of words for their claims.  And a iot of cynicism as well,.Or perhaps not cynicism.  Perhaps THIS, in fact, is what needs to be called some "patronising post-colonialism".  Why? Because they (mostly, though not always, white Americans and Europeans) are best informed and who are those "primitive" locals with their "myths" to say that they have seen such an animal?  After all, it's just stories, right?  Who in their sane mind would believe some primitive African hunter or peasant while I have read all those hundreds of books and I have a PhD. or a Prof. title?  These stories, at the very best, MUST be myths and nothing more, or perhaps those poor people have mistaken a crocodile, a snake, an elephant or a hippo for some mythical creature as - we al know it - they don't know sh*** about the local fauna.  By the way, it must be some hell of a myth: people from countries as far away from each other as Cameroon and Zambia or Congo and Uganda,who don't speak each other's language and who obvioulsy call the Mokele-Mbembe very different names, claim to have seen an animal with a bulky body, long neck,massive tail which is NOT a elephant or a hippo (which, by the way, we know to have very short and massive necks and which, as we know, do not have a massive tail). Huge myth it must be, spreading not just borders but langage and cultural differences and barriers.

you have issues with educated people?

most tribes have tall tales that they pass down.  Native americans had many.

[Myles]

There are researchers in the general area looking for new species.   They found a small blind fish.  A river being 650 feet deep is amazing.

 

"In one place, we found this particularly weird fish," Stiassny said. "It's a blind, depigmented cichlid — it looks very much like a cave fish, but there are no caves in the river." She and her colleagues puzzled over why they couldn't find any living individuals of this fish, until Stiassny detected a vital clue in a fish that was barely alive.

"As it died in my hand, bubbles formed under its skin and over its gills," a sure sign of decompression syndrome, Stiassny said. During a rapid rise from very deep water to shallower depths, pressure drops steeply and causes dissolved gases to form bubbles inside the body. If left untreated, this condition can be fatal.

That introduced a question the researchers hadn't previously considered: Could there be deep water — really deep water — in the lower Congo?

To find out, the scientists sent intrepid kayakers over the rapids in 2008 and 2009, deployed with equipment to measure the river depths. These researchers also used an instrument called an acoustic current profiler to measure the currents' direction and speed throughout the water column.

"The results that we got were quite astounding: It's deep. It's very deep," Stiassny said.The river bottom of the lower Congo lies more than 650 feet (200 meters) below the surface, according to findings published in 2009 by the U.S. Geological Survey.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/science/dying-fish-revealed-congo-is-worlds-deepest-river

 

 

[stereologist]

14 hours ago, WojciechB said:

It is every bit true.  Unless of course we assume that the researchers (o no, I'm sorry, amateurs) who talked with those natives all lie.  Obviously, there have also been accounts of "something" which was too far away to discern what it really was.  But these are not what I have in mind.  I am not overstating anything.  You have every right to disbelieve and remain grossly sceptical, just as I have every right to know otherwise. And maybe I'm stupid or short-sighted but I still fail to understand why accounts of the natives are so much underestimated and neglected, and at the evry best treated on the "myth" level, if at all. I fail to understand why and how someone who has never been to Africa - no, not to Africa, but to its "heart of darkness", with swamps, rivers, lakes, snakes, mosquitos, elephants and a myriad of other lesser and larger dangers - why and how then someone like that should be treated ANY more seriously in their claims that the Mokele-Mbembe does not exist or is just a myth or a case of mistaken identity than those to whom the jungle, those very swamps, rivers and lakes are a home, THE home, in their claims that they have seen/encountered the Mokele-Membe.  Yes, scientists (I am not even mentioning plain skeptics as this is an entirely differet group of people altogether although most scientists are also skeptics) do not say things just for the sake of saying them.  They claim they have proof of non-exitence.  They ask where the spoor, tissue sample, breeding grounds etc. is, they say that no herd has been found, they say there is no way a dinosaur could survive to our times (has anybody ever claimed that the Mokele-Mbembe MUST be a dinosaur and nothing else?). They have theories, lots of theories which stem from scientific experiments, field research (but obviously not where the Mokele-Mbembe is said to exist) etc.  Oh yes, they have lots of words for their claims.  And a iot of cynicism as well,.Or perhaps not cynicism.  Perhaps THIS, in fact, is what needs to be called some "patronising post-colonialism".  Why? Because they (mostly, though not always, white Americans and Europeans) are best informed and who are those "primitive" locals with their "myths" to say that they have seen such an animal?  After all, it's just stories, right?  Who in their sane mind would believe some primitive African hunter or peasant while I have read all those hundreds of books and I have a PhD. or a Prof. title?  These stories, at the very best, MUST be myths and nothing more, or perhaps those poor people have mistaken a crocodile, a snake, an elephant or a hippo for some mythical creature as - we al know it - they don't know sh*** about the local fauna.  By the way, it must be some hell of a myth: people from countries as far away from each other as Cameroon and Zambia or Congo and Uganda,who don't speak each other's language and who obvioulsy call the Mokele-Mbembe very different names, claim to have seen an animal with a bulky body, long neck,massive tail which is NOT a elephant or a hippo (which, by the way, we know to have very short and massive necks and which, as we know, do not have a massive tail). Huge myth it must be, spreading not just borders but langage and cultural differences and barriers.

You follow up false statements with horrible logic. 

Let me show you how bad your claim is by posting it again. "Witnesses all confirm a bulky body, a long neck, a snake-like head, a massive long tail. "

All witnesses do not report a massive long tail. To claim so is a lie on your part and has nothing at all to do with what witnesses report. For you to post that false does not reflect on anything but you. It has nothing to do with witness statements. It has nothing to do with researchers. It even doesn't reflect on the creationist kooks that go to that area today. It does reflect on you and you alone.

Witnesses that report something in water do not report a massive long tail. They report other things. It is patently clear that you made up this false tale of "all witnesses".

You are being untruthful and trying to get around your obvious and clear lie with excuses such as reports of something in the distance. But clearly you have purposely overstated the case and are now trying to defend your obvious lie instead of reverting to the truth of the matter. 

The meat of the matter is your insistence that witnesses are somehow always correct. But the reports you see are not witness statements. They are second or third hand or more distant stories. Witnesses rarely see anything. Sometimes they hear something. More likely they tell a story they heard. They tell folklore. Regardless of what they state it is wrapped up in the myth of dinosaurs. That is not the original witness report, but the tale that is released form that area by those wanting to paint a story of dinosaurs. You get that from the creationist kooks out there thinking that they can find a dinosaur to prove evolution wrong. There is so little understanding of biology on their part that they do not understand that finding a so-called living fossil does not affect evolution as a theory.

You might even get the idea that this is a remote and secluded area rarely if ever visited. You might think the area is an unexplored place. Not so. Your description could be the boundary waters area, or the Atchafalaya basin. You suggest just because the people live there they are experts or knowledgeable about the area. That's not correct at all. Being in the area does not confer some sort of expertise to a matter.

Love this nonsensical statement: "Why? Because they (mostly, though not always, white Americans and Europeans) are best informed and who are those "primitive" locals with their "myths" to say that they have seen such an animal?"

That has never been the statements of anyone but you. The fact is that whatever is being stated by witnesses is being repackaged and retold. You apparently don't know that and are having a bizarre knee jerk reaction due to your lack of understanding of the situation. The story you have presented is not what has happened and I urge you to get better informed. Seems you have constructed a false history to match up with your personal biases.

You wrap up your bizarre narrative with another juicy failure. You try to create a one size fits all explanation for something you appear to be quite clueless about. These different stories are different stories. Your attempts at matching them up are as ridiculous as claiming Champ and Nessie are one and the same. 

[acdrnx]

In africa are „Kraals“ With Thorns cilometers Hugh. There can hide dinosaurs too. A Cave is too Dirty for a Dragon. In a kraal it get air and shadow and the thorns defend him. Maybe ist can Fly and hunt somewhere else outside of Africa and fly back too rest.

[Dradan]

As already mentioned in the article, one of the most well-known cryptids similar to a dinosaur is mokele-mbembe, who is said to live in the heart of the african forest. It's name basically means he who stops the rivers flow, and is said to have been spotted by a few natives living in congo. I think the main argument against mokele-mbembe is that a breeding population would have to had survived for millions of years, but a lot of the african forest is unexplored, leaving plenty of space for a cryptid to be hiding.

[drakonwick]

Pretty sure most of these sightings come from misunderstandings of what they seen, or outright fabrication. 

[stereologist]

16 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

As already mentioned in the article, one of the most well-known cryptids similar to a dinosaur is mokele-mbembe, who is said to live in the heart of the african forest. It's name basically means he who stops the rivers flow, and is said to have been spotted by a few natives living in congo. I think the main argument against mokele-mbembe is that a breeding population would have to had survived for millions of years, but a lot of the african forest is unexplored, leaving plenty of space for a cryptid to be hiding.

There are two other translations depending upon who provides the translations:

• monstrous animal
• rainbow
• mystery

http://www.skepdic.com/mokele.html

https://carnivora.net/mokele-mbembe-t3136.html

The area is actually not as remote or unexplored as people suggest. There have been over 50 expeditions to that area looking for this cryptid and they have nothing to show for their efforts.

 

Also this

https://www.livescience.com/38871-mokele-mbembe.html

Quote

While dinosaurs have intrigued people all over the world, central Africa is unique in that it is the only place where many people really believe they may still exist. Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero, authors of "Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids," researched the mokele-mbembe in depth. They note that though "Rumors of enormous beasts hidden in the Congo region date back to at least the sixteenth century... the idea of an elusive African dinosaur-like animal seems to have developed only after the discovery in the nineteenth century of fossil dinosaurs."

In other words, Africa — like all inhabited continents and oceans in centuries past — was associated with legends and rumors of unknown monsters that lurked within, a threat to unwary travelers. But the idea of a dinosaur-like animal named mokele-mbembe is a 20th-century creation (in fact the same is true for Scotland's Loch Ness monster as well).

 

[Dradan]

Yes that's true, but one of the problems with the expeditions is that the jungle starts to become a lot more difficult to explore when you get to some of the most remote locations in the forest. It doesn't mean that a prehistoric dinosaur is living there of course.

Edited February 20, 2020 by Ultimatium