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 -
Iilaa'mpuul'xem

What is a Cryptid?

Recommended Posts

Iilaa'mpuul'xem

Scotland has the Loch Ness Monster, Australia the Bunyip and America, its Jersey Devil. All over the world you hear tales of mythical beasts, animals and monsters that might just exist, even if they're not scientifically recognised. From lake monsters to living dinosaurs to creatures straight out of myth — we're talking about cryptids.

Source

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Trelane

So what is the topic of discussion? Or are we all just going to spitball our own takes on cryptids?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore
4 minutes ago, Trelane said:

So what is the topic of discussion? Or are we all just going to spitball our own takes on cryptids?

I would hazard a guess that it would be the definitions as provided in the article as to what cryptids are.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

I think if an in depth analysis of reports of the various cryptids would reveal many common elements. Those elements would likely lend to the view of no such animals as there has been no definitive proof of any cryptid actually existing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy

I believe they are thought forms,which can be brought forth and seen by multiple people,but don't stay around long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
8 minutes ago, openozy said:

I believe they are thought forms,which can be brought forth and seen by multiple people,but don't stay around long.

isnt a version of power of suggestion, to simplify for me, we are in the deep woods joey says "look bigfoot" so then i think i see it too when in fact its all imagination.

like a mass hallucination idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
5 minutes ago, the13bats said:

isnt a version of power of suggestion, to simplify for me, we are in the deep woods joey says "look bigfoot" so then i think i see it too when in fact its all imagination.

like a mass hallucination idea.

True but what if Joey didn't say anything and the rest saw BF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma

stories told without proof= that's a cryptid

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
1 hour ago, openozy said:

True but what if Joey didn't say anything and the rest saw BF.

interesting but in my scenario they were in the deep woods for some the idea that bigfoot is around can be a mind set even to a person who doesnt believe in bf, akin to being in an alleged haunted house and thinking one sees a ghost, the lady who used to live here heard things she was adamant were spookies and when we first moved in we heard odd things, yet i debunked them all, some pretty darn cool. but she still believes it was spookies.

this makes me think of Fatima, miracle of the sun where some claimed to see virgin mary, others UFO type area display, others still saw other sun dance phenomenon, it wasnt the same to all witnesses, and some saw nothing,

since its a bit impossible for each of joeys friends to express what they saw without contaminating the others, the first says i saw xxxx and another chimes in, so did they,  no real clean way to test and prove all 5 people with joey thought they saw bf out of the blue in a woods setting, nor can joey prove he placed that thought there,

i guess it goes back to if joey can make a person think they see something with zero salting, show me and i just might believe it.

and yeah, ive hard people try really hard, but like i say as a skeptic i never get haunted, damnmit man, how dull.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Another property of cryptids might be that they morph.

Take the chupacabra. It changed over time. There are 3 things labeled chupacabra today.

Take the kraken. It was once an island, a living island then it became a tentacled beast.

Even bigfoot changes. If we take the lore of Native Americans we see a creature that is a friend of the family or a malevolent beast. Today it is a creature with 3, 4, or 5 toes.

Essentially these are roll your own creatures.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
6 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

Essentially these are roll your own creatures.

kind of the name of the game, if meldrum wants to push the ( ridiculous ) notion bf is g-blackie, then fine, if the dolt in texas says bigfoot is a 3 toed inbreed well that works too,

no base model with cryptids, dump several animal model kits on a table and build one, fish tail on womens torso, coolio....oh wait that mythology

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
On 9/11/2019 at 11:41 PM, Trelane said:

I think if an in depth analysis of reports of the various cryptids would reveal many common elements. Those elements would likely lend to the view of no such animals as there has been no definitive proof of any cryptid actually existing.

Gorillas were considered cryptic until discovered by scientists and its believed giant squid MAY have been the kraken.

 

Cryptics are either bull****/hoaxes, insane people who made it up and actually believe in it  a misidentified animal or actually a new species all together. Admittedly it doesn't tend to be the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Alchopwn
On 9/12/2019 at 11:26 AM, Dejarma said:

stories told without proof= that's a cryptid

What about the platypus?  For the better part of a century it was considered a cryptid, and the evidence was dismissed as a very clever hoax by a brilliant taxidermist.  What do you do when people refuse to accept the evidence that is presented even when it is correct, and the scientific community is suffering collective panzaism?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

What about the platypus?  For the better part of a century it was considered a cryptid, and the evidence was dismissed as a very clever hoax by a brilliant taxidermist.  What do you do when people refuse to accept the evidence that is presented even when it is correct, and the scientific community is suffering collective panzaism?

I suppose the gorilla was classed as a cryptid 100+ years ago. But not now because it really exists- that's why it was found.

We're coming up to 2020 & with all the amazing tech we have; if something is classed as cryptid in this day & age, to me means it does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
19 hours ago, Dejarma said:

I suppose the gorilla was classed as a cryptid 100+ years ago. But not now because it really exists- that's why it was found.

We're coming up to 2020 & with all the amazing tech we have; if something is classed as cryptid in this day & age, to me means it does not exist.

Agree with the technology but you need to ask yourself this. How much of the world still hasn't been explored?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Agree with the technology but you need to ask yourself this. How much of the world still hasn't been explored?

that has nothing to do with it... an unexplored place wouldn't produce a cryptid, because no one has looked there yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
3 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

that has nothing to do with it... an unexplored place wouldn't produce a cryptid, because no one has looked there yet

I didn't imply it would, merely implied theres a slight possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
22 hours ago, Dejarma said:

I suppose the gorilla was classed as a cryptid 100+ years ago. But not now because it really exists- that's why it was found.  We're coming up to 2020 & with all the amazing tech we have; if something is classed as cryptid in this day & age, to me means it does not exist.

Well we are still discovering species.  A new species of freshwater lobster has been discovered in Australia (Gramastacus Lacus), there is a new species of owl in Arabia/Sahara (Strix Hadorami), the Amazon has a new large fish (Arapaima), the Olinguito, and the Red bearded Titi monkey, Vietnam has a new snake (Cryptelytrops Rubeus), the deep Pacific has the new Ninja Lantern Shark and the Yeti Crab.  I have chosen these animals because they are all large, and not the tiny bugs that make up the bulk of the unnoticed animals.  To say there are no new species being discovered is untrue. 

I have thought for some time now that it is quite likely that the lake cryptids may well prove to be a new species of giant eel that is at home in fresh and salt water. I also worry that they are on the verge of extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I have chosen these animals because they are all large, and not the tiny bugs that make up the bulk of the unnoticed animals.  To say there are no new species being discovered is untrue.

i never said there were no new species being discovered.

these new species you refer to were not cryptid to start with, were they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
27 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

i never said there were no new species being discovered.

these new species you refer to were not cryptid to start with, were they?

That entirely depends on your definition of cryptid.  For example, there was a species of giant catfish in the Mekong that was alleged to have the power to cause storms, and as it turns out, the species existed and was mainly seen after storms.  Technically a cryptid is any species seen but not substantiated, so any species of animal, such as the Okapi, that has been seen but not verified can qualify as a cryptid.  In many ways, species that just show up out of the blue, without any prior sightings or evidence, are more remarkable than cryptids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

That entirely depends on your definition of cryptid.  For example, there was a species of giant catfish in the Mekong that was alleged to have the power to cause storms, and as it turns out, the species existed and was mainly seen after storms.  Technically a cryptid is any species seen but not substantiated, so any species of animal, such as the Okapi, that has been seen but not verified can qualify as a cryptid.  In many ways, species that just show up out of the blue, without any prior sightings or evidence, are more remarkable than cryptids.

fair enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
On 9/17/2019 at 9:15 AM, Alchopwn said:

That entirely depends on your definition of cryptid.  For example, there was a species of giant catfish in the Mekong that was alleged to have the power to cause storms, and as it turns out, the species existed and was mainly seen after storms.  Technically a cryptid is any species seen but not substantiated, so any species of animal, such as the Okapi, that has been seen but not verified can qualify as a cryptid.  In many ways, species that just show up out of the blue, without any prior sightings or evidence, are more remarkable than cryptids.

The okapi was sought out because people had a piece of hide. They were interested in finding the animal that went with the hide.

There were bones of gorilla known before the hunt to find the animal. The colossal squid was known from beaks, and tentacle pieces in whale stomachs as well as sucker scars.

A giant eel is a bit different. Take the latest eDNA study. Does it suggest a new species of eel? Giant eels were supposed because a large larval eel was once found, but it did not lead to a giant eel adult.

https://www.micahhanks.com/science/leave-the-leptocephalus-alone-a-case-of-mistaken-identity/

Quote

Some might consider this a strange hobby, but the reason behind the interest is simple: years ago, I had run across an item of interest from the annals of ichthyology, in which the story of a very large eel larvae (otherwise called leptocephalus) had been found among the fish in nets brought aboard the research vessel Dana near the Cape of Good Hope by researcher Anton Brunn in January, 1930.

The specimen in question was a little more than six feet long, which at the time seemed impossibly long for any known variety of eel larvae; they are normally about 1/32 the length of the adult variety, the longest of which seldom exceeds just a few feet. Hence, Brunn reasoned that for the larvae to be so large, the full grown animal may be truly gigantic in proportion. For years afterward, many considered whether giant leptocephalus were indeed the juveniles of a mysterious — and massive — undiscovered species of eel that might account for some sea serpent reports.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/the-giant-transparent-ribbons-of-eel-larvae/

Giant eels probably do not exist, but as we can see from the previous articles there was a reason at one time, 90 years ago, to consider the possibility.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.