Cryptozoology

Started by Ratchetcomand, Mar 07, 2010, 09:34:24 PM

Author
Cryptozoology (Read 40,183 times)

Ratchetcomand

Ratchetcomand

#15
I think the Beast of the Geavaudan always been a good crypto since it happen 100's years ago, and the monster it's self was scary. Many people believe it was a Andrewsarchus due it's size, mouth, and it's furry skin.

Corporal Lewis Hicks

Corporal Lewis Hicks

#16
Something that has no Proof at all, just eyewitnesses Isn't enough for me. . . I need to look at some sort of Evidence before I consider a Creature to be real or not.

maledoro

maledoro

#17
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 07, 2010, 09:34:24 PM
Since no one made a thread for this, and I thought why? What do you think of Cryptozoology, and do believe in the stuff they talk about? I personally believe in pretty much most of them like Nessie but I don't believe in the ones like Lizard Man or Goatman.
I don't see why you would believe one over the other; using the same criteria for establishing the existence of Nessie should yield the same outcome for the Lizard Man, Goatman, chupacabras, etc.

Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 07, 2010, 09:37:01 PM
Sometimes they bring up ridicolous theories (like when they said the Chupacabras was a creation of the Aliens....)
Why is that idea any more ridiculous than other ideas about cupacabras?

Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 07, 2010, 09:41:16 PM
I think the Lochness Monster might be real since we have deeper parts of underwater that we never seen before, and it's possible that a group of Plesiosaur got frozen inside of iceberg before the Loch Ness was made.
You can't base a theory on what we don't know.

Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 07, 2010, 09:41:16 PM
I don't think the Mokele Mbembe is a real dinosaur, but a new type of animal that we never seen before.
Or have seen at all. The same amount of empirical evidence for Nessie exists for Mokele Mbembe.

Quote from: ShadowStalker on Mar 07, 2010, 09:42:25 PM
I love this subject, and personally really intrigued with the mothman, Nessie and Bigfoot and its many names.  It shows the vast wonder on this Earth that have not been discovered yet
Actually, it doesn't. You can't survey something that hasn't been discovered.

Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 07, 2010, 09:47:16 PM
This is why Cryptozoology exists.
Cash cow.

Quote from: ShadowStalker on Mar 07, 2010, 09:56:16 PM
And yet real science also looks into these things also
And then when it doesn't pan out, science moves on until compelling evidence comes forth.

Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 07, 2010, 10:44:27 PM
Something that has no Proof at all, just eyewitnesses Isn't enough for me. . . I need to look at some sort of Evidence before I consider a Creature to be real or not.
That's part of how real science works.

Corporal Lewis Hicks

Corporal Lewis Hicks

#18
I know how science works thanks. I was just Explaining my Opinion.

maledoro

maledoro

#19
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 07, 2010, 11:44:22 PM
I know how science works thanks. I was just Explaining my Opinion.
Forgive me for backing you up.

Corporal Lewis Hicks

Corporal Lewis Hicks

#20
I apologise I thought you being sarcastic. Back on topic Lizard Man, Goatman are just ridiculous Most Cryptozoology is, but things like the Thylacine was real so surely some of the other creatures was at some point (ones with Evidence.)

maledoro

maledoro

#21
Cryptozoology has too many shortcomings in order to be considered a real science. It's literally the study of hidden animals. It relies heavily upon testimonials and circumstantial evidence in the form of legends and folklore, and the stories and alleged sightings of mysterious beasts by indigenous peoples, explorers, and travelers. Since cryptozoologists spend most of their energy trying to establish the existence of creatures, rather than examining actual animals, they are more akin to psi researchers than to zoologists.

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

MadassAlex

MadassAlex

#22
Cryptozoology is pretty interesting stuff, especially when it comes to the genuine reasoning behind sightings and the like. For instance, the Australian Aboriginal "bunyip" legends are thought to stem from a period of time around 40,000 years ago when said Aboriginals lived alongside Diprotodon, the largest marsupial land mammal ever. The bastard was bigger than a rhino. Diprotodon tended to be very intimidating and lived around rivers and other sources of water, which is why bunyips are thought of as aggressive, malevolent water spirits.

For all its excitement, though, cryptozoology hardly has the objective methodology that would establish it as anything other than a psuedoscience.

darcevil

darcevil

#23
Cryptozoology is like a good novel, it can be very fascinating, but in the end it's just a story. :P

Corporal Lewis Hicks

Corporal Lewis Hicks

#24
Quote from: darcevil on Mar 08, 2010, 12:59:14 AM
Cryptozoology is like a good novel, it can be very fascinating, but in the end it's just a story. :P

Yeah, good way to put it actually.

The PredBen

The PredBen

#25
Cryptozology IMHO acutally serves a purpose.

Bigfoot , real or not , furfills the human minds love of not knowing everything to feel that there is still something we haven't seen or know of yet that we still are learning.

I think Mothman has evidence to support it. One woman was tramatized by seeing Mothman and even today over 40 years later she is still terrified.

I mean if it was a Barnowl ( which is much smaller then Mothman anyway. ) as skeptics say how could that tramutize someone? IDK ...

But in the end we haven't discovered everything so its an open possibility.




maledoro

maledoro

#26
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
Cryptozology IMHO acutally serves a purpose.

Bigfoot , real or not , furfills the human minds love of not knowing everything to feel that there is still something we haven't seen or know of yet that we still are learning.
So, it's better to be ignorant of the world than to at least try to understand it? We don't know everything that there is about the world; there is always something to discover instead of having to play make-believe with the gullible.

If actually learning something is beyond some, they could always read books on mythology and fairy tales. At least they'll be told upfront that what they're about to read is bullshit.

Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
I think Mothman has evidence to support it. One woman was tramatized by seeing Mothman and even today over 40 years later she is still terrified.
Not being sure of what one had seen is not evidence.

Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
I mean if it was a Barnowl ( which is much smaller then Mothman anyway. ) as skeptics say how could that tramutize someone? IDK ...
If you had read why it was suggested to be a barn owl instead of dismissing the skeptics outright, you'd know.

Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 08, 2010, 12:49:31 PM
But in the end we haven't discovered everything so its an open possibility.
That is arguing from ignorance. That is a logical fallacy; in other words, saying something that goes against logic or with shaky logic.

So, "open possibilities" are not an option in discovery.

The PredBen

The PredBen

#27
Okay fair enough Mal ;).

There is evidence for Bigfoot though! Someone found a moular of an animal and it is sited as being " unknown " as a finger print expert saw a supposed bigfoot hand caste and couldn't identify it. He said it could be a Gorilla but he couldn't tell. He also noted it wasn't a hoax unless a hoaxer had access to large primates needed to make this type of print.

Just asking you Mal , do you believe it is possible Bigfoot is real , or that there is no chance of it being real.

The PredBen

The PredBen

#28
@ Mal.

They thought it was a Barn Owl because they are fairly large ( Mothman was reported 6'5" - 7'0" and a 12 foot wingspan. ) at 3'0" standing and with a rather larger wingspan. Also because their eyes reflect red in the night like Mothmans.

It comes down to weather the Eyewitnesses were lying or not. To me they seemed crediable.

Alienseseses

Alienseseses

#29
I remember reading that the guy who made the Bigfoot prints admitted it on his deathbed, forcing the guys behind the video to confess.

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News