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.
Actually I am very interested in stuff like Lochness Monster (& affiliates of sorts), Mothman and Mokele Mbembe. So mysterious and intriguing! Sometimes they bring up ridicolous theories (like when they said the Chupacabras was a creation of the Aliens....)
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.
I don't think the Mokele Mbembe is a real dinosaur, but a new type of animal that we never seen before.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 07, 2010, 09:37:01 PM
Actually I am very interested in stuff like Lochness Monster (& affiliates of sorts), Mothman and Mokele Mbembe. So mysterious and intriguing! Sometimes they bring up ridicolous theories (like when they said the Chupacabras was a creation of the Aliens....)
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
None have been proven.
I think the Loch Ness Monster has a better chance on being real then something like Mokele Mbembe in my opinon. Any land Dinosaur living today would be hard to believe if you ask me.
I agree with the Nessie possibilty, but read Steve ALteins The Loch, very good book into the Legend Of Nessie of it not nesscary being a Pleosaur but a new speices of eel. Its an intriquing thought
What do you think the Mkele Mbembe is?
I remember reading reports for a monster that exist in the Hudson River back in 98. Some people think it's some new type of Marine Iguana, or a Manatee?
Loch Ness Is not real. But Crypto is Intresting.
What does everyone think of the Beast of Gévaudan?
Fossils. At least loch ness has that same as bigfoot proving that a Creature like that Did exist at some stage. No Bodies/fossil no Creature. Like The Thylacine comes under Crypto now because we know it did exist but now is Extinct the Crypto part would be because people still think they are out there.
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.
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.
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.
I know how science works thanks. I was just Explaining my Opinion.
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.
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.)
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 (http://www.skepdic.com/crypto.html)
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.
Cryptozoology is like a good novel, it can be very fascinating, but in the end it's just a story. :P
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.
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.
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 (http://www.csicop.org/SI/show/open_minds_and_the_argument_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.
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.
@ 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.
I remember reading that the guy who made the Bigfoot prints admitted it on his deathbed, forcing the guys behind the video to confess.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 07, 2010, 11:10:34 PM
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?
They bring Aliens up everywhere, and it gets annoying.
Chupacabra might be a Alien or a some type of lost project from the Goverment IMO.
Ok...
How about we focus on actual animal species of which there are still thousands, even millions of unknown to science and a lot of them get extinct before they are discovered?
How about that instead of a wild goose chase?
Well wether or not you want to considered eyewitnesses credible, its hard to ingore the fact that over years there is sighting of unknown creatures out there. If people say oh there are mistaken for seeing something else i almost find that a little stupid. Every since times of Native Americans and even further back there has been witnesses, and written down documents of sightings and strange happenings.
I'll personally apologize to every living cryptozoologist when they find, capture and examine an actual cryptid.
But it ain't gonna happen.
Well never know it could very well happen. Why exactly do you think it will never happen? because there hasn't been any hard prove evidence yet?
Roger Patterson never said the footage was faked.
He swore on his death bed it was real.
Also as for the guy who claimed he portrayed the Bigfoot he couldn't even find the spot in which the bigfoot was filmed.Lame.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 08, 2010, 06:48:41 PM
Chupacabra might be a Alien or a some type of lost project from the Goverment IMO.
Or mangy dogs.
The descriptions of chupacabra actually fit that of a very ill dog with mange. The behaviour is even similar.
There is no point defending Crptozology.
For every person who does you've got 10 who don't.
There's no point in defending cryptozoology because it isn't based on scientific methods.
I agree that it's good to have an open mind -- within reason. There are still animal species that have not yet been found on this planet. But they're probably not much like Mothman.
Fair enough.
Mothman isn't even a Cryptid under most Cryptozologists although he may be something they believe is real.
He is often sited as an " alien " or " dimensional higher being ".
Humanity doesn't know everything. We shouldn't judge other species ( aliens ) by our standards.
They could travel past the speed of light. We can't so we judge them on our standards.
We have no idea if they exist to begin with. But just because they might exist doesn't mean our standards don't apply. Even if they did exist, it still doesn't mean our standards don't apply, unless there was some incredible discrepancy between us and them that breaks science as we know it.
Okay ... obviously there must be something else that has evovled to our level of intelligence or higher.
In our Galaxy alone we have over 10 million planets like Earth. At least some of them must have life ... and that life ... possibly being older then us has evolved.
In this universe there are millions of Galaxies. Each one has millions of planets if not billions. Couldn't one have intellient life?
Because science shows there is a 99.9% chance of there being other life outside of Earth. And well over a 90% chance of other intelligent life.
And they could not even be Carbon based like ourselves. How about they're made of lets say Nitrogen based material vs our carbon based ones? Why do they needs Earths " conditions " anyway?
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 08, 2010, 02:12:44 PM
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.
Ben, as I had mentioned too many times before: "Unknown" does not equal evident. If they don't know what those things are, then they're just filling holes with anything. You can't say that they're attributed to Bigfoot unless you have an original to compare them to, and there hasn't been a Bigfoot that has been properly studied.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 08, 2010, 02:12:44 PM
Just asking you Mal , do you believe it is possible Bigfoot is real , or that there is no chance of it being real.
Not really, considering that the son of the guy who had started the Bigfoot phenomena confessed to it being a hoax:
QuoteAccording to Michael Wallace, Bigfoot is a hoax that was launched in August 1958 by his father Ray L. Wallace (1918-2002), an inveterate prankster. Shortly after Ray's death, Michael revealed the details of the hoax, which were reported widely in the press. Ray had a friend carve him 16-inch-long feet that he could strap on and make prints with. Wallace owned a construction company that built logging roads at the time and he set the prints around one of his bulldozers in Humboldt County. Jerry Crew, a bulldozer operator, reported the prints and The Humboldt Times ran a front-page story about "Bigfoot." The legend was born. However, a former logger, 71-year-old John Auman, claims Wallace left the giant footprints to scare away thieves and vandals who'd been targeting his vehicles. His hoaxes didn't begin until after he'd seen what a stir he'd created.
Over the years, Ray Wallace produced Bigfoot audio recordings, films, and photographs. At one time, he even put out a press release offering $1 million for a baby Bigfoot. He published one of his photos as a poster depicting Bigfoot having lunch with other animals. He also published photos and films of Bigfeet eating elk, frogs, and cereal. Michael Wallace claims that his mother told him that she participated in some of the pranks and had been photographed in a Bigfoot suit. Chorvinsky claims that Ray told him that the Patterson film was a hoax and that he had alerted Patterson of the sighting at Bluff Creek. According to Chorvinsky, Ray knew who was in the Patterson suit, but said he had nothing to do with it (Young, Bob. 2002. "Lovable trickster created a monster with Bigfoot hoax," The Seattle Times, December 5).
http://www.skepdic.com/bigfoot.html (http://www.skepdic.com/bigfoot.html)
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 08, 2010, 02:54:29 PM
@ 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.
First of all, perception plays alot into it. From a distance, in the dark, something with huge reflecting eyes is gonna look different and may have an appearance of a 7' creature. The eyewitnesses may not have been lying, but they may have mistook what they had seen.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 08, 2010, 03:06:09 PM
They bring Aliens up everywhere, and it gets annoying.
So, just because you're annoyed, it makes something more or less credible?
Quote from: ShadowStalker on Mar 08, 2010, 09:33:11 PM
Well wether or not you want to considered eyewitnesses credible, its hard to ingore the fact that over years there is sighting of unknown creatures out there. If people say oh there are mistaken for seeing something else i almost find that a little stupid. Every since times of Native Americans and even further back there has been witnesses, and written down documents of sightings and strange happenings.
It's hard to ignore all that, but the jigsaw puzzle is still missing pieces. As for your definition of "stupid", you think that it's better to invent a creature that hasn't been properly identified? You might rethink that.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 12:09:42 AM
Fair enough.
Mothman isn't even a Cryptid under most Cryptozologists although he may be something they believe is real.
He is often sited as an " alien " or " dimensional higher being ".
Humanity doesn't know everything. We shouldn't judge other species ( aliens ) by our standards.
They could travel past the speed of light. We can't so we judge them on our standards.
It's amazing how you (and others) know so much about creatures that haven't been studied. The common folk know more about these creatures and physics than educated scientists? Chew on that for a while...
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
Okay ... obviously there must be something else that has evovled to our level of intelligence or higher.
But there is no proof.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
In our Galaxy alone we have over 10 million planets like Earth. At least some of them must have life ... and that life ... possibly being older then us has evolved.
You have no way of knowing that.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
In this universe there are millions of Galaxies. Each one has millions of planets if not billions. Couldn't one have intellient life?
Possibly, but there are other factors that you ignore.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
Because science shows there is a 99.9% chance of there being other life outside of Earth. And well over a 90% chance of other intelligent life.
Where do you get that?!
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 02:18:14 AM
And they could not even be Carbon based like ourselves. How about they're made of lets say Nitrogen based material vs our carbon based ones? Why do they needs Earths " conditions " anyway?
You need to read up on
real science.
I love Cryptozoology and hearing about these bizarre sighting are cool.
Are the creatures real, though? Well that is what Cryptozoology is about.
The Jersey Devil is scary.
The jersey devil is my fav and if it was ever proven to be real i would be scared yet amazed at the same time.
Has anyone seen lost tapes on animal planet? It covers all kinds of cryptids
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 09, 2010, 02:34:16 AM
I love Cryptozoology and hearing about these bizarre sighting are cool.
Are the creatures real, though? Well that is what Cryptozoology is about.
About what?
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 09, 2010, 03:00:52 AM
About what?
Finding out if these creatures are real or not.
@Xenokiller...if the Jersey Devil was proven to be real...I will kill myself.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 09, 2010, 03:05:09 AM
Finding out if these creatures are real or not.
Real simple...
Have they been studied by scientists? No.
Are they covered in biology classes in universities and high schools? No.
Has anyone received any distinguished prizes or awards for discovering them? Afterall, such a discovery would surely send shockwaves throught the scientific community! No, no one has claimed a prize.
As it's been mentioned before:
QuoteCryptozoology is, literally, the study of hidden animals.
Cryptozoology 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 (http://www.skepdic.com/crypto.html)
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 09, 2010, 03:12:19 AM
Real simple...
Have they been studied by scientists? No.
Are they covered in biology classes in universities and high schools? No.
Has anyone received any distinguished prizes or awards for discovering them? Afterall, such a discovery would surely send shockwaves throught the scientific community! No, no one has claimed a prize.
I never said these things were in the realm of science...or that the people who study these things are "scientists"...who said you have to be a scientist to study something....if people want to go out and find the Jersey Devil...let them....if they find him...great if not...then it adds to the mystery.
Mal has a point.
Nothing is established yet. Save that it is a hobby!!!!
I myself believe in the study of cryptozoology. The Coelacanth, giant panda, komodo dragon, and much more as pluses for the credibility of cryptozoology.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 09, 2010, 03:19:36 AM
I never said these things were in the realm of science...or that the people who study these things are "scientists"...who said you have to be a scientist to study something....if people want to go out and find the Jersey Devil...let them....if they find him...great if not...then it adds to the mystery.
But science is what defines reality. If you want mystery, then admit that it's a game, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it's real.
Quote from: ShadowPred on Mar 09, 2010, 03:24:22 AM
I myself believe in the study of cryptozoology. The Coelacanth, giant panda, komodo dragon, and much more as pluses for the credibility of cryptozoology.
That is a hasty generalization. You can't say that just because something has been proven that all of it must be real.
Somebody call Leonard Nimoy.
Quote
That is a hasty generalization. You can't say that just because something has been proven that all of it must be real.
I'm not saying that all of the creatures that have been talked about are really out there. I'm just simply saying that the "study of hidden animals" shouldn't be disregarded. And that there might be a chance that few modern day cryptids are really out there.
QuoteThe Coelacanth, giant panda, komodo dragon, and much more as pluses for the credibility of cryptozoology.
Did anyone ever study these things before they were discovered, like they do with Jersey Devils and Sasqutches?
Quote from: SM on Mar 09, 2010, 03:32:46 AM
QuoteThe Coelacanth, giant panda, komodo dragon, and much more as pluses for the credibility of cryptozoology.
Did anyone ever study these things before they were discovered, like they do with Jersey Devils and Sasqutches?
You misunderstand what i'm saying. Just saying that some modern day cryptids shouldn't be disregarded.
Quote from: ShadowPred on Mar 09, 2010, 03:30:44 AM
I'm not saying that all of the creatures that have been talked about are really out there. I'm just simply saying that the "study of hidden animals" shouldn't be disregarded.
Why shouldn't it? Here's how things work: If it can be tested and it passes said testing, it's real. If it doesn't pass, it's swept aside until compelling evidence comes along. Bigfoot, Nessie, all that have failed. People bring forward the same things over and over, but we haven't had anything concrete to study. The day that Nessie, Bigfoot and the others are brought into a lab and it's been proven that they are unlike anything else is the day that they exist. But constantly showing blurred pictures and interviewing people is not a worthwhile venture. Cryptozoology is nothing more than that.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 09, 2010, 03:28:25 AM
But science is what defines reality. If you want mystery, then admit that it's a game, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it's real.
Science doesn't explain everything. God created everything...even some stuff that science can't explain.
Once they're legitimately discovered.
EDIT - Mal beat me to it.
QuoteScience doesn't explain everything. God created everything...even some stuff that science can't explain.
Can't explain
yet. And may not explain for some time.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 09, 2010, 03:37:32 AM
If it doesn't pass, it's swept aside until compelling evidence comes along.
That's what I mean about "shouldn't be disregarded." I should have said, "not completely disregarded."
Also, no one try and start an argument about God with EarthHive, I think we've had enough of those, and we all have seen what happens to those threads.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 09, 2010, 03:38:05 AM
Science doesn't explain everything.
No, it doesn't. But it doesn't just fill holes just for the sake of filling holes.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 09, 2010, 03:38:05 AM
God created everything...even some stuff that science can't explain.
So you're basing your argument on something else that hasn't been proven. Smooth move.
Quote from: ShadowPred on Mar 09, 2010, 03:40:28 AM
That's what I mean about "shouldn't be disregarded." I should have said, "not completely disregarded."
Again: Cryptozoology just spins its wheels; that is why it must be disregarded.
I don't think it should' If science can't find any evidence, and it moves on until hard proof is found, then I think that cryptozoology should be kept around. For the people that want to go and find these creatures, despite no physical evidence; cryptozoologists should just keep doing what they're doing in the chance that something hard proof and undeniable is found, even if it means that they will find nothing.
I always wondered why whenever a picture of a cryptid is taken, the photo is always blurry. To me, that suggests these things aren't real because it's as if the photographer is deliberately doing it.
I don't care what anyone says, I saw that bigfoot footage on In Search Of... when I was a kid it freaked me out and consequently I still find it it oddly compelling.
Quote from: ShadowPred on Mar 09, 2010, 03:51:46 AM
I don't think it should'
It doesn't matter what you think. It is what it is. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that empirical evidence should go out the window. There are reasons as to why the Scientific Method was established and why it works.
Quote from: ShadowPred on Mar 09, 2010, 03:51:46 AM
If science can't find any evidence, and it moves on until hard proof is found, then I think that cryptozoology should be kept around. For the people that want to go and find these creatures, despite no physical evidence; cryptozoologists should just keep doing what they're doing in the chance that something hard proof and undeniable is found, even if it means that they will find nothing.
Why are you not getting this? Cryptozoology's methods are
flawed. Read the definition of it that I had supplied. The only purposes it has is to line the pockets of some and to give others something to fantasize about. In other words, you're in favor of a swindle.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 09, 2010, 03:54:15 AM
I always wondered why whenever a picture of a cryptid is taken, the photo is always blurry. To me, that suggests these things aren't real because it's as if the photographer is deliberately doing it.
It's to string along people like
ShadowPred.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but it is what it is. You admit to liking to be strung along just for fun. The cryptozoologists are either nonscientists or are scientists who are using nonscientific methods. People believe in their methods and they pay money for blurred pics and other manufactured "evidence" instead of exploring the true wonders of the Earth. If they want to fantasize, do it right: read a book on mythology.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 09, 2010, 03:54:15 AM
I always wondered why whenever a picture of a cryptid is taken, the photo is always blurry. To me, that suggests these things aren't real because it's as if the photographer is deliberately doing it.
Maybe because no one is able to get close enough to see it.
Every single time?
Them 15 foot tall monkeys are sneaky bastards.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 09, 2010, 04:12:43 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 09, 2010, 03:54:15 AM
I always wondered why whenever a picture of a cryptid is taken, the photo is always blurry. To me, that suggests these things aren't real because it's as if the photographer is deliberately doing it.
Maybe because no one is able to get close enough to see it.
They're close enough to get the pic in the first place. They can at least hold a camera steady. Or else, don't bother.
Jersey Devil's Are not real. Simple as that.
We're able to photograph and even capture any animal, no matter how dangerous or elusive it may seem.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 09, 2010, 04:12:43 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 09, 2010, 03:54:15 AM
I always wondered why whenever a picture of a cryptid is taken, the photo is always blurry. To me, that suggests these things aren't real because it's as if the photographer is deliberately doing it.
Maybe because no one is able to get close enough to see it.
Not always!
It's easier for cryptozoologists and their victims believers to make excuses instead of using critical thinking.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 09, 2010, 11:39:58 AM
We're able to photograph and even capture any animal, no matter how dangerous or elusive it may seem.
Photograph? Yeah. Capture? Pfffft...
Tell that to Gustave.
The majority of Cryptids are likely to be bullcrap.
However some have enough evidence to be shown.
Well over 10,000 human beings have reported bigfoot sightings. Well over 2,000 were experianced woodsmen. They would NOT think it was a bear.
Its simple either the Cryptozologists and the eyewitness are liars or they are not.
They don't misidentify.
People do misidentify, even experienced people. With "over 10,000" sightings, there is no reliable physical evidence to support the existence of such a creature today, even with people pouring considerable amounts of time, effort and money into finding this thing.
It doesn't exist.
Burden of proof (or disproof) isn't on me.
It doesn't exist? You know that 100%?
There is a chance bigfoot exists.
Here is a story:
In florida during a summer night a young man hit his car into something large. He described it as a " Man wearing a fur coat ". The firefighters came and saw that the car had a massive dent in it. They were shocked that the " Man " wasn't on the ground as he should've been.
They brough out two bloodhounds to search the area. The bloodhounds picked up an odd scent and chased after something in the brush. The " Man " however splashed into the water and they lost its scent.
What happened that night? Was it a man who magically wasn't injured when the car hit him hard?
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 01:02:12 PM
It doesn't exist? You know that 100%?
What I asked.
It doesn't exist is a pretty affermative statement, implying proof behind.
There is no Proof Bigfoot is real. There is no Proof it isn't. Same goes for god, But Billions believe in him.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 01:02:12 PM
It doesn't exist? You know that 100%?
There is a chance bigfoot exists.
Here is a story:
In florida during a summer night a young man hit his car into something large. He described it as a " Man wearing a fur coat ". The firefighters came and saw that the car had a massive dent in it. They were shocked that the " Man " wasn't on the ground as he should've been.
They brough out two bloodhounds to search the area. The bloodhounds picked up an odd scent and chased after something in the brush. The " Man " however splashed into the water and they lost its scent.
What happened that night? Was it a man who magically wasn't injured when the car hit him hard?
I don't know what happened that night, but just because you can't explain the circumstances around are really broken story means that bigfoot is a reasonable conclusion. "Was it a man that magically wasn't injured?" No clue, but I know men exist so I would bet that before a mytholgical great ape that magically wasn't injured. Really, I'd leave magic out of it, thats just silly. I'd also bet a black bear was hit. Not knowing though, I can't say. I do know guessing a known creature would be a better move than assuming it was crypto creature.
Where is one shred of reliable physical evidence? How has no one found any, or captured the beast, with so many looking? Such lack of evidence and the extent of its elusive nature would suggest an extremely small breeding population, yet here they are spread all over the world with "over 10,000 sightings" over many generations. Such a large area of habitat, with such varied types, with no physical evidence and with such an elusive nature; these qualities do not mesh.
People, even those experienced, misunderstand what they see and eye-witnesses (especially those at night, who just experienced a trauma like a traffic collision) are very unreliable.
Cryptozoology is the "media"'s.. hobby!
some(5-10%) might be true... though!
It could've been a black bear.
But bears ( to my knowledge ) don't move as fast in the wetlands of Florida as this creature did. Although it may have simply been a bear.
Or a man with some type of armor ( lots of weirdos in this world.) who was testing it.
I guess your right who knows.
Bigfoot as no proof that can stand up to what we know!
I am skeptic on Bigfoot, I Know that Gigantopithecus was a Real Ape But died out three-hundred thousand years ago. But As Eidotemit said There Isn't Enough physical evidence to go on to say there real. Not one Single body has been found but yet all over the world people say they see them, there would have to be a population of over a thousand to keep the species from Extinction.
I'm not into Cryptozoology as an association, because I heard that some like Chupacabras and Mothman aren't even considered cryptids.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 09, 2010, 01:50:22 PM
I'm not into Cryptozoology as an association, because I heard that some like Chupacabras and Mothman aren't even considered cryptids.
Mothmen? Now that is just Stupid.
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 09, 2010, 01:54:23 PM
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 09, 2010, 01:50:22 PM
I'm not into Cryptozoology as an association, because I heard that some like Chupacabras and Mothman aren't even considered cryptids.
Mothmen? Now that is just Stupid.
Not that i think diff.
but why is different from other cryptids?
It's not so different - I only heard that the Cryptozoology association doesn't consider it as a Cryptid. If I could find the link..
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 09, 2010, 01:58:31 PM
It's not so different - I only heard that the Cryptozoology association doesn't consider it as a Cryptid. If I could find the link..
any reason/exlaination mentioned?
Not Much Difference. Just in some cases cryptids are Known Extinct Creatures but a mothman is about as real as manbearpig.
Mothman doesn't mean he's a combination of creatures like some people think. Also he is more real then Manbearpig. He is claimed to be seen under the Silver Bridge when it collapsed.
Here is a quote from a Bigfoot researcher.
" When your out in the woods and your searching and you find the prints and you hear the creature you know its real. ( to skeptics ) Get out of your office and leave your comfort zone and get out there and look to see if its real."
Mothman is described as being a big winged humanoid creature with glowing eyes. Thus the name Mothman. They even made a statue of it:
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uptake.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F01%2Fmothman-statue.jpg&hash=456ecc1064252a431629cfe5098f363db4c090b6)
Cool, isn't it? 8)
Quote from: Aeus on Mar 09, 2010, 12:45:19 PM
Photograph? Yeah. Capture? Pfffft...
Tell that to Gustave.
Isn't he a crocodile? We have those in captivity.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 12:50:05 PM
Well over 10,000 human beings have reported bigfoot sightings.
Again, eyewitness accounts of something obscured is not evidence.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 12:50:05 PM
Well over 2,000 were experianced woodsmen. They would NOT think it was a bear.
They are not scientists, and just because something isn't a bear doesn't make it Bigfoot. (And, it very well could have been a bear mistaken for Bigfoot.)
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 12:50:05 PM
Its simple either the Cryptozologists and the eyewitness are liars or they are not.
Under the "not" camp, they can just be mistaken.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 12:50:05 PM
They don't misidentify.
They do. They really, really do.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 01:02:12 PM
What happened that night? Was it a man who magically wasn't injured when the car hit him hard?
Again, that's arguing from ignorance. If we don't know, we can't just say, "Well! It's gotta be Bigfoot!" Plain and simple, nobody knows and that's where it ends.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 09, 2010, 02:25:25 PM
Mothman is described as being a big winged humanoid creature with glowing eyes. Thus the name Mothman. They even made a statue of it:
http://www.uptake.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mothman-statue.jpg
Cool, isn't it? 8)
Aaaaahhhh!!!! I can smell the fresh t-shirts, bobble head dolls and other souvenirs 'round the corner from that statue!
That night when the man hit the " bigfoot or bear " or whatever. I didn't say it had to be bigfoot.
But it was NOT a man. I guess we can leave it as " we don't know " but that leaves the chance for bigfoot!
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 09, 2010, 02:25:25 PM
Mothman is described as being a big winged humanoid creature with glowing eyes. Thus the name Mothman. They even made a statue of it:
http://www.uptake.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/mothman-statue.jpg
Cool, isn't it? 8)
There is no evidence Saying a creature like this ever has existed or if its Even possible for a creature like this to exist.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 02:21:55 PM
" When your out in the woods and your searching and you find the prints and you hear the creature ou know its real. ( to skeptics ) Get out of your office and leave your comfort zone and get out there and look to see if its real."
So You want Skeptics to waste there time looking for a creature that (to them) doesn't exist? Yeah, when they could be trying to research Apes that are real and try save there habitat.
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 09, 2010, 05:51:33 PM
There is no evidence Saying a creature like this ever has existed or if its Even possible for a creature like this to exist.
Of course, the statue is nothing more than a interpretation ;)
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 09, 2010, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 09, 2010, 05:51:33 PM
There is no evidence Saying a creature like this ever has existed or if its Even possible for a creature like this to exist.
Of course, the statue is nothing more than a interpretation ;)
I know, I was talking about the Actual Description of the Creature. You're words "Mothman is described as being a big winged humanoid creature with glowing eyes." That Doesn't sound Possible to me. Bigfoot is a long shot but sounds like it could be a Possible Creature.
Big winged humanoid with glowing eyes. Nothing Science couldn't do, really :D
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 09, 2010, 04:38:38 AM
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 09, 2010, 04:12:43 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 09, 2010, 03:54:15 AM
I always wondered why whenever a picture of a cryptid is taken, the photo is always blurry. To me, that suggests these things aren't real because it's as if the photographer is deliberately doing it.
Maybe because no one is able to get close enough to see it.
They're close enough to get the pic in the first place. They can at least hold a camera steady. Or else, don't bother.
Some people think getting too close would be a bad thing or other wise you will scare it off. Or it might attack you. I think that's why people are never get too close to see something like Big Foot.
There are many factors for the Photos (UC stands for Unknown creature):
1. Predictability of the Sighting: The Person who takes the photo could not really know if s/he will encounter a UC during a tour, or something like a tour, you name it. A sighting could be completely based on pure case, and the Person could be taken on surprise.
2. Psychological Factor: Photographing an UC isn't like doing Birdwatching. You could be tense because you do not know what the aftermath would be. Is it pacific? Ferocious? Blood Thirsty? One can't know. So, the focus could suffer from this.
3. Instruments used: If one knows that s/he is going to sight a UC, s/he will surely bring with him/her an adequate Camera, maybe an HD one. But what if Factor #1 occurs? Most people bring with themselves a Mobile, or a cheap camera, just to do some photos. So, the quality of the photo could suffer from this.
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.
Are you talking about the Beast of the Geavaudan? Their is enough proof that the attacks where real, but no one know what the anime was after it was killed. Many people believe that the Beast of Gevaudan was a pair of African hyenas. The beast was the size of a ox, and I don't recall a hyena being that big?
Gigantism.
^^^ This Or Most likely was a African hyena that escaped from a zoo/Circus. After being fed by humans animals have been known to grow to huge sizes. that's the theory of how hogzilla got some big.
The beast had a long mouth, and hooves rather than paws. I think it's a Mesonychid, but I doubt it since they became extinct in the Early Oligocene and what would a Mesonychid be doing in the 1760's?
The Film Brotherhood of the Wolf gives a pretty good explanation of what it could be.
Interesting. . . Body was found?
Why are we talking about what it coudl be in first place? No.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 03:39:47 PM
That night when the man hit the " bigfoot or bear " or whatever. I didn't say it had to be bigfoot.
No, but you mentioned evidence for Bigfoot and then went into a story without a segue.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 09, 2010, 03:39:47 PM
But it was NOT a man. I guess we can leave it as " we don't know " but that leaves the chance for bigfoot!
It leaves the chance for
almost anything. Since Bigfoot's existence has failed scientific testing, it's not an option. You can't take something that's unknown and fill in the gap (e.g., the mystery event) with something that hasn't even been proven to exist (e.g., Bigfoot).
If all you have is the Argumentum ad Ignorantium (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html) logical fallacy to work with, give it up.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 09, 2010, 07:18:39 PM
There are many factors for the Photos (UC stands for Unknown creature):
1. Predictability of the Sighting: The Person who takes the photo could not really know if s/he will encounter a UC during a tour, or something like a tour, you name it. A sighting could be completely based on pure case, and the Person could be taken on surprise.
2. Psychological Factor: Photographing an UC isn't like doing Birdwatching. You could be tense because you do not know what the aftermath would be. Is it pacific? Ferocious? Blood Thirsty? One can't know. So, the focus could suffer from this.
3. Instruments used: If one knows that s/he is going to sight a UC, s/he will surely bring with him/her an adequate Camera, maybe an HD one. But what if Factor #1 occurs? Most people bring with themselves a Mobile, or a cheap camera, just to do some photos. So, the quality of the photo could suffer from this.
That's great! All three considerations are great examples of how
unscientific cryptozoology is! Thank you for proving my point!
QuoteI guess we can leave it as " we don't know " but that leaves the chance for bigfoot!
Also leaves the chance for Elvis.
Quote from: SM on Mar 09, 2010, 09:49:45 PM
QuoteI guess we can leave it as " we don't know " but that leaves the chance for bigfoot!
Also leaves the chance for Elvis.
Otherwise known as "Bigbelly".
And known by his plaintive cry of "Thangyaverymurch!"
"Oh baby oh baby!" "Gimme a deepfried peena butta n' jella nanner sammitch!"
Elvis Aaron Presley made this world a better place and should not be the butt of your jokes!
LOL anyway Elvis being alive is NOT true.
Humour = tragedy plus time. And it's been a long, long time.
I think Michael Jackson got about three seconds before the jokes appeared.
Which brings us neatly back on topic. ;D
... on topic ....
On topic Cryptozology has yet to be proven a real science. I agree with the majority of it but still it isn't officially a science.
This arguement grows cold rather quickly. :'(.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 10, 2010, 12:04:41 AM
Elvis Aaron Presley made this world a better place and should not be the butt of your jokes!
Of whose jokes then?
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 10, 2010, 12:15:11 AM
Cryptozology has yet to be proven a real science. I agree with the majority of it but still it isn't officially a science.
It's all or nothing. Besides, it could never be "proven to be a real science" since it doesn't use scientific methods.
This thread seems to be in one sides favor. ;D.
Uh huh!
Is there anyone who disagrees that the jersey devil is THE most frightening cryptid/animal ever known?
Cthulhu is more frightening and just as real.
You guys never met Patty, my ex.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 10, 2010, 12:04:41 AM
LOL anyway Elvis being alive is NOT true.
Tell that to the people who see him in shopping malls.
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 10, 2010, 02:40:02 AM
Is there anyone who disagrees that the jersey devil is THE most frightening cryptid/animal ever known?
No one disagrees with that....he is the most frightening thing I have ever seen.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 10, 2010, 02:50:22 AM
You guys never met Patty, my ex.
Ooohhh!
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 10, 2010, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 10, 2010, 02:40:02 AM
Is there anyone who disagrees that the jersey devil is THE most frightening cryptid/animal ever known?
No one disagrees with that....he is the most frightening thing I have ever seen.
It's story is somewhat interesting/believable..that's why ppl fear "IT"
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 10, 2010, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 10, 2010, 02:40:02 AM
Is there anyone who disagrees that the jersey devil is THE most frightening cryptid/animal ever known?
No one disagrees with that....he is the most frightening thing I have ever seen.
What? How could you be scared of this little fella?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.snesorama.us%2FJerseyDevil_NTSC_Front.jpeg&hash=305e6f219bb8c7c08172b85c347de11fe6fc82c9)
I was going to post a picture of it...but I am too afraid to look it up.
You mean this one?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwhoyoucallingaskeptic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fjersey-devil1.jpg&hash=cf088ed5602358a6781c2e5985ea7c5eedd2f3c6)
ARGH!!! A MARTIAN TRIPOD!!!!
It's a Strider, I tells ya.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 10, 2010, 04:45:34 AM
You mean this one?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwhoyoucallingaskeptic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fjersey-devil1.jpg&hash=cf088ed5602358a6781c2e5985ea7c5eedd2f3c6)
DAMN YOU! That just scared the shit out of me! Now I won't be able to sleep for the rest of the night.. :D
Quote
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwhoyoucallingaskeptic.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F07%2Fjersey-devil1.jpg&hash=cf088ed5602358a6781c2e5985ea7c5eedd2f3c6)
Clearly this is fake.
Wow, yet another blurry photograph.. ::)
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 10, 2010, 04:28:15 AM
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 10, 2010, 02:40:02 AM
Is there anyone who disagrees that the jersey devil is THE most frightening cryptid/animal ever known?
No one disagrees with that....he is the most frightening thing I have ever seen.
You saw the Jersey Devil...?
:-\
Quote from: Puks on Mar 10, 2010, 11:28:23 AM
Wow, yet another blurry photograph.. ::)
...of a creature costume not even worthy to appear in a 1950s horror movie.
Anyone see this?
http://www.ghoststudy.com/monthly/apr06/ghostcap21.jpg
REALLY WEIRD!
JERSEY DEVIL!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 10, 2010, 12:05:10 PM
Anyone see this?
http://www.ghoststudy.com/monthly/apr06/ghostcap21.jpg
REALLY WEIRD!
JERSEY DEVIL!!!!!!!!!
The Jersey Devil is a myth, come on man think a creature born human but turned in to this thing. Its complete Bullshit. it was first reported in 1735 This thing doesn't age? Emm I'm pretty sure it would be dead by now.
Looks like oddly shaped shit behind the curtain to me.
Happens all the time to me and freaks me the f**k out.
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 10, 2010, 12:12:14 PM
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 10, 2010, 12:05:10 PM
Anyone see this?
http://www.ghoststudy.com/monthly/apr06/ghostcap21.jpg
REALLY WEIRD!
JERSEY DEVIL!!!!!!!!!
The Jersey Devil is a myth, come on man think a creature born human but turned in to this thing. Its complete Bullshit. it was first reported in 1735 This thing doesn't age? Emm I'm pretty sure it would be dead by now.
The leed's thing is a myth. It could be just a normal animal
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 10, 2010, 12:00:34 PM
You saw the Jersey Devil...?
:-\
Based on what is out there on the internet...I don't think anyone here has said these things are real....Crytozoology is the study of these creatures...whether they are real or not.
You are taking this way too seriously.
Hey if you guys are in to Cryptozoology You should Check out Monsterquest Its all about Crypto. ;D
And The Patterson footage (bigfoot.)
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 10, 2010, 12:17:13 PM
Based on what is out there on the internet...I don't think anyone here has said these things are real...
Somebody just said they saw the Jersey Devil.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 10, 2010, 12:17:13 PM
Crytozoology is the study of these creatures...whether they are real or not.
Fine. Call it mythology.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 10, 2010, 12:17:13 PM
You are taking this way too seriously.
No, the people who believe in this shit are taking it way too seriously. When people don't use critical thinking in viewing the world, I'm well within my right to be concerned as I live in this world with them and some of them are tasked with decisions that may affect my life. They don't tend to reserve their fantasies for unproven animals; they tend to apply their methods to other facets of life, too.
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 10, 2010, 12:22:46 PM
Hey if you guys are in to Cryptozoology You should Check out Monsterquest Its all about Crypto.
They really should check out The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/). It gives explanations in layman's terms and cites reliable sources.
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 10, 2010, 12:05:10 PM
Anyone see this?
http://www.ghoststudy.com/monthly/apr06/ghostcap21.jpg
REALLY WEIRD!
JERSEY DEVIL!!!!!!!!!
This doesn't seem like the jersey devil...tis' just a face! :-[
Any other pics? ???
Quote from: Rahul on Mar 10, 2010, 01:01:22 PM
This doesn't seem like the jersey devil...tis' just a face! :-[
Any other pics? ???
Don't hold your breath. It's a crypto; that means that there aren't any clear pics of it.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 10, 2010, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: Rahul on Mar 10, 2010, 01:01:22 PM
This doesn't seem like the jersey devil...tis' just a face! :-[
Any other pics? ???
Don't hold your breath. It's a crypto; that means that there aren't any clear pics of it.
There has to be atleast some resemblence in pics...atleast the creatures attributes(though not canon)!
Fake photos to make cash and a story aren't approved of by acutal cryptozologists.
And I'm not sure "actual cryptozoologists", assuming such a thing even exists, could take a proper photo themselves. The story part though comes rather easily.
People really think that jersey devils exist? I always thought they where just stories.
That's what cryptozoology is: stories.
Most Cryptozologists aren't under educated " fake Scientists ".
Loren Colemen ( wholes leading cryptozologist ) is a very educated man and a proffesor at Southern Maine Univeristiy.
Cryptozology isn't a " story " acutally. Obviously some of it is ridiculous Loren Coleman even claimed the Jersey Devil wasn't real.
I believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but I don't believe in Jersey Devils though. I doubt any animal from hell exist here on Earth.
Quoteanimal from hell
???
Weren't you playing Doom3 a little too often?
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 10, 2010, 08:58:17 PM
Fake photos to make cash and a story aren't approved of by acutal cryptozologists.
Of course they are. They supply a means of income and a clear picture would reveal too much of the creature's features, like seams, glue, etc.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 10, 2010, 09:32:53 PM
Most Cryptozologists aren't under educated " fake Scientists ". Loren Colemen ( wholes leading cryptozologist ) is a very educated man and a proffesor at Southern Maine Univeristiy.
Even well-educated scientists lose focus and tend to follow their emotions instead of data.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 10, 2010, 09:32:53 PM
Cryptozology isn't a " story " acutally.
No, but alot of it is based on stories.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 10, 2010, 09:48:04 PM
I believe in the Loch Ness Monster
There isn't enough food in the lake to support a population of Loch Ness Monsters.
Migration maybe?
It's open up to theories.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 11, 2010, 01:18:50 PM
It's open up to theories.
No, it isn't. In order for it to be, the theories would have to be:
Consistent
Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
Empirically testable and falsifiable
Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.
The
existence of Nessie alone meets only
one criterion. Kinda hard to form a theory when its subject is MIA.
I love the way Mal kicks ass in this thread.
Godspeed to you!
Before 1938 we didn't know of surviving Coelacanths, before 2002 we didn't know of Mantophasmatodea, and mainly, before the actual discover, Okapi was considered a strange creature.
Acutally The Loch Ness Monster could've migrated through Scottlands lakes using under water caves to find more food. Perhaps the creature isn't in a stable population rather only a few that have a large life span.
This debate is never going to end. I think this thread is not going to solve the debate. ;)
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 11, 2010, 01:47:27 PM
Before 1938 we didn't know of surviving Coelacanths
They weren't championed by pseudoscientists prior to 1938, either.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 11, 2010, 01:47:27 PM
before 2002 we didn't know of Mantophasmatodea
Those, too, weren't being chased by pseudos prior to discovery.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 11, 2010, 01:47:27 PM
and mainly, before the actual discover, Okapi was considered a strange creature.
Strike three.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 11, 2010, 02:43:33 PM
Acutally The Loch Ness Monster could've migrated through Scottlands lakes using under water caves to find more food. Perhaps the creature isn't in a stable population rather only a few that have a large life span.
If you can't test those
whims, there's no point in thinking of them as theories nor even entertaining them as more than fantasies.
Now, if you're going to fantasize, why concentrate your energies on big, wet, phallic creatures instead of a girl with a great face and body?
That would seem more natural and more healthy.
Okapi was considered a legend before being actually discovered. Could be the same for some fo these strange creatures, huh?
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 11, 2010, 03:12:46 PM
Okapi was considered a legend before being actually discovered.
Hardly. They were as common to the ancient Egyptians as wolves and wildcats were to Europeans.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 11, 2010, 03:12:46 PM
Could be the same for some fo these strange creatures, huh?
Nope, for the same reasons I had listed in my last post. All of the creatures that had been discovered had also been recovered. Bigfoot, Nessie, et al., are nothing more than snipe hunts. As soon as they are bagged, analyzed and cataloged, they will be discovered.
Until then, cryptozoologists should change their strategies and tactics about collecting data (and specimens) instead of recycling the same "evidence" and making excuses.
One thing I just want to throw out there: let's assume for the moment Big Foot and Nessie do exist. My guess would be, they are living creatures that have been around for ages, but are in fact a new type of animal we just haven't catalogued yet as opposed to being a giant man-ape or a relic from the Mesozoic era.
If you don't quite understand what I mean, think of David Hume's argument against miracles. He didn't believe in them and he also believed that any supposed miracle that was observed was really just a natural occurrence in nature we hadn't discovered yet.
As a general rule, if something is unknown, it is to be cataloged as such: unknown. Everybody who has a pet "explanation" are all too quick to fill in a gap with their choice, whether it's God, Bigfoot, Santa Claus, whoever.
Offering the excuse, "It could be [insert pet idea here]!" is not doing their argument any favors; especially when it carries as much weight as any other idea. Until we have actual physical evidence of Bigfoot (or whatever) and it's been (scientifically) tested in every way to where there is no denying it's Bigfoot (or whatever), there's no point in using the lame argument, "It could be such-and-such!".
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 08, 2010, 03:06:09 PM
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 07, 2010, 11:10:34 PM
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?
They bring Aliens up everywhere, and it gets annoying.
I think Chupacabras might be a new type of Bat or Dog. It seems like all of dead bodies of Chupacabras have been hoaxas though. I remember someone was able to catch a good image of it on type on CNN.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 03:20:55 AM
It seems like all of dead bodies of Chupacabras have been hoaxas though.
That should tell you something...
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 03:20:55 AM
I remember someone was able to catch a good image of it on type on CNN.
Must not have been too memorable; it didn't seem to scream "discovery".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_uwG79As4A
And it's all TRUE!!!
This is a very mysterious cryptid...
The real mystery is why anyone would believe that.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 11, 2010, 02:43:33 PM
Acutally The Loch Ness Monster could've migrated through Scottlands lakes using under water caves to find more food. Perhaps the creature isn't in a stable population rather only a few that have a large life span.
This debate is never going to end. I think this thread is not going to solve the debate. ;)
WOW! 65.5 million years ago that is one old Plesiosaur. It could not live the planet has changed to much.
In 65 million years little mammalians slowly turned into into Humans. Don't see why a species like that couldn't adapt.
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 12, 2010, 07:19:08 PM
In 65 million years little mammalians slowly turned into into Humans. Don't see why a species like that couldn't adapt.
Yeah, Nature Selected us to evolve. A Plesiosaur was not meant to survive the Cretaceous Tertiary extinction event other wise they would still be here today. They couldn't adapted because it went extinct 65 million years ago. I thought that would be clear.
We found parts of the Ocean that are so deep that we never seen before, and their might be even more deeper parts. It's possible that a group of Plesiosaur surrived under water when the meteor hit the Planet 65 million years ago.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
We found parts of the Ocean that are so deep that we never seen before, and their might be even more deeper parts. It's possible that a group of Plesiosaur surrived under water when the meteor hit the Planet 65 million years ago.
No that's not possible Plesiosaurs did not have gills and breathed air. Couldn't survive in deep water.
We're not keepin' an eye on the ocean surface 24/7, so it's possible to them go out and breathe.
True, we are not looking 24/7. But come on guys give me a break. there would need to be a population of well over a thousand to keep a species from extinction and there would be Sightings all of the time.
New species are being discovered every day. Who knows?
But this isn't a new species its one we know about that went extinct 65 million years ago.
We aren't sure this species hasn't evolved into something else. Species can mutate, species can remain the same.
Which completely ignores the fact that plesiosaur habitats died out when the Earth shifted at the end of the Cretaceous period when the continent of modern day Europe was formed. The inland sea which they swam in disappeared so there would not have been any place for them to go, and they would not have been able to keep up with changes in food source, water environments, etc...
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 12, 2010, 08:40:40 PM
We aren't sure this species hasn't evolved into something else. Species can mutate, species can remain the same.
Well the monster is Described as a Plesiosaur so its safe to say they didn't mutate. I think its time you face it isn't real.
it might not mutate too far from the original design. just a few minor adaptations and modifications...Plus it might not be a Plesiosaur at all...has anyone read The Loch by steve Alten?
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 13, 2010, 02:05:05 AM
it might not mutate too far from the original design. just a few minor adaptations and modifications...Plus it might not be a Plesiosaur at all...
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 12, 2010, 08:40:40 PM
We aren't sure this species hasn't evolved into something else. Species can mutate, species can remain the same.
Quote from: Hive Tyrant on Mar 12, 2010, 08:06:02 PM
New species are being discovered every day. Who knows?
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 12, 2010, 07:54:03 PM
We're not keepin' an eye on the ocean surface 24/7, so it's possible to them go out and breathe.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
We found parts of the Ocean that are so deep that we never seen before, and their might be even more deeper parts. It's possible that a group of Plesiosaur surrived under water when the meteor hit the Planet 65 million years ago.
One more time: You can't make an argument from an unknown factor. What you guys are doing defies logic.
Has anyone posted this on this thread yet...They are very cheesey but i like them
http://animal.discovery.com/tv/lost-tapes/
"The Lost Tapes" should remain lost.
Thank you some one thinking with some logic.
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 12, 2010, 09:57:27 PM
Well the monster is Described as a Plesiosaur so its safe to say they didn't mutate. I think its time you face it isn't real.
They say long neck and fins. Few else. Also,
how do you know it isn't real? I'm not talkin' about Lochness' case.
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 12, 2010, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
We found parts of the Ocean that are so deep that we never seen before, and their might be even more deeper parts. It's possible that a group of Plesiosaur surrived under water when the meteor hit the Planet 65 million years ago.
No that's not possible Plesiosaurs did not have gills and breathed air. Couldn't survive in deep water.
Coelacanths where species that was thought to be extinct over 65 million years ago, and their is always a possible alway that Plesiosaurs might have surrived.
We take Coelacanths again and again... it's useless as a proof unfortunately.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 13, 2010, 05:59:43 PM
Quote from: Corporal Lewis Hicks on Mar 12, 2010, 07:52:31 PM
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
We found parts of the Ocean that are so deep that we never seen before, and their might be even more deeper parts. It's possible that a group of Plesiosaur surrived under water when the meteor hit the Planet 65 million years ago.
No that's not possible Plesiosaurs did not have gills and breathed air. Couldn't survive in deep water.
Coelacanths where species that was thought to be extinct over 65 million years ago, and their is always a possible alway that Plesiosaurs might have surrived.
Coelacanths are fish. They can underwated indefinitely whereas a Plesiosaur cannot.
FINE. . . Loch ness and sea monsters are real you happy now. ::)
Well ya, Loch Ness is. It's a body of water in Scotland.
You know what I mean.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 13, 2010, 05:59:43 PM
Coelacanths where species that was thought to be extinct over 65 million years ago, and their is always a possible alway that Plesiosaurs might have surrived.
We've been over this too many times before, and I'm wondering why you're not catching on to the fact that you can't argue from an unknown. Really.
Also, just because one thing was rediscovered doesn't mean that anything can be. To assume that is very weak. Lastly, parading around coelacanths as the poster child for cryptozoology weakens your argument, as only parading live specimens of plesiosaurs would be the only thing that would support your case.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
We found parts of the Ocean that are so deep that we never seen before, and their might be even more deeper parts. It's possible that a group of Plesiosaur surrived under water when the meteor hit the Planet 65 million years ago.
Hmm, my money's on giant octopi.
Quote from: TJ Doc on Mar 14, 2010, 02:17:17 AM
We found parts of the Ocean that are so deep that we never seen before, and their might be even more deeper parts. It's possible that a group of Plesiosaur surrived under water when the meteor hit the Planet 65 million years ago.
What evidence are you basing this on? Oh, yeah: some other species.
Quote from: Hellspawn28 on Mar 12, 2010, 07:42:21 PM
Hmm, my money's on giant octopi.
He didn't say anything about a sighting. You might as well had said you're betting on Roman Catholicism.
Jesus shall return... from the deep. :P
Quote from: TJ Doc on Mar 14, 2010, 02:31:18 AM
Jesus shall return... from the deep. :P
Jesus is already here; he's usually hanging out at the corner shop with Luis, César, Alicia, and the rest of the Hernandez family.
BTW: for those who think that skeptics have closed minds, feel free to watch this video to learn what skepticism is really all about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 10, 2010, 12:49:14 PM
Fine. Call it mythology.
I didn't come up with the term. Yell at the person who did.
Quote
No, the people who believe in this shit are taking it way too seriously. When people don't use critical thinking in viewing the world, I'm well within my right to be concerned as I live in this world with them and some of them are tasked with decisions that may affect my life. They don't tend to reserve their fantasies for unproven animals; they tend to apply their methods to other facets of life, too.
Just make sure you are not judging a whole group just based on a few nuts. That wouldn't be using critical thinking in viewing the world.
This is who he is judging....
"the people who believe in this shit "
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 12:04:34 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 10, 2010, 12:49:14 PM
Fine. Call it mythology.
I didn't come up with the term. Yell at the person who did.
I'm referring to all who think of it as a branch of science.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 12:04:34 AM
Just make sure you are not judging a whole group just based on a few nuts. That wouldn't be using critical thinking in viewing the world.
I was referring to those who believe in cryptozoology, not the whole world.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 12:20:11 AM
I was referring to those who believe in cryptozoology, not the whole world.
I wanted to point out that you weren't using critical thinking. In judging in a bad light all who believe in cryptozoology based on a few nuts is not using critical thinking. It is just like calling a muslims terrorists just because a few people go crazy (I am not saying you are doing that).
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 12:30:03 AM
I wanted to point out that you weren't using critical thinking.
No, you're misrepresenting what I had said.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 12:30:03 AM
In judging in a bad light all who believe in cryptozoology based on a few nuts is not using critical thinking.
The whole ideology of cryptozoology is flawed, for reasons I had posted earlier. All cryptos follow the same
modus operandi; not just the nuts. Cryptozoology does not use scientific methods; therefore, all cryptozoologists have to be swept together.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 12:30:03 AM
It is just like calling a muslims terrorists just because a few people go crazy (I am not saying you are doing that).
It's not. It's more like me calling all Muslims worshipers of Allah and followers of Mohammed; including the terrorists.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 12:50:09 AM
It's not. It's more like me calling all Muslims worshipers of Allah and followers of Mohammed; including the terrorists.
"When people don't use critical thinking in viewing the world, I'm well within my right to be concerned as I live in this world with them and some of them are tasked with decisions that may affect my life."
You must live in fear with every group of individuals out there, then.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:02:39 AM
You must live in fear with every group of individuals out there, then.
Are you saying that everyone lacks critical thinking?
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 01:16:51 AM
Are you saying that everyone lacks critical thinking?
No. You are the ones putting the bad seeds in with the rest of the group.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:31:55 AM
No. You are the ones putting the bad seeds in with the rest of the group.
What "ones", what "bad seeds" and what "group"?
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 01:38:06 AM
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:31:55 AM
No. You are the ones putting the bad seeds in with the rest of the group.
What "ones", what "bad seeds" and what "group"?
Cryptonuts with the regular cryptozoologists...
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:39:18 AM
Cryptonuts with the regular cryptozoologists...
So, how do you figure that the nuts are different than the rest of them?
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 01:45:15 AM
So, how do you figure that the nuts are different than the rest of them?
That was the point I was trying to make. What is stopping you from doing that to other groups of people?
That is not cool.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 01:45:15 AM
So, how do you figure that the nuts are different than the rest of them?
That was the point I was trying to make. What is stopping you from doing that to other groups of people?
That is not cool.
That's just ridiculous, what are you arguing here?
Quote from: ShadowPred on Mar 15, 2010, 02:00:49 AM
That's just ridiculous, what are you arguing here?
Go back and read the previous posts.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 01:45:15 AM
So, how do you figure that the nuts are different than the rest of them?
That was the point I was trying to make. What is stopping you from doing that to other groups of people?
That is not cool.
^^^^^^^^ I'm talking about that post, what are you trying to say in those first two sentences? That he'll just insult other groups of people?
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:56:22 AM
That was the point I was trying to make.
I asked you a question that was perfectly legit. How are the nuts different than the rest of the cryptos?
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 01:56:22 AM
What is stopping you from doing that to other groups of people? That is not cool.
Ah, the All or Nothing fallacy. I'm sorry, but you fail to see that the whole methodology of cryptozoology is flawed; not just the methods of the nuts within. Why do you fail to understand that? I'm afraid that you're grossly mistaken if you think that I label all people within a religion, race, gender, etc., the same.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 02:11:53 AM
Am I having a hard time reading English?
No, just reasoning. You couldn't answer a simple question, so you had to resort to implying that I am some sort of bigot. Nice try.
Not some of cryptozoologists ignore the Scientific Method;
all of them. Nut just the "nuts";
all of them. If they followed it, I would have no problem separating the nuts from the rest of them, but even the premiere cryptos do not use the Method, as it is impossible to do so with creatures that haven't been discovered.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 02:07:18 AM
[
I asked you a question that was perfectly legit. How are the nuts different than the rest of the cryptos?
Ah, the All or Nothing fallacy. I'm sorry, but you fail to see that the whole methodology of cryptozoology is flawed; not just the methods of the nuts within. Why do you fail to understand that? I'm afraid that you're grossly mistaken if you think that I label all people within a religion, race, gender, etc., the same.
Nuts are people who take their beliefs to dangerous (walking around in the Pine Barrens looking for the Jersey Devil as a hobby in a safe manner at night is not dangerous)or deadly territory. I understand that Cryptozoology may be flawed, now let me break down the points I was trying to make in numeric format so everyone can understand:
1. People are allowed to believe what they want.
2. They can't take their beliefs to dangerous or deadly territory (nuts).
3. Number 1 and Number 2 above can't be classified together.
4. "So, how do you figure that the nuts are different than the rest of them?" Makes me think you don't understand that difference. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking me that question.
Does this make sense?
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 02:20:37 AM
Nuts are people who take their beliefs to dangerous (walking around in the Pine Barrens looking for the Jersey Devil as a hobby in a safe manner at night is not dangerous)or deadly territory.
And I wasn't accusing
all cryptos of doing those sort of things, so your argument is flawed. Plus, not
all nuts take their beliefs to that dangerous of extremes.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 02:20:37 AM
I understand that Cryptozoology may be flawed
If you understood that, there would be no need in arguing with me. That was the point you were ignoring.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 02:20:37 AM
1. People are allowed to believe what they want.
Yep.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 02:20:37 AM
2. They can't take their beliefs to dangerous or deadly territory (nuts).
Ever heard of "extremism"?
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 02:20:37 AM
3. Number 1 and Number 2 above can't be classified together.
They can. See my response to Point 2.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 02:20:37 AM
4. "So, how do you figure that the nuts are different than the rest of them?" Makes me think you don't understand that difference. Otherwise, you wouldn't be asking me that question.
Makes me think that you couldn't answer my question. Next time, just answer it instead of beating around the bush.
No matter how flawed it could be, I still wish I could major in it at a state university.
Quote from: badass_badger on Mar 15, 2010, 02:53:18 AM
No matter how flawed it could be, I still wish I could major in it at a state university.
You'd be wasting your money. It would be less expensive to read books from a library (or even to buy them) than to go through a university and pay for a degree that you cannot use except for novelty.
Are any of these major? (http://www.loc.gov/folklife/source/grad.html)
Quote from: SM on Mar 15, 2010, 02:55:48 AM
Are any of these major? (http://www.loc.gov/folklife/source/grad.html)
Most of them are, but keep in mind that the usage of the materials is under folklore and legends (as I had categorized it) instead of biology and zoology (as some in this thread would categorize it).
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 15, 2010, 02:55:21 AM
Quote from: badass_badger on Mar 15, 2010, 02:53:18 AM
No matter how flawed it could be, I still wish I could major in it at a state university.
You'd be wasting your money. It would be less expensive to read books from a library (or even to buy them) than to go through a university and pay for a degree that you cannot use except for novelty.
You can't be considered a professional because you flipped through some silly bigfoot books at a library. it takes a degree. then, muh boy, it's srs bsns.
Quote from: badass_badger on Mar 15, 2010, 03:03:05 AM
You can't be considered a professional because you flipped through some silly bigfoot books at a library. it takes a degree. then, muh boy, it's srs bsns.
And you'd do
what with your degree?
Be a PROFESSIONAL cryptozoologist. self employed, most likely.
Quote
If you understood that, there would be no need in arguing with me. That was the point you were ignoring.
Not it wasn't.
Quote
Ever heard of "extremism"?
"They can't take their beliefs to dangerous or deadly territory (nuts). " People who are part of the group can't take their beliefs to dangerous or deadly territory...if they do they are nuts (kicked out of the group...seperated). Not all extremists are nuts.
Quote
They can. See my response to Point 2.
Didn't you just talk about extremism ( " the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups
outside the perceived political center of a society"). If they are outside that group how can you group them together with the rest of the group.
Quote
Makes me think that you couldn't answer my question. Next time, just answer it instead of beating around the bush.
I answered it a couple of posts above.
QuoteMost of them are, but keep in mind that the usage of the materials is under folklore and legends (as I had categorized it) instead of biology and zoology (as some in this thread would categorize it).
It's the closest these people will get.
Quote from: badass_badger on Mar 15, 2010, 03:12:56 AM
Be a PROFESSIONAL cryptozoologist. self employed, most likely.
Where are you going to find work, by having someone pay you to tell stories at community halls?
You closer to the US than I and you don't think there'd be enough of an audience?
In the mid-west...ya I guess so.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 15, 2010, 04:57:24 AM
Where are you going to find work, by having someone pay you to tell stories at community halls?
That or having a show on Syfy.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 03:47:49 AM
Not it wasn't.
If it wasn't, there would be no conflict here.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 03:47:49 AM
Didn't you just talk about extremism ( " the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society"). If they are outside that group how can you group them together with the rest of the group.
I told you once before not to take my quotes out of context.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 15, 2010, 03:47:49 AM
I answered it a couple of posts above.
After beating around the bush.
I think a lot of this particular dispute comes from the use of the pejorative, and vague, description "nut."
Still, with what [I believe] mal was getting at: It doesn't matter how extreme (or "nutty") members of the group may be, because he wasn't criticizing them specifically. Cryptozoology as a whole disregards the scientific method in their "research" and claims. It is in this respect that Cryptozoology receives its skeptical criticism. This also extends to those who believe in Cryptozoology as they may (and quite likely will, do one degree or another) exhibit this un-critical thinking and disregard for scientific method in other areas. This close-minded, non skeptical, and unscientific thinking then affects the world community as a whole, as the mass of peoples who exhibit thinking patterns such as this add up rather quickly. This serves as a source of concern and frustration for many.
So it doesn't matter if he was grouping the "nuts" in with the rest of the group in this case, as the "nuts" were not being specified, nor were behaviors they exhibit alone being attributed to the group as a whole. The criticism was regarding the modus operandi of Cryptozoology.
Thank you, that's what I had meant (and said earlier).
:)
Quote from: Eidotemit on Mar 15, 2010, 05:31:20 PM
This close-minded, non skeptical, and unscientific thinking then affects the world community as a whole, as the mass of peoples who exhibit thinking patterns such as this add up rather quickly. This serves as a source of concern and frustration for many.
My main point was that he was taking it too seriously. I don't think we have to worry about cryptos going around killing people. For the majority of the cryptos...it is just a hobby. Those who take it to dangerous territory are outside of the group and should not be group with them (the extremists as mal would say).
That is it.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 16, 2010, 02:26:23 AM
I don't think we have to worry about cryptos going around killing people.
Neither did I. I don't know why you're bringing it up.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 16, 2010, 02:26:23 AM
For the majority of the cryptos...it is just a hobby.
For alot of them, it's a means of income.
You were the one freaking out about Cryptos:
"When people don't use critical thinking in viewing the world, I'm well within my right to be concerned as I live in this world with them and some of them are tasked with decisions that may affect my life."
Once again, you were taking it too seriously....did a crypto doc withhold medicine from you so he could save it for the Jersey Devil or something?
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 16, 2010, 03:53:23 AM
Once again, you were taking it too seriously....did a crypto doc withhold medicine from you so he could save it for the Jersey Devil or something?
I understand at this point you're probably frustrated with the debate, but just be careful to not start something you might regret.
Just a heads up ;)
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 16, 2010, 05:02:34 AM
I understand at this point you're probably frustrated with the debate, but just be careful to not start something you might regret.
Just a heads up ;)
You are right...the jerk is not worth getting banned over.
QuoteYou are right...the jerk is not worth getting banned over.
I think thats what Doom was trying to get you to avoid...
(Not like he's going to read this , but anyway...)
Quote from: badass_badger on Mar 15, 2010, 02:53:18 AM
No matter how flawed it could be, I still wish I could major in it at a state university.
looks interesting!
Way to go!!
best of luck!...
Quote from: SM on Mar 16, 2010, 05:38:53 AM
QuoteYou are right...the jerk is not worth getting banned over.
I think thats what Doom was trying to get you to avoid...
(Not like he's going to read this , but anyway...)
Both of them, really.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 16, 2010, 03:53:23 AM
You were the one freaking out about Cryptos:
"When people don't use critical thinking in viewing the world, I'm well within my right to be concerned as I live in this world with them and some of them are tasked with decisions that may affect my life."
I wasn't freaking out, I was showing a legitimate concern.
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 16, 2010, 03:53:23 AM
Once again, you were taking it too seriously....did a crypto doc withhold medicine from you so he could save it for the Jersey Devil or something?
If that could only make some sense...
Quote from: EarthHive on Mar 16, 2010, 05:35:54 AM
You are right...the jerk is not worth getting banned over.
Let's see... You twist what I say, make weird contextual connections, and say incomprehensible things and see fit to call me a jerk? Oh, the irony!
This debate shall end with the Israeli - Palestein conflict. Seriously it will last that long unless we close this threaed. I meean I had fun debating on it but seriously this is going down an evil road.
What does that have to do with cryptozoology? Stay on topic, please and thank you.
Okay DoomRulz!
Here is a good example of why Bigfoot could be real ----
Sketpics have proven that no human could produce the movements in the Bigfoot suit that Patterson and Gimlet captured. Also that the suit , if you zoom close enough , acutally has features not common in any suit made ... certainlly not the " Planet of the Apes " suits that the 1960s skeptics were confident that was being used. In fact those didn't even cover the entire body.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 16, 2010, 08:40:29 PM
Okay DoomRulz!
Here is a good example of why Bigfoot could be real ----
Sketpics have proven that no human could produce the movements in the Bigfoot suit that Patterson and Gimlet captured.
No such thing has yet been proven.
Yes they have done this.
Numerous shows have tested this and they never can replicate it. Only one show , and it didn't do so , came close.
Some of the creatures in cryptozoology are just ridiculous. The only ones I believe have a chance of being real are the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot.
The best is the Jersey Devil. I somehow remember a story about footprints on metal tubes or something like that... :D
Quote from: OmegaZilla on Mar 16, 2010, 09:46:17 PM
The best is the Jersey Devil. I somehow remember a story about footprints on metal tubes or something like that... :D
The Jersey Devil? WTF That thing is.... I don't even know how someone could come up with that.
I find it interesting that recently Monster Quest has also started focusing on animals that have been proven to really exist yet can still be termed "monsters"...such as recent episodes on African killer bees and piranha being found in American rivers. In my opinion these kind of episodes are far more interesting than ones based on "Lizard Man"......
QuoteYes they have done this.
Whom?
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 16, 2010, 09:39:26 PM
Yes they have done this.
Numerous shows have tested this and they never can replicate it. Only one show , and it didn't do so , came close.
They haven't
proven anything, and there have been different experts saying different things.
Quote from: Cal427eb on Mar 16, 2010, 09:45:04 PM
Some of the creatures in cryptozoology are just ridiculous. The only ones I believe have a chance of being real are the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot.
There is no possible way for either of those to exist. What is their food supply, how'd they survive so long, how have they survived changes to the environment, especially human changes without getting noticed,why have they just happened to avoid every reliable scientist/study, how come their not seen more often, why is all the "poof" for them speculative or hoaxes?
Quote from: darcevil on Mar 16, 2010, 10:48:10 PM
Quote from: Cal427eb on Mar 16, 2010, 09:45:04 PM
Some of the creatures in cryptozoology are just ridiculous. The only ones I believe have a chance of being real are the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot.
There is no possible way for either of those to exist. What is their food supply, how'd they survive so long, how have they survived changes to the environment, especially human changes without getting noticed,why have they just happened to avoid every reliable scientist/study, how come their not seen more often, why is all the "poof" for them speculative or hoaxes?
I said chance. :-\
Never said I thought they were real. Just more of a chance then the
Jersey Devil.
Quotewhy is all the "poof" for them speculative or hoaxes?
"Poof" as in gay or "poof" as in magic?
;)
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 16, 2010, 08:40:29 PM
Sketpics have proven that no human could produce the movements in the Bigfoot suit that Patterson and Gimlet captured. Also that the suit , if you zoom close enough , acutally has features not common in any suit made ... certainlly not the " Planet of the Apes " suits that the 1960s skeptics were confident that was being used. In fact those didn't even cover the entire body.
That's another way of saying, "I can't explain something, therefore I can explain it!". And, by the way, skeptics did not say it was a
Planet of the Apes suit, they said it was made by the same guy who had made them.
Quote from: Cal427eb on Mar 16, 2010, 10:57:17 PM
]I said chance. :-\
Never said I thought they were real. Just more of a chance then the Jersey Devil.
But what are you basing this chance on? You can't do that without knowing enough about the creature to theorize about it.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 16, 2010, 11:24:13 PM
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 16, 2010, 08:40:29 PM
Sketpics have proven that no human could produce the movements in the Bigfoot suit that Patterson and Gimlet captured. Also that the suit , if you zoom close enough , acutally has features not common in any suit made ... certainlly not the " Planet of the Apes " suits that the 1960s skeptics were confident that was being used. In fact those didn't even cover the entire body.
That's another way of saying, "I can't explain something, therefore I can explain it!". And, by the way, skeptics did not say it was a Planet of the Apes suit, they said it was made by the same guy who had made them.
Quote from: Cal427eb on Mar 16, 2010, 10:57:17 PM
]I said chance. :-\
Never said I thought they were real. Just more of a chance then the Jersey Devil.
But what are you basing this chance on? You can't do that without knowing enough about the creature to theorize about it.
They just seem to be the most
normal. I still highly doubt it.
Quote from: Cal427eb on Mar 16, 2010, 11:28:48 PM
They just seem to be the most normal. I still highly doubt it.
What are you talking about? What "they"? "Normal" to what?
Nothing is normal, NOTHING. There are plenty of plausible ways that these creatures could exist, Just because there is no solid evidence doesn't mean it's not there...Just think a little but, sure most can be explained via other ways and sometimes people overreact and they say its a monster. But...everything is pausible, just because it isn't like anything on Earth it doesn't mean it can't plausibly exist.
The problem with that is where do you draw the line of plausibilty?
Better to just stick with stuff that has been proven and stuff that hasn't. Doesn't stop people believing in sasquatch of course. But until it's proven he exists - it's really just fiction.
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 16, 2010, 11:53:19 PM
Nothing is normal, NOTHING.
Normality is too far ranging.
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 16, 2010, 11:53:19 PM
There are plenty of plausible ways that these creatures could exist
Such as?
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 16, 2010, 11:53:19 PM
Just because there is no solid evidence doesn't mean it's not there...
No, but evidence does go a long way to making these things real. Again, it's not up to anyone to disprove these things; it's up to those who believe to provide proof. Basic logic, really.
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 16, 2010, 11:53:19 PM
Just think a little but, sure most can be explained via other ways
That is how science works, and science has no explanation for these creatures. Hence, instead of saying "It exists!" science says "I don't know" and waits until evidence arrives. That's why you can't
just say that something exists or could exist: there is no evidence that shows either.
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 16, 2010, 11:53:19 PM
and sometimes people overreact and they say its a monster. But...everything is pausible, just because it isn't like anything on Earth it doesn't mean it can't plausibly exist.
Keep this in mind:
There is no such thing as the supernatural or the paranormal. There is only the natural, the normal, and mysteries we have yet to explain. For example, God is a mystery, and the God of Abraham may very well be an eternal mystery for the simple reason that any God explicable through science and the laws of nature would, by definition, lose the status of supernatural and enter the realm of the natural. A God definable by science is not a God at all. The same goes for cryptids.
For one thing, adaptation can go far ways. For example, in the other topic we saw the video of Gustav. That's just an example of "epic" animals that may be mistaken identity. Crocodillians are modern-day dinosaurs.
The Thylacine, I want to compare to the Coelacanth.
Except that coelacanths were thought to be extinct and then found not to be, whereas Tassie tigers are for all intents and purposes really extinct.
Quote from: Lumine on Mar 17, 2010, 12:24:12 AM
For one thing, adaptation can go far ways. For example, in the other topic we saw the video of Gustav. That's just an example of "epic" animals that may be mistaken identity. Crocodillians are modern-day dinosaurs.
The supposed cryptids were not studied by any scientific means, but Gustav was. In order to study adaptation, you need a series of creatures to study, including the one in question. You need to establish a lineage between the "beginning creature" and the one in question before you can say that it adapted. What was it (or its ancestors) like
before its present state? You can't say something adapted unless you knew how it was before.
Quote from: Lumine on Mar 17, 2010, 12:24:12 AM
The Thylacine, I want to compare to the Coelacanth.
You can
want to compare it to anything, but it's pointless. That's like saying that I want to compare my car to a violin.
Quote from: Lumine on Mar 17, 2010, 12:24:12 AM
Crocodillians are modern-day dinosaurs.
actually according to scientists they come from a different family and birds are the descendants of dinosaurs
Sharks have been around for about 450 millions years.
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 17, 2010, 01:00:06 AM
Quote from: Lumine on Mar 17, 2010, 12:24:12 AM
Crocodillians are modern-day dinosaurs.
actually according to scientists they come from a different family and birds are the descendants of dinosaurs
They evolved from the same reptilian ancestor: archosaurs.
Quote from: First Blood on Mar 17, 2010, 01:45:44 AM
Sharks have been around for about 450 millions years.
Predators hunted them.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 17, 2010, 01:51:43 AM
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 17, 2010, 01:00:06 AM
Quote from: Lumine on Mar 17, 2010, 12:24:12 AM
Crocodillians are modern-day dinosaurs.
actually according to scientists they come from a different family and birds are the descendants of dinosaurs
They evolved from the same reptilian ancestor: archosaurs.
Hey we know abt wikipedia! ;D
Quote from: Rahul on Mar 17, 2010, 09:24:59 AM
Hey we know abt wikipedia!
And some of us actually read books. You might give
DoomRulz more credit than that.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FLeprechauns%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=bf52c853a01ecf64250b032dcd94bd09f7237267)
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2010, 11:40:18 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Leprechauns/rolleyes.gif
Woooo, Happy St. Patty's Day!!
Finally! A "legitimate" excuse to get shamelessly drunk on green, cheap beer!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FLeprechauns%2Fcheesy.gif&hash=9641b1f09167f358c72413a4d8efa4579810020b)
Pfft. I'm sticking with Guinness, thank you very much.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 17, 2010, 03:26:36 PM
Pfft. I'm sticking with Guinness, thank you very much.
Me, too. But, being the kind, magnaminous person I am in at least
trying to understand and tolerate others, I was offering an olive branch to those who imbibe of the wider, vulgar variant products that resemble the abuse of the fine art and science of zymurgy.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2FLeprechauns%2Fwink.gif&hash=b783eee40b1708e64286a3dbd6322bfca1dd51bd)
Well unless you're drinking something like a martini that can at least give a shadow of an impression one is classy, I'm not sure they care too much.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2010, 03:36:17 PM
Me, too. But, being the kind, magnaminous person I am in at least trying to understand and tolerate others.
Missed the point?
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 17, 2010, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: Rahul on Mar 17, 2010, 09:24:59 AM
Hey we know abt wikipedia!
And some of us actually read books. You might give DoomRulz more credit than that.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/maledoro/Leprechauns/rolleyes.gif
That "some" includes me too!...though not now!
Quote from: That Yellow Alien on Mar 07, 2010, 09:44:18 PM
None have been proven.
What abous Ceolocanth they've been proven and they were considered extinct for millions of years or what about the megamouth shark or this thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPu1PYVHDE
Quote from: Rebel-Blood on Mar 21, 2010, 11:25:09 PM
What abous Ceolocanth they've been proven
1. Coelacanths were discovered, studied and analyzed by scientists, and not pseudoscientists. They were discovered in 1938; about 17 years before cryptozoology was "invented".
2. Just because they were discovered doesn't give any evidence to the existence of creatures such as Bigfoot, Nessie, Santa Claus, etc.; so cryptozoologists should stop parading around coelacanths and other discovered animals as poster children for their cause and they should come up with compelling evidence of the creatures they propose exist.
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv338%2Fmaledoro%2Fsa%2Femot-pseudo.gif&hash=353ccb503cab21ec50dff5598beade1c9ca46996)
Quote from: Rebel-Blood on Mar 21, 2010, 11:25:09 PM
Quote from: That Yellow Alien on Mar 07, 2010, 09:44:18 PM
None have been proven.
What abous Ceolocanth they've been proven and they were considered extinct for millions of years or what about the megamouth shark or this thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPu1PYVHDE
thats a frilled shark
Quote from: Xenokiller on Mar 22, 2010, 11:32:58 AM
thats a frilled shark
Yep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frilled_shark). It's hardly a dragon. Now, cryptozoologists have to lie about discovered animals?
Does this count?
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fxrayvision.today.com%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F03%2Fkrypto.jpg&hash=51283983d69d655892bf5006c47f27419e55269a)
Quote from: SM on Mar 22, 2010, 10:33:06 PM
Does this count?
http://xrayvision.today.com/files/2009/03/krypto.jpg
I'm sure it does more than count. It probably does long division, too!
(https://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Floyalkng.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F06%2Fsouth-park-manbearpig.jpg&hash=b35ca84d796e9de99351d5dee651c88df35310d7)
Also Manbearpig is a real Creature. I am Super Cereal. :P
If it's on South Park, I might actually believe it!
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 27, 2010, 03:44:28 PM
If it's on South Park, I might actually believe it!
Funny you should say that. A while back, I was watching "South Park" with a friend and I laughed only couple of times, and mildly at that. He asked if I was offended or if I just didn't think it was all that humorous. I told him that if you took away Bigfoot, UFOs, and other weird things, it was pretty much the way third grade was for me and my friends. (I was the Stan of my group, with the swearability of Cartman.)
Man, take out everything but big foot, the UFOs and other weird things and that was my third grade.
Just saying:
Several times skeptics have tried to re - create Cryptid hoaxes the majority ( 70% ) of the time they fail. And these guys are supposed to be hoax experts. LOl.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 02:29:09 AM
Several times skeptics have tried to re - create Cryptid hoaxes the majority ( 70% ) of the time they fail. And these guys are supposed to be hoax experts. LOl.
I don't know what that is supposed to mean. Whenever they do recreate a hoax, they actually do a decent job of exposing it. Sadly, the pseudoscientists either do not understand science or they just ignore it in order to further their claims. They tend to cherry-pick the things that might support them, but ignore actual evidence against them. (Funny that someone would come up with a statistic ("70%"), considering that they don't apply scientific methods to their own "studies".)
And, once again, it's not up to anyone to debunk those things, it's up to the proponents to come forward with solid evidence; 100% of the time they fail. So far, Bigfoot, Nessie, etc., are still not part of the cirriculum in science classes of any scholastic level.
I believe, Ive seen something before.
Quote from: RazorSlash on Mar 28, 2010, 03:48:51 AM
I believe, Ive seen something before.
And it might not have been what you thought you had seen.
Perhaps you did ... The majority of Bigfoot " sightings" are easy to be proven as fake or as misidentification. And acutally Mal i've seen skeptics attempt to re - create hoaxs and failed. Don't get me wrong they did an okay job but just couldn't come close.
Then again as you said it isn't for them to disprove its for them to approve once there is physical evidence.
I've always been fascinated at what was the cause of the "bloop" signal in the pacific.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 04:06:33 AM
And acutally Mal i've seen skeptics attempt to re - create hoaxs and failed.
Who did you actually witness doing this?
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 04:06:33 AM
Don't get me wrong they did an okay job but just couldn't come close.
What did they do and how did they fail?
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 04:06:33 AM
Then again as you said it isn't for them to disprove its for them to approve once there is physical evidence.
And, if there is no evidence thereof, it gets put aside until the evidence presents itself. In other words, it's foolish to say "It could be Bigfoot!".
In addition to those i've seen on T.V. my grandfather is a skeptic and has tried to re - do hoaxes. He usually fails. To his credit he does do better then those guys on T.V.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 01:23:04 PM
In addition to those i've seen on T.V. my grandfather is a skeptic and has tried to re - do hoaxes. He usually fails. To his credit he does do better then those guys on T.V.
Ah, of course!
TV!
:P
BTW, who is your grandfather?
He isn't a famous or anything. His name is Thomas Porter.
That makes it kinda hard to check his credentials...
His credentials?
He is both a Fisherman and an Oceanographer. Not sure when he graduated from college i'll ask him. I am not saying he is better qualified to attempt these hoaxes anymore then any other scientist. I am just saying when he tried to do it , locally , he did a better job.
On T.V. most of the skeptics , for example, try to re - create a bigfoot filming or a UFO and usually fail to do it the way the original was shown.
But we've both said that until there is physical 100% proof it might as well be fake.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 02:00:45 PM
His credentials?
He is both a Fisherman and an Oceanographer. Not sure when he graduated from college i'll ask him.
Again, it's difficult to see his methods.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 02:00:45 PM
I am not saying he is better qualified to attempt these hoaxes anymore then any other scientist. I am just saying when he tried to do it , locally , he did a better job.
Maybe. Not to make a straw man argument, but it is curious to have an assessment from a person who follows something that doesn't use the Scientific Method and to have them rate those who do use the Method.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 02:00:45 PM
On T.V. most of the skeptics , for example, try to re - create a bigfoot filming or a UFO and usually fail to do it the way the original was shown.
What you had said is too vague: "On TV", "most of the skeptics", "usually fail", etc. Forgive me, but I'm one of those types who like details.
Quote from: The PredBen on Mar 28, 2010, 02:00:45 PM
But we've both said that until there is physical 100% proof it might as well be fake.
As been said before, there is no point in defending a pro-crypto stance unless there is new evidence brought to light; and by that, I mean not regurgitating the same type of hokum, such as "new" blurry pics, etc.
Quote from: maledoro on Mar 28, 2010, 01:56:39 AM
Quote from: DoomRulz on Mar 27, 2010, 03:44:28 PM
If it's on South Park, I might actually believe it!
Funny you should say that. A while back, I was watching "South Park" with a friend and I laughed only couple of times, and mildly at that. He asked if I was offended or if I just didn't think it was all that humorous. I told him that if you took away Bigfoot, UFOs, and other weird things, it was pretty much the way third grade was for me and my friends. (I was the Stan of my group, with the swearability of Cartman.)
Well I was only kidding of course. I said that because SP does a very good job of commentating on things that people tend to believe in as if it's a matter of life and death.
Its Funny because the scientists thought the ceolocanth was extinc but poaple have caughht and proven there existance
Your point being?
Quote from: EatWheat on Apr 01, 2010, 12:33:37 PM
Its Funny because the scientists thought the ceolocanth was extinc but poaple have caughht and proven there existance
That's already been refuted (http://www.avpgalaxy.net/forum/index.php?topic=30308.msg683381#msg683381) in this thread. I already made a request for people to stop using coelacanths as an example, as it is a gross misrepresentation.
Josh Gates from Destination Truth, does this all the time. He travels around the world looking for such mystical creatures, dinosaurs, giant bats, the Jersey Devil etc. Almost 90% of the time he doesn't come up with any evidence.
Quote from: First Blood on Apr 01, 2010, 10:39:26 PM
Josh Gates from Destination Truth, does this all the time. He travels around the world looking for such mystical creatures, dinosaurs, giant bats, the Jersey Devil etc. Almost 90% of the time he doesn't come up with any evidence.
If he had come up with
any evidence at all, he would be more famous than he is. The show should be called "Destination Snipe Hunt" or "Destination Tail Chase".
Quote from: First Blood on Apr 01, 2010, 10:39:26 PM
Josh Gates from Destination Truth, does this all the time. He travels around the world looking for such mystical creatures, dinosaurs, giant bats, the Jersey Devil etc. Almost 90% of the time he doesn't come up with any evidence.
But as long as he has an audience, he need not worry.
Can you imagine if somebody fires off a shot at a supposed bigfoot and finds out it was just someone in a ghillie suit trying to study bears or something? :P
Quote from: Lumine on Apr 02, 2010, 04:40:13 AM
Can you imagine if somebody fires off a shot at a supposed bigfoot and finds out it was just someone in a ghillie suit trying to study bears or something? :P
Yes, I
could imagine that. After shooting him, they'd be sure to snap off a blurry pic of the victim for good measure.
My mommy said there were no monsters.
No real ones.
And there aren't.
Bigfoot , if its real , wouldn't be a monster.
Quote from: Lumine on Apr 02, 2010, 04:40:13 AM
Can you imagine if somebody fires off a shot at a supposed bigfoot and finds out it was just someone in a ghillie suit trying to study bears or something? :P
If it's Dick Cheney behind the trigger, it will happen, never mind imaging it.
Acutally on a show some guy was worried because his cousin dressed up as Bigfoot one day and wondered he local woods.
The next day some hunter went up to the guy and said " Hey man! I saw Bigfoot me and my buddies are going to try to capture it."
He told his cousin to stop dressing as bigfoot. It is a dangerous living.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 02, 2010, 08:49:29 PM
Bigfoot , if its real , wouldn't be a monster.
Any creature could be classified as a monster.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Apr 02, 2010, 09:50:15 PM
If it's Dick Cheney behind the trigger, it will happen, never mind imaging it.
An oldie but a goodie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXAzAgb4pA
How dare he be made to resemble the Honourable Elmer Fudd!
The Flatwoods monster is pretty interesting to look into.
Three boys witnessed a " UFO " crashland. They called for their mother and a 17 year old cousin and a dog. They went up to the hill where the " UFO " crashed. After they went up bizzare mists came and got them all coughing. They then saw at first two red eyes. Then the whole body.
It was lizard like and " Riding " on a circular " alien " device. It was 10 - 12 feet in height. It released more gas and they all rushed home. Sick.
Years later the majority of the witnesses all got cancer. I find this case very odd.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 03, 2010, 03:04:33 PM
The Flatwoods monster is pretty interesting to look into.
Three boys witnessed a " UFO " crashland. They called for their mother and a 17 year old cousin and a dog. They went up to the hill where the " UFO " crashed. After they went up bizzare mists came and got them all coughing. They then saw at first two red eyes. Then the whole body.
It was lizard like and " Riding " on a circular " alien " device. It was 10 - 12 feet in height. It released more gas and they all rushed home. Sick.
Years later the majority of the witnesses all got cancer. I find this case very odd.
That's a very interesting fact.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 03, 2010, 03:04:33 PM
The Flatwoods monster is pretty interesting to look into.
For the sake of comedy.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 03, 2010, 03:04:33 PM
Three boys witnessed a " UFO " crashland. They called for their mother and a 17 year old cousin and a dog. They went up to the hill where the " UFO " crashed. After they went up bizzare mists came and got them all coughing. They then saw at first two red eyes. Then the whole body.
It was lizard like and " Riding " on a circular " alien " device. It was 10 - 12 feet in height. It released more gas and they all rushed home. Sick.
Actually, the description was that of an owl (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/flatwoods_ufo_monster/).
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 03, 2010, 03:04:33 PM
Years later the majority of the witnesses all got cancer. I find this case very odd.
There was no mention of cancer in peer reviewed sources.
There was mention of cancer. And in an interview the eye witnesses didn't describe it like an Owl. For some reason anything with red eyes is a Barn own.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 04, 2010, 12:52:53 PM
There was mention of cancer.
Not from credible sources. Peer reviewed sources explain trauma induced hysteria (at best).
QuoteAnd in an interview the eye witnesses didn't describe it like an Owl. For some reason anything with red eyes is a Barn own.
What they described is very much like an owl. Appearance, sound and movement.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 04, 2010, 12:52:53 PM
There was mention of cancer.
In which
mainstream media source?
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 04, 2010, 12:52:53 PM
And in an interview the eye witnesses didn't describe it like an Owl.
No, but the people who actually did an investigation did.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 04, 2010, 12:52:53 PM
For some reason anything with red eyes is a Barn own.
And here is that reason:
QuoteThe group described shining "animal eyes," and Mrs. May at first thought they belonged to "an opossum or raccoon in the tree" (Barker 1956, Sanderson 1967). Locals continued to suggest some such local animal, including "a buck deer" (Barker 1956), but a much more credible candidate was put forth by the unnamed Air Force investigators. According to Keyhoe (1953), they concluded the "monster" was probably "a large owl perched on a limb" with underbrush beneath it having "given the impression of a giant figure" and the excited witnesses having "imagined the rest."
I believe this generic solution is correct, but that the owl was not from the family of "typical owls" (Strigidae, which includes the familiar great horned owl) but the other family (Tytonidae) which comprises the barn owls. Several elements in the witnesses' descriptions help identify the Flatwoods creature specifically as Tyto alba, the common barn owl, known almost worldwide (Collins 1959). Consider the following evidence.
The "monster" reportedly had a "man-like shape" and stood some ten feet tall, although Barker (1953) noted that "descriptions from the waist down are vague; most of the seven said this part of the figure was not under view." These perceptions are consistent with an owl perched on a limb (figure 2).
Also suggestive of an owl is the description of the creature's "face" as "round" with "two eye-like openings" and a dark, "hood-like shape" around it (if not the "pointed" appearance of the latter) (Barker 1953). The barn owl has a large head with a "ghastly," roundishly heart-shaped face, resembling "that of a toothless, hook-nosed old woman, shrouded in a closely fitting hood" and with an expression "that gives it a mysterious air" (Jordan 1952, Blanchan 1925).
Very evidential in the case of the Flatwoods Monster is the description of its cry as "something between a hiss and a high-pitched squeal" (Barker 1953). This tallies with the startling "wild, peevish scream" or "shrill rasping hiss or snore" of the barn owl. Indeed its "shrill, strangled scream is a most unbirdlike noise." Its "weird calls" include "hissing notes, screams," and "guttural grunts" (Blanchan 1925, Peterson 1980, Bull and Farrand 1977, Cloudsley-Thompson et al. 1983). The latter might explain the monster's accompanying "thumping or throbbing noise" (Barker 1953), if those sounds were not from the flapping of wings.
Descriptions of the creature's movement varied, being characterized as "bobbing up and down, jumping toward the witnesses" or as moving "evenly," indeed "describing an arc, coming toward them, but circling at the same time" (Barker 1956). Again, it had "a gliding motion as if afloat in midair." These movements are strongly suggestive of a bird's flight. When accidentally disturbed, the barn owl "makes a bewildered and erratic getaway" (Jordan 1952) -- while hissing (Blanchan 1925) -- but its flight is generally characterized with "slow, flapping wing beats and long glides" (Cloudsley-Thompson et al. 1983).
According to Barker (1953), "Not all agreed that the 'monster' had arms," but "Mrs. May described it with terrible claws." Sanderson (1967) cites the witnesses' observation that "the creature had small, claw-like hands that extended in front of it," a description consistent with a raptor (a predatory bird). The barn owl is relatively long-legged and knock-kneed, sporting sizable claws with sharp, curved talons that may be prominently extended (Peterson 1980, Forshaw 1998).
It is important to note that the youths and Mrs. May only glimpsed the creature briefly -- an estimated "one or a few more seconds," and even that was while they were frightened. Barker (1956) asks, "If Lemon dropped the flashlight, as he claimed, how did they get an apparently longer look at the 'monster'?" Some said the being was lighted from within (probably only the effect of its "shining" eyes), while Nunley stated that it was illuminated by the pulsing red light (ostensibly from the supposed UFO but probably from one of the beacons mentioned earlier). This might also explain the "fiery orange color" of the creature's head (Sanderson 1967), but as an alternative explanation, while the barn owl is typically described as having a white facial disc and underparts, in the case of the female those parts "have some darker buff or tawny color" ("Barn Owl" 2000).
For this reason, as well as the fact that in this species (a medium-sized owl, measuring about 14-20" [Peterson 1980]) the male is typically the smaller (Blanchan 1925), I suspect the Flatwoods creature was a female. It is also interesting to speculate that it may not have been too late in the year for a female to have been brooding young. That could explain why "she" did not fly away at the first warning of intruders (given barn owls' "excellent low-light vision and exceptional hearing ability" ["Barn Owl" 2000]); instead, probably hoping not to be noticed, she stood her ground until invaders confronted her with a flashlight, a threatening act that provoked her hissing, attack-like swoop toward them.
Significantly, the locale where the Flatwoods Monster made its appearance -- near a large oak tree on a partially wooded hilltop overlooking a farm on the outskirts of town -- tallies with the habitat of the barn owl. Indeed, it is "the best known of farmland owls" (Cloudsley-Thompson 1983). It builds no nest, but takes as its "favorite home" a "hollow tree" (Blanchan 1925). It "does not mind the neighborhood of man" (Jordan 1952), in fact seeking out mice and rats from its residence in "woodlands, groves, farms, barns, towns, cliffs" (Peterson 1980).
Considering all of the characteristics of the described monster, and making small allowances for misperceptions and other distorting factors, we may conclude (adapting an old adage) that if it looked like a barn owl, acted like a barn owl, and hissed, then it was most likely a barn owl.
Watch Monsterquests episode " Lizard Monster " which is a dumb title considering it deals with the Flatwoods monster not the " Lizard Monster " of other areas.
Anyway it says by an investigator that the majority of the eyewitnesses got cancer afterwards.
Anyway I agree after reading this that a Barn Owl is probably a good explenation. But if 10 lfeet from me a 7'0" creature with a humanoid body is standing there and happens to have red eyes ... IDK if i'd buy the barn owl concept.
Why would they mistake the owl for something else? Is it because in a situation like that, your find just goes crazy?
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 04, 2010, 04:02:37 PM
Watch Monsterquests episode " Lizard Monster " which is a dumb title considering it deals with the Flatwoods monster not the " Lizard Monster " of other areas.
Anyway it says by an investigator that the majority of the eyewitnesses got cancer afterwards.
As it's been mentioned all too many times before, shows like that tend to embellish things to add to the Wow Factor. That's why you shouldn't rely on them for information but for entertainment.
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 04, 2010, 04:02:37 PM
Anyway I agree after reading this that a Barn Owl is probably a good explenation. But if 10 lfeet from me a 7'0" creature with a humanoid body is standing there and happens to have red eyes ... IDK if i'd buy the barn owl concept.
As Doom said, when one or many are caught up in sudden excitement, it's easy to let their minds run wild and have their perception distorted.
Fact and Hoax aside, Cryptozoology is definitely something that can entertain the mind to no end.
Quote from: Lumine on Apr 04, 2010, 06:51:40 PM
Fact and Hoax aside, Cryptozoology is definitely something that can entertain the mind to no end.
The sad thing is that there are people who actually believe that it's a legitimate science and do not see it as entertainment.
I find it interesting because it's fun to speculate. I wouldn't going on a monster hunt myself some day if I could ever afford to.
I agree that it's fun to speculate, but I try to speculate on matters that are on the higher ends of the Plausibility and Probability Meters rather than at the lower ends.
Personally, I would love to go to the Congo River Basin and hunt for Mokele-mbembe one day. Then again, white man in that part of Africa; not so good.
A safer way to go about looking for Mokèlé-mbèmbé is to roam rural Canada where there is a river and pretend. The result is the same.
Besides the Congo is dangerous. I mean, the horror... the horror...
I think you're thinking of Cambodia.
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness).
The Congo is pretty violent. Cambodia is also pretty violent and was horrible during the 70s with Pol Pot heading the Communist Khmer Rouge.
Philistines...
Quote from: The PredBen on Apr 06, 2010, 01:47:33 AM
Cambodia is also pretty violent and was horrible during the 70s with Pol Pot heading the Communist Khmer Rouge.
But their cuisine is exquisite. Ever had Pol Pot stickers? Yum!
Quote from: maledoro on Apr 05, 2010, 10:03:44 AM
A safer way to go about looking for Mokèlé-mbèmbé is to roam rural Canada where there is a river and pretend. The result is the same.
I want to explore a warmer environment.
Quote from: DoomRulz on Apr 06, 2010, 02:25:23 AM
I want to explore a warmer environment.
Wait until July...
Pfft. I want the real thing!
Quote from: SM on Apr 06, 2010, 01:13:30 AM
No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness).
Well... I'm a Jackass. Damn you Coppola.
Think the capital J is a bit harsh on yourself. ;D
Quote from: DoomRulz on Apr 06, 2010, 02:25:23 AM
I want to explore a warmer environment.
LOL.
You don't have to go to Africa for that:
http://ezinearticles.com/?how-to-be-a-player---be-the-ultimate-girl-magnet&id=774603 ;D
All the best relationship advice, neatly summarized into a paragraph unto itself. Maybe flirting with Mother Nature will bring out the hidden creatures.
I didn't find a better place :P
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bm7Hj67Acwd/?taken-by=oceanhunter.nz
Do you guys and gals believe that some ancient sea monster sightings were actually whale penises? 🤔
(https://i.ibb.co/T2fpC5T/Eyf-QFY-Wg-Ac-Xrt3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/5vRgYGm/Eyf-PI-NWUAQz-JYF.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Lv2StJP/9d-MBb5-Lc-B7dd-GXmb-ZHww-Pj-QXjpc4fbw-Kxx-Qaz-Ak-Zef-A.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Ky0mQq6/Blue-Whale-Penis.webp)
Anyone heard some good Loch Ness Monster (Nessie) reports? Or Bigfoot?
👀👉👈
https://twitter.com/MLive/status/1621212864789811200
(https://i.ibb.co/162sMJs/Picsart-23-02-22-16-15-53-211.jpg)
https://twitter.com/ScienceAlert/status/1627927046813884418
I'll be checking that out shortly. Thanks!
I love aaaaall of it! Was in Ohio last year and wandered around happily looking for the Loveland Frogman and Hocking Hills Grassman. Always grab a tshirt or dust gatherer :)
https://twitter.com/WildlifeMag/status/1657076146649825295
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1695837978478698753
https://twitter.com/BDisgusting/status/1711452797302964534
https://twitter.com/UFOchronpodcast/status/1720119829041156100