Cryptozoology

[The PredBen]

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. 

[maledoro]

Before 1938 we didn't know of surviving Coelacanths

They weren't championed by pseudoscientists prior to 1938, either.

before 2002 we didn't know of Mantophasmatodea

Those, too, weren't being chased by pseudos prior to discovery.

and mainly, before the actual discover, Okapi was considered a strange creature.

Strike three.

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.

[OmegaZilla]

Okapi was considered a legend before being actually discovered. Could be the same for some fo these strange creatures, huh?

[maledoro]

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.

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.

[DoomRulz]

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.

[maledoro]

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!".

[Ratchetcomand]

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.

[maledoro]

It seems like all of dead bodies of Chupacabras have been hoaxas though.

That should tell you something...

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".

[SM]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_uwG79As4A

And it's all TRUE!!!

[Xenokiller]

This is a very mysterious cryptid...

[maledoro]

The real mystery is why anyone would believe that.

[Corporal Lewis Hicks]

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.

[OmegaZilla]

In 65 million years little mammalians slowly turned into into Humans. Don't see why a species like that couldn't adapt.

[Corporal Lewis Hicks]

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.

[Ratchetcomand]

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.