Cryptozoology

[therizinosaurus]

In addition to palaeontology, one of my major interests is cryptozoology, a field that doesn't get enough respect in the academic world. After the "Montauk Monster" discussion, I thought a crypid thread would be cool to see what people believe in and what their evidence is.
Personally, I belive there is overwhelming evidence to support the existence of an upright giant ape living in western North America (bigfoot/sasquatch), Florida (Skunk ape), and central Asia (Yeti). I do not, however, believe in lake monsters (Loch Ness, Lake Champlain).

Now it's your turn:
What do you believe in, and what are your explanations for some cryptids?

[richard]

nice thread
well I do not believe in certain monsters (like those you mentioned); however I believe that there could be mighty and prehistoric creatures in the deepest part of the ocean very likely... and yes I believe in giant anacondas of 12 meters and crocs of 9 meters too ;D

[therizinosaurus]

I believe in the giant anacondas, but I have trouble believeing in "prehistoric" sea creatures. What are the odds that a species from the Jurassic would survive for 150 million years without evolving or becoming extinct?

[richard]

well not that old

[stoneage]

;D Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? J/K ;D

[Dinotoyforum]

Aug 11, 2008 1:15:48 GMT stoneage said:

;D Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? J/K ;D

;D

[sbell]

Aug 11, 2008 10:23:43 GMT Dinotoyforum said:

Aug 11, 2008 1:15:48 GMT stoneage said:

;D Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too? J/K ;D

;D

I always thought it was an Easter hare. But I guess it could be a pika too.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Aug 11, 2008 0:10:50 GMT therizinosaurus said:

I believe in the giant anacondas, but I have trouble believeing in "prehistoric" sea creatures. What are the odds that a species from the Jurassic would survive for 150 million years without evolving or becoming extinct?

Whose to say they haven't evolved a bit ? That could easily account for the descrepencies in comparing sightings to fossils...there's our Dragons I guess...

I'd say it's possible some species mostly smaller dinos might very well still exist..even with our imaging tech and satalites we can't look everywhere on the planet and many people wouldn't know a dino from a lizard.

Giant Crabs, Octopi, Squids, Sharks, Crocs, Snakes, and Monitor Lizards is Australia are all possible as far as I'm concerned...really.. you never know what's out there.

[stoneage]

You mean smaller dinos like birds?

[crazycrowman]

"a field that doesn't get enough respect in the academic world"

For good reasons. As I said before, everything that gets lumped under the pretentious heading of "cryptozoology" that IS worth examining, (say, ivory bills and giant squids) are being looked into by scientists. Where wolves and moth men and such things....well...leave them to the "cryptozoologists"

"I do not, however, believe in lake monsters (Loch Ness, Lake Champlain)."

I "believe" in all those things. I believe that these "creatures" are peoples imaginations and folk stories and such misinterpreting what they see.I "believe" that science is getting the back seat to sensationalism and craziness these days more and more. I believe people are always going to invent mystery monsters around them. Muskys and Sturgeon ARE "lake monsters", and mangy Bears ARE "big foots" and "skunk apes". As for "giants" among animals, especially reptiles and fish, that grow continuously throughout their lives, there are always "freaks" or exceptional individuals of any species that can be enormous compared to the average. That in part is, at times, seeing evolution "in the works". I don't doubt a 30 foot anaconda could have existed, or might even exist, but I doubt they get much larger, especially with what people are doing to the habitat down there....I would bet that we would see smaller anacondas that could/would reproduce younger as a result if the species adapts to living alongside the destruction - often times this doesn't happen, and instead a smaller species moves in and takes the opening. Retics, the other "GIANT" contendor in the booid family has proven quite adaptable to human encroachment.

"You mean smaller dinos like birds?"

Hey, you beat me to that one :-)

[therizinosaurus]

I believe bears make up a tiny precentage of reported bigfoot sightings, because bears don't walk fluidly and they don't jump, which many bigfoot sightings report

[Dinotoyforum]

Ther - What would it take to convince you that bigfoot does not exist?

[therizinosaurus]

Adam- What do you mean doesn't exist? Bigfoot has been such a huge part of Native American culture for millenia and has worked his way in to modern culture that I don't think the mystery of it will ever go away. All it would take to prove the existence of Bigfoot would be one specimen, but to disprove it you would need to cut down every tree in the Pacific northwest, then have a team of thousands march across the barren land to see what they find. Even that, though, wouldn't disprove bigfoot, because what if it migrated to eastern North America, where many sightings have been located? Even if every sighting could be proven to be a hoax, there's still physical evidence: hairs that don't match any known species, footprints that would require 800 lbs of force, prints of every part of the body (full body casts, footprints, handprints, etc.), and audio recordings that can't be identified.

I guess that's your answer--cut down every tree in North America and have sattalites and everyone looking

[Dinotoyforum]

What do you mean doesn't exist? Bigfoot has been such a huge part of Native American culture for millenia and has worked his way in to modern culture that I don't think the mystery of it will ever go away.

Culture? The word mythology is more apt. Leprechauns are part of Irish culture/mythology and I don't see that going away any time soon, but it doesn't make them real, or even give them a basis in reality.


All it would take to prove the existence of Bigfoot would be one specimen, but to disprove it you would need to cut down every tree in the Pacific northwest, then have a team of thousands march across the barren land to see what they find. Even that, though, wouldn't disprove bigfoot, because what if it migrated to eastern North America, where many sightings have been located?

I didn't ask what would disprove bigfoot - I know you can't prove a negative. I asked what would convince you (personally) that bigfoot does not exist.

Even if every sighting could be proven to be a hoax

...or misidentification, or delusion (usually a combination of two or more)...

there's still physical evidence: hairs that don't match any known species,

Are there any non-bigboot alternative explanations?

footprints that would require 800 lbs of force

Are there any non-bigfoot alternative explanations?

prints of every part of the body (full body casts, footprints, handprints, etc.)

Are bigfoots creating mud angels!? ;D Are there any non-bigfoot alternative explanations?

and audio recordings that can't be identified.

Are there any non-bigfoot alterna - hey, you know the drill by now ;D

I guess that's your answer--cut down every tree in North America and have sattalites and everyone looking

Impossible to achieve. So, presuming that this really is the answer to my question, the only thing that will convince you that bigfoot is not a genuine living creature, is a completely impossible scenario. Under these circumstances, you would believe in Bigfoot even if there was no positive evidence whatsoever. that's called faith. It's is something I just don't do.

ETID - I bolded my text for clarity - it was a bit unclear who wrote what.

[[][][]cordylus[][][]]

I believe in one or two giant anacondas. And I believe in mokele m'bembe just for fun!

[therizinosaurus]

Sorry for the misunderstanding of the question, Adam. I guess for me to not believe in bigfoot, there would have to be another species found that would be responsible for all of the evidence. But since there is no scientific definition of bigfoot (theories range from an ape to an extraterrestrial monster who can travel between dimensions!) that new species, perhaps an anthropoid bear, could be considered bigfoot in its own right.

As for the "mud angels", look at the Skookum Body Cast:
www.bfro.net/NEWS/bodycast/
It has an Achilles tendon, something only men have. So what would a naked man with gigantism be doing running around Washington state? (maybe that should be left unanswered :/)

Also, the famous Patterson-Gimlin film continues to be the best evidence for bigfoot.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ByWc5hTgBk
Despite what anyone says, it has never been proven to be a man in a monkey suit, and no one has ever presented a shread of evidence to prove it is not true. The footprints the creature left were so deep in the hard ground (in which a normal man barely left an impression) that the creatures weight was estimated at 800 lbs. Also, scientists studying the casts said they were not made by rubber molds of feet but by a living animal, since each print is a little different. Also, many prints found have toe to heel dermal ridges, while human's dermal ridges are side to side.

Quote: Under these circumstances, you would believe in Bigfoot even if there was no positive evidence whatsoever. that's called faith. It's is something I just don't do.

If there was no evidence, there would be no legend of bigfoot in the first place and therefore I wouldn't believe in it. Are you sugesting that all of this evidence is going to disappear? There are things that have been found in North America that modern science can't describe. I don't get how you can say I would believe if there was no evidence, because there is evidence and it's not going away.

This is becoming a fun discussion!

[Dinotoyforum]

Guess what - this doesn't convince me! ;D Seriously, this could be anything, quite easily could be a hoax.

You didn't answer my questions - Are there any non-bigboot alternative explanations for all the evidence? I'll give you a clue - the answer begins with 'Y' and ends with 'S', and there is an 'E' in the middle somewhwere.

[therizinosaurus]

For the sounds- maybe, some could be an incredibly distressed wolf or something
For the hair- incredibly unlikely, but maybe an escaped orangutan?
For the footprints- no way, with the size, consistency, and derman ridges, can you think of a possible explanation?
For the sightings- I guess theres alway the possiblity of a hoax or lie, but there are hundreds of sightings a year, and I doubt they are all hoaxes or misidentifications

More photographis evidence:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWLkeLLhYQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXERZZF7vGY

Print evidence:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJqCsPccRpk&feature=related

[Dinotoyforum]

For the sounds- maybe, some could be an incredibly distressed wolf or something.
Good Idea - far more likely than a viable population of giant hominids living in North America. Don't you agree?

For the hair- incredibly unlikely, but maybe an escaped orangutan?

Good Idea - far more likely than a viable population of giant hominids living in North America. Don't you agree?Or a plant of a hoax - especially given the possibility that everyone has access to ape fur If they look hard enough.

For the footprints- no way, with the size, consistency, and derman ridges, can you think of a possible explanation?

hoax. We can talk more about this if you like.

For the sightings- I guess theres alway the possiblity of a hoax or lie, but there are hundreds of sightings a year, and I doubt they are all hoaxes or misidentifications.

I don't doubt it.

I'll check out your photographic evidence after dinner
*runs to dinner table!*

More photographis evidence:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWLkeLLhYQ
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXERZZF7vGY

Print evidence:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJqCsPccRpk&feature=related[/quote]

[therizinosaurus]

Watch the footprint video I posted and you'll see why they aren't a hoax

Edit: also the hair doesn't match humans. Read the book "Sasquatch: Legent Meets Science" for more