|
|
Post by richard on Aug 14, 2008 22:50:55 GMT
no I don't believe in any of those... you are getting a little into fantasy  haha who voted chupacabra |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 14, 2008 22:53:37 GMT
I don't believe in most of those either, I was just trying to start more discussions. Has anyone seen the new Chupacabra footage from Mexico?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 14, 2008 23:00:53 GMT
there is no option in the poll for 'none of the above'  |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 14, 2008 23:03:19 GMT
That Bigfoot is real, it looks nothing like that costume, first off, it was MUCH darker, the fur was all mangled, the face was a light brown, and it couldn't even fit into the freezer, its head was to the side because of lack of space. It's a sorry state of affairs when one cannot tell if someone is being sarcastic or not. |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 14, 2008 23:07:43 GMT
I guess we'll have to wait and see for the press conference tomorrow
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 14, 2008 23:18:54 GMT
You mean today. Well, its today here. You're still in yesterday I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 14, 2008 23:33:16 GMT
I am still in yesterday! But for you it will be the 16th that the conference is held, because on the 16th for you it will be the 15th for me  |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 14, 2008 23:47:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 15, 2008 0:18:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 15, 2008 1:27:02 GMT
Why is it disgraceful? A mangy coyote is a new animal to people who haven't seen one; and if you're not a trained taxidermist/naturalist, how are you supposed to know. Plus, what if it turns out to be a new supspecies or population of coyote- isn't that a scientific discovery? |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 15, 2008 4:48:41 GMT
"Why is it disgraceful?" Because JUNK like "bigfoot bodies" in freezer chests and "mantuck monsters" and mangy coyote-"chupacabras", are top stories, and get great deals of buzz and attention all because of their being "monsters". I think it is depressing and sad. At the same time, amazing zoological discoveries like THIS www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/western-lowland-gorillas-47080602 and this news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080803-smallest-snake-photo.html sit the back burner. REAL science once again gets a back seat to such foolish sensationalism. Remember, at least here in the USA, the cop who said "its not a coyote" has the same "standing" in many people minds as the biologist who concludes that it clearly is a mangy canid, and that is all it is. But poo on that biologist and his nay saying, he is either part of the giant cover up, or simply does not give those brilliant cryptozoologist enough credit! And all the while, %&*$! like this one below should enrage everyone who loves the natural world, and natural history. www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-species14-2008aug14,0,5399392.story - but, John Q public is too focused on would be "cryptids" to see the real endangered species slipping away...I mean, how could they really go extinct, especially when there is a population of bigfoots roaming the wilderness of Georgia! "A mangy coyote is a new animal to people who haven't seen one; and if you're not a trained taxidermist/naturalist, how are you supposed to know." They conceal information like that in things called books, and on the Internet. And remember, before someone steps in and nay-says academia... I get my information the old fashioned way - I seek it out for myself. Everyone who can read this is certainly capable of that. "Plus, what if it turns out to be a new supspecies or population of coyote- isn't that a scientific discovery?" I HIGHLY doubt it will/would be. It may not even be coyotes, it could be feral dogs as well. When stripped of their hair, the 2 look extremely similar. If, much like bigfoot, this mess was a legitimate area of study, zoologists would already be working with the population, taking samples, and identifying the new species. On the whole, the reason stories like this that get so much attention upset me the most is because we REALLY should be paying attention to all the fascinating natural history and species around us that we keep plowing over, building strip malls on top of, blowing up, etc, and not the mangy coyotes that people insist are chupacabras. We really should be admiring and reveling in the fascinating things that DO exist, and learning about and from them. If these articles actually led to us as people doing anything helpful for those people who are dealing first hand with the chupa-coyotes, it would be to educate farmers that these are simply coyotes, and teach them how to manage coyote populations, and manage and minimize coyote predation on livestock and domestic animals. Instead of anything like that though, this sort of bunk, and validating it, fuels the fire that they are helpless to the "chupacabra menace" |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 15, 2008 20:21:35 GMT
A video. au.youtube.com/watch?v=z76h6ltDh2cwww.youtube.com/watch?v=6q6xHtJE6sYA clip of conf, (I can't seem to find the whole thing) while the finder of this "bigfoot" talks. Well, watched the bigfoot press release....very fishy, and about what I expected.. It seems they claim to have the bigfoot. They spoke of having a news person to come see it. What upsets me the most is that they are not bringing in primatologists, or top biologists. If they were going to have Jane Goodall, Richard Wrangham or Frans de Waal on the team ? What about Dr Richard Leakey ? If a leading anthropologist documents your findings...well, NOW you have my interest, now you have my attention that this could be a serious and groundbreaking finding. Those are the people I would contact. Instead ? They are talking about bringing in "bigfoot" people as a "scientific team". *cough* That screams hoax. That would be like having these people - www.creationists.org/ validate that fossils were only 10,000 years old at most! IF YOU DID find a bigfoot, who better then to validate it for you then a leading primatologist. Broken freezers filled with water ? They are making this whole things a sideshow, and because of that, I am sure that is what it is. Apparently "DNA" came up human, undistinguishable, and possum. IF, somehow this did turn out to be a REAL, actual animal, those yokels should really be berated for this. Leading scientists should have been contacted, be contacted, they should be involved with securing the habitat, making sure there is minimal disturbance to food sources and used area, etc. Instead, its just "well, $400.00 is just not enough" and crap. Talking about "bigfoot" like they landed a monster fish trophy ? Yeah...it seriously doesn't check out. No photos released besides those 2 ? It all screams money making hoax. That "bigfoot" in the cooler isn't the only thing that stinks. And, simply because this is funny.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbjmAfQuG2k |
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Aug 15, 2008 21:32:19 GMT
I watched the live conference on Fox News, and it was bizzare
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 15, 2008 22:40:33 GMT
bizarre?
Is it a real bigfoot or - shockhorror! - has there been a complication? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 15, 2008 23:01:24 GMT
I agree with crazycrowman. Bush wants to let those who have the most to gain money wise decide wheather animals need to be protected or not. To hell with the enviornment lets let the fox guard the chicken house. All of this is about profit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 16, 2008 5:19:33 GMT
I don't think it's fair to say that other larger more interesting mammals/reptiles don't exist. I'm not talking about fish (which are discovered like every day), but animals such as bigfoot. I know its unlikely, but I wouldn't put it past God to throw in a suprise creature that is smart enough to hide from humans  As far as the loch ness...I want to believe ,but unless Nessie has a girl down there with him or reproduces asexual....I doubt he exists...Marine creatures now....that seems more believable...the ocean is more unexplored than space itself. Even if there is something out there, it won't be for much longer. Most wild animals will die if humans stick around. |
|
Red Scorpion
New Member
Hubert Cumberdale, you taste like soot and poo!
Posts: 37
|
Post by Red Scorpion on Aug 16, 2008 6:19:46 GMT
I don't think it's fair to say that other larger more interesting mammals/reptiles don't exist. I'm not talking about fish (which are discovered like every day), but animals such as bigfoot. I know its unlikely, but I wouldn't put it past God to throw in a suprise creature that is smart enough to hide from humans As far as the loch ness...I want to believe ,but unless Nessie has a girl down there with him or reproduces asexual....I doubt he exists...Marine creatures now....that seems more believable...the ocean is more unexplored than space itself. Even if there is something out there, it won't be for much longer. Most wild animals will die if humans stick around. Exactly! Gorillas were though to be a creature of cultural legend until white men found them in the jungles of Africa in 1902. Komodo Dragons were long though mythical until their discovery in 1912. Giant squid were well known cryptids until a specimin washed up on a beach recently. And I think our frozen furry friend may be the next in line. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 16, 2008 9:24:58 GMT
I don't think it's fair to say that other larger more interesting mammals/reptiles don't exist. I'm not talking about fish (which are discovered like every day), but animals such as bigfoot. I know its unlikely, but I wouldn't put it past God to throw in a suprise creature that is smart enough to hide from humans As far as the loch ness...I want to believe ,but unless Nessie has a girl down there with him or reproduces asexual....I doubt he exists...Marine creatures now....that seems more believable...the ocean is more unexplored than space itself. Even if there is something out there, it won't be for much longer. Most wild animals will die if humans stick around. I'm not saying they don't exist - I'm saying that I don't believe they exist because the evidence is not satisfactory. If you're willing to believe in God, you'll believe in anything. I changed one word in your following text - can you spot which one?: "I don't think it's fair to say that other larger more interesting mammals/reptiles don't exist. I'm not talking about fish (which are discovered like every day), but animals such as leprechauns. I know its unlikely, but I wouldn't put it past God to throw in a suprise creature that is smart enough to hide from humans" Hey, why not right!? |
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Aug 16, 2008 9:34:35 GMT
I don't think it's fair to say that other larger more interesting mammals/reptiles don't exist. I'm not talking about fish (which are discovered like every day), but animals such as bigfoot. I know its unlikely, but I wouldn't put it past God to throw in a suprise creature that is smart enough to hide from humans As far as the loch ness...I want to believe ,but unless Nessie has a girl down there with him or reproduces asexual....I doubt he exists...Marine creatures now....that seems more believable...the ocean is more unexplored than space itself. Even if there is something out there, it won't be for much longer. Most wild animals will die if humans stick around. Exactly! Gorillas were though to be a creature of cultural legend until white men found them in the jungles of Africa in 1902. Komodo Dragons were long though mythical until their discovery in 1912. Giant squid were well known cryptids until a specimin washed up on a beach recently. And I think our frozen furry friend may be the next in line. Aye, my friend  (P.S. I see by your avatar you play halo 3..so do I! If you have an online account add me. My account name is "A Reptile") Dinotoyforum, leprechauns did exist, but they are better known as "hobbits". Went extinct about 4,000 years ago..you catch my drift.  And what do you mean "If your willing to believe in God"? I believe in evolution, but what created the universe? Certainly not dinosaurs. |
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 16, 2008 9:50:55 GMT
Dinotoyforum, leprechauns did exist, but they are better known as "hobbits". Went extinct about 4,000 years ago..you catch my drift. Leprechauns are the product of a fertile imagination, perhaps they have a basis in reality but there is no evidence that they exist as a separate species. Same for Bigfoot. And what do you mean "If your willing to believe in God"? I believe in evolution, but what created the universe? Certainly not dinosaurs. There is more evidence for Bigfoot than god. God is the ultimate cryptid.
|
|
haha who voted chupacabra
As far as the loch ness...I want to believe ,but unless Nessie has a girl down there with him or reproduces asexual....I doubt he exists...Marine creatures now....that seems more believable...the ocean is more unexplored than space itself. Even if there is something out there, it won't be for much longer. Most wild animals will die if humans stick around.
(P.S. I see by your avatar you play halo 3..so do I! If you have an online account add me. My account name is "A Reptile") 