Hi Guys, I was wondering what you guys think about Cryptozoology ? For those who are unfamiliar with the Term it means this – Cryptozoology refers to the search for animals whose existence has not been proven. This includes looking for living examples of animals that are considered extinct, such as dinosaurs; animals whose existence lacks physical evidence but which appear in myths, legends, or are reported, such as Bigfoot and Chupacabraand wild animals dramatically outside their normal geographic ranges, such as phantom cats or "ABCs" (an initialism commonly used by cryptozoologists that stands for Alien Big Cats). The animals cryptozoologists study are often referred to as cryptids, a term coined by John Wall in 1983. Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology or a discipline of science.It is an example of pseudoscience because it relies heavily upon anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings. I am a big believer of Cryptozoology. Has anyone on here ever seen a cryptid or no anybody who has? Or is anyone else intrested in the subject?
Honestly, I've never been one to believe in the impossibility of something, especially when it relates to shit that might be in space or in the ocean. Although at the same time, I do find the whole "Lets hunt for Bigfoot!" thing to be kinda silly because it often becomes nothing more than a snipe hunt... so eh. I'd sooner pool my resources toward the fight against Leviathan.
http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/general-discussion/385692-possible-cryptids-encounters-you-had.html As for me, no credible evidence = no reason to accept the belief.
While I believe there are plenty of species and subspecies out there that humanity has yet to discover, I am highly skeptical towards the existance of cryptospecies with "urban legend" origins such as bigfoot, the chupacabra, various freshwater lake monsters, the jersey devil, etc. I do not feel it at all likely that these large, often carnivorous or predatory species could exist within areas inhabited by humans for hundreds, if not thousands of years, without leaving any trace of credible physical evidence, let alone a whole body of it, and I have seen no evidence that has come close to convincing me otherwise. I have made numerous explanations in the thread linked above. I reccommend that people use this thread as much as possible for the posting and discussion of evidence and accounts of cryptospecies, rather than simply "i believe in them" posts, as it will make for a better overall discussion. In terms of strange and new species, there was a very recent story about a weird marine species caught on tape Mysterious Marine Monster Caught in Video : Discovery News which turned out to be a very rare form of jellyfish, and this new tape represents some of the only observations of a living specimen. We're still discovering new species as well, especially as researchers travel into new environments and places humans haven't really been before This Newly Discovered Frog Is the World's Smallest Vertebrate | Popular Science As well as rediscovering species only observed decades earlier, and thought by many to be extinct "Extinct" Rainbow Toad Found After 90 Years We're even finding "new" species in well-known areas. Well, understanding the species that live alongside us better, at least, such as this article that discovered a population of leopard frogs in NYC is technically a separate species through genetic testing after theorizing their different croaking habits may be a sign of genetic diversity. New Frog Species Found in New York City | Wired Science | Wired.com
Well, it's really the choice to believe or not. Science is very interesting when they try to leave out certain forms of other science. Big Foot for instance is now thought of something that is possible based on the newest fossils found. Now, does big foot exist today? Who knows. But the most recent fossils suggest something like big foot did indeed exist. The thing is that the big foot myth came before the discovery of the fossils. So someone needs to explain that one. The answer of course is, who knows. It's like believing in God. Or the fact there is a never ending constantly growing universe. We don't if it is true, but we believe it to be true.
There's some of the Crytids that I believe could exist,, then there's things like the Jersey Devil I have an extremely hard time believing at all. The Cryptid Zoo: A Menagerie of Cryptozoology is where I go for Cryptid Info.
This is where I stand also. It makes sense to me that there are animals of all different shapes and sizes that we have yet to discover underwater, on other planets, and maybe even in space itself. But, that is because we as a species have yet to develop the technology to explore those areas fully. Underwater is getting there. The 10 year old in me still hopes for a SeaQuest DSV-type future in my lifetime. As far as the other more well known Cryptids, I have a hard time believing. When Man is encroaching on the woods enough to have a story about a bear or cougar wandering around a suburban area happen almost every week, the idea of a great ape or a massive bat not getting caught on steady, HD video and promptly put on YouTube seems impossible to me.
It's garbage, and you're a fool if you believe in it. Show me credible evidence for any of it and you might change my mind.
Well, there were a number of giant prehistoric apes or even some early hominids that had bigfoot-like qualities, I don't know if those really count as saying bigfoot did indeed exist though. I mean, each one of them might have some of the features some accounts have contained, but there's so much variation in how sasquatch/yeti/bigfoot/skunkape/whatever have been described over the years and across the world that I don't think one species nails it down completely, especially in terms of what we know about the fossils (incomplete skeletons, narrow geographical regions of discovery, etc.). Its also important to remember that much of the most cohesive modern idea of bigfoot has come about only recently (post 1958), so that media portrayal is likely impacting what people expect from a "bigfoot". As to a mythological basis, I agree that's really interesting. I wouldn't be quick to rule out fossils as inspirations for the myth, as myths of things like dragons predate the identification of fossils as dinosaurs in the modern era, or how washed up remains being identified as giant squids or whales are predated by the myths of the kraken and the leviathan. It's also possible that misidentification of the remains of animals such as bears could be an inspiration for the idea of the sasquatch and yeti. It's an interesting thing to think about.
I think Cryptozoology is too broad for one say they believe in it or not. Take it by a cryptid by cryptid basis. Most of the well known creatures probably exist only in people's imaginations or as hoaxes. Monster Quest, Destination Truth and Finding Bigfoot haven't found any decent evidence despite being entertaining at times. Anyone see that commercial for Animal Planets new mermaid show? That's less believable than bigfoot, how can they make an entire season about something so obviously based in folklore?
I used to believe in Bigfoot but my belief has deteriorated over the years, especially after seeing these crazy idiots on "Finding Bigfoot" giving us (former) believers a bad name.
Yeah, I always thought about that. I mean the only way to explain how so many different cultures have an image of a dragon in them is through the fossils. But even then, that doesn't make full sense. I mean, have people really stumbled upon a fossil in its full form? I mean, we can now go to Museums and see a full dinosaur fossil, but there is a lot of work done to get that thing to look the way it does. Most people won't even know what a fossil is if they tripped on it. Still the Dragon one was always interesting to me. The only other explanation is that we were indeed around during the days of the dinosaurs, and we have a shared conscience that remembers that time in some twisted form. Wasn't there some cave paintings that were found that had images of what looked to be dinosaurs?
New species are always being discovered, one in a blue moon and "extinct" species is found to be alive and well, all sorts of bizarre and ridiculous creatures have walked/swam/etc. the earth, and myths and legends often have a grain of truth to them, so I don't immediately dismiss Cryptozoology. However, the way TV shows handle searches is absolutely asinine. I can't imagine blurry footage, random night-vision searches, "it could eat these berries right here", or eyewitness accounts ever succeeding in finding a cryptid. What's worse is ignorance of basic understanding of the known natural world. A great many supposed cryptids can be explained by certain diseases (such as mange) or the various ways a corpse can decompose.
I suspect maybe people in earlier times found single animal pieces (either from a fossilzed dinosaur or maybe from a completely unrelated animal) and then extrapolated the rest of the animal the same way we do, albeit from their scientific, social, and cultural spectrum as opposed to ours. And then someone took that idea and talked about it, and through word of mouth the concept developed over time into the mythological figure we know today. Basically, someone found a tooth or a skull or a set of distorted footprints and thought "I wonder what kind of animal these came from!" or "Jeez, this thing looks like bone but it's hard as rock! What was the REST of it like?!" and oral history and storytelling took care of the rest. So "this weird thing with four legs and a horn" that was actually a rhino or a mutant goat (no, seriously. http://www.dianapeterfreund.com/visualizing-monsters-pt-2/) eventually became the virgin-loving, magical unicorn we know today. A large, fossilized tooth became a giant lizard, which became the winged, firebreathing dragon we know today. I mean, people stumble across fossils all the time even today, there's no reason they couldn't have in the past, even if they didn't understand what they really were. Complete fossils are rare, but a tooth, or a skull, or even a bone of some sort, that seems plausible to me, and then people would compare it to the nearest known approximation. It's well known the native north americans living in the Alberta badlands were aware of fossils, both complete and incomplete, and called them "the grandfather of the buffalo". There's no reason people around the world couldn't do the same.
"Dragon" is an incredibly broad term, accommodating everything from what are little more than snakes (such as the Norse Midgard Serpent) to blends of several different animals (like the French Tarasque). Seemingly any even partially reptilian monster can qualify as a dragon; hardly any significant curiosity. "Dinosaur" is equally broad, and what's worse is people will throw basically any prehistoric creature (pterosaurs, mammoths, plesiosaurs, etc.) under that umbrella. A quick Google search of "dinosaur cave painting" shows me a lot of generic creature shapes, nothing distinctly dinosauric.
