The ocean is a far more promising hunting ground for cryptozoologists. I still remember my kid self thrilling to the stories of how the coelacanth and the megamouth shark were discovered. The only terrestrial cryptid that commands my interest is the chupacabra. The existence of a foxbat-like creature with a penchant for blood doesn't seem that far-fetched a concept, considering a similar species (the vampire bat) is very real.
I've been a doubter of terrestial cryptozoological quanderies, but the vastness of the ocean gives me hope. For instance, a lot of the sea monsters we know actually exist in various other cultures. There is both Champie from lake Champ and the more well known Nessie from loch Ness (creative names or what?); both described the same way yet found on opposite sides of the globe. Throw in the Goblin Shark, the Collosal Squid, and the Megamouth and it is truly no wonder the ocean continues to astound us.
I'm skeptical about Bigfoot's existence, but there is definitely some unknown species out there waiting to be discovered. There are probably lots of cryptids in the ocean.
I must admit that I wouldn't be suprised if animals like champ or Nessie existed. They could just be shy animals. I live in an area that has quite a large Deer and Fox population, however I have never seen one or seen any corpses lying around. They simply don't want to be found or disturbed. Also how many times have fisherman found Prehistoric fish alive in fishing nets? Creatures like Big Foot have been spotted allover the world - even in the North East of England It's Geordie Yeti UK sighting?? Anyone think that Big Foot might actually be watching the people trying to find it? and know how to avoid being spotted or captured? If they do or did exist we do't know how intelligent they are/were. I do have a open mind though - Prove to me that these creatures don't exist and I'll accept it. I've seen these daft monster hunter shows and they mack a mockery of cryptozoologists. I agree though that the ocean is a far more promising hunting ground for cryptozoologists especially with the things that have been washed up over the years.
I recall a documentary about 'Rods' in the late 1990s (presented by Gillian Anderson - what was her agent thinking??) that pretty much convinced me that none of these could possibly exist. Show me a corpse or some other credible evidence and we'll talk.
Reading posts like yours^ kinda makes me wish I was awake enough to reply with a clever Tupac comment.
I think there's good and bad in cryptozoology, so I think it's hard to make a blanket statement. Obviously, some of the more outrageous claims are hard to support, things like Bigfoot and Nessie and the like. There are a lot of sound biological and ecological reasons to suggest they don't exist. At the same time, there's some interesting work being done in the field. A few years ago, I picked up a book by Karl Shuker, The Search for the Last Undiscovered Animals, and it's a really fascinating read. And Dr. Shuker is a pretty credible scientist, to the point he's actually had a species named after him. At least in the book I read, all of the animals he discusses are smaller. Also, he's not afraid to dismiss claims if the evidence isn't strong. Part of the problem is that laboratory science is quick to dismiss anecdotal evidence, even though there are certain areas of study where it provides important evidence, such as animal behavior(and it's sometimes ignored there, but that's a completely different discussion). I don't think it makes sense to rely on lore and other anecdotal stories, but they can provide important evidence, either to locate a cryptid OR to help identify it as a previously known animal. I always like to point to the example that many people dismissed the story of a legendary animal in Asia during the 1800s. The stories were largely ignored, until Pere David acquired a pelt of the animal, thus providing the first evidence of the giant panda to the Western world. While a big find like that is unlikely in this day and age, there might be something to some of these stories that we don't yet know about.
The Coelacanth is the only such fish I can think of, but it's hardly the only "extinct" organism to be rediscovered: Lazarus taxon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cryptozoology is factual in that it is about the discovery of unknown or unverified creatures, which happens quite often, now the aspect of searching for things like BigFoot, Loch Ness Monster and such large or very large cryptids borders on the verge of wacky, but not to say its not possible, since even large cryptids believed to be myths and stories or extinct have been found like the Giant Squid.
The thing about fossils is they are all happenstance, most of the designs of early man are designed on but a mere fossilized bone or two or even a tooth, whole fossils are few and far between, even though some have been found (like a hadrosaur up in Montana) hell until recently scientists didn't even know Dinosaurs had hair or even feathers and feather like hair. Also yes, stones have been found in South America which look like Triceratops and Stegasauruses and so on, as to the authenticity of these pieces they have yet to be made either way.
A Gallery of Cryptozoological Alumni All the following creatures have been discovered in the past 100 years: Link Legendary cryptids that turned out to be absolutely real Link
I believe in most cryptids. Some are sort of ridiculous, but I can definitely get behind the idea of some of them! My favorites are Mothman and The Jersey Devil. Dover Demon comes close to them too. If you can show me good evidence that they don't exist, then you can tell me they don't. People say "Show me evidence of their existence!" and I tell them "Show me conclusive proof that they don't."
I think it is BS if you are talking about one like Nessie, Bigfoot, etc. The fact you never have great evidence or reliable sources. Now I am sure there are weird little subspecies of creatures lout there but Bigfoot.. um no. Same with UFOs. Do I believe there is intelligent life out there? yup. Think it is a little naive to think we are the sole intelligent species in the universe. Some may be more technologically advanced, some may be in the dark ages, some may be where we are. Do I think they visited us and shoved rods up the asses of dumb hicks? No. I don't feel we've had any real visitors yet.
It is waaaaaaay harder to prove something doesn't exist than it is to prove that it does. A lot of people make this argument, but it's uses really unsound logic. Take this for example: I believe there is a pink unicorn that lives inside of clouds and makes rain whenever it takes a leak. It sneezes skittles and breathes cotton candy. It takes good little boys and girls for rides on magic happy rainbow roads. It watches you while you you sleep, and whispers sweet dreams into your head (the nightmares you get are just his its way of trolling you). He's invisible, so you can't see him, and he's completely undetectable by any technology that we posses (that's just how he rolls). What? Prove that this unicorn exists? This is the internet, isn't it? Everything's true until proven false.
