Cryptozoology...

I find it very disappointing that most people dismiss cryptozoology as myth. I guerantee you that if stuff like the Mothmn and the New Jersey Devil, weren't treated as legends then they would get alot of attention. I myself am a NJ Devil Hunter.

(P.S. What/ Whom is the 'Mothman?)

I beleive in the new jersey devil because when i lived in new jersey when i was younger i think i heard it.

A simple google on the Mothman should get you started.. It's basically a sighted creature in the New England area (WV mostly, I believe), that is said to appear before major disasters...usually along the side of the road, to drivers. Descriptions are usually grey, about 6' in height, and red eyes, with mothlike wings...

Cryptozoology is slowly gaining more respect, with more discoveries, such as the Ceolacanth (sp?) a fish thought to be extinct for millions of years, was discovered, or some of the creatures recently found in Vietnam, etc. such as slit nosed deer. There's even unsubstantiated reports of Megaladon teeth (not fossils) found (it's a GIANT great white basically)....

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Gazrok]

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by panchovilla]

I will take the opposite view for the sake of argument.

Most of it is fear of the unknown, because that is what gets our adrenaline running; it gives us a rush. Most of these creatures are things that have not been proven in the least. There is no scientific proof behind bigfoot or nessie or mermen. Why people believe these things without proof is beyond my understanding. Perhaps it is because we wish to believe in wonders, aka god, angels, pixies, fairies, etc. Through it we give ourselfs a mission to search out and thus also give our lives meaning.

All myths and fables are built up over time. If you have ever played a game of 'telephone' as a child you know exactly what I am talking about. Through oral history things get slightly changed through the retelling and over time they get retold again and again and again. They become more grand and mythic because we want them to be more wonderous to those that the stories are told to (usually children).

Originally posted by Gazrok
A simple google on the Mothman should get you started.. It's basically a sighted creature in the New England area (WV mostly, I believe), that is said to appear before major disasters...usually along the side of the road, to drivers. Descriptions are usually grey, about 6' in height, and red eyes, with mothlike wings...

Cryptozoology is slowly gaining more respect, with more discoveries, such as the Ceolacanth (sp?) a fish thought to be extinct for millions of years, was discovered, or some of the creatures recently found in Vietnam, etc. such as slit nosed deer. There's even unsubstantiated reports of Megaladon teeth (not fossils) found (it's a GIANT great white basically)....

[Edited on 15-3-2004 by Gazrok]

Look also at the gaint squid, that for a long time was thought to be sailors and writers imagination. Know we find them all the time washed up on beachs, even some main stream scienctist caught the first live baby of one(didn't live very long but hey he still caught it).
Also very recently(wish i had the web site) but i heard they have found a species of squid bigger then the gaint squid. All of these species at one time or another were thought of as myths to main stream science. Now we find out they do exist, it just takes a body to make people actually say ok that does exist. That is sad really if you think about it, because we have no idea on what the population of said animal is. I find most myths have some basis in reality as a misidentified animal.
One of the things i really feel weird about, and a little pissed about at the same time. Is that with all the people that look for bigfoot, that bring in evidence like hair samples. These hair sample's can't be identified as any species none to man, yet this isn't enough evidence for main stream. If we have every common known animal in the USA genentic sample(don't know if we do), but if we have most and it doesn't match anything, Doesn't that mean there is something we don't know? I don't belive you could fake a DNA strand, that would fool the people who are trained in this job. Then again i could be wrong, its just DNA is so accurate that it seems that should be enough in todays world.
Now i do belive some sightings of bigfoot or other crpyto creatures are nothing more then a guy in a monkey suit, or misidentification of another species of animal. But some of them really can't be explained, what do we tell these people. We say you must have been imagining that, or your looked at like your crazy. I will be honest here I give all sightings there due, till there proved as hoax's. I can't even belive death bed confessions(Patterson Film), that say Hey i was the guy in the suit. When scienctists have been over the film and said it was a man in a suit, now this is probally gonna spark a big agrument but, I belive the Patterson Film is genuine( again i could be wrong, I admit that).
Also I think most death bed confessions now a days are a last atempt to have thier 15 minutes in the light. It is a mean thing to say but think about it, the craze started with the Patterson Film, then ended pretty quickly. He was in the news for a long time, now a friend of his wants his turn, could he be telling the truth yes. But i want to see the suit, I want to see someone copy the walk of the creature. I have heard even by todays special effect wizards, that if it was a suit then they knew more then todays guys did. Again this is from a special on tv, I will try to find it today, but i also heard a big FX company tired to make a suit that would compare to it.
But it didn't even come close to it, the film shows muscles in the back and legs moving. I have to belive that is a hard thing to pull off today, let alone 40 years ago. But this is just my two cents on the whole thing.

It's good in my opinion that Cryptozoology is not taken seriously, and either are cryptids.

In my opinion as soon as you prove the existance of chupacabra, or sasquatch, or any of them.. you'll have poachers out there looking for a new trophy to take home, or sell.

Better to leave them be in my opinion, then bring the wrath of human stupidity on them.

and oh sweet, a fire breathing smilee, I gotta use that

Originally posted by EWom

In my opinion as soon as you prove the existance of chupacabra, or sasquatch, or any of them.. you'll have poachers out there looking for a new trophy to take home, or sell.

It's sad but you are right. I have thought about this also. If I ever saw a cryptid I would be reluctant to provide proof for science because poachers would come and kill them.

There is no scientific proof behind bigfoot or nessie or mermen.

As Jay well pointed out, this isn't the case at all... Especially with Bigfoot. There is an abundance of evidence, with the most promising being the hairs that are still classified as "unknown primate".....

Nobody would have believed the Ceolocanth or the Giant Squid either, until bodies were produced...

Cryptos not serious science? No, not at all. It's science in it's purest form....the form of discovery and rewriting of the rules.....

this is the okapi unknown to majority of the world and all mainstream science until this century. pygmies in the jungles of africa told tales of this donkey with zebra stripes to english explores who did not believe it nothing more than a myth. the president of that country in africa did not even believe it when the english explorer told him the tails. madagascar is an island of africa that has many bizzarre creatures and has no laws or conservation measures employed as far as i know. some extraordinary creatures are likely extinct. like a giant predatory feline like lemur looking thing(not the fossa). gazroks is right cryptozoology is the true definition of science. always changing and proving the previous presumptions incorrect.

[Edited on 3/29/2004 by panchovilla]

www.lioncrusher.com...

here is link about the fossa madagascars largest predator. everything i read about their behavior and their appearance reminds me of a feline, but they say that they are more closely related to hyennas. hmmmm.


i looked for the definition of cryptozoology in websters and nada. cryptic- enigmatic.


so when we find a living or dead body of a big foot and it is named and classified will in no longer be a cryptid. and what about the ones that remain "undiscovered" even until they are extinct? guess they will remain a cryptid.



[Edited on 3/29/2004 by panchovilla]