It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My case against cryptozoology

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
First off I'd like to state that I would very much like to see something like a bigfoot found. However, I realize that will never happen and this is why

Cryptozoology states that it has helped lead to the discovery of several different major types of animals, including the Mountain Gorilla, Coelacanth, megamouth shark, and several others. However, these discoveries were done by real scientists.

The Mountain Gorilla for example, first it is often misconstrued that it was Gorillas in general, but lowland Gorillas had been known for 50 years. Secondly, the man who discovered them was one of the first western scientists to ever visit the region, so of course they're going to be chalked up to local legend.

With the Coelacanth, it was an actual scientist who IDed the fish which had previously simply been dismissed as an inedible catch.

The only Cryptozoology success story is the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and the jury is still out on that one.

Now, lets use Bigfoot as an example. In the time since European colonization, with the exception of a small population in Florida, the cougar has been eliminated East of the Mississippi River, and Wolves and Bears have met largely the same fate. We slaughtered millions of bison, elk, deer, and moose. There hasn't been a new large mammal identification in North America for at least 100 years, yet there is a population of large primates, with several distinct subspecies (ie Skunk Ape) exists in North America?

The only times the words "Bigfoot" and "Found" will appear next to each other in the mainstream news is going to be events like the one in Georgia.

There is no scientific conspiracy to hide evidence. When compelling evidence does surface, as with the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, then you see scientists dive . on into researching and exploring.




posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Personally, I am of the belief that there are vast swathes of territory that humans have barely been able to look at, let alone explore, and that it is quite possible for species to have lived for generations in these areas without having been noticed.

Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
Personally, I am of the belief that there are vast swathes of territory that humans have barely been able to look at, let alone explore, and that it is quite possible for species to have lived for generations in these areas without having been noticed.

Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there


That's the thing, in terms of land mass, their isn't really anymore unexplored areas. Most new "Species" discovered these days among megafauna are through genetics studies that show there are larger differences than once shown. Now in terms of the deep ocean, I'm interested to see what species like the Colossal Squid end up being. But those species have still been known to science.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


I don't think you realize how vast the Western area of the United States is. Then think of Canada to the north, and there are huge swaths of land that a primate can hide from us. It is true that the area has been surveyed by planes and satellites, but many thousands of square miles are not inhabited by people, and many more thousands of square miles are sparsely inhabited by people.

Bigfoot, sasquatch, skunkape, or whatever name they go by is the same type creature. They probably roam around and move mostly at night (if the sightings give ideas on behavior). They are primates, so they are intelligent and can also hear and smell us before we detect them, no matter what types of cameflouge we use. If they are like the Neanderthals, they bury their dead, leaving no trace of them.

There are too many sightings by reliable people and the Native American population. Add to it footprints with ridges and other physical traces, and this is something to look for and research.

As you have stated, cryptozoology is more than just Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, it is searching for unknown and previously thought extinct animals.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


I don't think you realize how vast the Western area of the United States is. Then think of Canada to the north, and there are huge swaths of land that a primate can hide from us. It is true that the area has been surveyed by planes and satellites, but many thousands of square miles are not inhabited by people, and many more thousands of square miles are sparsely inhabited by people.

Bigfoot, sasquatch, skunkape, or whatever name they go by is the same type creature. They probably roam around and move mostly at night (if the sightings give ideas on behavior). They are primates, so they are intelligent and can also hear and smell us before we detect them, no matter what types of cameflouge we use. If they are like the Neanderthals, they bury their dead, leaving no trace of them.

There are too many sightings by reliable people and the Native American population. Add to it footprints with ridges and other physical traces, and this is something to look for and research.

As you have stated, cryptozoology is more than just Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, it is searching for unknown and previously thought extinct animals.


While yes, large parts of the Western US aren't dense inhabited by people, people still visit and explore those areas frequently. When scientific expeditions go out and look for Wolves, Bears, Cougars, and other rare megafauna in the American West, they find them. Whenever people go looking for Bigfoot, they always come oh so close but never get that good picture? I remember this board went crazy over footage that was later shown to be the work of Penn and Teller's Bull#.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Im inclined to agree with the OP, mainly because hoaxers, folklore and peoples imaginations far outweighs any real evidence.

However, in terms of potential habitat i think its feasable, not probable, that a colony of large mammals could go undiscovered in the US, just think about how long it took for a major search to find Fossetts plane.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I'm with you OP ! there have been several discoveries of new species of large mammal and some smaller in various places through out the world in recent years ,and the one thing they all have in common is no one anywhere was looking for them. I don't think that centuries of relentless searching by so many so fruitlessly is because we haven't turned over the right rock ! Just that what we're looking for isn't there to be found.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
it's easy enough to find large mammals in the wild if you know their habits and likely migration routes or ranges, however it is incredibly difficult to find them if you don't.

another thing to consider is that a "scientist" doesn't require proof of the existence of an animal, they simply need to describe it, there are actually animals that are accepted to exist of which there is no photographic or forensic evidence.

just a thought.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
As much as I hate to admit it I too am of the same mind as the OP.
He makes a very valid argument.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
it's easy enough to find large mammals in the wild if you know their habits and likely migration routes or ranges, however it is incredibly difficult to find them if you don't.

another thing to consider is that a "scientist" doesn't require proof of the existence of an animal, they simply need to describe it, there are actually animals that are accepted to exist of which there is no photographic or forensic evidence.

just a thought.


Such as?



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
it's easy enough to find large mammals in the wild if you know their habits and likely migration routes or ranges, however it is incredibly difficult to find them if you don't.

another thing to consider is that a "scientist" doesn't require proof of the existence of an animal, they simply need to describe it, there are actually animals that are accepted to exist of which there is no photographic or forensic evidence.

just a thought.


You mean like the Giant Squid, how its never been videotaped or photographed alive?

There is not much undiscovered land on the map, and I find it unlikely that a Bigfoot could remain undiscovered for this long. Except I think the only place they could possibly hide is in Africa or Asia.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Such as?


dunno, just repeating a factoid i'ld heard, i've made a half assed attempt to go get some evidence but i can't be bothered. just ignore my point if you wish.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Have you been to the Rockies or the Western States? Have you driven through the prairie states? There are vast areas of wilderness that a tribe of Bigfeet can hide from humans. Also, there is Canada which the majority is wilderness.
Drive through the Black Hills in South Dakota during the day. It can get quite dark as the forest is thick. There are plenty of places to hide from man. I have been to these areas, and will tell you it is very easy for them to hide from us.

And then there is the sea, which is constantly showing us new creatures. They can hear us underwater for miles before we get close. Plenty of time to stay out of our way.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Have you been to the Rockies or the Western States? Have you driven through the prairie states? There are vast areas of wilderness that a tribe of Bigfeet can hide from humans. Also, there is Canada which the majority is wilderness.
Drive through the Black Hills in South Dakota during the day. It can get quite dark as the forest is thick. There are plenty of places to hide from man. I have been to these areas, and will tell you it is very easy for them to hide from us.

And then there is the sea, which is constantly showing us new creatures. They can hear us underwater for miles before we get close. Plenty of time to stay out of our way.


While yes, there is alot of room in the Western United States, that doesn't excuse the fact we haven't found one yet.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


I agree that it would be an incredible find. I have an open mind about them being around, but I would agree that there is more a case for Bigfoot than the Loch Ness Monster.

It doesn't help that there have been more hoaxes out there lately. It makes the mainstream scientists less likely to take a subject such as this seriously.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I don't seem to get what you mean here. Do you not believe in the study of cryptozoology or do you not believe in Bigfoot? your post has me a bit confused at the moment.

I do believe what your trying to get at though, your just wondering why we haven't found a Bigfoot/yeti/skunk ape/Sasquatch population. Well lets just say humans aren't the brightest creatures in the world despite or technology.

I mean take a look at this slip up that we didn't find till recently.

www.cnn.com...

Plus
Another reason as to Bigfoot's realness. hes on google spell check!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I was using bigfoot as an example. I'll be bringing the Chupacabra down in a debate later this week. As for the finds of the Gorillas, I was over joyed to hear of the discovery. However, that came from a part of the area that few Western scientists had been to.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Yes I was overjoyed when I saw it to.


But anyways, as I asked. What exactly are you trying to say/voice here?



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kikider
Yes I was overjoyed when I saw it to.


But anyways, as I asked. What exactly are you trying to say/voice here?


That searching for 99.9% of the topics brought up on this board is pointless. Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Nessie, Vampires, Dragons, etc have been searched for immensely yet haven't turned up a spec of good evidence besides a few 2nd hand accounts and blurry videos. The amount of different documentaries and searches done for these creatures would have turned up something by now if there was something to turn up.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
...
Cryptozoology states that it has helped lead to the discovery of several different major types of animals, including the Mountain Gorilla, Coelacanth, megamouth shark, and several others. However, these discoveries were done by real scientists.
...


You make it sound as if only scientists discover "Crypto" animals? This is of course far from the truth.

Locals know of the animals - scientists simply confirm and document their existence.

The Coelacanth was well known to local fishermen, and were even sold at local markets long before its "re-discovery" by scientists.

So can we continue with Gorillas, the Borneo Rhino, the Javan Rhino, the Tamaraw, the Siamese crocodile, the woolly flying squirrel and hundreds of other species (new and thought extinct) that are discovered in both remote and less remote areas. In most - if not all cases locals know of the existence of the creatures.

And who do you think knows better about creatures in an area? The local population who've lived there for years, or a group of scientists that arrive with a big whoo ha, "discover a new species” and claim all the glory?

As mentioned earlier in the thread - American Indians had legends of Bigfoot/Sasquatch (which is actually a native word derivative of the word "Sésquac") long before the "white man" came to the Americas. Will the animal only become real once the egg.s decide it's real?

Animals have been evading us for a long time, and they will continue to do so for many years to come. We can't know everything. It's nice to pretend that we've been everywhere and that we know of every species, sub-species, etc. But it's far from the truth. I mean recently we saw that a 100,000 gorillas managed to evade us...

Many argue that little (if any) of the US remains to be "discovered". They also argue that discoveries of new species are in remote areas like the Amazon. Recently someone challenged me like so:



When was the last new species of ape discovered in a country with 80 people per square mile?


My response:

New Giant Ape found in the Republic of Congo, 2004.
Example.
Human population density: 65/sq mi.

Want to go higher?

New Monkey species found in Tanzania, 2005.
Example.
Human Population density: 106/sq mi

Want to go higher?

New Monkey species discovered in Uganda, 2007.
Example.
Human population density: 308/sq mi.

So the answer is 2007 for primate.
You’ll notice that I highlighted a chance for you to dispute my answer. You ask for ape. I give monkey. My point is however a large new species discovered in a highly populated country. USA population 80/sq mi. Uganda population 308/sq mi. One would think that there's a better chance to discover a new species in the USA, wouldn't you? But that's "Deepest, Darkest Africa" you say. Fine. How about a new species of Camel discovered in China? (Example) Chinese population density: 363/sq mi...

There simply is no reason why a small number of animals cannot evade the human species. An excellent example is the legendary Knysna elephant that manages to evade humans in a 568 square kilometres forest...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join