It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Mbielu-mbielu-mbielu

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 24 2009 @ 02:17 PM
The name of this cryptid means "Animal with planks growing out of its back." It has been cited by two villages in the Likouala Region of the Republic of the Congo.

Generally it has been thought to be a type of Stegosaurus-like aquatic creature that is covered with moss.

The natives say these planks are not the same as the serrated ridges of a crocodile or some lizards.

The natives could not give an accurate description of the body, head, tail, and feet because the animal was submerged in water and these parts could not seen, only the planks could be seen.

It has been compared to a Nguma-monene, which is a rather large snake-form, or Mokele-mbembe, but the latter does not appear to have plants on it's back. Villagers say that the planks on the back are different from a crocodile or alligator.

My suggestions in no particular order:

1. An aquatic potto-like creature.
Pottos have spikes that protrude from their spine. Also, mammals like sloths have been known to grow moss on their fur. I would not rule out a semi-aquatic species.

2. A type of aquatic turtle with either plates or spikes on its shell.

3. A type of hippo or other amphibious mammal with plates on its back.

4. An unknown reptile, or a previously thought to be extinct reptile.

5. An armor plated fish of some sort.

There is no physical evidence, and very few reports of sightings of this creature. However, it is a cryptid nonetheless and hopefully in the future more light will be brought onto the myth of this creature.

My one question/problem with this being a hoax-type myth from villagers is that say the creature they are describing does match that of a Stegosaurus. How would they have known what this animal looked like when it became extinct so long ago? I do think that there is probably a simple explanation for this (turtle, etc) but I respect the sightings from the villagers for most of these cryptids.

[edit on 5/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 03:51 PM
Hi raven, hope you're well.

Sounds mysterious, whatever it is!

Just got one small problem:

How would they have known what this animal looked like when it became extinct so long ago?

I can't find anything that says the villagers themselves compared it to a Stegosaurus, just conclusions drawn by the people conducting the research.

That aside, let the speculation as to what it may be begin! I'd move in favour of some sort of horned lizard or some such, although...

A long while back I saw a documentary about the Mokele-Mbembe, where a researcher visited a village that had reported sighting of 'something'. The researcher had brought along a notebook full of pictures of ordinary African jungle-dwelling creatures. They went through it and stopped at a picture of a pygmy rhino, yelling 'mokele-mbembe! mokele-mbembe!'
Turned out that the whole legend had been blown out of proportion, and was in fact based on a rare jungle rhino! Wish I could find that online!!

It may turn out to be a case similar to that, but then again, they still haven't solved the yeti!

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by purehughness

I guess I could have phrased that better. What I meant was it's not like they can just go starting rumors about something with plates on it's back that resembles a stegosaurus. The way scientists usually test things like that is to show pictures of animals to the tribes to see what they can identify. I doubt they have ever seen a stegosaurus before and they're not just saying "Look an extinct dinosaur! Come visit our village!" I also don't think it's a dinosaur. But I'm trying to say that they probably don't think it is, either. And I'm sure if it was as large as one, they would see it more often, especially since stegs aren't aquatic like a plesiosaur or anything.

That's more along the lines of what I meant. But I did see that documentary, too. Mokele-Mbembe a is quite different situation I think. The only thing is that the creature is aquatic and I don't know of any aquatic lizard with spikes. A turtle would make more sense, maybe some sort of snapper, especially because of "plates." I think we'd need to figure out exactly what they mean by "plates" to identify it.

[edit on 5/24/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:19 PM
Great find. Wonder if there is any truth to this one? I mean it only stands to reason that as Africa looses more of its land mass to commercial endeavors , species never before seen would start coming out into the more populated areas.

It was not clear in the article how recent these sighting have been. But then I only checked the first link in the Op...

Ravenshadow I have a feeling that more strange never before seen species will start to emerge as we move into the shifting of the earths axis and the global events due to severe weather changes and earth/volcanic activity.

As you know animals are always the first to know and to display odd and unusual behavior.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:54 PM
reply to post by antar

The thing that amazes me is that there are so many cryptids already. Where people go "Did I just see some weird animal?" And you would think we would be more concerned. I don't even know half of them. This site doesn't even have a quarter of the already established cryptids, which have names and some background. I'm trying to add as many as I can. But even in the oceans, scientists already know we have basically no clue what's down there, or in the rainforest, or on most of our planet. New species are found every day.

So even though some of there are like "Well, maybe it's not real," there are so many cryptids out there that some of them MUST be something.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:59 PM
Great thread....!!!

I think we often too easily dismiss the sightings and claims of primitive and/or not quite so advanced peoples.

As you stated RS, how can they be so accurately describing a creature they should know nothing about?


posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by semperfortis

Thanks, Semper!

I think that most of these peoples, tribes and such, should be listened to as much, if not more than, someone who is traveling like an American explorer. There have been so many cases of scientists coming back with sightings of things, or specimens, and later we learn that they lied and made it up, or threw together (ahem) a money torso and fishtail. Usually they want money or fame.

But indigenous/tribal peoples don't need money or fame. If anything, they probably want us to leave them alone. Generally some even don't welcome outsiders into their villages, so everything that we learn from them is important.

In my cryptobotanical thread about the Umdhlebi, many responded with "Well it's just a myth to them." Sometimes the line between myth and reality in certain cultures is practically non-existent. They have no motives to lie or support myths that they know aren't true. It's true that sometimes they believe we have the same spiritual and mythical beliefs as they do, and explain their world to us in those terms. But generally I give just as much credibility to them as I would do anyone else, if not more.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:09 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

I think that most of these peoples, tribes and such, should be listened to as much, if not more than, someone who is traveling like an American explorer.

Completely agree..

Let's face it, we still have very little information as to what the Native Americans knew. Also look at the Aborigines; they are far closer to nature and have information we may never fathom..

There is so much of this world that is unexplored and my fear is that when solid evidence is presented, we will do what we always do. Send a large well equipped expedition and ruin their culture forever...

So much is lost so many times, by our arrogance and ignorance...


posted on May, 24 2009 @ 11:30 PM
The Mokele Mbembe is the dinosaur of the jungle. It is suppose to look like your typical large herbivore dinosaur, like a brontosaurs. Its in a remote part of the jungle and it has been seen for a long time by locals.

However, locals are not the best eyewitness. These people have no science background and very easily mis-identifying animals.

Due to the remoteness, local government, and violence in the area it makes it a tough place to study. The best evidence of the Mokele Mbembe is this picture taken by a Japanese research team.

Judging by the picture is looks large, but it could really be anything.

I'm not sure if the civil war is still going on there, but its a hostile land. Almost impossible location to get to, if there is a "dinosaur' hiding out in the jungle its a good place to hide.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:20 PM
It probably won't turn up anything like proof, but maybe someone could Google Earth the region in the Congo where this creature is supposed to live. I'd like to do it myself, but don't know the name of the region in the Congo where the Mokele Mbembe lives.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:14 PM
Still loving this thread!

If there was one 'dinosaur' type critter, there'd need to be others of the same species to keep going, I wonder if this is a completely isolated case, or if it's been repeatedly reported? Sort of like what's often said of the Loch Ness monster.

Also check what I just found!:

Google Books

Our critter is on page 250, but the whole thing looks very interesting

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by testrat

The Mkoele-Mbembe is a different cryptid than the Mbielu-mbielu-mbielu. Thanks for the input, though, guys!! I think there are other threads on the mkoele-mbembe. The main difference is that mbielu is aquatic and has a plated back.

@pure- Stegs aren't aquatic, that's what gets to me. I like the giant snake hypothesis because those huge aquatic eels/snakes are all over the Amazon. I still don't know what's with the plates, though. Reminds me of the legless dragons, haha.

I've NEVER heard that said about the Loch Ness monster just because there are multiple reports going back to even the 15th century of sightings. I mean, with other cryptids yes, but never Nessie. The databases of reported sightings there is huge.

But, I don't know. It seems like with mbielu there were sightings in two different villages. Bounila and Ebolo. I can't even find where they are on a map online. *grabs atlas*

Well, I can't tell.

But I think that it would take more than one sighting to notice the moss, the planks, etc. I'm guessing there were a couple sightings.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:28 PM
I gave you a star and flag, but I have nothing to add. Except for, these cryptids that you have been digging out are intesting, to say the least. Thank you and keep up the interesting threads, please.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by tamusan

Aw thanks, dude. I couldn't believe how many there were that weren't on the site. If you find anything you want me to look into, let me know. I'll probably post another in the next few days.

I'm trying to avoid the typical "Bigfoot/Nessie" threads because they are so common. The best cryptids, apparently, are the ones I can't pronounce.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:43 PM
Let's be honest, out of all the places on Earth to hide, the vast vast vast jungles of Congo and Central Africa are just about it.

Just look at how big Africa is and how much of that is green jungle. You could hide anything in there without it being found for centuries.

Add to that, the political instability and the inaccess to the area and you've got a perfect place for mr dino to live.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:50 PM
Yet another great thread from raven.

S + F.

I've read about this creature before. As others have said, the likelihood of these tribes making up a creature that matches a known dinosaur is pretty pretty much nil.

I think they have been seeing something. Between the sea creature reports all over the world to these giant lizards in the jungles, there is no doubt in my mind that at least some species survived the mass extinction.

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:58 PM
@Liam- The jungles/rainforests and the oceans, for sure, have exposed not even half of all their species. I'm sure of that.

@fooff- You're my favorite. You know the only reason I make these threads is because I know eventually you'll read them!! (Seriously though, your input is fantastic)

The thing that fascinates me about prehistoric species survival is basically the Loch Ness example. A select population of marine organisms may or may not have become landlocked when the continents shifted. In specific areas, certain species survived. Obviously some species survived, since we are here, and many organisms are still here. So if some species survived, others obviously did as well.

We all have prehistoric ancestors, really. We just don't know which prehistoric species survived. I mean, even in terms of arthropods (which comprise such a huge percentage of the world's population of creatures), we have no clue what we'll find in even ten years from now.

top topics


log in