Mixing the Old and the New

I am no expert in Cryptozoology so this is just a serious question for those who are.

In historical accounts and myth, there are tales of amazing creatures such as, for example, a long snake-like dragon that flies in the sky. Sometimes it is represented as having smoke everywhere all around it, always in curving motion.

In the current day, there are tons of videos now of amazing creatures such as, for example, this sort of snake-like, white-colored who-knows-what-it-is that flies in the sky. There is now quite a lot of this on film, greatly from South America I think, and there's even a creature on a NASA clip that looks like it might be or relate to this.

Now the former falls into Cryptozoology I guess because you might find a sketch of that flying snake-dragon-of-smoke in a grimoire or read of it in myth, and it allegedly doesn't exist. Right?

But the latter falls into UFOlogy I guess merely because it's in the sky. And modern day.

But where do they overlap? Doesn't our ability to guesstimate what might be going on in our environment depend greatly on our past experience or, lacking that, our vicarious experience -- such as what we might be familiar with from myth?

When a 'ufo' looks more like a creature than a vehicle, and when it is at least reminiscent of ancient stories, wouldn't that slide it into the cryptozoology category?

If it's thought to be a living creature, then cryptozoology.
If it's thought to be a machine, aircraft, or any other non-living thing such as debris, then it's a ufo.

What if it's unknown?

What if there is a border blend between those things?

Good question. I've had the issue with certain things blurring the lines in definition, "Is it paranormal or is it cryptozoological?". I figure pick what the subject in question fits more into.

reply to post by trollz


I am convinced cryptids are interdimensional creatures.

There is no overlap, really. In the case of something from a long long time ago flying through the sky, we have no proof that it even happened. By proof, I mean no video evidence. So therefore, it's a myth or something like that. However, if we have video evidence which is only possible in modern days, then we have a confirmed object in the sky.

BUT, that object is unidentified. Thus, it's a UFO, whether living or not because we do not know if its inanimate or a living being.

I don't want to make it sound like video evidence makes something legitimate, but it does give us an actual image to attempt to identify. Anything from ages ago is just he-said, she-said.

True... though rocks with carvings, caves with ocher symbols and even paper much later in time, were not remotely as easy to come by as they are now, so generally if people bothered to document something in older times I'm willing to at least consider it. Doesn't make it right but does give it some likely sense of importance to the people doing the documenting at least.


By overlap, I meant the overlap between creatures we may not understand which is what I thought Crytozoology was (isn't it? It isn't just ancient things right? Wouldn't bigfoot, a modern report, fall into this category?), and objects we do not understand, when the objects appear and/or behave as if they may be some kind of life form.

reply to post by RedCairo


What an absolutely brilliant question.
If, in fact, these things are an 'update' to suit us now? But all from the same source? I'm puzzling over a beastie at the moment which could be an animal representation of a 'something' but I'm not sure.

Sorry if that response sounds a bit odd, I'm just thinking out loud (well, on screen)!

B x

Could you maybe post some links to those videos?

Yes, let me gather some this evening.

I'm sorry I'm very sleepy and must work early and haven't got the links yet. There's many but I wanted to find some good ones, some of which are just a few seconds of clip buried in other things. I will get back to this, promise.