BFRO / What's New - America and Canada / Archives / 06-19-2008 / Other Cryptids

Topie: Other Cryptids Page: 1 2 3
February 27th, 2008 12:08 AM
BigfootLives! Our recent chupacabra discussion got me thinking, and I've got a question for all of you.

How many other cryptids, besides our fine hairy friend, do you believe in? Chupacabra, mothman, the beast of bray road, the jersey devil, sea and lake monsters, etc.?

The discussion should prove interesting.

Cheers,

Spencer
February 27th, 2008 12:44 AM
cowboyman While I am skeptical of some of the afore mentioned creatures, I am convince there are several hidden animals waiting to be cataloged... Sifting through legend is difficult..
I believe some of the animals you just mentioned could be mis-identified squatches.. But my intrest here makes it hard to explore those legends to much
February 27th, 2008 01:43 AM
Bob Naranja None really..

Is the Beast of Bray Road the same as the WI Dog Man ??

If so, i believe BF is that culprit !! ;)

Sea & Lake Monsters could possibly exist, we sure haven't covered every square inch of the Ocean, some can be attributed to already known Species such as Giant Squid..

Loch Ness is one that doesn't really do it for me if i'm honest..

Being from teh UK myself, i personally see no reasonable explanation for it, which is very different than the BF Subject & i do get a little annoyed when people put the 2 subjects together as i don't think that's in the least bit justified with regards to the list of evidence i believe there is for BF, against the minimial, if any, evidence there is for the LNM.
February 27th, 2008 01:57 AM
davidib Heres a incident i was told.

My dad and his buddy were bow hunting for carp near the nuke plant in Moroe Mi.
On there way back the winds kicked up over Lake Erie, so they were having a tuff time getting back in ,they were in a 12 motor boat. They decided to take cover from the waves in a cove of an island. After the wind died down they set out again.
As they were leaving the small cove, the waves were slapping the boat ,then something with scales the size of one of those small plates that one would serve tea on rolled along side the boat, they never seen the head or the tail. But my dads buddy tried to shoot it with his bow and missed because a wave hit the boat as he released. They both told me that it was at least twice the size of the 12 boat..
I dont know if this is true or not but I myself did catch a 3 eyed fish not far from the nuke plant. I also dont see why they would have made up a story like that ..
What do you think about this???
February 27th, 2008 02:39 AM
PoconoSteve Ladies and gentleman. As far as lake and sea "monsters" (and I hate to call them that) go, there is just as much justification as there is for BF and perhaps even more evidence! Yes, you heard me right. Do a little online research and you'll find that numerous decayed carcasses have washed ashore or been caught in fishing nets throughout the past century. In fact, one recently in extreme eastern Russia (very good pictures of it). We're talking about creatures that are 20+ feet long and obviously not alligator/crocodile like, but rather more dinosaur looking.

Take the case of the coelacanth. It's a prehistoric fish from the Cretaceous period that was thought to be extinct for millions of years. There was only one problem w/ that theory.........they actually caught a living specimen in 1938 from the Indian Ocean and there's been at least one other caught since.

Our oceans are unimaginably vast and unexplored. The fact that these mysterious carcasses (which btw, have a remarkable resemblence to the lake "monsters" of the world) have been relatively ignored by modern science can be likened to how much BF evidence has been ignored by the general scientific community thus far.

So there really is evidence to support the existence of these creatures which are probably large leftover dinosaurs that live in very deep and vast lakes and oceans. Let's not forget that sharks, crocodiles, and the aforementioned coelacanth are all living creatures from the age of the dinosaurs.

Why don't we see these creatures more often then? Well, just like our hairy friend that brings all of us to this forum, these creatures are extremely rare and live in habitats that are even more vast and hard to explore than places like the Pacific Northwest. Humans spend even less time under the waters of Loch Ness for example than they do in prime BF habitat.

Loch Ness (home of Nessie), Lake Champlain (home of Champie), and Lake Okanagan (home of Ogopogo) are all exceedly deep lakes w/ underwater caves. Is it that hard to imagine a small reproducing population of large creatures living in the depths of these lakes that are/where at one time connected to the sea?
February 27th, 2008 02:49 AM
Bob Naranja PoconoSteve, thanks for the info, very interesting.

Would you mind, without me trawling Google for hours, showing me some links to LNM that you know of & believe, gives better evidence for it's existence, than Dermal Ridges, that we have for the Big Guy becuase if there is, i certainly haven't seen them & if i'm honest, i'd be amazed if there was ??

Thansk.
February 27th, 2008 02:54 AM
PoconoSteve Certainly. Let me know what you think. It looks like a darn plesiosaur to me.


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
February 27th, 2008 04:54 AM
Bob Naranja
Quote:
PoconoSteve wrote:
Certainly. Let me know what you think. It looks like a darn plesiosaur to me.


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm


Thanks Steve, yeah that's something i don't know what it really is, any DNA taken of whatever it was ??

I was actually getting at if you think there's any DNA for the Loch Ness Monster specifically, than for other " alleged " Sea Monsters ??

I don't doubt that there could be undiscovered Sea " Monsters " out there as i said before because we certainly haven't trawled every square metre of our Ocean's depths..
February 27th, 2008 09:10 AM
ohio_cryptid I am sorry folks but that plesiosaur is actually a bear.
Okay, that was just a huge joke....sorry. It looks like a dinosaur to me. So yes I do believe there are dinosaurs alive today. We just need to find them.
February 27th, 2008 09:16 AM
runnah Loch Ness = BS
Lake Monsters = BS
Ghost = BS
UFO = True but not to the level lots of folks claim.

Sea Monsters? Well define "Monsters". I am positive there are many large sea dwelling animals not catalougued by science. We just barely caught a giant squid on film.

lake Monsters are harder to buy based on the limitations of lake habitats. Lakes are small, offer relativly small food sources for anything larger than a good sized fish. I've been scuba diving in Lake Champlain and the lake floor is suprisingly sparse. Fish are common but not plentiful.

There just isn't enough food in lakes to support a large creature. If loch ness has a monster why not other lakes? There are dozens of lakes that are the same in Scotland that have no monster reports.
February 27th, 2008 09:18 AM
PoconoSteve Bob, to answer your question I don't believe there is any DNA from Nessie, Champ, or Ogopogo specifically. In fact, I'm fairly positive there isn't. Although if there was it might be treated by most of the scientific community and the general public in much the same manner as the DNA we've got of BF. That is almost completely ignored. Ask people out on the street if they are aware of the fact that we have DNA from hair samples and I think even blood now (from the Snellgrove Lake incident in Ontario........eh?). Of ten people asked, you'll probably have five walk away laughing and not even answer your question and of the five that remain one might know of this fact.

My point is this, and I always tell anyone who I have a conversation w/ about cryptids that what's proof to some is not to others. I think we can all agree on that. So while all the credible eyewitness reports throughout the centuries, authenticated photos and videos, unusual sonar readings, and sound recordings (Lake Champlain) are enough proof to me, they are not for you, and you know what? That's okay and perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps someday the body of proof will cross the threshold where you'll believe in the existence of these aquatic cryptids. For me it already has.
February 27th, 2008 09:42 AM
runnah
Quote:
PoconoSteve wrote:
My point is this, and I always tell anyone who I have a conversation w/ about cryptids that what's proof to some is not to others. I think we can all agree on that. So while all the credible eyewitness reports throughout the centuries, authenticated photos and videos, unusual sonar readings, and sound recordings (Lake Champlain) are enough proof to me, they are not for you, and you know what? That's okay and perfectly acceptable.



Where are these "authenticated" photos and videos? Eye witness reports are about as credible as a politician's promises.

As far the Lake Champlain sounds recording, well scientists say the these plesiosaur didn't have sonar. So they are asumming that not only did a plesiosaur population survived in Champlain, but it also adpated a new sense that was only recently (we are dealing with millions of years of evolution here) developed by dolphins which are MAMMALS.

So what would be needed is a food source large enough to support a breeding population large enough and diverse enough to allow adaptations that would take millions of years to develope. If it were true Lake Champlain would have to have so many plesiosaurs that you could walk to NY on their backs.

Sorry Charlies it just ain't possible

February 27th, 2008 09:43 AM
PoconoSteve runnah,

"If loch ness has a monster why not other lakes?"

With all due respect........not a valid arguement against the existence of these cryptids. Let me ask you. Do all places in N. America have BF walking around? Let's take it to an even more mundane example. Where I live some lakes have walleye and some don't. Why?

Remember, not all Scottish lakes were at one time connected to the sea. I will agree w/ you that Champlain is very sparsely vegatated on the bottom. Most deep lakes are, but here's the thing...........it's HUGE and there have been studies done on both lakes in question that state that even though neither are extremely fertile and the creature in question would need a lot of fish to survive, because of the vastness and size of the lake and the proportionately low population of the creatures, the conclusion came out to be that there is plenty of food for the creatures' survival.

"Ghost = BS"..........yeah, I used to think so too. In fact, I was a major sceptic until too many close friends and people I knew who had no reason to make stuff up relayed stories to me.

February 27th, 2008 09:46 AM
BFSanctum
Quote:
PoconoSteve wrote:
Certainly. Let me know what you think. It looks like a darn plesiosaur to me.


http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm


Looks like a Basking Shark to me.

From the Article in Question:

Quote:
As mentioned, some scientists believed from the start that the carcass in question was probably a shark, based on their knowledge of basking shark decay, and similar "sea serpent" carcass incidents of the past. The basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus, is the second largest fish in the sea (surpassed only by the whale shark). It can grow to more than 30 feet in length, and specimens over 40 feet have been reported (Soule 1981; Freedman 1985; Dingerkus 1985). However, this gentle giant is harmless to humans. It feeds by filtering plankton (mostly tiny crustaceans) through its large gill rakers as it swims lazily just under the water's surface with huge mouth agape. When the basking shark decays, the jaws and loosely attached gill arches often fall away first, leaving the appearance of a long neck and small head (see Figure 4). All or part of the tail (especially the lower half which lacks vertebral support) and/or the dorsal fin may also slough away before the better supported pectoral and pelvic fins, creating a form that superficially resembles a plesiosaur (Huevelmans 1968; Burton & Burton 1969; Cohen 1982; Bright 1989 Ellis 1989). Some have called such remains "pseudoplesiosaurs" (Cohen 1982), although one might also dub them "plesiosharks"


Also:

Quote:
The horny fibers sampled from the carcass were rigid, needle-like structures that tapered toward both ends and had a translucent light-brown color (Kimura, Fujii, and others 1978). Such features are characteristic of ceratotrichia, the cartilaginous fibers of shark fin rays. Abe (1978) found that the carcass fibers and known ceratotrichia from a basking shark "resembled each other remarkably."

-- Gross amino acid analysis of the carcass samples gave results that closely matched elastoidin from a known basking shark. Elastoidin is a collagenous protein known only from sharks and rays (not reptiles or even other fish). The match was especially impressive when known basking shark elastoidin was treated with an antiseptic sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) solution, as were the Zuiyo-maru samples (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 52; Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya 1978, p 58). The correspondence was virtually identical on all 20 amino acids tested (Table 1). In discussing this "striking similarity," Kimura, Fujii, and others (1978, p 72) noted that a statistical test called the "difference index (DI)" gave the extremely low value of .95 indicating a tight match. They also noted that the high tryosine content (43 and 41 residues for the samples) is especially characteristic of shark elastoidin as compared with other collagens, which typically have 5 or less residues. ceratotrichia.



And:

Quote:
-- The carcass sketch showed six neck vertebrae, viewed as "seven or so" by Obata and Tomoda (1978), which is reasonably consistent with Yano's measurements of neck length (150 cm) and individual vertebra diameter (20 cm). It is also consistent with sharks. However, 6 to 7 cervical vertebrae is not consistent with plesiosaurs and other marine reptiles. Even the pliosaurs, also known as "short-necked" plesiosaurs, have at least 13 neck vertebrae; the "long necked" plesiosaurs have far more. (Obata and Tomoda, 1978, p 46).

-- The head of the creature was reported to be turtle-like (Obata and Tomoda, 1978, p 48). This is consistent with the known cranial remains of a basking shark, which have been specifically described as resembling a turtle head (Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya 1978, p 59). In contrast, plesiosaurs had more triangular shaped heads that were not particularly turtle-like (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 64).

-- Photographs and witnesses confirm the presence of fin rays, which are possessed by most fish, including sharks. In contrast, plesiosaurs had bony phalanges as flipper supports, which were not seen in the carcass (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 51). The limb bones shown in Yano's drawing were evidently based on presumption or pro-plesiosaur bias rather than observation (Omura and others 1978, p 56; Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 49).

-- One of the photos (Figure 1c) shows an apparent dorsal fin, as illustrated in Figures 5). Dorsal fins are possessed by most fish including sharks, but are thought to have been lacking in plesiosaurs.


-- The V-shaped along the vertebral column (Figure 1c and 5), and near the pectoral girdle (Figure 1a) were identified as myocommata by Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya 1978, p 56-57). Myocommata are composed of strong connective tissues between myomeres, and are found in sharks but not reptiles.

-- The ribs were measured as 40 cm (about 16 inches) long, which is far too short for plesiosaurs or other marine vertebrates except sharks (Hasegawa and Uyeno, p 65). Ironically, some have asked whether the ribs might be too long for a shark, which typically have very small ribs. But this was an exceptionally large specimen, and was probably even larger before decomposition. Also, it is not certain that Yano accurately identified or measured the ribs, which do not appear in the photos. Perhaps he mistakenly measured remnant gill arches, myocommata, or muscle furrows, under the assumption that they corresponded to ribs.

-- As seen in the photos, the anterior fins appears to be articulated at a right angle to the shoulder, consistent with sharks but not plesiosaurs (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 46); Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 65). The pectoral girdle is visible between the front fins in Figures 1a and 1b, and appears broken but is shark-like in shape (Compagno 1997; Phelps 1997; Roesch 1997).

-- If the carcass were a plesiosaur, the body would be unlikely to bend in the posture shown in some of the photographs, since the breast bone would be large and flat. Likewise, the ventral bones of plesiosaurs, which should have remained if the anterior fins were preserved, are not seen in the carcass (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 64).

-- In plesiosaurs, bones of all limbs were situated at the ventral (lower) portion of the body; therefore, if the creature were a decayed plesiosaur, it is likely the limbs would have already been detached from the body (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 63).

-- At the existing degree of decomposition, a plesiosaur would probably have retained its upper jaws and teeth (Hasegawa and Uyeno 1978, p 63), but no teeth were reported in the specimen carcass (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 48). A basking shark, however, is known to easily loose both jaws, and even if it retained the upper jaw, its extremely tiny teeth could be more easily overlooked.

-- The carcass length was reported as 10 meters (33 feet). Basking sharks commonly grow to 30 feet more (Dingerkus 1985; Freedman 1985), and specimens over 40 feet long have been reported (Heuvelmans 1968; Herald 1975; Soule 1981; Steel 1985). Some authors indicate they may even grow to 50 or more feet (Springer and Gold 1989; Perrine 1995; Allen 1996) The carcass size would also be compatible with a small plesiosaur, but the body proportions are not (explained below).

-- Although some of Yano's measurements seem surprisingly round (for example, 2000 mm for the tail and 10000 mm total length), if we assume they are reasonably accurate, then the body proportions (approximately 2:6:2 for the head+neck:torso:tail) are incompatible with any known plesiosaur fossils (Obata and Tomoda 1978, p 52). In many plesiosaurs the neck is by the longest section, and in no case is the torso (between the pelvic and pectoral fins) much longer than the head and neck, as it is in the carcass. The carcass could have lost some length through tail loss (discussed below), but the neck to torso ratio would still be incompatible with plesiosaurs.

-- The carcass body proportions are largely compatible with a large basking shark carcass, especially one that lost its tail (compare Figures 5 and 2). Loss of the tail would be likely, since the wide tail would tend to snap at the narrow juncture during decay and buffeting in the water. This would explain the blunt rather than tapering tail end in Yano's sketch. The rostrum (nose tip) may also have been lost, but would not appreciably affect the overall body length or proportions. Adding a tail would mean the shark was closer to 12.5 meters (41 feet) in life, which would be exceptionally large, but still within the generally accepted size range of basking sharks. After all, this poor basker may have died of old age.

The combined anatomical evidence thus strongly indicates a shark and and effectively rules out a plesiosaur. Obata and Tomoda (1978, p 52) conclude, "there are no known fossil reptilian species that agree with the animal under consideration." Likewise, Hasegawa and Uyeno (1978, p 64) write, "From the osteological point of view, we conclude that this creature does not belong to the plesiosaurian reptiles."


And Finally:
Quote:
-- Japanese shark-fin processors, who are thoroughly familiar with shark carcasses, identified the animal in Yano's photographs as a shark (Abe 1978).

-- In September 1977, a positively identified basking shark carcass was stranded at Nemuro, Hokkaido, and showed a remarkable resemblance to the Zuiyo-maru carcass found only five months earlier. Describing the September stranding Omura, Mochizuki, and Kamiya (1978, p 59-60) wrote, "The jaws and gill-arches were missing, and the cranium had a somewhat turtle-like appearance...the pectoral and pelvic fins were damaged at their apexes but still remained. The results of this experiment undertaken by nature support the view that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a giant shark that has lost its jaws and gill arches."

Summarizing their findings, Hasegawa and Uyeno (1978) state, "Based on available evidence, we are convinced that this New Zealand creature is not the "New Nessie," that much of the world was hoping for, but more than likely a carcass belonging to a large size shark."


BTW...I am possitive there are undocumented marine species in the oceans and in lakes too. I just don't think this is an example of one.






February 27th, 2008 09:46 AM
PoconoSteve "well scientists say the these plesiosaur didn't have sonar"

No, I meant sonar echos off of research vessels picking very large moving objects up underwater.
February 27th, 2008 10:11 AM
runnah
Quote:
PoconoSteve wrote:
"well scientists say the these plesiosaur didn't have sonar"

No, I meant sonar echos off of research vessels picking very large moving objects up underwater.


What they recorded at Champlain was a series of clicksing noises. This is what dolphins and whales (both mammals) use to locate food. This is called echo location. This was adpated for human purposes and we called it sonar.

Quote:
PoconoSteve wrote:
With all due respect........not a valid arguement against the existence of these cryptids. Let me ask you. Do all places in N. America have BF walking around? Let's take it to an even more mundane example. Where I live some lakes have walleye and some don't. Why?

Remember, not all Scottish lakes were at one time connected to the sea. I will agree w/ you that Champlain is very sparsely vegatated on the bottom. Most deep lakes are, but here's the thing...........it's HUGE and there have been studies done on both lakes in question that state that even though neither are extremely fertile and the creature in question would need a lot of fish to survive, because of the vastness and size of the lake and the proportionately low population of the creatures, the conclusion came out to be that there is plenty of food for the creatures' survival.


Connection to the sea is a flimsy piece of evidence. But remember all over the world there are lakes that were once connected to the sea. Some of which share similar properties to Loch Ness.


But the biggest nail in the coffin of lake mosters is food source.

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH FOOD TO SUPPORT A BREEDING POPULATION.

End of story, no if's and's or but's about it.

The way the food chain works on a lake is as follows.

(For example sake I making up numbers and species but this will give you an idea)

10,000,000 micropscopic organisms
500,000 organisms (bait fish, crawfish, various invertibrates)
10,000 larger fish to feed on the crawfish and bait fish. (bass, pike, sunfish)
1,000 outside predators. (eagles, bears, cat species, humans)

Add in a very large apex preadator, in a large enough population to last 1,000s of years and you are left with little to no food left.


February 27th, 2008 10:24 AM
PoconoSteve runnah,

I was an environmental studies major in college. Please don't read that to imply that I'm an expert on the subject at hand, but I'm also not completely ignorant/uninformed either. Let us just agree to respectfully disagree on the food source subject.

I believe in these creatures as much as I believe in BF (110% convinced) and just as much as I believe that I'm actually sitting here typing this reply.
February 27th, 2008 11:04 AM
runnah
Quote:
PoconoSteve wrote:
runnah,

I was an environmental studies major in college. Please don't read that to imply that I'm an expert on the subject at hand, but I'm also not completely ignorant/uninformed either. Let us just agree to respectfully disagree on the food source subject.

I believe in these creatures as much as I believe in BF (110% convinced) and just as much as I believe that I'm actually sitting here typing this reply.


I won't let you off the hook that easily. ;)

I too also took my fair share of science courses. One of which was based on lake wildlife. I've spent thousands of hours on various lakes in the Northeast, one of which was Lake Champlain.

While Champlain is very large, you can't argue the food source issue. lakes are a closed system that limits creatures to the the lake they dwell in. Unlike like BF, they can't have large ranges that cover multiple habitats. BF can seek food srouces hundred of miles away and from ultiple ecosystems.

Look at the simple chart I posted. Factoring in a large lake creature would be impossible.

With all thehours I spent on lakes I personally have seen some weird stuff. Waves that come out of nowhere in dead calm, partially or fully submerged objects, weird creatures. All of which turn out to be simple common lake things.

Boat wake travels for miles in the right conditions. Various tree pieces constantly fall into the water, most take a few weeks to sink to the bottom. Animals that look weird in rippleing water or when swimming. I've seen deer and moose swim by, various rodents, snakes and just this past summer I saw the biggest snapping turtle I've ever seen swin 2 ft by my kayak.

February 27th, 2008 11:19 AM
PoconoSteve runnah,

We are not going to convince each other of the other's stance on this issue. Like I said.........can we agree to disagree? I'm extremely confident they exist. You're extremely confident they don't. There you have it.
February 27th, 2008 11:21 AM
Andy I live on the Great Lakes.
You would not believe the number of "sightings" of unknown animals that occur here--one of them was a several-day, multiple sighting off Old Fort Niagara (at the mouth of the Niagara River, where there is excellent fishing) & Fort George on the Canadian side of the river. Hundreds of people saw the animal. (Lake Ontario, into which the Niagara runs, is connected via the Seaway to the Atlantic.)

There was a similar sighting in Boston Harbour--several days worth of sightings, hundreds of people. We're talking the whaling/shipping capitol of the world at the time, and a harbour full of people who know when they are looking at something they've never seen before.

So, considering that we are almost clueless about the oceans and the animals therein, I'd say I would be happy to entertain the idea that all those people saw something that just had not been cataloged yet & still has not.

And lake monsters need not be huge--or surviving dinosaurs; they just have to be unfamiliar and large enough to be noticed--nobody is going to call the newspapers for seeing a 6-inch animal that's unfamiliar!!!

You know whose crypto books I like? Dr. Karl Shuker's.
He is a zoologist and writes extensively about cryptozoology--he's very entertaining, but also very serious in his approach.
February 27th, 2008 12:26 PM
LouBob I think that the cryptids with the larger number of sightngs, consistency in report details, and spread of sightings across population, time and distance have a greater chance of being real ... particularly if there are witnesses who knew nothing about the cryptid and wouldn't have been swayed by pre-conceived notions, beliefs or a desire to see it.

I am open to the existence of most cryptids, basically because we simply don't have enough evidence either way in most cases. Mountain gorillas, orangutans and giant squid were once considered myths, and not so long ago. I've had enough experiences with ghosts that I need no convincing there. When they start showing up at weddings and are clearly visible to people who don't even know they're dead, it leaves an impression. And I've had relatives in the military in positions to know about UFOs, so I don't doubt those, either.
February 27th, 2008 12:37 PM
BethinFL I don't know that there are werewolves running around in Michigan, like some sightings of the MI Dogman seem to be, but I definitely believe there are a lot of things out there that we don't know about. The great lakes around Michigan are huge (a friend from California was surprised when she couldn't see across Lake Michigan to Wisconsin). I'm sure there could be all kinds of goodies in there that we're not sure about. Lots of unexplored territory left on this planet. Thank God.
February 27th, 2008 02:19 PM
dtallman As far as other cryptids, ghosts, etc., I can't say that they don't exist. If I did, I would be basing my opinion solely on the fact that I have never seen one. But, I have never seen a BF and yet I believe. So, to keep it fair, I have to leave my mind open and wait for evidence. I believe that so many reports of unknown animals have to come from something, whether one mistaken sighting leads to mass hysteria or someone wanting the attention, I don't know. What I do know is that the people who do say they have seen an unknown animal (those who are geniune) really believe they have seen something. I can't say they are lying because I wasn't there. These sightings of cryptids are so fascinating to me, whether they are real or not. If they are true, then our world is full of things we haven't discovered yet. If they are not, then it proves how the mind can make one believe that something unfamiliar is something unknown. I hope this makes sense?
February 27th, 2008 03:50 PM
runnah
Quote:
dtallman wrote:
I hope this makes sense?


Oh it makes sense. The human mind is a far greater mystery than BF.
February 27th, 2008 04:20 PM
PoconoSteve "Oh it makes sense. The human mind is a far greater mystery than BF."


So you subscribe to the "mass hysteria and halucination" theory when it comes to certain cryptids as well as ghosts?
February 27th, 2008 06:24 PM
davidib For those of you who say there isnt enough food , in the Great lakes. I have to say then youve never seen a small mouth bass run in the Detroit river then. OR a run of shad or All the other big runs of other species of fish.. I And cousins Used to live for the runs, especially the king coho in the Ausable river areas..
February 27th, 2008 08:34 PM
DentonD Of the examples given, I would say: Chupacabra? No. Nessie? No. Champie? Probably not. UFO (and USO)? Probably.

The difference is consistant evidence. Chupacabra seems very much tied to a particular ethnic population which, for whatever reason, seems prone to experience these "sightings". Nessie and Champie have both been studied exhaustively, with very, very little to show. And while most "UFO" sightings are readily explained by prosaic things like Venus and aircraft, there is a very significant number that remain "unexplained". Evidence in these cases includes radar (or sonar) readings, electromagnetic disturbances, photos/video, and excellent eyewitness reports. This strongly suggests that something really is there.

Remember, when it comes to the unknown, it's not a matter of proving it doesn't exist. The burden is on those who would prove something does exist. And that takes tangible evidence.
February 27th, 2008 09:25 PM
firefighter119 Dogman I believe in, I believe in Sassy, I believe in the NJ Devil.
February 27th, 2008 09:55 PM
Bob Naranja
Quote:
PoconoSteve wrote:
Bob, to answer your question I don't believe there is any DNA from Nessie, Champ, or Ogopogo specifically. In fact, I'm fairly positive there isn't. Although if there was it might be treated by most of the scientific community and the general public in much the same manner as the DNA we've got of BF. That is almost completely ignored. Ask people out on the street if they are aware of the fact that we have DNA from hair samples and I think even blood now (from the Snellgrove Lake incident in Ontario........eh?). Of ten people asked, you'll probably have five walk away laughing and not even answer your question and of the five that remain one might know of this fact.



What i was getting at earlier in the thread Steve was the fact that there is nowhere near as much Physical evidence for Cryptid's like you are talking about, than there is for the Big Guy.. ;)

Ok there's the Photo's of the " thing " on the Trawler which could be anything, even something in a Suit or a Basking Shark.. ;)
(Edited by Bob Naranja)
February 27th, 2008 10:47 PM
Beenthereseenthat It's a mangy shark.
Page: 1 2 3