Cryptozoology

[jbnbsn99]

Something we should all remember when talking about cryptozoology is a well known saying -

"The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence"

 

[Blackduiker]

Blackduiker

I am aware of this website, but it does not convince me. Nor does the BFRO itself convince me when it labels itself a scientific organisation.

I would argue that a hairy "large upright bipedal 9 foot primate" looks very similar to a hairy large upright bipedal (were you aware that they both mean pretty much the same?) 9 foot ursid when seen from a distance. Again I present to you the example of Nessie, thousands have mistaken rocks, drain-pipes and even seagulls for a 45 feet long plesiosaur so a bear for a "Bigfoot" is not too much of a stretch. Furthermore, I would imagine you agree that at least the majority of sightings are either hoaxes, cases of misidentity or simply wishful thinking and, as such, have answered your own question on whether people can be wrong.

Blackduiker: Oh, but you wouldn't argue that the ursid seen at any distance, near or far, could flee at great speeds still on only those two legs would you redpanda? I think not. I give you more logic than that.

Quote=Redpanda I am aware of how remote areas of the Pacific Northwest are thank you (as I said to Ituri, I have been there). But if you think about it, there are suprisingly few virtually uninhabited areas of pristine wilderness free of roads and hunters large enough to support a thriving population of "Bigfoot".

Blackduiker: Well in answer to this segment of your debate, let's take my home state of California for starters, America's most populous by far, and third largest in size; Last counted at some 36,457,549 residents(though we are now in the midst of the 2010 nationwide census, and those numbers will rise even higher). That's some 12 percent of the overall U.S. population. And consisting of some 169,696 square miles. Over 19 million cars, drive the 167,981 miles of recognized highways on a daily basis, throughout the year. Now of this total state population, more than 25 million people live in only four urban centers, comprising only 5.6 percent of California's total area; Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento. And remember, we're referring to America's third largest state in land mass. Much of the rest of California is quite wild, and ranges from inhospitable deserts to snow capped mountains; higher than any others found in the lower 48 states. Some 100 peaks over 13,000 feet. Our National Parks, some of them quite huge, include Yosemite, Death Valley, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Joshua Tree, Channel Islands, Lassen Volcanic, and Redwoods. In addition to these, California has 18 National Forests, and 8 State Parks, covering 31,927 square miles or 19.5 percent of the states total area. The Colorado Desert covers 2,500 square miles, while the Mojave (shared with Arizona and Nevada, which I just drove across less than a week ago) and Sonora (extending into Arizona and Mexico) spread over 22,000 and 120,000 square miles, respectively. In and around those forests and deserts, California has 140 designated wilderness areas. We're talking millions of acres in all!

Has all of the state been properly explored, surveyed and mapped? Not exactly. I'm now quoting a couple of paragraphs from Michael Newton's 'Strange California Monsters': "When Zoologist Ivan Sanderson prepared his classic global survey of unknown primates, published in 1961, he discovered that the region between San Francisco and the Oregon border had been "surveyed" only once--in 1859. As Sanderson explained, 'The survey was ostensibly made on a 1-mile grid; that is to say the surveyor was supposed to walk a mile north, south, east, or west, take a fix and drive a stake, and continue doing this until he reached some previously selected line at the other end that linked up with the next survey.'
"In fact, however, the land is so rugged that surveyors barely penetrated its fringes, marking locations of visible peaks and accessible settlements, following rivers or trails, and then completing grids on paper from a combination of logic and imagination. Page after page of the surveyors' notebooks--preserved to this day at San Francisco's Land Office--are totally blank. In later generations, aerial and satellite photography filled in some of the gaps, but those photos tell us little or nothing about the wildlife found at ground-level. In effect, much of that territory remains unexplored today." Page 13. (See also Ivan Sanderson's, Abominable Snowmen, pp. 100-102.


Quote=Redpanda Furthermore, sightings are scattered and not concentrated in these areas. Not only this, but I would argue that the Virungas are more "remote" and difficult to navigate, yet it took ethologists like Fossey and Schaller a lot less than 150 years to find the gorillas (and think of how many people are looking and have looked for "Bigfoot")!

Blackduiker: The Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla, gorilla) was not officially recognized by science until 1847. But the Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringa) was not "discovered" until the 20th century, despite many expeditions to Africa by museums, zoos, and universities, specifically for Gorillas. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier, when local native accounts of a monster ape (ngagi and ngila), first came to the attention of Western scientists, living on the misty heights of the Virunga Volcanoes of eastern African, they were dismissed as "absurd legends." Sound familiar? In 1898, a trekker named Ewart Grogan, found a Mountain Gorilla skeleton, but as in other cases of supposedly "unknown animal" finds, he failed to bring the evidence down with him. It wasn't until October 1902, that Belgian army captain von Beringe and a companion, finally killed two gorillas on the Virungas' Mount Sabinio. After both specimens had fallen into a valley, it was only after much effort that Beringe and his companion were able to recover one of the bodies, and prove the natives legends of the Mountain Gorilla to be true.

Quote=Redpand And please don't ask me to talk from fact rather than presumption when you're arguing for the existence of an undiscovered hominid in one of the world's most developed nations with no more than a few blurred photographs (most of which have been uncovered as hoaxes) and the testimonies of ramblers who wouldn't know a bear from a coyote as proof. A case of practice what you preach methinks.

Blackduiker: Again redpanda, you question the intelligence of multiple witnesses. Many that would know the local bears better than probably any of us here at ZooChat. Seeing that many have encountered the local fauna their entire lives.

Quote=Redpanda Finally, I will point out that you haven't actually addressed any of my points. Why do descriptions vary so widely? Why are sightings so spread out? Why has a body never been found? Why has there never been clear photographic evidence? Why has the creature not yet been discovered?

Blackduiker: The reason I point out the website. For they can explain the evidence, or lack of evidence, far more thoroughly than either you or I can. Or I can give you a vast bibliography that handles this same old objection, taken from my personal library, or referenced from many other books I've been reading since 1969.

Quote=Redpanda I welcome explanations, because right now I can only think of one good one.

Blackduiker: Please keep an open mind. And remember, it was revered French biologist Baron Georges Cuvier, considered the father of paleontology, that declared in 1812 the end of the age of zoological discoveries. CUVIER'S RASH DICTUM.

 

[redpanda]

Blackduiker: Please keep an open mind. And remember, it was revered French biologist Baron Georges Cuvier, considered the father of paleontology, that declared in 1812 the end of the age of zoological discoveries. CUVIER'S RASH DICTUM.

I do tend to have a reasonably open mind on these things and certainly did not dismiss this out of hand. Indeed, having weighed up the evidence for and against "Bigfoot's" proposed existence I see only one reasonable conclusion: that there is not a species of undiscovered primate roaming North America and sightings are the result of misidentification, hoaxes and simple wishful thinking. This is not the same as Cuvier's proclamation as that evidently did not weigh up the available evidence as such a renowned zoologist should have realised that so much of the world remained unexplored at that time. Would you like me to quote to you the fact that Sir Peter Scott lost a great deal of credibility in the zoological world for giving the Loch Ness Monster a latin name before its discovery. No? Well then I think that proves that an only vaguely related mistake one person made many years ago has little relevance on the Sasquatch debate.

By the way, this is my thousandth post

EDIT: I just realised that you answered my points in your quote, standby for a reply.

 

[redpanda]

Blackduiker: Oh, but you wouldn't argue that the ursid seen at any distance, near or far, could flee at great speeds still on only those two legs would you redpanda? I think not. I give you more logic than that.

Thank you, I’m flattered. And if you read my post you would see that I attribute a number of combined factors to explain “Bigfoot” sightings. Perhaps those who see the animals on hind legs see a different animal from a distance and their mind plays tricks on them (this would predominantly be the case with tourists), perhaps they even see another human from far away. Like I said, I don’t have all the answers but when people can mistake a drain-pipe for Nessie I is hardly inconceivable that people see an animal n the american wilderness, don’t know what it is and think it’s “Bigfoot”.

Blackduiker: Well in answer to this segment of your debate, let's take my home state of California for starters, America's most populous by far, and third largest in size; Last counted at some 36,457,549 residents(though we are now in the midst of the 2010 nationwide census, and those numbers will rise even higher). That's some 12 percent of the overall U.S. population. And consisting of some 169,696 square miles. Over 19 million cars, drive the 167,981 miles of recognized highways on a daily basis, throughout the year. Now of this total state population, more than 25 million people live in only four urban centers, comprising only 5.6 percent of California's total area; Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento. And remember, we're referring to America's third largest state in land mass. Much of the rest of California is quite wild, and ranges from inhospitable deserts to snow capped mountains; higher than any others found in the lower 48 states. Some 100 peaks over 13,000 feet. Our National Parks, some of them quite huge, include Yosemite, Death Valley, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Joshua Tree, Channel Islands, Lassen Volcanic, and Redwoods. In addition to these, California has 18 National Forests, and 8 State Parks, covering 31,927 square miles or 19.5 percent of the states total area. The Colorado Desert covers 2,500 square miles, while the Mojave (shared with Arizona and Nevada, which I just drove across less than a week ago) and Sonora (extending into Arizona and Mexico) spread over 22,000 and 120,000 square miles, respectively. In and around those forests and deserts, California has 140 designated wilderness areas. We're talking millions of acres in all!

Has all of the state been properly explored, surveyed and mapped? Not exactly. I'm now quoting a couple of paragraphs from Michael Newton's 'Strange California Monsters': "When Zoologist Ivan Sanderson prepared his classic global survey of unknown primates, published in 1961, he discovered that the region between San Francisco and the Oregon border had been "surveyed" only once--in 1859. As Sanderson explained, 'The survey was ostensibly made on a 1-mile grid; that is to say the surveyor was supposed to walk a mile north, south, east, or west, take a fix and drive a stake, and continue doing this until he reached some previously selected line at the other end that linked up with the next survey.'
"In fact, however, the land is so rugged that surveyors barely penetrated its fringes, marking locations of visible peaks and accessible settlements, following rivers or trails, and then completing grids on paper from a combination of logic and imagination. Page after page of the surveyors' notebooks--preserved to this day at San Francisco's Land Office--are totally blank. In later generations, aerial and satellite photography filled in some of the gaps, but those photos tell us little or nothing about the wildlife found at ground-level. In effect, much of that territory remains unexplored today." Page 13. (See also Ivan Sanderson's, Abominable Snowmen, pp. 100-102.

I’m not saying that the whole of America has been covered, but my point is that those areas which have not been are generally fragmented by networks of rail, road and farmland. Not only this, but places like Yosemite and Redwood have to be ruled out as Sasquatch habitat due to the number of visitors they get and the fact that there are wardens who are experts in the local wildlife. In my mind, this rules out what would likely be some of the best and most pristine “Bigfoot” habitat making it seem unlikely that they would be found elsewhere. Furthermore, if you consider that sightings are spread across the Pacific Northwest then you would have to conclude that there would be a number of fragmented populations. This does not lend itself to the survival of the species and one would have thought that if it were the case, the animals would begin straying out of their areas into perhaps more populated areas or onto roads or whatever. If this happened enough, the chances are one would be captured or shot and this has not happened. This is not to mention that much of your native California is certainly not typical ape habitat (all other species residing in rainforest) and I would highly doubt that they would be able to find enough food there.

Blackduiker: The Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla, gorilla) was not officially recognized by science until 1847. But the Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringa) was not "discovered" until the 20th century, despite many expeditions to Africa by museums, zoos, and universities, specifically for Gorillas. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier, when local native accounts of a monster ape (ngagi and ngila), first came to the attention of Western scientists, living on the misty heights of the Virunga Volcanoes of eastern African, they were dismissed as "absurd legends." Sound familiar? In 1898, a trekker named Ewart Grogan, found a Mountain Gorilla skeleton, but as in other cases of supposedly "unknown animal" finds, he failed to bring the evidence down with him. It wasn't until October 1902, that Belgian army captain von Beringe and a companion, finally killed two gorillas on the Virungas' Mount Sabinio. After both specimens had fallen into a valley, it was only after much effort that Beringe and his companion were able to recover one of the bodies, and prove the natives legends of the Mountain Gorilla to be true.

There is a slight difference between early nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. Technology has advanced a great deal and with the advent of modern firearms and video cameras, a great deal more people go out shooting (with both). As such, I would expect if there really were a “Bigfoot” for there to be reasonably solid and regular photographic evidence (after all, the Patterson-Gimlin animal was hardly hasty in its retreat) as well as animals being killed by hunters. Not only this, but with the number of scientists (and I use that term lightly) that have tried to come up with a specimen over the years, one would have thought that – as with the gorillas – an animal would have turned up eventually.

Blackduiker: Again redpanda, you question the intelligence of multiple witnesses. Many that would know the local bears better than probably any of us here at ZooChat. Seeing that many have encountered the local fauna their entire lives.

Not intelligence, no. As I have said multiple times, it is not questioning intelligence to say that someone’s subconscious was mistaken. I would imagine that you don’t believe in Nessie (and heaven help us if you do) but if you don’t, then are you not “questioning the intelligence of multiple witnesses”. Like I said, I don’t have all the answers but I once mistook an evidently fake plastic crocodile in a zoo to be a real one. I have seen numerous real crocodiles and know exactly what they look like, but my subconscious just made an incorrect assumption. It could very well be the same for people, even very knowledgeable people, who claim to have seen a Sasquatch.

Blackduiker: The reason I point out the website. For they can explain the evidence, or lack of evidence, far more thoroughly than either you or I can. Or I can give you a vast bibliography that handles this same old objection, taken from my personal library, or referenced from many other books I've been reading since 1969..

The bibliography would be preferable since I generally can’t stand that website.

 

[Zambar]

Would you like me to quote to you the fact that Sir Peter Scott lost a great deal of credibility in the zoological world for giving the Loch Ness Monster a latin name before its discovery. No? Well then I think that proves that an only vaguely related mistake one person made many years ago has little relevance on the Sasquatch debate.

I think he retaliated by saying it was an anagram of 'Monster Hoax'.

Either way, judging by his post I think Blackduiker has sub-concoiusly admitted defeat.

 

[Chlidonias]

I think he retaliated by saying it was an anagram of 'Monster Hoax'.

not quite right there. The scientific binomen that Sir Peter Scott gave the Loch Ness Monster in 1975 was Nessiteras rhombopteryx (Greek for "The Ness monster with diamond-shaped fin), after the famous underwater "fin" photo. It was journalists who came up with the anagram "monster hoax by Sir Peter S." (not Sir Peter himself). Nessie researcher Dr Robert Rines replied with his own anagram: "Yes, both pix are monsters--R."

Sir Peter did believe quite implicitly in the Loch Ness Monster, the reason he gave the "Latin" name was an attempt to give it scientific credibility in order to get some legal protection for it

 

[MARK]

Interesting subject, I read a book "on the net" a couple of years ago written by an (well known hunter, he was hired out by shooters to take them to the best bear country) old time bear hunter in the Pacific north west, almost all the book contained his adventures hunting down giant bears but there was a very small segment where he did speak about seeing them (Bigfoot) and states how rare they were, with all the time he had spent in the forest (many years) he had only seen them about six times one of which was very close within metres on a dirt track. Another time he states he was came around a head on the coast and saw what he thought was a bear at one of his fishing nets untill it stood upright, I think this guy first name could have been Tom ????, It was an interesting read, (I think the book could of been from the 1940s)

 

[Sun Wukong]

From what I read and heard, limb and facial structures do not vary completely in most of the (serious) accounts. And given the situation, individual animals also react either aggressively or back up and flee.

If I remember correctly, there have been reports of (almost) traffic collisions involving Sasquatches; however, none of them seemed to have been fatal for the big-footed guys.
"I fail to see how they would go continually unnoticed." I asked myself the same question in regard to various other larger, former "cryptids".

"And yet there are a number of pictures of "Bigfoot" but as I said before, virtually all can be proved to be another species or a hoax." Or they are at least dubious: like the Patterson movie (which I think is a hoax, but is considered by some smart people to be real...).

What are "spontaneous deaths"? Wild animals hardly have a stroke out of a sudden...Even a death caused by a predator or an accident will result in the corpse being eaten by scavangers and decomposting.

"Well as thinking that the Sasquatch exists is a belief, I maintain my right to use this word when discussing it."

Serious cryptozoology is not about "believes", but factual approaches to zoological questions/so far unknown animals. If you want to "believe" in Sasquatch or not, then this is your personal viewpoint, but not a base for a discussion. The same goes for people who think the "I want to believe" credo will make wild hominids fall out of the sky...

"I saw a furry, long-eared species of lagamorph in my local pet shop today, should I check it out with the IUCN?"

"However, the evidence against "Bigfoot's" existence is, in my opinion, a great deal more compelling than the evidence for."
Indeed, it is; but that's no reason to take refuge in poor humor and try to get into personal insults.

I agree with you @redpanda that most sightings of any so-called "cryptids" are based of a) misinterpretations of already known animals, b) superstition and c) hoaxes. However, there is still a number of reports that can't be explained by a)-c). Whatever is behind them might be solved in the future one day.

In general, keeping an open mind in regard to this subject while remaing still skeptic (and not too overly sarky...) and grounded on reality is imho the best way to deal with it.
Like I wrote several posts before, I do think that the less known & popular cryptids are quite more likely based on (sometimes yet unknown) creatures than the popular "crypto monsters", as the latter attract way too much attention and thus hoaxers.
In regard to Sasquatch, I find the following quote by a popular cryptozoologist quite entertaining:

"On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, I'm convinced that Bigfoot exists. On Thursday, Friday and Saturday, the idea that a huge bipedal primate roams the USA seems highly implausible to me. On Sunday, I take a rest and do not think of Bigfoot at all". Having said this-have a nice Sunday.

 

[Pertinax]

probably the first camera trap set up to try and record a thylacine was by Guiler himself in 1967 I believe

Quite possibly. Such equipment wouldn't have been available to David Fleay when he did his searches.

From his book, Eric Guiler seemed convinced there were still Thylacines on the Woolnorth property in the NW corner of the island when he was doing his searches- he just couldn't prove it...(like so many others before and after!).

 

[redpanda]

Or they exist, and no has suceeded to shoot one fatally so far.

Indeed, but in your post it sounded rather like you were presenting this as the only scenario - I was simply giving you another one.

From what I read and heard, limb and facial structures do not vary completely in most of the (serious) accounts. And given the situation, individual animals also react either aggressively or back up and flee.

Yes they do, whilst some describe more orangutan like animals with short legs and long arms, others talk of virtually human shapes. Same with faces, some have chins which stick out whilst others foreheads for example. But they don't all back up and flee, in the afforementioned Patterson film the animal is quite calmly walking away from the human chasing after it. Meanwhile, others are a great deal more skittish whilst some are claimed to throw rocks and be highly aggressive.

If I remember correctly, there have been reports of (almost) traffic collisions involving Sasquatches; however, none of them seemed to have been fatal for the big-footed guys.

There's that word "almost" again - perhaps they all have a car repellant forcefeld as well. I fail to see how someone in a car which is speeding along would get a clear enough look at the animal it hit to say what it definitively was. Presumably if they had that long, they would have time to stop!

"What are "spontaneous deaths"? Wild animals hardly have a stroke out of a sudden...Even a death caused by a predator or an accident will result in the corpse being eaten by scavangers and decomposting.

Fair enough, various viral diseases that would have been brought to the west by travellers. These have been shown to kill other apes (like Goodall's chimps) as well as the American Indians who did not have an immunity to them. And even if corpses are eaten/decompose the bones, for example, are generally not favoured so should we not at least have these?

 

[adrian1963]

I know this may sound a little bit off the thread but here we are all on about what if's and do they actually live.
With so much land and sea still to be discovered (searched and mapped accuratley) we can only wonder.
But untill the day someone comes forward with either a live or dead corpse then all we can do is wonder.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT??

 

[redpanda]

I know this may sound a little bit off the thread but here we are all on about what if's and do they actually live.
With so much land and sea still to be discovered (searched and mapped accuratley) we can only wonder.
But untill the day someone comes forward with either a live or dead corpse then all we can do is wonder.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT??

Believe what or not?

 

[adrian1963]

I mean (don't mean to offend anyone) it's up to yuoself what you believe and no matter what anyone else say's or tries to tell you then you or anyone will never change there minds untill there is real proof that it does or doesn't exsist
I for one have an open mind on the matter.

 

[Orycteropus]

Chupacabra

Just for relaxation ...

Was that a chupacabra crossing the road in Ann Arbor? - AnnArbor.com

See video "Chupacabra Mystery Finally Revealed"

 

[Cat-Man]

(very early comments) i just checked on wiki and the gassoline tank that the money was ment 2 be sitting on was around 18 inches tall

 

[Chlidonias]

(very early comments) i just checked on wiki and the gassoline tank that the money was ment 2 be sitting on was around 18 inches tall

fascinating

 

[Cat-Man]

fascinating

sorry just to clarify was that a sarcastic comment?

 

[Sun Wukong]

What's the Australian members view on the Yarri or Queensland Tiger?
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Tiger]Queensland Tiger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Chlidonias]

(I'm not from Australia, but) I've always liked the Queensland tiger as a mystery animal. It's only rarely reported and there's nothing supernatural or even particularly unusual about any of them, unlike Bigfoot or thunderbirds for example. The reports of sightings tend to be quite as believable as those that might be given about any other real animal seen. Particularly interesting in my view are that Norwegian zoologist Carl Lumholtz in the early 1880s was given details of the animal by the local Aborigines along with factual information on now-known species. I also like that there was a matter-of-fact story of a "tiger-cat" efficiently killing a kangaroo in one of the books by Ion Idriess who wrote fictional stories based on his own real experiences in Australia. I have no idea as to what the Queensland tiger may be if it exists, but Thylacoleo certainly holds a great deal of appeal to me.

 

[Devi]

I wanted to add something that doesn't seem to have been discussed here yet. Population size.
For example, the Okapi, which was discovered fairly recently, has an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 left in the wild. This is a fairly big number to be hiding behind trees.
In the worst case scenario, a species could survive for a good few years, maybe 50 or so with a much smaller number, for example 10 or 20, they would eventually die out, but a population of a few dozen could easily hide in some remote place. Thylacines or some other recently extinct species, maybe not even discovered, could still have individuals about.
As for comments about cameras running out, I don't know about you, but I rarely have a camera on me, and I'm even less likely to get it out if I spot something that I don't recognise, human nature means we often move closer to investigate, which would scare a shy animal away.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that speculation, either skeptical or hopeful, is counter productive. Those who want to see something may well project it, and those who don't believe may dismiss something important as nonsense.
The scientific way should always be unbiased investigation. Follow the sightings, work out what's going on, and keep an open mind either way.