that's great. Lots of books on "forbidden" topics (ancient astronauts etc) are self-published because standard publishers "aren't brave enough" or "not open-minded enough" to accept the manuscripts. There are many deluded people out there.....
Cryptozoology
- Thread starter CZJimmy
- Start date
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I'm saying the whole trying to liven up the thread with a story about the undead is a joke you'd make
~Thylo
Ooh! Livening up a thread with a story about the undead! I love it! What would that be categorised as? A pun? Irony?
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I know right! Some of the best stuff is/was self-published. Fifty Shades of Grey was self-published.
zooboyabroad
Well-Known Member
Personally, I would go pineapples to see a cryptozoological creature alive and in a zoo. As to what creature, I'd probably pick the Loch Ness Monster, or Nessie as some people call it. The thing is that the actual monster could actually be a hundred different things, so here I'll explain what it could actually be or couldn't be.
Most reported Nessie sightings are of multiple large fleshy humps on the surface of Loch Ness, but according to scientists I've heard, these mysterious humps in the water are actually strange wakes on the surface, caused by the unique geology of the lake, or loch, as most freshwater lakes are called in Scotland, as it's built like a giant bathtub, as when boats pass across the water, their wakes sort of bounce off the shores of the loch and reverberate back, often causing these humps on the water, which is what people see.
But of course, there's other types of sightings too. Huge shadows in the water passing under boats and mysterious creatures swimming across the surface are both other common types of Nessie sightings. Besides, not even a plesiosaur (the prehistoric marine reptile that is most often considered to be the actual monster) could make the multiple humps like the ones seen in the water, as they couldn't possibly arch their backs or necks to form more than one hump with the their skeletal structure and all.
I actually don't think that there could be a small and very rarely seen population of plesiosaurs that have somehow quickly adapted to a freshwater environment and have remained completely undiscovered for centuries. Also, the plesiosaur was a reptile, and even aquatic reptiles, being air-breathers, would need to surface quite frequetly to breath, which would make sightings far more common that what they already are, as if that was the true case, the monster would simply be seen far more often and we would have at least a better idea of what it was. If it really was a plesiosaur or some other similar prehistoric aquatic reptile, it would need to evolve gills like a fish to adapt to not having to surface to breathe, but it is still very unlikely for a reptilian fish-like species of creature to exist.
I know that Loch Ness is a very deep lake, and it wouldn't be hard for even a very large creature to hide in the frigid depths, without being discovered by people, but over the years, people have searched pretty much the entire loch using sonar pinging, and they've found a few large sturgeons and Anguilla eels, but nothing like a plesiosaur or some unidentified creature, so I really doubt that there is any chance of plesiosaurs inhabiting the loch.
I could though believe that the Loch Ness Monster could be a species of modern-day animal that is at least somewhat known to inhabit Loch Ness, such as a very large freshwater sturgeon fish or maybe, as suggested by some scientists, a large sub-species of Anguilla eel, a creature that has been confirmed to live in the loch. Some scientists also might think that there is an unidentified species of long-necked freshwater seal that might be the reason for all these reported sightings. But if there's a seal living out there, than it would need to go onto the shore for at least some of the time to rest and raise their young, so I really doubt this seal theory. As for what I personally think the famous Loch Ness Monster could actually be, I think maybe large freshwater sturgeons or a large Anguilla eels, maybe even an undiscovered sub-species of Anguilla.
I do think that it would be absolutely incredible to see a living prehistoric legendary creature, especially a plesiosaur or some other extinct aquatic reptile like it in a zoo or aquarium, especially knowing that this thing you're looking at has caused so much paranoia, controversy, theories, discussion and interest for so many years, ever since the 1930s to be exact. But if someone really did actually uncover the legend of Nessie and figure out what type of animal would really be responsible for all these mysterious sightings. If it turned out be just a bunch of big sturgeons or seals or something like that I would be kind of dissapointed. An Anguilla eel would be kind of cool to see though.
Oh yeah, and if you're interested in the much controversy over Nessie, there's a really cool novel called The Loch by author Steve Alten, who also wrote the highly-acclaimed Meg series, this book, while still being an entirely-fictional story with elements of sci-fi and fantasy in it, has some very interesting accurate information and theories about the Loch Ness Monster, it's also actually where I got some of the information about the legend of Nessie I wrote about here. You all should really check it out if you're interested in Nessie and in cryptozoology in general.
Most reported Nessie sightings are of multiple large fleshy humps on the surface of Loch Ness, but according to scientists I've heard, these mysterious humps in the water are actually strange wakes on the surface, caused by the unique geology of the lake, or loch, as most freshwater lakes are called in Scotland, as it's built like a giant bathtub, as when boats pass across the water, their wakes sort of bounce off the shores of the loch and reverberate back, often causing these humps on the water, which is what people see.
But of course, there's other types of sightings too. Huge shadows in the water passing under boats and mysterious creatures swimming across the surface are both other common types of Nessie sightings. Besides, not even a plesiosaur (the prehistoric marine reptile that is most often considered to be the actual monster) could make the multiple humps like the ones seen in the water, as they couldn't possibly arch their backs or necks to form more than one hump with the their skeletal structure and all.
I actually don't think that there could be a small and very rarely seen population of plesiosaurs that have somehow quickly adapted to a freshwater environment and have remained completely undiscovered for centuries. Also, the plesiosaur was a reptile, and even aquatic reptiles, being air-breathers, would need to surface quite frequetly to breath, which would make sightings far more common that what they already are, as if that was the true case, the monster would simply be seen far more often and we would have at least a better idea of what it was. If it really was a plesiosaur or some other similar prehistoric aquatic reptile, it would need to evolve gills like a fish to adapt to not having to surface to breathe, but it is still very unlikely for a reptilian fish-like species of creature to exist.
I know that Loch Ness is a very deep lake, and it wouldn't be hard for even a very large creature to hide in the frigid depths, without being discovered by people, but over the years, people have searched pretty much the entire loch using sonar pinging, and they've found a few large sturgeons and Anguilla eels, but nothing like a plesiosaur or some unidentified creature, so I really doubt that there is any chance of plesiosaurs inhabiting the loch.
I could though believe that the Loch Ness Monster could be a species of modern-day animal that is at least somewhat known to inhabit Loch Ness, such as a very large freshwater sturgeon fish or maybe, as suggested by some scientists, a large sub-species of Anguilla eel, a creature that has been confirmed to live in the loch. Some scientists also might think that there is an unidentified species of long-necked freshwater seal that might be the reason for all these reported sightings. But if there's a seal living out there, than it would need to go onto the shore for at least some of the time to rest and raise their young, so I really doubt this seal theory. As for what I personally think the famous Loch Ness Monster could actually be, I think maybe large freshwater sturgeons or a large Anguilla eels, maybe even an undiscovered sub-species of Anguilla.
I do think that it would be absolutely incredible to see a living prehistoric legendary creature, especially a plesiosaur or some other extinct aquatic reptile like it in a zoo or aquarium, especially knowing that this thing you're looking at has caused so much paranoia, controversy, theories, discussion and interest for so many years, ever since the 1930s to be exact. But if someone really did actually uncover the legend of Nessie and figure out what type of animal would really be responsible for all these mysterious sightings. If it turned out be just a bunch of big sturgeons or seals or something like that I would be kind of dissapointed. An Anguilla eel would be kind of cool to see though.
Oh yeah, and if you're interested in the much controversy over Nessie, there's a really cool novel called The Loch by author Steve Alten, who also wrote the highly-acclaimed Meg series, this book, while still being an entirely-fictional story with elements of sci-fi and fantasy in it, has some very interesting accurate information and theories about the Loch Ness Monster, it's also actually where I got some of the information about the legend of Nessie I wrote about here. You all should really check it out if you're interested in Nessie and in cryptozoology in general.
zooboyabroad
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't just generally dismiss cryptozoological research as pure nonsense and fantasy. Unfortunately, the public always equalizes this term with daydreamers who are trying to catch monstrous fantasy creatures with a butterfly net and cement.
In its serious version, I'd rather consider c. a rational methodical approach within zoology to "dig deeper", similar to ethnobotany: listen to the native ethnic people, especially to hunters, plant collectors, elders etc and have an open, yet always sceptical ear for their folcloristic tales and myths about the animals known to them. There might been a grain of interesting truth among a lot of human fantasy. Check out farmer's markets and other reloading points of the animal trade with a keen and skilled eye. Control the systematics of the animal collections and old scientific protocols of museums. Read old traveler reports and maybe dig deeper if interested. Most likely, You won't find a Nessie or Bigfoot by doing so-but You might find another animal like the dingiso, Congo Peacock or Kawekaweau. And sometimes, all You have to do is watch TV to discover a new species (Varanus yemenensis).
Sometimes, the cryptid You're looking for might no longer exist-like the Yarri, the Marozi or the Giant Bennu Heron. Still, looking for hints to confirm the actual former existence of that species can be quite interesting and useful.
The so-called "Wild Hominids", just like Nessie and Thylacines, always attract a lot of hoaxers, pranksters and crackpots-just like in the case of the mentioned De Loy's Ape and others. The constant discussion about "Homo floresiensis" as a valid species and its connection to myths about the Ebu Gogo just nourishes this aspect; I personally am rather conservative and coy when it comes to the subject of "Wild hominids".
So true!!! My words exactly!!!
ByeByeBaiji
Member
Baiji for best new "cryptid" 2013. Seriously though, I have to wonder if people will eventually start sighting it the way they sight the Thylacine and other recently extinct species. If I lived in China I would probably be imagining that I saw it all the time, out of hope. I hope the Thylacine is still out there somewhere, and I hope the same for the baiji. Maybe a few are still hiding out in one of the lakes? :[
I won't rule any cryptid out, but I believe in something based on the amount of evidence for it. I would love to see the announcement "NESSIE REAL, PLESIOSAUR IN SCOTLAND!!!" and have it actually be true. I'm all about cryptids, they fascinate me terribly, but I won't place bets on most of them existing. I go mad for sightings of weird colour morphs of tigers and stuff like that. I am especially fond of sightings of recently extinct species, because there's something tangible to believe in. What if there is some elusive population still out there? That intrigues me more than cryptids for which there is little or no convincing evidence.
I won't rule any cryptid out, but I believe in something based on the amount of evidence for it. I would love to see the announcement "NESSIE REAL, PLESIOSAUR IN SCOTLAND!!!" and have it actually be true. I'm all about cryptids, they fascinate me terribly, but I won't place bets on most of them existing. I go mad for sightings of weird colour morphs of tigers and stuff like that. I am especially fond of sightings of recently extinct species, because there's something tangible to believe in. What if there is some elusive population still out there? That intrigues me more than cryptids for which there is little or no convincing evidence.
You and me both sister!
Welcome to ZooChat! I wouldn't not rule any cryptid out as there are some that are just silly and improbable. Recently Extinct species have the best evidence and chance in my opinion.
~Thylo
ByeByeBaiji
Member
You and me both sister!
Welcome to ZooChat! I wouldn't not rule any cryptid out as there are some that are just silly and improbable. Recently Extinct species have the best evidence and chance in my opinion.
~Thylo
Well, I suppose it's hard for me to rule things out because it's hard to provide evidence of something not existing. There many be no reason to believe it exists, but in many cases it's hard to prove that it's impossible for it to be there. I haven't heard of too many cryptids that are so out there that they violate laws of biology or physics or something. Because those wouldn't be cryptids, they'd just be mythical creatures. Even if there's only a 0.000001% chance that a large, undiscovered ape lives in North America somewhere, I can't say it's impossible. I would need to provide proof of that, and I can't.
I'm interested in cryptid sightings from a psychological point of view, too. To me, the notion that there is no bigfoot and nothing close to it, yet people are still 100% convinced it exists and will spend their lives trying to find it, is almost as interesting to me as bigfoot being proved real.Oh yeah, thanks for the welcome. I stumbled upon this forum and found a thread with people being pedantic about taxonomic classifications, so I instantly liked it. XD
Last edited:
Pootle
Well-Known Member
I would need to provide proof of that, and I can't.
Hello and yes as Thylo says, a warm welcome to you.
If you have time to read a few more threads on this forum (do a search on the words Bigfoot and Sasquatch) you will learn how to find a bigfoot for yourself. All the clues and all the tools needed including methodology are contained in threads on this very forum.
I've actually got the main item for attracting Bigfoots already. I just don't have the air-ticket to the US, and the NZ Moehau isn't into the same food items as his American cousin.
ByeByeBaiji
Member
I'm terrible at figuring out what jokes are about. @_@ But I'm assuming you're both alluding to something!
ByeByeBaiji
Member
Ah yes, Finding Bigfoot. I enjoy the occasional reality TV trainwreck, and when I have watched Finding Bigfoot I've found it pretty hilarious. :O I'm just one of those people. It's a bit shameful, considering how much I hate what Animal Planet has become. "Surprisingly Human!" Lol. Not to mention I read a quote from their president stating "We want people to feel before they think." Damn, you succeeded! It's like, the 24-hour pet network. Apparently the only animals worth watching are dogs and cats.
But yeah, as ridiculous as it may be, it is a funny show. I kind of feel bad for the girl on there, though, the field biologist. She says she doesn't believe in bigfoot, and I think it's good to have a skeptic along on the show. I like when they're like "THIS IS DEFINITELY A SQUATCH" and she's basically like "Looks like a dude in a parka to me." I think it's brave of her to be involved in those expeditions...not many people would, they would be way too worried about public opinion. I don't think searching for bigfoot is a particularly fruitful endeavour, but I think too often people in general, not just scientists, are so afraid of compromising their reputations that they won't take a chance on investigating something even a little outside of the mainstream. Sure, she's far outside the mainstream, but I don't blame her for participating as a skeptic. I don't think it's wrong for her to go on those expeditions for fun, and I don't think it should necessarily ruin a person's credibility. Some might say that if she doesn't believe in bigfoot that it's a waste of her time. It's her spare time, and if she wants to spend it traipsing around the woods with some bigfoot hunters, that's her choice. It's an excuse to spend time in the wilderness. :]
Pootle
Well-Known Member
The real reason they make this program so unrealistic and lets face it, cheesy is that it is to make out that Bigfoots are NOT real. Modern science and modern society are not ready to accept the existence of A Squatch or accept the fact that like the fictional Yogi Bear they are very affectionate to a picnic basket full of food if left in their territory. Proper scientific field research such as laying camera traps by food in areas of regular sightings, having sharp objects near food to catch or snag hair and blood samples have all be carried out, possibly with success. Drip feeding the general public with information about their existence is what they do. Once public interest becomes high or once they think the public are close to finding Mr or Mrs Bigfoot they make a ridiculous program to dampen the fire.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
It looks like there really was a big cat roaming the English countryside after all. As I keep saying, all myths are (loosely) based on fact.
"Big cat' was on loose in UK in 1903
A "big cat", identified as a Canadian lynx, was on the loose in the English countryside at the turn of the last century, scientists say."
Read more:
BBC News - 'Big cat' Canadian lynx was on the loose in UK in 1903
"Big cat' was on loose in UK in 1903
A "big cat", identified as a Canadian lynx, was on the loose in the English countryside at the turn of the last century, scientists say."
Read more:
BBC News - 'Big cat' Canadian lynx was on the loose in UK in 1903
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
The Paper written by Darren Naish: Multidisciplinary investigation of a ‘British big cat’: a lynx killed in southern England c. 1903 has numerous errors or the study is flawed and as a paper hold little.
The Introduction is indeed flawed and refers to little science fact but mere heresay evidence written by other people.Where it is written: "In 1980, a live Puma was
captured at Cannich, Inverness-shire; the animal’s scat showed that it had been living wild for an extended period (Shuker 1989)." This statment holds no fact and Shuker is indeed wrong on this issue. The scats in fact were given much debate by the vet at the time, a legend in the vet world and a great zoo inspector, George Rafferty. He said that the puma was indeed feed domestic food stuff and most likely to be of the "whisker" variety! (x-ray, scans and internal investigations gave the conclusion that this was a tame, hand fed "pet" and was a con all made up by Noble himself - The Vet; BBC Televison. George Rafferty.
Therefore the conclusion of this paper is flawed:
This introduction is not fact, it is supposition based on the wild fantasies made up by numerous UK big cat crypto groups. This is just a hypothesis, there is far to much ancedotal heresy wishful thinking and though no one is not denying the archaelogical data, the rest is sadly nonsense.... (Many will say that how can I say this about a research paper, well the answer is in the proof of the research. Not all research papers are viable, truthful, credible and correct)
I'm kind of confused as to whether you read or even understood the paper. You seem to be saying that Blake et al are saying this lynx specimen proves ABCs have/had established populations in the UK. They say nothing even remotely like that. In fact they pretty consistently say the likelihood is that individual animals seen/killed in the wild are escaped or released captive individuals. The bulk of the paper is about this one specimen and the research they did on identifying which speciesit was.
Full paper here for anyone that wants to read it: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
The introduction merely confers to heresy made by people which has no science fact. The intro leads the rest of the paper and towards the conclusion. It is the INTRO that is flawed, the data therein I do not disagree with. One very old find does not prove or lead to any conclusive reporting that "big cats" as these crypto groups keep baying on about to the existence of these mythical cats living wild, roaming free and breeding within the UK.
but the paper doesn't say anything about there being breeding populations in the wild, other than that there is no proof one way or the other.
The Abstract states, for example: "a number of carcasses and captured live specimens have demonstrated the occasional presence within the region of escapees that potentially explain at least some ‘British big cat’ eyewitness records"
The Introduction lists several killed/captured specimens which are a combination of unproven and fully documented, as well as mentioning that all skeletal remains found are hoaxes.
The major part of the paper is solely about proving the specific identity of the lynx specimen.
The Discussion (or Conclusion for you) is about the possibility (rejected by the authors) of late-surviving UK lynxes; showing that the specimen in question had lived the major part of its life in captivity (i.e. it was an individual escapee or released animal); and finally that individual lynx and other cats can survive in the wild if escaped/released, which is demonstrably true.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
The presence within the modern British ecosystem of non-native cats remains controversial. A substantial number of eyewitness accounts describe animals that have been interpreted as Puma (Puma concolor), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), Jungle cat (Felis chaus) and Leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis). Taken alone, it might be possible to dismiss these numerous sightings as misidentifications, hoaxes or hallucinations. However, photographic and field evidence provide support for the presence of non-native felids – popularly dubbed ‘British big cats’ (even though most are not big cats in the strict sense of the term) – within the British countryside. Tracks, hairs and scat reportedly left by non-native felids have been reported, whereas the carcasses of deer, sheep and other species have also been discovered and suggested to provide evidence for the presence of non-native cats in Britain (McGowan 2007). Unfortunately, there has thus far been little effort to present these data within the peer-reviewed literature. Coard (2007), however, showed that bite marks present on Welsh sheep bones correspond to the dentition of a ‘medium-sized felid’ and hence provide support for the existence of exotic felids in the British fauna.
Several carcasses and even captured specimens further demonstrate the occasional presence of non-native cats within the British countryside. Although it can be argued that these individuals represent mere rare escapees – present in the British countryside for a fleeting span of time – it remains little appreciated that the existence of such escapees both verifies and potentially explains – in part – the ‘British big cat’ phenomenon. Two lynxes were reportedly shot in Scotland during the 1920s and apparently sent to London Zoo (Shuker 1989); their current whereabouts are unknown. A Eurasian lynx was shot by a farmer in Suffolk, 1991: the carcass was photographed (Shuker 1995) but was buried in an unknown location. Five Leopard cats have been killed or captured in Britain and two dead Jungle cats (Hayling Island, 1988 and Shropshire, 1989) have been recovered (Shuker 1989; Minter 2011). In 1980, a live Puma was captured at Cannich, Inverness-shire; the animal's scat showed that it had been living wild for an extended period (Shuker 1989). A live Eurasian lynx was captured in London in 2001 (Minter 2011). It is not doubted that these animals were escapes (or, in cases, possibly deliberate releases) from captivity. A popular hypothesis is that exotic felids were only released into the British countryside following the introduction of the 1976 Dangerous Wild Animals Act. However, sightings that substantially pre-date 1976 cast doubt on the idea that this one piece of legislation explains all exotic felid releases in the UK: it seems more likely that escapes and releases have occurred throughout history, and that this continual presence of aliens explains the ‘British big cat’ phenomenon.
Over the years, several skeletal elements claimed to represent the remains of ‘British big cats’ have been discovered within Britain, but (to date) all can be explained as fraudulent. They include a large Panthera skull found near Newton Abbot, Devon, in 1988, fragments of a tiger skull discovered in Exmoor in 1993 and a leopard skull discovered near the River Fowey, Devon, in 1995 (Shuker 1989; Minter 2011). The latter specimen was presented as definitive evidence for the presence of non-native felids in Britain but subsequent investigation revealed the presence of a tropical cockroach ootheca within the skull's nasal cavity, thereby demonstrating an origin in the tropics.
We report here the discovery of a lynx, a medium-sized felid represented by much of the skeleton and by the skin (incorporated into a taxidermy mount) and accessioned as specimen Ab4458 (Figures 1 and 2) in the collections of the Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. This individual was donated by a Mr J. Niblet of Newton Abbot, Devon, south-west England, and accessioned to the collection on 26 February 1903 (Figure 3). The specimen's locality is given in the museum records as ‘Newton Abbot’ (Figure 4). We are confident that this is a reference to the place where it was shot since foreign specimens are clearly marked with their place and country of origin. The associated hand-written records are difficult to read, but it seems that the specimen was shot by a Mr Heb (?) after killing two dogs. Despite a search of local newspaper archives and biological records, we have thus far been unable to find any additional reference to this animal.
The Introduction is indeed flawed and refers to little science fact but mere heresay evidence written by other people.Where it is written: "In 1980, a live Puma was
captured at Cannich, Inverness-shire; the animal’s scat showed that it had been living wild for an extended period (Shuker 1989)." This statment holds no fact and Shuker is indeed wrong on this issue. The scats in fact were given much debate by the vet at the time, a legend in the vet world and a great zoo inspector, George Rafferty. He said that the puma was indeed feed domestic food stuff and most likely to be of the "whisker" variety! (x-ray, scans and internal investigations gave the conclusion that this was a tame, hand fed "pet" and was a con all made up by Noble himself - The Vet; BBC Televison. George Rafferty.
Therefore the conclusion of this paper is flawed:
This introduction is not fact, it is supposition based on the wild fantasies made up by numerous UK big cat crypto groups. This is just a hypothesis, there is far to much ancedotal heresy wishful thinking and though no one is not denying the archaeological data, the rest is sadly nonsense. I am not arguing against the finding of the archaeological means. That part is not disputed. The very matter of Felicity the Puma being wrong as well as McGowan and Minter's, Coard & Shuker, show no fact and little science. Bearing in mind what is said within the paper: The Discussion (or Conclusion for you) is about the possibility (rejected by the authors) of late-surviving UK lynxes. The Authors have rejected it but still reach to some conclusion that such myths according to these crypto groups and people are real when the matter is not the case. All I am saying here, is that the UK big cat crypto groups and people have jumped on this to give credence to their rather odd hobby. The matter is indeed up for discussion.