Agreed. Was confused by "legends" idea. I thought we seemed to be on the same page before!
Cryptozoology
- Thread starter CZJimmy
- Start date
Agreed. Was confused by "legends" idea. I thought we seemed to be on the same page before!
indeed we are on the same page. All we seem to be in disagreement over are specifics, and I trust no hard feelings are taken over such minor debates
Blackduiker
Well-Known Member
Blackduiker
But I don't claim to be an expert redpanda, in zoology or crytozoology. Just fairly well read over the years, so your point is moot. That's why I quote from articles of those who purport to be. Did you not see the links I recently provided, just to give a sampling of what's out there? And again I reiterate, crypotozoology does not just deal with the search for "legends," but any mystery fauna that are "hidden" and yet to be classified, as well as those assumed to be extinct, but still rumored to be continually sighted.
And no, we're not just talking the discovery of new "dung beetles" or "frogletts." But the Thylacine, Dodo, and even the Passenger Pigeon are still reported being sighted from year-to-year, and included in much of the crypto literature. Read some of the works of zoologist/cryptozoologist Dr. Karl Shuker for one. One of the links I provided in my last post.
Am I being accused of "giving a speech" Sun Wukong? Since when is giving your opinion at ZooChat "a speech?" And if I were, that's about half of what I read here anyway. I'm just having fun giving another point of view. I think we take things far to seriously here. We do have a right to speak our own thoughts still, don't we? But it seems that when we do, we're bombarded with "speeches" attacking that view. Did anyone actually take the time to read any of the links I did post? I'm not telling you to accept them, just offering them as food for thought. We're all free to accept or reject any information, according to the dictates of our own reasoning. The evidence, or lack of it, given in each article.
But I don't claim to be an expert redpanda, in zoology or crytozoology. Just fairly well read over the years, so your point is moot. That's why I quote from articles of those who purport to be. Did you not see the links I recently provided, just to give a sampling of what's out there? And again I reiterate, crypotozoology does not just deal with the search for "legends," but any mystery fauna that are "hidden" and yet to be classified, as well as those assumed to be extinct, but still rumored to be continually sighted.
And no, we're not just talking the discovery of new "dung beetles" or "frogletts." But the Thylacine, Dodo, and even the Passenger Pigeon are still reported being sighted from year-to-year, and included in much of the crypto literature. Read some of the works of zoologist/cryptozoologist Dr. Karl Shuker for one. One of the links I provided in my last post.
Am I being accused of "giving a speech" Sun Wukong? Since when is giving your opinion at ZooChat "a speech?" And if I were, that's about half of what I read here anyway. I'm just having fun giving another point of view. I think we take things far to seriously here. We do have a right to speak our own thoughts still, don't we? But it seems that when we do, we're bombarded with "speeches" attacking that view. Did anyone actually take the time to read any of the links I did post? I'm not telling you to accept them, just offering them as food for thought. We're all free to accept or reject any information, according to the dictates of our own reasoning. The evidence, or lack of it, given in each article.
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
Yet the question remains, @Blackduiker: why (once again) the orotund "we"? Are you now using the pluralis majestatis?
There have been no serious and provable sightings of Dodos or Passenger Pigeons in the last 100 years. Trust me, I have read Shuker, Mackay, Heuvelmans, Sanderson etc. probably long time before you did.
Once again: the statement "New zoological discoveries, especially when unexpected or doubted, are pretty much the same as cryptozoology." is incorrect, as the discovery of said "new" dung beetle or froglet or any other new zoological discovery is not mandatorily = cryptozoology.
There have been no serious and provable sightings of Dodos or Passenger Pigeons in the last 100 years. Trust me, I have read Shuker, Mackay, Heuvelmans, Sanderson etc. probably long time before you did.
Once again: the statement "New zoological discoveries, especially when unexpected or doubted, are pretty much the same as cryptozoology." is incorrect, as the discovery of said "new" dung beetle or froglet or any other new zoological discovery is not mandatorily = cryptozoology.
Yet the question remains, @Blackduiker: why (once again) the orotund "we"? Are you now using the pluralis majestatis?
My point exactly. When talking about cryptozoologists you use the "we" form as opposed to "they", the only reason for doing this would be if you regarded yourself as a cryptozoologist.
And please stop assuming that I am ignorant. You say that you are enjoying disagreeing with people yet when I disagree with your view (as most people do) you simply assume that I know nothing about the matter and should read more of your blatantly biased literature.
The discovery of a new animal is not Cryptozoology, but the search for one is. For example, if you told me you'd been on holiday and saw a little green frog that seemed to be using bio luminescence, and I decided it may be a new or believed extinct species and went to go look, that would be cryptozoology.
Not sure if that's what you meant, but thought I'd clarify.
Blackduiker
Well-Known Member
Blackduiker
Obviously "we" is mistaken for me and the cryptozoologists. "We" is anyone at ZooChat of like opinion. When I say we, I'm referring to anyone commenting that may disagree with an opposing view here. I was never referring to myself as being a cryptozoologist.
And why so touchy redpanda? I have never assumed that you were "ignorant." Although I do recall you referring to most anyone that claims to be a Bigfoot eyewitness, in a few earlier posts, as having obviously been mistaken about a bear sighting, regardless of how knowledgeable they may be with bears. Though seeing something capable of walking or running away from them on two legs for extremely long distances. Something I grant you the intelligence to know, is totally impossible for a bear to pull off. And often, at very high speeds. And wow! I'm so hurt by your crack about disagreeing with me "(as most people do)." I really don't care about whether most people agree with me. "Most people," doesn't mean the final analysis is based on a popularity contest concerning any subject. And by the way, it's not my "blatantly biased literature" redpanda. You assume too much. Which again brings the question; have you actually read any of those links? Are you sure they're all biased? I didn't select them with the intent to provide a biased viewpoint.
Sun Wukong, when I mentioned that I am "fairly well read over the years," it's not to be taken as a personal attack, or any doubt as to yours, or anyone elses knowledge and readings of cryptozoology. Maybe you have been reading the literature of Heuvelmans and others way before I ever did(I first discovered a copy of Bernard Heuvelman's 'On The Track of Unknown Animals' in my high school library back in 1969, during my freshman year). I discovered Ivan Sanderson's 'Abominable Snowman: Legend Come to Life' sometime shortly after. Both books are in my personal library. And yes; Shuker, Mackay, along with Green, Dahinden, Meldrum, Krantz, Coleman, etc., etc., etc. I never brought your reading into question Sun Wukong, so don't assume I'm new at this subject either by stating, "probably long time before you did." I'll be 55 this coming Thursday, May 6th.
All this from a misunderstanding of my use, or misuse of the word "we," and my having "fun disagreeing" with others. I meant it (disagreeing) in a light hearted way. Again I say, "we" take this all far too seriously. Our discussions should never get so heated, so that all the fun of chatting is gone. If anyone thinks I've purposely tried to offend them, call them ignorant, or question their knowledge of crypto literature, I apologize. That was never my intent. And I write this with all sincerity.
Obviously "we" is mistaken for me and the cryptozoologists. "We" is anyone at ZooChat of like opinion. When I say we, I'm referring to anyone commenting that may disagree with an opposing view here. I was never referring to myself as being a cryptozoologist.
And why so touchy redpanda? I have never assumed that you were "ignorant." Although I do recall you referring to most anyone that claims to be a Bigfoot eyewitness, in a few earlier posts, as having obviously been mistaken about a bear sighting, regardless of how knowledgeable they may be with bears. Though seeing something capable of walking or running away from them on two legs for extremely long distances. Something I grant you the intelligence to know, is totally impossible for a bear to pull off. And often, at very high speeds. And wow! I'm so hurt by your crack about disagreeing with me "(as most people do)." I really don't care about whether most people agree with me. "Most people," doesn't mean the final analysis is based on a popularity contest concerning any subject. And by the way, it's not my "blatantly biased literature" redpanda. You assume too much. Which again brings the question; have you actually read any of those links? Are you sure they're all biased? I didn't select them with the intent to provide a biased viewpoint.
Sun Wukong, when I mentioned that I am "fairly well read over the years," it's not to be taken as a personal attack, or any doubt as to yours, or anyone elses knowledge and readings of cryptozoology. Maybe you have been reading the literature of Heuvelmans and others way before I ever did(I first discovered a copy of Bernard Heuvelman's 'On The Track of Unknown Animals' in my high school library back in 1969, during my freshman year). I discovered Ivan Sanderson's 'Abominable Snowman: Legend Come to Life' sometime shortly after. Both books are in my personal library. And yes; Shuker, Mackay, along with Green, Dahinden, Meldrum, Krantz, Coleman, etc., etc., etc. I never brought your reading into question Sun Wukong, so don't assume I'm new at this subject either by stating, "probably long time before you did." I'll be 55 this coming Thursday, May 6th.
All this from a misunderstanding of my use, or misuse of the word "we," and my having "fun disagreeing" with others. I meant it (disagreeing) in a light hearted way. Again I say, "we" take this all far too seriously. Our discussions should never get so heated, so that all the fun of chatting is gone. If anyone thinks I've purposely tried to offend them, call them ignorant, or question their knowledge of crypto literature, I apologize. That was never my intent. And I write this with all sincerity.
See, this is the stuff that needs more research. These people are seeing something, but Bigfoot is such a huge leap to make.
Have you seen that dog on youtube that has no front legs and walks on his back feet? Could a bear be in that predicament? Could there be bears that developed this skill for another reason?
I read a book recently about certain patterns of light triggering hallucinations in ordinary people, and I often wonder if certain places in the world may naturally trigger them?
This is why I wish there was more money for cryptozoological research, cause something strange is going on and nobody knows what it is.
I will not go taking this off-topic again (it's a waste of my time and yours) so the answers you are looking for can virtually all be found in previous posts. And for the record, I'm not "touchy" - just getting frustrated that my questions are met not by answers but an ever increasing to-read list. You say that you do not believe me ignorant, then why do this?
And to answer your main points:
Yes people's eyes can deceive them (the still unanswered Nessie example).
No it's not a popularity contest but I value the knowledge and opinions of many on this site so count their agreement in my favour.
And where are these links, I thought you were talking about the website?
Blackduiker
Well-Known Member
Blackduiker
Redpanda, the links are included after several of my previous posts on this "cryptozoology" thread. I only provided those because they give a much more thorough view than I possibly could. I don't intend to provide any others. I also value the views and opinions of those at this site, but do appreciate others that have researched certain alleged hidden animals as well.
And yes Devi, I've seen the videos of the two legged dog. But just can't accept that thousands, including Native Americans since centuries past, are all seeing two legged bears that have adapted total bipedal locomotion. Nor that all the accumulated sightings throughout the world, could possibly be explained away as hallucinations. But that's my personal opinion. I respect the opinion of others that don't see things as I do.
Redpanda, the links are included after several of my previous posts on this "cryptozoology" thread. I only provided those because they give a much more thorough view than I possibly could. I don't intend to provide any others. I also value the views and opinions of those at this site, but do appreciate others that have researched certain alleged hidden animals as well.
And yes Devi, I've seen the videos of the two legged dog. But just can't accept that thousands, including Native Americans since centuries past, are all seeing two legged bears that have adapted total bipedal locomotion. Nor that all the accumulated sightings throughout the world, could possibly be explained away as hallucinations. But that's my personal opinion. I respect the opinion of others that don't see things as I do.
And yes Devi, I've seen the videos of the two legged dog. But just can't accept that thousands, including Native Americans since centuries past, are all seeing two legged bears that have adapted total bipedal locomotion. Nor that all the accumulated sightings throughout the world, could possibly be explained away as hallucinations. But that's my personal opinion. I respect the opinion of others that don't see things as I do.
I'm not saying that is the explanation, just stating there must be something going on. Thousands of people claim to have seen Bigfoot, similarly Nessie, Champ, etc etc. Somebody needs to be putting research into what is going on, whether it be unusual or totally mundane. The thing that gets to me is that nobody is putting the time or money into it. I know it's not so easy, but I guess I wish it was.
time to kick this thread off again I think, with this stupid beast: 'Monster' spotted in Iceland lake - Yahoo!7
Pity Baldur won't be giving any input into this one.
I like the jocular comment on the article: "Definitely a Lagarfljótsormurinn, anyone can see that."
Pity Baldur won't be giving any input into this one.
I like the jocular comment on the article: "Definitely a Lagarfljótsormurinn, anyone can see that."
That's definitely a snake without a doubt, you can clearly see it's head. I'd hazard a guess at a yellow anaconda from the head shape and colouring.
However, they couldn't survive in Iceland and I don't think any reptile would be happy in a snowy, icy lake, so I figure it's either an escaped pet or a deliberately faked video with a snake chucked in a lake.
Or maybe it's some new species of giant ice snake?
adrian1963
Well-Known Member
If Carl’sburgh could make snakes they would probably make?
hadrada
Well-Known Member
Pootle
Well-Known Member
I'd like to know why it's black-and-white.
Hix
Iceland is pretty old fashioned so it still exists to this day only in black and white.
I too initially thought it looked a bit like a Lagarfljótsormurinn at first sighting
but then resigned myself that it is about a real as the discovery a Yeti's nest in a tree in remotest Russia.
I have never seen a snake swimming with its whole body at the surface. I say fake not snake
Alan
Alan