Cryptozoology

[Serpentine]

Ever seen an animal you couldn't identify? Heard any stories - traditional or modern - about strange creatures in your area? Have an interest in mysterious beasts? etc etc so on and so forth?

Been a little while, so thought I'd start another. Well, really, it was these articles I found in an old newspaper. I'm curious to know whether anyone can identify any of them (or draw a cool artist's impression =D):


The 'Newcastle Herald' says:- A cor-
respondent at Akaroa sends us the fol-
lowing:- "Mr. George Wright, who was
outside the Heads fishing on Thursday
last, got fast to a monster, which he suc-
ceeded in bringing to the surface, but
owing to its enormous size he had to cut
the line. He describes the fish as being
about 24ft long; his head was something
the shape of a shark's, quite smooth on
the top, but his back was covered with
small spikes about 2in. or 3in. long. He
had two large fins on the back, which was
striped something like a gurnett, blue and
red skin. The tail was about 4ft. from
fin to fin. When hauled up first he
came open-mouthed at the boat and struck
itat the side, almost capsizing it. The
width of its open mouth would be nearly
3ft. The above account can be relied on,
as Mr. Wright is well-known here, and
has been fishing from a boy, but says that
he never saw anything of this description before."

...

...from the Columbus 'Times':- "...
on the plantation of Mr. O.C. O'Neal, who
lives near Calaula depot, on the Columbus
and Rome Railroad...
a strange bird, almost white with a red
head, dropped down... into the basket into which the
negro was emptying cotton from his
wallet. The bird was perfectly tame,
and made no effort to get away...
(T)he bird jumped down on the
ground, ran along in front of (O'Neal) for a
short distance, and then suddently (sic) flew
up, and continued to go up and up in a
short circle until it was out of sight."

...

The editor of the Jasper 'Spirit of the
Times' has in his office the leg of a black
eagle killed a few days ago in that neigh-
bourhood. The claws were eighteen inches
and three-eighths from point to point,
and the wings eight feet four inches from
tip to top. A large hog was being de-
vowered by this bird of freedom when it
was shot.

[Eldan]

No idea right now on numbers one and three, but is number 2 a chicken?

[bosssmiley]

big-ass catfish
an albino turkey
local equivalent of Harst's Eagle

cryptozoo blog (http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/)

[UnChosenOne]

2 one is somesort of chicken. But if you are interested about this sort of stuff there is some guite good videos in youtube (though 90% of youtubes videos about cryptozoology are guite bad).

[thorgrim29]

big-ass catfish

A 20 foot long catfish? say 12 allowing for adrenalin fueled fishemen's tale, still a big enormus no?

[Avilan the Grey]

There are far more interesting cases out there. My personal favourite is the Nandi Bear.

[Keld Denar]

There was a huge catfish caught off Thailand, IIRC, a couple years ago. Its was massive. I remember the picture had like, a dozen people standing behind it, it was that big.

[Cobra_Ikari]

Searches seem to say that 9' is the biggest catfish ever caught. That fish was HUGE. O_o

If it was on the ocean...maybe a whale shark? Dunno. *shrugs*

[Trog]

Around here in western Wisconsin there was a sighting of this (http://www.cnb-scene.com/manbat.html).

[billtodamax]

You have a batman villain living in your state.

[Jack Squat]

Not me, but my dad. He lived up in Tacoma, and went inland some with one of his buddies to go elk hunting. They were walking through the woods when they hear a series of crashes, kinda as if something is running through the forest. They went hear the sound (because it wouldn't make a good story otherwise), and there was a path of trees snapped off at upper-chest-to-head height, as if something knocked them down.

They headed straight back to the little VW bug they parked at the road nearby, and drove home.

No idea what it was, my dad thinks it was Bigfoot (which is supposedly common in the area). I say it's a T-Rex. Either one's probably as likely.

[Rutskarn]

Witnesses have reported fleeting glimpses of this (http://www.chocolatehammer.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/rutskarn.jpg)in my area.

They report it has an aversion to sunlight and an overpowering, rotting-egg musk.

[SDF]

Witnesses have reported fleeting glimpses of this (http://www.chocolatehammer.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/rutskarn.jpg)in my area.

They report it has an aversion to sunlight and an overpowering, rotting-egg musk.

Those are mostly harmless, if you get them neutered.

[darkblust]

Oh my gosh!Their is a dead dude running around castle choler!

[Rutskarn]

Those are mostly harmless, if you get them neutered.

I can personally attest to this.

[Yulian]

Many modern people have insufficient knowledge or experience with wildlife to very often make a good, solid ID on an unfamiliar animal.

Ignorance of certain natural processes doesn't help either.

Lookee here:

http://the5thdimension.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/montauk-monster2.jpg

That is the "Montauk Monster". People spent weeks making noise over this.

I was amused, and posted it on a firearms/hunting/survival board I am on.

We ID'd it as a dead dog or raccoon almost immediately. Someone got a good pic of a raccoon skull and that was settled.

Of course, that's exactly what it was.

Ever notice cryptozoology is one of those "scientific disciplines" with an effectively complete failure rate? I cannot recall a single case of any cryptid being actively sought ever actually being proven to exist.

The gorilla, coelacanth, and okapi don't count. All were known by indigenous peoples, and physical evidence, once obtained, was clear, easy to analyze, and irrefutable. No garbled accounts or blurry pictures. There were skins, specimens, and so on.

That and really, aside from the gorilla, they're hardly that singular-looking. You have a blue, ugly fish, and a gazelle-looking thing.

And you just can't stop some of those people from believing nonsense. Like "rods". You set up nets, film rods flying into the nets and getting caught, then go pick the flying insects out of the nets that a camera turns into "rods" and people still try and make like they're real.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&langpair=zh-CN|en&u=http://tech.sina.com.cn/d/2006-01-23/2211827624.shtml

Please to be forgiving very much bad Engrish in linking.

- Yulian

[Rutskarn]

Yulian: Wasn't that on Penn and Teller's BS? I swear that exact scenario was given in detail.

[Justyn]

A 20 foot long catfish? say 12 allowing for adrenalin fueled fishemen's tale, still a big enormus no?

This (http://www.meditationexpert.com/images/catfish.jpg) may not be twenty feet, but it's still pretty damn big.

[Cobra_Ikari]

This (http://www.meditationexpert.com/images/catfish.jpg) may not be twenty feet, but it's still pretty damn big.

I'm almost certain that's a whale shark, not a catfish. But whale sharks can hit 60' in length.

Maybe I should look for a pic of a baby whale shark...

[Justyn]

I'm almost certain that's a whale shark, not a catfish. But whale sharks can hit 60' in length.

Maybe I should look for a pic of a baby whale shark...

Well that'll show me for not reading the commentary of the article. :smallsigh:

[Ravens_cry]

A 20 foot long catfish? say 12 allowing for adrenalin fueled fishemen's tale, still a big enormus no?
Sturgeonhave those 'whiskers' distinctive to catfish and approach such lengths. Some are even said to surpass. A drunken, amateur fisherman may very well mistake the two. That's the Raven Theory anyway.
Either that or someone cast Summon Bigger Fish (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0033.html).:smallbiggrin:

[Serpentine]

big-ass catfish
an albino turkey
local equivalent of Harst's Eagle

cryptozoo blog (http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/)1. Entirely possible, didn't think of that ('course, just cuz it's "catfish", doesn't mean it's not a new species - or was then).
2. I'm sure they'd know what a turkey looked like, and I can't imagine a turkey "flying up in a short circle until it was out of sight". Same for the chicken theory.
3. Maybe. Anyone know where Jasper is?


Ever notice cryptozoology is one of those "scientific disciplines" with an effectively complete failure rate? I cannot recall a single case of any cryptid being actively sought ever actually being proven to exist.

The gorilla, coelacanth, and okapi don't count. All were known by indigenous peoples, and physical evidence, once obtained, was clear, easy to analyze, and irrefutable. No garbled accounts or blurry pictures. There were skins, specimens, and so on.:smallfurious:
That they were "known by indigenous peoples" is EXACTLY AND ENTIRELY the point.

[Cryptozoology] is a targeted-search methodology for zoological discovery... [A] cryptid is an ethnoknown animal which may represent a new species or a species previously considered extinct. The crucial element in that definition is ethnoknown... Ethnoknown species are those for which some prior contact with man has been communicated to others.If you're gonna claim that a cryptid doesn't count if it was "known by indigenous peoples", then you're pretty much negating the entire existence of the field. The gorilla, coelacanth and in particular the okapi are the prime examples of cryptozoological methodology. Cryptozoology STRIVES for "clear, easy to analyze and irrefutable" evidence of new species - it's as frustrating for them as for anyone else that the opposite is far more common.
As for its supposed "complete failure rate" (which you immediately debunked by listing THREE examples of successes), it is as important that cryptozoologists conclusively eliminate non-genuine cryptids as it is that they prove them right. As for its successes...
Okapi - Originally believed to be mythical, discovered with the help of a pygmy tribe.
Coelacanth - Identified as a new species from a catch.
Giant squid - Source of numerous legends of Kraken. Now several species are known.
Giant octopus - ditto.
Mountain gorilla - Considered myth for years before its conclusive identification.
Hoan Kiem Turtle - Legendary turtle eventually identified by film.
Giant panda - Known in China from ancient times, considered legendary.
Przewalski's Horse - Pursued on the basis of rumour.
Komodo dragon - Pursued on the basis of rumours of a "land crocodile".
King Cheetah - Variant, not separate species, identified by cryptozoologists.
Lord Howe Island stick insect - Presumed extinct then rediscovered.
Onza - A species, subspecies or variant (debated) of cat known to the Aztecs.
Pygmy Elephant

[Jack Squat]

Ah, well that certainly clears up any doubts. Naturally you've all seen dogcoons and the like wash up on river shores all the time. Of course, that's clearly without a shadow of a doubt exactly what it was. The look just like that! If only people weren't so ignorant to see that a internet chat board is the key to all knowledge!

The thing is, you don't need the exact scenario to know what it is. If you hunt racoons, or are at least out around them enough to know what they look like, have disposed of a couple dead ones, etc. it's not hard to point out one by the remains. Same with any animal.

Heck, I've never hunted deer, or had more than glances of them while driving by, but I identified a busted up skull of one correctly. No need to tell tales of a mysterious creature. Why, because I know what deer look like and could picture what the skull would look like with stuff on it. I don't see how adding some flesh would make it harder, esp. for someone more experienced.

If you want an overlay of a racoon on top of the "montauk monster" here ya go (http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/montauk2.jpg). It doesn't exactly take a scientist to figure it out.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Best description of cryptozoology seen yet.

Well typed and couldn't possibly agree more. Part of me hopes to become a cryptozoologist some day to investigate the possibilities of new and exotic species. Or, you know, to prove others as myths just to settle the debate on stuff.

[Pyrian]

I believe you have completely missed my point; namely that the skeptics tend to churn out just as many hypotheses as the believers with just as little evidence.Raccoons exist, and I've seen them. The evidence for their existence is overwhelming; heck, I've seen 'em rummaging around on many occasions. So, I find the assertion that a given corpse might be a raccoon, I'm going to credit that more than the assertion that the same corpse is something never seen before, due to an overwhelming discrepancy in hard evidence.


So...someone drew over the picture? Color me unconvinced.Color you not paying attention. The comparison is very interesting; you can see how the odd feature of the corpse - the "beak" - is just part of the skull that's been uncovered. Knowing that, the "creature" suddenly looks, well, kind of normal.

[Pyrian]

Not payin-what? Dude, it's specifically pointed out in the freakin' picture, of course I saw it :smallannoyed:Hey, I can only go by what you post. I found it to be useful information, so I don't think your dismissive attitude is appropriate.


If it makes you feel any better, I don't believe it was in fact a "monster," however, I do feel that the assumptions that people hastily jump to are largely unfounded on both sides.That's not really the issue for me, here. The only significance of the find is whether or not it demonstrates the existence of an otherwise unknown specieis. The answer is NO, period, end of story. Proving the existence of some weird monster requires - requires - being able to distinguish it from a dog or racoon. If a dog and a racoon both satisfy the possibility of what the corpse could be, then the corpse cannot be held up as evidence of an unknown species.

Put bluntly, it is entirely appropriate to place the burden of evidence on the side of those who claim its an unusual "monster" rather than a common, well known animal.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

So, Pyrian, what you're saying is that the body in question is not an example of an unknown species, but that it's species is unknown? :smallconfused:

Anyways, I find cryptozoology really intriguing. I remember this one site on it I found a while back that had loads and loads of information, but now I can't find the site, or anything with quite that lengthy list of crypto's.

[Cobra_Ikari]

So, Pyrian, what you're saying is that the body in question is not an example of an unknown species, but that it's species is unknown? :smallconfused:

No, what he's saying is just because something looks unfamiliar at first does not make it something unfamiliar. Likewise, just because something cannot be positively identified as something does not make it something yet-to-be-discovered.

Or...perhaps that's what you said. That was a very vague and easily misinterpreted statement. >.<

[Serpentine]

If a dog and a racoon both satisfy the possibility of what the corpse could be, then the corpse cannot be held up as evidence of an unknown species.Unless, y'know, it's a new species of dog or raccoon :smallwink: It seems like a lot of cryptids are actually unconfirmed variants, sub-species or similar species to known ones that are claimed by indigenous people to be seperate but for which too little evidence has been gathered to confirm that it is an independent population. That is, quite a few are identified as different by the people who live in close contact with it, but for others it's very difficult to tell the two apart, which means that a casual observer may dismiss the new species as just an odd-looking version of the known one.
Take the new dolphin species discovered in northern Australia recently (not by cryptozoologists, but still): they had to go right down to skeletal structure and genetics to confirm that the two slightly different-looking populations were indeed a different species.

Put bluntly, it is entirely appropriate to place the burden of evidence on the side of those who claim its an unusual "monster" rather than a common, well known animal.True, and a major part of legitimate cryptozoology is identifying "monstrous" remains as known species.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

No, what he's saying is just because something looks unfamiliar at first does not make it something unfamiliar. Likewise, just because something cannot be positively identified as something does not make it something yet-to-be-discovered.

Or...perhaps that's what you said. That was a very vague and easily misinterpreted statement. >.<

Now you have me confused some more! Or maybe that was me that got me confused. :smallfurious: :smallsigh:

[Serpentine]

"Just because you cannot identify something, does not mean that it cannot be identified" :smallwink:

[Cobra_Ikari]

"Just because you cannot identify something, does not mean that it cannot be identified" :smallwink:

Or, rather, just because something cannot be identified, does not mean that it can be identified as something that has never been identified before?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Or, rather, just because something cannot be identified, does not mean that it can be identified as something that has never been identified before?

See, that makes sense, in a roundabout kind of way.

Anyways, how about dem Chupacabra, eh?

[Pyrian]

So, Pyrian, what you're saying is that the body in question is not an example of an unknown species, but that it's species is unknown? :smallconfused:Of course! You can't know that you have an unknown species until you know what the species is, and then, and only then, will you know that the now known species is actually an unknown species. Got it!? :smallbiggrin:

[Jack Squat]

I'm pretty sure the fact that it was a racoon was even debated. Something about the legs being out of proportion, but don't quote me on that...

There was something about that, yes. However, if it makes you feel better, scientists did do a pretty good analysis (http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/08/the_montauk_monster.php) in deciding it was a raccoon.

[Rutskarn]

Right, goin' into a few days probable radio silence on account of moving in to college.

Feel free to trash talk me all you want, cos there ain't no way I'm going to archive trawl the inevitable 20 pages of posts.

[Alteran]

Right, goin' into a few days probable radio silence on account of moving in to college.

Feel free to trash talk me all you want, cos there ain't no way I'm going to archive trawl the inevitable 20 pages of posts.

This was supposed to be in Random Banter, mayhaps?

[hamishspence]

I'm wondering what the definition of a cryptid is.

I'm not sure if the coelacanth qualifies- because (as far as I know) there was no period where it was being reported by the locals, and still believed to be mythical by the scientists.

A newly discovered creature is not a cryptid by definition- it has to be believed to be mythical for a period first, I think.

Maybe the duck-billed platypus? the original specimen brought to the West was believed to be a fake at first.

[kpenguin]

Right, goin' into a few days probable radio silence on account of moving in to college.

Feel free to trash talk me all you want, cos there ain't no way I'm going to archive trawl the inevitable 20 pages of posts.

Say whaaa....

[Serpentine]

I'm wondering what the definition of a cryptid is.

I'm not sure if the coelacanth qualifies- because (as far as I know) there was no period where it was being reported by the locals, and still believed to be mythical by the scientists.

A newly discovered creature is not a cryptid by definition- it has to be believed to be mythical for a period first, I think.

Maybe the duck-billed platypus? the original specimen brought to the West was believed to be a fake at first.First of all, there is no other platypus. Only one platypus. No such thing as a "duck-billed platypus". May as well call it a duck-billed mole :smallmad:
(pet peeve :smallwink:)

I'm not sure about the coelacanth myself. If Lappy's right, then it certainly is. If not, then I think it comes up in context of cryptozoology more as an example of large animals that have yet to be discovered than, strictly speaking, a success for cryptozoology itself.

Like I said before, a cryptid is an "ethnoknown" species - an animal of which there are unsubstantiated reports but not enough evidence for a hard scientific description. It can be a species that isn't yet known my mainstream science (like Bigfoot or the bunyip), a variant or closely-related species to one known that has been rumoured distinct but not confirmed (such as the giant orangutan), a species that is generally considered extinct (like the Tasmanian tiger, or the coelacanth), or a species sighted where no such animal ought to be (like the fox in Tasmania, or panthers in New South Wales, or kangaroos in the US).
That clear it up for you?

[kpenguin]

First of all, there is no other platypus. Only one platypus. No such thing as a "duck-billed platypus". May as well call it a duck-billed mole :smallmad:
(pet peeve :smallwink:)

Are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATYPUS_-_Reflectometer#PLATYPUS) you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulophia) sure? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosia_beetle)

[Serpentine]

1. Newer, should get the qualifier, not the animal
2. Doesn't appear to have anything to do with platypuses.
3. "Platypod" hardly counts.
:tongue:

[kpenguin]

1. Fine
2. Platypus is a synonym for the plant
3. Platypus is the genus name, thus platypod.

[Serpentine]

Ah. There is exactly 1 instance of "platypus" on that page. The other, didn't notice that. But they have their own damn common name! They can stick to that, and leave the platypus with its own, dammit!

[hamishspence]

Actually, I recall reading a book that said just the opposite; the locals had been seeing them for years. I can do some more digging if you want the actual source.

The difference between that and cryptids is that (as far as I know) the locals weren't describing them to the scientists and the scientists saying "this is folklore- there is no such beast"

[hamishspence]

True- but there wasn't any "It's myth/folklore" period.

I'm not sure if this is an absolute requirement for a cryptid, but I think it does play a part in the case of most.

The Wikipedia list of cryptids does not list the coelacanth. It does list the Komodo Dragon, a species of tree kangaroo, and a few others.

[hamishspence]

I think the Wikipedia definition was "It must be believed to exist, without scientific evidence"

The Komodo Dragon is listed as a Confirmed Cryptid- one that was eventually proven to exist. (an ex-cryptid, so to speak.)

[PJ the Epic]

I'd like to point towards the U.S.S.R's encounter with aliens(ish).

The Soviet satellite Phobos 2 spotted a large, cylindrical object orbiting Mars at faster than humanly or "spacely" (meaning an object that was orbiting Mars be Gravitaional Pull) possible. Shortly afterwards, all contact to Phobos 2 was lost.

Also, while I was hiking in the Zirkels one time, we were walking through a rather thick a nd humid stretch of mountain forest. Suddenly, we come upon a small clearing, with one tree in the center. As we approched, something rather small (small humaniod) darted from behind the tree and ran away into the thick brush. We attempted to follow, put soon lost the trail, as none of us were good trackers. The clues left:

1) Foot Print that were slightly clawish in shape
2) Three parallel scratch marks on the lone tree, all gouged fairly deep, and all relitively close together
3) The memory of a greenish-blue blur darting from behind a tall tree

Anyone have a guess to what I saw?

[Serpentine]

PJ, do you have a (reliable!) source for the Mars one? That's quite interesting.
In the cryptozoology book I referred to before, it explicitely excludes extra-terrestrials from the field, because it covers only Earth-based organisms. I think the distinction's arbitrary enough to allow it here, though :smallcool:

I don't know enough about the Zirkels (read: anything) to guess. I don't suppose you got a photo of these signs, did you?

[PJ the Epic]

Unforunatly, no. We were on a rather large survical escapade, and (I know it sounds wierd) but we all forgot to bring a camera. (Sorry:smallfrown:) I'm still unhappy about it. As for the Soviet Space thing, I was wondering if that might have anything to do with those flying rod things on Earth. (I don't know what their called, but I was watching a show about them the other day.) Anyway, let me know if there is any other info you need.

[Serpentine]

Ugh, rods. I looked at the website of the guy who "discovered" them, and I, at least, find him decidedly unconvincing. It has been demonstrated that "rods" are just what bugs look like when caught on certain types of film. There's nothing to them.

[kpenguin]

Ah. There is exactly 1 instance of "platypus" on that page. The other, didn't notice that. But they have their own damn common name! They can stick to that, and leave the platypus with its own, dammit!

Nevar!!!:smallfurious:

[PJ the Epic]

Yes, but it was a SPACE rod (I think)

Anyway, if you like a skeptics view on Phobos 2, here is the "official news release"
http://www.marsnews.com/images/phobos2-ufo.jpg

The long white line is the UFO.

[Pyrian]

Look at all the funny looking UFO's at the top of the frame. I wonder why none of those ones got any attention? :smallamused: