Off Topic Messages

Cryptozoology

Fri Jun 13, 2003 5:47 pm

Ok folks, this is WAY off topic, but is anyone here interested in cryptozoology? For those who don't know what cryptozoology is, it's the study of (or, to be more precise, the attempt to gather evidence for) animals that may or may not actually exist: Sasquatch, Yeti, strange lake & sea creatures (the Loch Ness monster(s)), giant monitor lizards, giant sloths, possible surviving dinosaurs. Those who are sceptical of this subject please refrain from rude remarks.

Fri Jun 13, 2003 5:49 pm

Those who are sceptical of this subject please refrain from rude remarks.


lol

Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:04 pm

Francesc wrote:
Those who are sceptical of this subject please refrain from rude remarks.


lol


Well Francesc, at least that wasn't a rude remark (I knew I was putting my head on the chopping block with this post!).

Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:17 pm

I majored in Pooptopopology.


That's the study of people who are too pooped to pop


:wink:

Fri Jun 13, 2003 10:05 pm

"There is far more in Heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy." - William Shakespeare. :shock:

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:20 pm

I am still trying to find out what species "The Kev" is.
And is he the last of a dying breed? :wink:



:P

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:24 pm

Pete -

I'm sure that there must be species as yet undiscovered somewhere in the world.

They may not be as exciting as 'Big Foot' or 'Nessie' or whatever, but they are surely around !

Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:39 pm

Pete

Interesting topic.

Since the thread was started there have been many new species described.

This includes two mammal species, the highland mangabey (Lophocebus kipunji) and the Laotian rock rat (Laonastes aenigmamus). The latter even constitutes a new mammal family.

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:01 pm

ColinB wrote:Pete -

I'm sure that there must be species as yet undiscovered somewhere in the world.

They may not be as exciting as 'Big Foot' or 'Nessie' or whatever, but they are surely around !


Colin -
Agreed. Regarding 'Nessie' I used to be a Nessie 'believer' (specifically that there was a herd of plesiosaurs in the Loch), but over the last few years I've become a fence-sitter. Whatever evidence there is (and to be brutally honest there's not much) is at best circumstantial, and highly contentious. The underwater photos from '72 and '75 have been criticized by long-time Loch Ness researchers. The 1960 Dinsdale film remains intriquing, but some investigators believe it may be nothing more than a boat filmed under poor light conditions (personally, I don't buy this as of yet, but I concede the possibility). What's left is eyewitness testimony and sonar contacts. Eyewitness testimony is a subjective, non-repeatable experience/episode that can't be scientifically tested and sonar returns are subject to interpretation. If these animals exist in the Loch we should have more/better scientific evidence than there currently is.
That said I'm still open to the possibility that large unidentified animals inhabit the loch periodically, but not a resident breeding population. I think that if there are 'Loch Ness monsters' they are some type of marine creatures that periodically get into (and out of) the Loch via the River Ness during periods of heavy rain when the normally shallow river is deeper. As to what these creatures could be I've recently come around to the idea (promoted most notably by Irish writer Peter Costello in his 1974 book In Search of Lake Monsters) that some type of unusually large aquatic mammal related to seals or sea cows that has developed an elongated neck is the most probable explanation - that is if these creatures actually exist.
Incidentally Colin, I frequent a cryptozoology site where I have regular discussions/exchanges with a long-time Ness investigator.

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:37 pm

sam wrote:I am still trying to find out what species "The Kev" is.
And is he the last of a dying breed?
___________________________________________________________
The Kev lives in a cave, with a dragon
he must have the dragon toast his SWEETIES. for him

Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:52 pm

Pete -

Yes, 'Nessie' has lost some credence in recent years.

Nearly all the photographic evidence has been shown to be flawed, if not outright fake.

Even the 1930 'surgeon' photos have turned out to have been a hoax.

And the people with the most detailed and vividly recalled 'sightings' are locals, who have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive.

The 1960 Dinsdale film doesn't show anything very clearly, does it ?

I haven't dismissed the possibility yet, but very nearly.
Last edited by ColinB on Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:59 pm

ColinB wrote:
Yes, 'Nessie' has lost some credence in recent years.

Nearly all the photographic evidence has been shown to be flawed, if not outright fake.


The majority of the old black & white photos from 30's and 50's are now considered to be either out an out hoaxes, mis-identified natural phenomena, or too inconclusive to be accepted as evidence.

Colin B wrote:Even the 1930 'surgeon' photos have turned out to have been a hoax.


I'm personally convinced the so-called 'Surgeon's photo' (he was actually a Gynecologist - and a more rewarding profession you'll never find!) was a hoax, but there are critics of the hoax theory. These critics point out that the man who claimed to have built the model, Christian Spurling, seemed to know nothing of the second photo.

Colin B wrote:
And the people with the most detailed and vividly recalled 'sightings' are locals, who have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive.


No, not really Colin. Among the eyewitnesses are monks from the local abby, police officers/constables, a Nobel prize winning chemist (Richard Synge), a member of the Royal Observer Corps, in addition to local folk such as farmers and fishermen who wouldn't stand to gain anything and risk great ridicule by reporting their sightings.

Colin B wrote:The 1960 Dinsdale film doesn't show anything very clearly, does it ?


It shows a dark, triangular shaped object slowly zig-zagging across the Loch. When it approaches the opposite shore it becomes indistinct due to the reflection on the water of the bluffs, but it seems to submerge, then moves at an increased speed parallel to the shoreline. The Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Center (JARIC) examined the film under frame magnification - but not projection - and concluded that it was neither a submarine nor a surface vessel, leaving the conclusion that it was 'probably animate.' Some Loch Ness investigators have put forward the theory that the object is actually a boat filmed under poor light conditions. They claim that Dinsdale only got a brief look at the object before he starting to film, and that this, combined with the poor light conditions caused him to not recognize the object for what it was. This, however, is inconsistent with Dinsdale's own statement's as written in his book Loch Ness Monster. According to Dinsdale the morning was bright and sunny when he first saw the object with the naked eye. He states a number of times in the book that he studied it carefully through binoculars before deciding to film. So Dinsdale's own testimony is at odds with those who say he filmed a boat under poor light conditions, after only getting a brief look at it. The 'boat under bad light conditions' theory is also at odds with the JARIC report, and at that time JARIC was arguably the top organization in the field of long-range photo analysis. So if we go with the boat theory we have to go against Dinsdale's own testimony and the JARIC report.

Colin B wrote:I haven't didmissed the possibility yet, but very nearly.


Don't dismiss the possibility Colin. Remain open to the possibility - but demand more convincing evidence!

Fri Jun 17, 2005 7:24 pm

Yeah I know a great VHS series that in part captures the Yeti to its full effect its called Perverted stories #23.....ooops....nevermind.

Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:28 pm

genesim wrote:Yeah I know a great VHS series that in part captures the Yeti to its full effect its called Perverted stories #23.....ooops....nevermind.


Was that the one you had a walk on part in? :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:11 am

Rusty Martin* wrote:
genesim wrote:Yeah I know a great VHS series that in part captures the Yeti to its full effect its called Perverted stories #23.....ooops....nevermind.


Was that the one you had a walk on part in? :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


No it was a stand up part!!!! :wink: :oops:


8)

Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:13 pm

I am interested in the subject. There was a fish that was assumed to be vanished millions of years ago. Only "turned to stone" ancient ones were found. Then years ago someone found a "fresh" dead one. And later a live one was caught.
Who knows what animals may still be undiscovered!?

Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:27 pm

"Stand up....you don't have to be afraid, get down love is like a hurricane...gee boy no I never could be tamed...BETTER BELIEVE IT!"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Getting back, dissapearances are what have always facinated me. The Bermuda Triangle comes to mind. Though not exactly Crypto

Sun Jun 19, 2005 6:56 am

Genesim -
Given your recent absence from the board some of us were thinking you had disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle!

Luuk: Were you thinking of the Coelacanth?

.

Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:04 am

Speaking of which has anyone else noticed the mysterious reappearance of Curtis?

I don't know if we still have that thread but who was it that broke that code? Although Tom had it figured long ago to a certain extent I don't think any of us would have ever dreamed who Curtis really was.

Re: .

Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:16 am

Blue-Gypsy wrote:Speaking of which has anyone else noticed the mysterious reappearance of Curtis?

I don't know if we still have that thread but who was it that broke that code? Although Tom had it figured long ago to a certain extent I don't think any of us would have ever dreamed who Curtis really was.



Tony

I am still to try to fine out myself, on who i am?.

.

Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:23 am

That's cool man, we are just glad to have ya'll back.

Sun Jun 19, 2005 10:29 am

Pete Dube wrote:Genesim -
Given your recent absence from the board some of us were thinking you had disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle!

Luuk: Were you thinking of the Coelacanth?


Yes, that's the one. I am not too good in remembering (Latin) names.
Also English is not my first language so while I can say what I mean fluently in Dutch, when saying it in English I would have to look things up in the dictionary and still may say something different to what I mean to say.

Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:16 pm

Your english is fine Luuk.

Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:21 pm

Tony -

The evidence that Curtis ever existed is very flimsy.

All we have are a few posts.

Could have been sent by anyone.

Have you ever seen:

A photo ?
Driving licence ?
Birth Certificate ?
Fingerprint ?
DNA sample ?
Fossil ?

I thought not !

Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:21 pm

Pete Dube wrote:Your english is fine Luuk.


Can I quote you on that? :D
I know I can do a decent conversation but when animal's names are coming up, I am at a blank a lot of the times.
Only when there are movies with animals' names I know what kind of animal is meant. Like "groundhog" is "bosmarmot" as we say in The Netherlands.
Thanks to my interest in Elvis' music I also got interested in learning English. 8)