Cryptozoology

[JAStewart]

I was watching Tremors II the other day and then I went onto the wikipedia page upon which I ended up on the page for the creatures in the movie, and linked from that page was the Mongolian Death Worm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Death_Worm) It got me thinking... have any animals, previously thought of as Cryptozoology been discovered to be actual animals?

I would imagine not because most of the cryptozoolgical animals have some supernatural/unreal feature.

[TheDoLittle]

Either the lowland or mountain gorilla were thought to be a myth until the early 20th century. I also seem to vaguely remember Sir David Attenborough doing a show on wildlife of Madagascar, and stated Darwin (or one of his protege's, I can't remember exactly) predicted the existence of a bird because of the shape of one of it's more unusual flowers. The bird was thought a myth until someone saw one and was able to get photographs

[Loss Leader]

If you want, you can label the near-worldwide belief in dragons as cryptozoology. They turned out to be the result of trying to interpret dinosaur fossils a couple thousand years before the development of the scientific method.

[defaultdotxbe]

If you want, you can label the near-worldwide belief in dragons as cryptozoology. They turned out to be the result of trying to interpret dinosaur fossils a couple thousand years before the development of the scientific method.
and its believed the cyclops may be a result of misinterpreting an elephant skull

the kraken may have been a giant sqid



is this really a conspiracy theory? :D

[Correa Neto]

I tend to say no. Cryptozoologists will frequently try to pull coelacanths, gorillas, giant squids and even giant pandas and okapis to back the "animals-once-thought-to-be-a-myth-untill-someone-proved-to-close-minded-mainstream-scientists-that-they-were-real" line. Every one of these claims have major holes. The major one is that when they say something like "science ignored Hanno's tale on gorillas from 500BC untill the XIX century" they ignore that fact that before the renaissance, the very existence of "science as we know it, Jim" was at least debatable.

[JohnWS]

Interesting thoughts on the coelacanth issue IMHO:

An example of this is the suggestion that a small sauropod dinosaur lives in the tropical jungles of central Africa. The majority of evidence backing up this claim is anecdotal in nature; are we to believe, based on stories by a few natives and missionaries, that there is a dinosaur living in the Congo? Critically speaking, we definitely should not. There is much more evidence---hard evidence---that all dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Some cryptozoologists would counter this with the coelacanth analogy---if it survived that long without any fossils to show for it, then why not dinosaurs? Research on this subject would show us that the coelacanth is really a pointless analogy; it survived in an area of poor fossilization (the deep-sea), and has a very fragile, inconspicuous skeleton compared to those of dinosaurs (and thus wouldn't fossilize as well or be readily noticed). Furthermore, coelacanths on a whole were already becoming rare in the fossil record by the end of the Cretaceous, when they supposedly disappeared, whereas dinosaurs are very prominent in rocks of that age. Most importantly, it has been revealed recently that post-Cretaceous coelacanth fossils are known (Darren Naish, pers. comm.). Basically, it is ridiculous to compare the geological record of a fish to that of a dinosaur, because they are such different creatures. Yet many cryptozoologists make this error---among others---time and time again.

From - A Critical Approach to Cryptozoology (http://web.ncf.ca/bz050/criticalcz.html)

[TMiguel]

I would imagine not because most of the cryptozoolgical animals have some supernatural/unreal feature.

Cryptozoology is not just a “wishy washy” subject, of course “wishy washers” got a grip on this one to (like any other field of knowledge has it’s own crackpots).
Animals like the giant squid where actually found and documented, but I personally never knew about a “mythic” animal (who’s implications for his existence are just nonsense) ever to be found.
Beings like the lockness monster or the bigfoot (or whatever version of the bigfoot) are not remotely possible to exist due to environment studies of the location where people claim to have spot them, one of which is the biomass (which quantifies how big is the amount of animals and plants required to sustain a form of life in order to keep it’s population steady and reproducible). Most of the areas claimed for spotting are not even capable of sustaining a single individual, much less be big enough to keep the animals (which I mind remind you that they are not small animals either) unseen on a quick search.

[Starthinker]

But I don't think there was a myth or legend about the coelacanth. It not like there were sailor's tails about a dinosaur fish floating around. I think somebody just caught one by accident one day and it basically shocked everyone. I could be wrong. I just don't think the coelacanth really falls into the field of cryptozoology.

[my_wan]

It's cool to hold out hope for that really really long shot. It's delusional to believe it to be so.

[paximperium]

Either the lowland or mountain gorilla were thought to be a myth until the early 20th century. I also seem to vaguely remember Sir David Attenborough doing a show on wildlife of Madagascar, and stated Darwin (or one of his protege's, I can't remember exactly) predicted the existence of a bird because of the shape of one of it's more unusual flowers. The bird was thought a myth until someone saw one and was able to get photographs

No. These creatures were found by actual scientists.

No Cryptozoologists have ever found any of the animals they claim exist.
While Cryptozoologist go about and waste their time, real zoologists are actually finding creatures that has never been seen by any humans before.

[DevilsAdvocate]

I can only find the mountain gorilla as a good example. Not really a Bigfoot or Nessie type discovery, just a different type of gorilla where gorillas are. That was confirmed by scientists 106 years ago. Anything since then, any claims of relevance seem to be just actual scientists finding species thought to have been extinct.

In the 1800s cryptozoology made some sense. If no scientists have explored a location and the locals say there is some weird creature, you should listen to them.

But now, almost every area of the planet where man has been has been explored. No major “folklore” creatures have been discovered in 106 years. (I say “major” only because I think there was a bird found in the past several years in Indonesia that the locals reported but no scientists had previously found. The scientists believed that the bird was there and went looking for it and found it.) Cryptozoologists have not discovered or contributed anything.

[Starthinker]

I sometimes visit cryptozoology.com and went back after reading this thread. A fellow named Hawkwolf made some nice posts in this thread, http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=2&pid=611068 .

Sorry Scott, but comparing the Giant Squid to "Bigfoot" goes beyond apples and oranges.

Giant squid bodies have been well documented since the 19th century. Over 100 carcasses have been examined by scientists. Its larval form has been captured. The animal has been photograped and filmed by expeditions setting out to do exactly that. That visual evidence is clear, with no "Blobsquids" requiring circles and arrows. The only difficulty in obtaining hard data on either the Giant or Collosal squid has been the extreme envirnoment they live in and the sheer size of the world's oceans.

Now, as to other "cryptozoological success stories", what might those be?

The Giant Panda? Well known to the Chinese, only a "cryptid" in the West, and when western scientists went looking for it, they soon came back with live specimens.The Komodo Dragon? The Mountain Gorilla? The Okapi? Again, once somebody decided to go look for it, specimens were brought back.

Or perhaps you refer to the coelacanth, which was discovered purely by chance in a fish market? There was no search, no legend to track down. To the locals they were simply a big deepwater fish they caught from time to time.

The closest thing I can think of a "cryptozoological success story" is the search for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, and the jury still seems to be out on that one.

Now, let's take a look at "hairy hominids" in North America. We still have no better photographic evidence than the PG film. In the centuries since European settlers first came here, we don't have a single body to show for it. In that same time, the Passenger Pigeon was driven to extinction, the mountain lion virtually exterminated over half the continent, huge herds of bison wiped out, wolves driven to the brink, grizzlies greatly reduced in habitat, and most importantly, smart, "woods-wise" populations of our own species wiped out or clinging by the barest of threads to existance.

In that time, technology has increased incredibly. We can use satellites to fix our positions accurately. Fairly cheap, readily available devices remove the shield of darkness. DNA testing allows small samples of mammoth hair stored for years at room temperature to be sequenced. One of an estimated 500 wolverines in the "Lower 48" is caught on a trail camera in California, where it wasn't thought to exist. .

But in the years since the PG film, what we mainly have is hoaxes and beef jerky commercials. There are a few bits of evidence that turn up from time to time to keep us interested, or that are hard to simply dismiss as hoaxes. Those tend to get lost in the "noise" of silliness like 4 foot long "tracks" or the stupidity of the recent events from Georgia.

And further along:

"However, in answer to your second point: Mountain Gorilla (unconfirmed until the beginning of the 19th century), Bili Ape AKA "Ngoloko"(2004 but known before that albeit not "scientifically" confirmed), Okapi, Vu Quag Ox, Laos Rock Rat, Komodo Dragon (1917), and Megamouth Shark (1971), to name a few I can readily recall. Most of these are larger than a bread box and are, indeed, of human size."

Mountain Gorilla ... first collected at the beginning of the 20th century. not the 19th, by essentially the first European explorer to enter their territory. No "cryptozoologists" involved. Also, gorillas in general had been known to science for over 50 years before that.

Laotian Rock Rat ... no history as a cryptid, found in a food market by someone who recognized there was something special about the little critter. In other words, pretty much the same story as the coelacanth. Note that within 10 years of the accidental discovery of the first specimen, we had video of a live one.

Okapi ... first sighted by Stanley in the 1870s (again, one of the first Western explorers to enter the territory). Specimens collected and classified in 1902. Specimen in zoo in 1918.

Vu Qang Ox ... again, well known to and hunted by the locals. No "cryptid" history. Described by zoologists shortly after their horns were brought to said zoologists attention in 1992. Not long after that, images of the living animal were published everywhere.

Komodo Dragon ... first brought to western attention in 1910. Described from a photo and skin in 1912. The first recorded expedition I could find that went to Komodo Island for the express purpose of obtaining specimens (1926) came back with 12 dead ones and 2 live ones.

Megamouth Shark ... completely unknown to science or even legend until the first one was discovered tangled in an anchor chain in 1976. Hard to be a "cryptid" when nobody even dreams you exist. Since the initial discovery, 41 specimens of what is presumed to be an extremely rare fish have been described to date.

Bili Ape ... seems to enter the literature in 1996. By 2006 DNA analysis had been done.

So, in summary, in the case of the Mountain Gorilla, Komodo Dragon, Okapi, and Bili Ape, not long after they were brought to western attention and someone went seriously looking for them, they found them. The Saola (Vu Quang Ox), Laotian Rock Rat, and Megamouth Shark were never cryptids to begin with, unless you want to claim that ANY undiscovered species is a cryptid.

In every case, no "cryptozoologists" were involved.

Now, by contrast, let's turn again to Bigfoot. How many years have people been looking for an animal which is supposedly distributed all across North America, and has been here long enough to have widespread native legends about it? 40 years? 50 years? That's a long time for little or no return, especially in contrast with your "cryptozoological success stories", which mostly involved people going to the area the reports came from, and coming back with a specimen,sometimes on the first try.


It's not all woo over there. Some very good points.

[Cuddles]

In the 1800s cryptozoology made some sense. If no scientists have explored a location and the locals say there is some weird creature, you should listen to them.

I think this is the big problem with comparing cryptozoology now with the past. It's similar to the comparison between modern and past alchemy. In the past, alchemy was a perfectly valid area of study. It often involved things considered rather wooish even at the time, but there were legitimate practices and findings. Of course, eventually the field split with the real science now being called chemistry and alchemy being relegated to just the woo. But this means that you can't just say "alchemy is woo", since it depends on when you're talking about.

It's the same for cryptozoology. In the past, even as late as the early 20th century, there were a lot of places that hadn't been thoroughly explored, and there were a lot of animals that weren't generally known, or even known at all. Things like rhinoceroses and gorillas were known only by a few vague descriptions by explorers. But the world has changed since then. There really isn't anywhere on Earth, apart from deep ocean trenches, that are as remote and hard to get to as places like central Africa and India used to be. And the trenches don't have lone explorers wandering around them and bringing back tales of what they've seen. Just as alchemy split into woo and legitimate science, so did zoology. Where there used to be a big mix of science, exploration and stories that may or may not have been based on fact, now there is just real science and wild stories, and really no overlap between the two.

The only real difference between alchemy and cryptozoology is that where alchemists managed to keep the original name and the scientists had to come up with a new one, it was zoologists that kept the name and cryptozoologists had to make up a new one.

[VulcanWay]

Personally, I think that there is a conspiracy to cover up leprechaun sightings. They're out there, people, and the cryptozoologists are trying to keep it under wraps so that they get all the gold themselves!!

((NOTE: I thought that was actually a funny post until for kicks I did a search and found this (http://www.irelandseye.com/leprechaun/reportsight.htm) site...ugh!))

[TMiguel]

Personally, I think that there is a conspiracy to cover up leprechaun sightings. They're out there, people, and the cryptozoologists are trying to keep it under wraps so that they get all the gold themselves!!

((NOTE: I thought that was actually a funny post until for kicks I did a search and found this (http://www.irelandseye.com/leprechaun/reportsight.htm) site...ugh!))

If it sounds to stupid, probably some one already made it a serious work out of it.

[Dragoonster]

It's not all woo over there. Some very good points.

Indeed, but there's a bit of a problem with some of the thinking:

Vu Qang Ox ... again, well known to and hunted by the locals. No "cryptid" history. Described by zoologists shortly after their horns were brought to said zoologists attention in 1992. Not long after that, images of the living animal were published everywhere.

Something like that, only in retrospect could be dismissed from a crypto success because it was "well known to and hunted by the locals". I don't know much about that beast's history, but until zoologists brought back images/body parts evidence for its existence should properly be called anecdotal. And supporters of its existence properly called crypozoologists (even if they're zoologists)...unless we're going to now claim all anecdotal evidence of beasts not yet discovered are valid and the beasts are zoological certainties only awaiting discovery. [ETA: my logic here seems problematic too after reading it, but I'll leave it as is]

I haven't followed cryptozoology lately but it used to fascinate me. The biggest drama I can recall is the prolonged search for "mokele mbembe", a supposed dinosaur in...I think eastern Africa, or the Congo (?)

But it was a pretty serious team of self-described cryptos and at least a decent effort to find the thing. Started off displaying some "nessie" like photos from the large lake there. Had interviews with locals who when shown pictures of various beasts identified it as either a dino or a rhinocerous (no rhino is known to exist there). Then they had a brief expedition and several fly-bys of the lake, didn't find anything except some leavings I think. No conclusion reached.

Anyway the point is, if "zoologists" had done the above and discovered a new species or subspecies of rhino, why wouldn't that be a "victory" for cryptozoology? Or put another way...does cryptozoology have no wins because as soon as a species is verified or discovered (even after only local anecdotes as evidence), it becomes a zoology issue, and zoology win?

If nearly all zoologists doubt the current existence of the thylacine tiger, and it's discovered in the future, is that a win for cryptos who may have pored over dubious anecdotes or blurry photos trying to convince us that it still exists? Perhaps only if those anecdotes or photos are actually accurate...

Anyway here's my favorite cryptozoologist from when I was following it some (and reading Fortean Times), Karl Shuker. He seems pretty level-headed and realistic about its place in zoology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Shuker

[Floyt]

It's good fun! I can say that as a kid, finding this combination of my two main interests "animals" and "mysterious things" was liking striking the motherlode of summer reading. It's why I love King Kong and know more about the Pygmy Hippo than is healthy in this world or the next one.

This is one woo-tinged area where I ignore the fringe uglies and just bounce along for the splendour of the ride.

Also, camel-electrocuting Desert Earthworms of Death must be real if only because of narrative causality (as universal and much more personable than gravity :D )!

[Miss_Kitt]

I also seem to vaguely remember Sir David Attenborough doing a show on wildlife of Madagascar, and stated Darwin (or one of his protege's, I can't remember exactly) predicted the existence of a bird because of the shape of one of it's more unusual flowers. The bird was thought a myth until someone saw one and was able to get photographs


I believe you are thinking of a MOTH, not a bird, whose existance Darwin postulated due to the unusual shape and depth of the nectar receptacle. Only a really long, skinny tongue could reach in to lap that nectar--and, by doing so, also act as the pollinator. It was filmed by a "nightvision" camera by a zoology student (IIRC) and I've seen the footage. Pretty cool stuff.

I was fascinated by cryptozoology when I was a preteen/early teenager and I still have a fondness for the idea of previously dubious creatures turning up. I wonder if there are still believers in "tatzelwurm" in the Alps?

Also, cosmic coincidence time, as I write this post I am wearing a shirt with a picture of an okapi on it. My favorite "discovered" animal of the 20th century, and also my favorite animal. (They rock, go to the San Diego Wild Animal Park website and check 'em out!)

[Floyt]

I was fascinated by cryptozoology when I was a preteen/early teenager and I still have a fondness for the idea of previously dubious creatures turning up. I wonder if there are still believers in "tatzelwurm" in the Alps?



Sure, me! :) I don't think the existence of some kind of large alpine slow-worm is all that far-fetched, although the species may have bit the dolomite by now...

[paximperium]

I do wish to find a fifty foot gorilla on a tropical island with a strange fondness for human women and climbing high places one day...ahhh goals and dreams.

[WinstonCountyWildman]

Cryptozoology is not just a “wishy washy” subject, of course “wishy washers” got a grip on this one to (like any other field of knowledge has it’s own crackpots).
Animals like the giant squid where actually found and documented, but I personally never knew about a “mythic” animal (who’s implications for his existence are just nonsense) ever to be found.
Beings like the lockness monster or the bigfoot (or whatever version of the bigfoot) are not remotely possible to exist due to environment studies of the location where people claim to have spot them, one of which is the biomass (which quantifies how big is the amount of animals and plants required to sustain a form of life in order to keep it’s population steady and reproducible). Most of the areas claimed for spotting are not even capable of sustaining a single individual, much less be big enough to keep the animals (which I mind remind you that they are not small animals either) unseen on a quick search.


I love it when people say this.

There isnt enough food resources for bigfoot. RIGHT

Im not completely sold on bigfoot BUT you cant tell me that in areas all over the US where bigfoot has been reported that there is not enough food and or land to support them. These areas have elk,moose, bear etc. And easily so.

There are huge tracts of land out there that have probably not seen a human foot print in decades if ever.

If a state like Alabama where I live can support black bear and wild hogs and a population of whitetail deer in the million plus range I dont think a few 500 pound hominid is going to have a hard time finding food or a place to lay down. Right next to me is several thousand acres of timber lands. My nearest neighbor is 4 miles. And Im not even in the most remote areas of my state

[UnrepentantSinner]

I would imagine not because most of the cryptozoolgical animals have some supernatural/unreal feature.

Not to take away from Winston County Wildman's giant font thunder, but I'm going to basically reiterate what has been said by others previously, especially Starthinker's quotes from cryptozoology.com.

I'm not sure if you followed the link from the Mongolian Death Worm back to the Wikipedia page on Crypids, but they have an awesome listing and categorize them basically as fantasy, probably extinct or possible.

Bigfoot is entirely possible since we have evidence of tall upright hominids on this planet (us), but the evidence is, thus far utterly unconvincing and the only plausible naturalistic explanation (Gigantopithecus migrating to the Americas) is utterly unevidenced. Mothman, etc. is simply fantasy and Thylacine sightings in Australia are possible though unlikely to the point of wishful thinking.

The remnants of an extinct species was addressed by Starthinker's quote about the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. We're not talking about fantastical animals or bizarre living fossils like Mokele M'membe, we're talking about known species that are though to have gone extinct in the last 100 years or so.

Cryptozoology is, like UFOlogy and PSI where there could be something to it as long as we find a naturalistic explanation. It's not something I dismiss willy nilly, it's something I ask where is the beef, or brontosaurus or plesiosaur meat. Until we have something more than stories and wild goose chases, I will remain unconvinced that any of these animals exist other than in the mind of the claimants and believers.

[TMiguel]

I love it when people say this.

There isnt enough food resources for bigfoot. RIGHT

Im not completely sold on bigfoot BUT you cant tell me that in areas all over the US where bigfoot has been reported that there is not enough food and or land to support them. These areas have elk,moose, bear etc. And easily so.

There are huge tracts of land out there that have probably not seen a human foot print in decades if ever.

If a state like Alabama where I live can support black bear and wild hogs and a population of whitetail deer in the million plus range I dont think a few 500 pound hominid is going to have a hard time finding food or a place to lay down. Right next to me is several thousand acres of timber lands. My nearest neighbor is 4 miles. And Im not even in the most remote areas of my state

I said "MOST", and not "ALL". Neither to the particular case of the bigfoot.

[Cuddles]

Anyway the point is, if "zoologists" had done the above and discovered a new species or subspecies of rhino, why wouldn't that be a "victory" for cryptozoology? Or put another way...does cryptozoology have no wins because as soon as a species is verified or discovered (even after only local anecdotes as evidence), it becomes a zoology issue, and zoology win?

I think the problem is really that there is no real definition of what "cryptozoology" actually is. Most people, if they've heard of the term at all, tend to associate it with searching for mythical creatures like bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and so on. There will (almost certainly) never be a victory for cryptozoology under this definition, because the things it looks for don't actually exist.

If you simply define cryptozoology as the search for animals we haven't seen yet then of course there will be thousands of successes. But that's not what it normally means, that's just perfectly normal zoology. It doesn't just become normal zoology after the discovery, the search for new kinds of animal has always been part of zoology. If this is how you mean cryptozoology, then the term is utterly pointless. It's only if you use it to mean something different from zoology that there's any reason to have a different term, and since the search for real animals is already covered, it has to mean something else.

[CFLarsen]

People have searched for mythical creates and have found them, in one way or another.

The unicorn (with hardcore evidence: the horn!) turned out to be the narwhal. The coelacanth suddenly popped up, even though that clearly belonged to another era altogether. The okapi was discovered a mere 100 years ago.

If you say "X doesn't exist, period", you are probably wrong.

What is it that makes some skeptics jump so eagerly from the provisional nature of scientific evidence to the dogmatic declaration of The Truth?

Is it because they want - or need - to be right? Just as believers want - or need - to be right?

Hmmm....

[Correa Neto]

The problem lies within cryptzoology's methodology:

1. Use data mostly cherry-picked from myths and sighting reports to "build" a creature. Add wild speculations based on selectec tidbits of (quite often misterpreted) good science.
2. Say the creature is real and use (1) to back the claim
3. Complain against close-minded-mainstream-scientists and skeptics for not buying this stuff.

[Cuddles]

People have searched for mythical creates and have found them, in one way or another.

If you can name just one example, I will very surprised.

The unicorn (with hardcore evidence: the horn!) turned out to be the narwhal.

No it didn't. A cetacean with a long tooth is not even vaguely comparable to a horse with pointy bits.

The coelacanth suddenly popped up, even though that clearly belonged to another era altogether.

And? There were no myths about it.

The okapi was discovered a mere 100 years ago.

So?

If you say "X doesn't exist, period", you are probably wrong.

There is no invisible pink unicorn in my garden, no invisible dragon in my garage and no chocolate teapot orbiting Pluto. You think I'm wrong? Really?

What is it that makes some skeptics jump so eagerly from the provisional nature of scientific evidence to the dogmatic declaration of The Truth?

The great thing about science is that while it can't prove theories correct, it can prove them wrong. It is in no way dogmatic to point out that there is no evidence some things exist, but plenty of evidence to say that it is not possible for them to exist.

Is it because they want - or need - to be right? Just as believers want - or need - to be right?

No, it's simply that sometimes they are right.

Incidentally, this coming from Claus is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Air marshalls on planes? Drumsticks? Snakes' eyelids? And you're complaining about other people being dogmatic and refusing to accept the possibility of being wrong? Absolutely hilarious.

[kitakaze]

I think the problem is really that there is no real definition of what "cryptozoology" actually is.

Poop? :D

[kitakaze]

Not to take away from Winston County Wildman's giant font thunder, but I'm going to basically reiterate what has been said by others previously, especially Starthinker's quotes from cryptozoology.com.

I think every crypto-fan would benefit from a reading of those.

[CFLarsen]

The point is that a myth turned out to be something else. We discovered that the unicorn, this mythical creature of a horsey nature, so elusive, was really something else.

An even earlier myth was the "hairy women" that Hanno saw on his journey to the lands of hell. Yes, "gorilla" means "hairy women". Something else.

A myth can be true - at least parts of it, where we have misinterpreted the rest. We have done it before, e.g. with the atomic model. We've come a long way from the Greeks, to Dalton, to Bohr. Anyone thinks it stops at Bohr is doomed to be wrong.

Sagan's Dragon in the Garage is first and foremost an example of how woos move the goalposts. It is not an example of why things exist - or not exist. The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russell's Teapot orbiting the sun are examples of why it is not up to skeptics to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

[Cuddles]

The point is that a myth turned out to be something else. We discovered that the unicorn, this mythical creature of a horsey nature, so elusive, was really something else.

Nope.

An even earlier myth was the "hairy women" that Hanno saw on his journey to the lands of hell. Yes, "gorilla" means "hairy women". Something else.

Nope.

A myth can be true - at least parts of it, where we have misinterpreted the rest. We have done it before, e.g. with the atomic model. We've come a long way from the Greeks, to Dalton, to Bohr. Anyone thinks it stops at Bohr is doomed to be wrong.

Wow, you mean anyone who thinks an old, disproved model is entirely accurate is wrong? Amazing. In other news, anyone who thinks the Earth is flat is wrong as well. I have no idea what that is supposed to prove, but maybe if I throw out enough nonsense, no-one will notice. Oh, wait, there's already one person doing that in this thread, no need for me to join in as well.

Sagan's Dragon in the Garage is first and foremost an example of how woos move the goalposts. It is not an example of why things exist - or not exist. The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russell's Teapot orbiting the sun are examples of why it is not up to skeptics to disprove an unfalsifiable claim.

What do Sagan and Russell have to do with anything? I'm talking about my dragon, my unicorn and my teapot. You claimed that anyone saying that something definitely doesn't exist is probably wrong. I claim that my dragon, unicorn and teapot all definitely don't exist. Are you still going to claim that I'm wrong?

[CFLarsen]

All rational discourse require that the arguments are actually read and understood.

[Cuddles]

All rational discourse require that the arguments are actually read and understood.

You will let me know when you read or understand an argument, won't you?

[kitakaze]

The point is that a myth turned out to be something else. We discovered that the unicorn, this mythical creature of a horsey nature, so elusive, was really something else.Unless I misunderstood, you were positing that the unicorn turned out to be based on the narwhal. I disagree with that. Narwhal tusks seem to begin appearing in mediaeval and renaissance cabinets of curiosities brought south by Viking and other Northern traders and sold as unicorn horns.

Early Greek writers refer unicorns as natural rather than mythical creatures and located them in India. The earliest description is from Ctesias who described them as wild asses, fleet of foot, having a horn a cubit and a half in length and colored white, red and black.

Where can I read factual information directly correlating the source of unicorn mythology with the narwhal?

[rockinkt]

. Narwhal tusks seem to begin appearing in mediaeval and renaissance cabinets of curiosities brought south by Viking and other Northern traders and sold as unicorn horns.


Isn't it funny that these tusks were sold as something they were not by people who were out to make a buck?

Sounds just like the shenanigans of the leaders of crypto organisations today.

[CFLarsen]

The unicorn myth comes from a lot of sources, but all where there were horses. It isn't that much of a stretch to think of similar animals (deer, antelopes etc) and then jump to the conclusion that some horses also had horns. Hey, if the rhino can have one horn, why not a special kind of horse? Unicorns didn't necessarily had to have had magical powers, but since they were not that easy to find, why not? In fact, since we can't find them, they must be magical. But, for a price, I can get you a horn from a unicorn (who would ever want the tail?). The myth is therefore strengthened: Not only do we now have evidence, it is also magical!

It isn't as if it was easy for the buyers and believers to check if the horn was real or not: Travel was hard, expensive and dangerous. And at any rate, the creature was elusive (hence the high price, mate!), so even in the areas where it was supposed to live, locals could still believe unicorns were real. For those who didn't - well, why ruin a damned good source of income?

[catbasket]

I think that might be Claus admitting he was wrong when he said "The unicorn (with hardcore evidence: the horn!) turned out to be the narwhal".

[Naughtyhippo]

There's a lady down the road who's convinced there's some kind of large cat/beastie that's been killing local cats. There's no shortage of rabbits for the beastie to eat (I once saw a fox look confused over where to begin). It's just the space issue. Where does the BRitish Big Cat stand in the ranks of cryptozoology?

[CFLarsen]

The unicorn was described as an actual creature in the old texts. The people who created the beautiful bestiaries from the Middle Ages mixed real animals (the camelopardalis, the rhino) with fictional ones (the unicorn, the dragon) - only they didn't know at the time. If they heard reports from travellers, sailors and visitors from strange and faraway lands, they just took those reports for granted: Why wouldn't they? If there is such an animal as the giraffe, or the rhino, or the hairy women from Africa, why wouldn't there be animals like unicorns and dragons?

We can see the difference, because we know that there haven't been found any unicorns or dragons - but they didn't. They had no reason to doubt any of these reports that we see as myths today.

When the craving for real evidence kicked in (if nothing else, as a prized possession that others can envy), what to do? Hey, here's a narwhal tooth unicorn horn. That fits the story. Bingo.

Rrrrrright up until the moment when the world got smaller, and people could travel from the Arctics to the lands where the unicorn was believed to be real. Bloody whistle blowers.

Of course, this didn't kill the myth entirely. Even when faced with real evidence of the real thing, some people would still believe that unicorns existed.

[catbasket]

I think that might be Claus admitting he was wrong when he said "The unicorn (with hardcore evidence: the horn!) turned out to be the narwhal".

[words]

Or maybe not.

[CFLarsen]

One of the things that is at times difficult for people living in modern times is to grasp that what we see as mythology was not seen as mythology to the ancients. To them, Zeus, Thor, unicorns and dragons were real - as real as the rock in front of them, and the food on their table. When it was thundering lightning, that was considered evidence that Thor existed. When someone merely told of unicorns and dragons, that was considered evidence of both.

We should always be careful not to expect people in the past to have our understanding of what we know now. What we see as myths today, in a casual way - because we know better - were not myths to those in the past. What we see as evidence today was not what people back then saw as evidence.

Not to say that we have reached the final stage of knowledge: What we know today, will most likely be seen just as naïve as we see the ancients' beliefs today.

[catbasket]

Now I'm edging towards a definite no.

[Cuddles]

There's a lady down the road who's convinced there's some kind of large cat/beastie that's been killing local cats. There's no shortage of rabbits for the beastie to eat (I once saw a fox look confused over where to begin). It's just the space issue. Where does the BRitish Big Cat stand in the ranks of cryptozoology?

Big cats are a tricky one. The main problem is that there are lots of different claims, some of which are pure nonsense and others which are actually true, but not really anything to do with cryptozoology. There have been several cases of people reporting big cats in the wild that turned out to be real big cats that had escaped (or been released) from zoos, circuses and the like. However, claiming that non-native animals which are known to have been brought to a country may sometimes be seen in the wild in that country really aren't cryptozoology, it's just something that can be expected to happen from time to time.

On the other hand, there are claims that large, breeding populations of big cats, often claimed to be entirely new species, are living in the wild. Pictures that I've seen have included domestic cats, dogs, foxes, fakes and shadows, but aside from the occasional real escaped big cat, nothing supporting the existence of any continuous or substantial population has been found. As with things like bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, the fact that waste, remains and bodies would certainly exist if they were real means these claims can be dismissed as nonsense. In any case, there really isn't enough space in Britain for a significant number of large mammals to hide, especially carnivorous ones.

[phaed]

Many cryptid stories may arise from sightings of mutants of real animals. For example, one can easily imagine how unicorn legends arose from sightings of other one-horned mutant ungulates (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/images/080612-AP-unicorn-photo_big.jpg).

But we all know that people have wild imaginations and penchants for colorful storytelling and poor observational skills under certain conditions, so in most cases, that is the more parsimonious explanation,

[TheDeeMan]

Big cats are a tricky one. The main problem is that there are lots of different claims, some of which are pure nonsense and others which are actually true, but not really anything to do with cryptozoology. There have been several cases of people reporting big cats in the wild that turned out to be real big cats that had escaped (or been released) from zoos, circuses and the like. However, claiming that non-native animals which are known to have been brought to a country may sometimes be seen in the wild in that country really aren't cryptozoology, it's just something that can be expected to happen from time to time.

On the other hand, there are claims that large, breeding populations of big cats, often claimed to be entirely new species, are living in the wild. Pictures that I've seen have included domestic cats, dogs, foxes, fakes and shadows, but aside from the occasional real escaped big cat, nothing supporting the existence of any continuous or substantial population has been found. As with things like bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, the fact that waste, remains and bodies would certainly exist if they were real means these claims can be dismissed as nonsense. In any case, there really isn't enough space in Britain for a significant number of large mammals to hide, especially carnivorous ones.

I watch MonsterQuest quite a bit and they had ome interesting big cat video from Scotland. What they suspect is that these big cats may be exotic pets that were released into the wild when they went out of fashion.

Dee

[sanguine]

As with things like bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, the fact that waste, remains and bodies would certainly exist if they were real means these claims can be dismissed as nonsense. In any case, there really isn't enough space in Britain for a significant number of large mammals to hide, especially carnivorous ones.

And notably, here in Northern California where we have breeding populations of a reasonably big cat, there are cougar attacks pretty much annually on random bicyclists, runners, and hikers.

[arthwollipot]

There are persistant reports of a big cat in the Blue Mountains on the outskirts of Sydney. The Lithgow Panther, it's called.

[TheDeeMan]

There have been attacks in Scotland by big cats. Mostly on livestock and occassionally on small kids.

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.

Dee

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.


Oh, you're gonna love this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttlYodEJyzg)...

[TheDeeMan]

Oh, you're gonna love this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttlYodEJyzg)...

Where, oh where would we be without Youtube.

Dee

[manofthesea]

I have two examples of mythical creatures being discovered.

1. The Hobbit People in SE Asia.
2. The White Buffalo, born recently somewhere in the heartland.

Both were newsworthy.

[TheDeeMan]

Exactly. New species are being discovered everyday.

Dee

[GT/CS]

There have been attacks in Scotland by big cats. Mostly on livestock and occassionally on small kids.

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.

Dee

In 24 hours flies ate a deer, including its bones and hair???

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I have two examples of mythical creatures being discovered.

1. The Hobbit People in SE Asia.

Close, but we have no way of knowing if the hobbits actually spawned any little people myths. This is like how some people think that Komodo dragons started the (European) dragon myth. Although it's possible they could've helped contribute to the legend, the fact of the matter is that dragons are the result of grossly exaggerated stories about constrictor snakes (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Dragons#Ancient_sources). You can even read scans from an old book on the matter here (http://monsterbrains.blogspot.com/2008/01/ambroise-pare-considered-as-one-of.html).

2. The White Buffalo, born recently somewhere in the heartland.

Not only is that incorrect (http://www.his.state.mt.us/museum/permex.asp), but we've been over it before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95426).

Exactly. New species are being discovered everyday.

Here's (http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2008/20080804.jpg) something that notes on the flaw of that line of thinking in regards to cryptozoology. I should also note that the language makes it mildly NSFW.

[TheDeeMan]

In 24 hours flies ate a deer, including its bones and hair???

No after being surprised that so much of the deer had been consumed in so short a time, filming was stopped. They speculated that in the days/weeks to follow all the little animals that they expeced to see first (foxes, raccoons, etc) would pick over the bones. Hey, it made sense to me.

Dee

[GT/CS]

No after being surprised that so much of the deer had been consumed in so short a time, filming was stopped. They speculated that in the days/weeks to follow all the little animals that they expeced to see first (foxes, raccoons, etc) would pick over the bones. Hey, it made sense to me.

Dee

Got it. Looks like I need to work on my reading comprehension.

MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone

[manofthesea]

AMM, I can't defend the buffalo legend, not my tribe. But the event was newsworthy and they then pointed out a few predictions concerning it's birth.

Whether the florens people inspired which myth is unimportant being they lived approx 13,000 yrs ago, concurrent with modern humans.

[CFLarsen]

Why is it expected that humans have a correct perception of god?

[sanguine]

There have been attacks in Scotland by big cats. Mostly on livestock and occassionally on small kids.


There are news cites in the UK for injuries to animals that are attributed, without witnesses, to a big cat:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4599441.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3169923.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/3186521.stm

I haven't found any cite of an attack on a small child. Do you have one?

Notably, this isn't indicative of a breeding population, as one can occasionally find an unwisely exotic pet kitty in a New York City apartment, too.

In contrast, California Mountain Lion attacks on adult humans happen almost universally with other adult humans there as witnesses, which is already a tremendous step up from finding a hurt cow and thinking that a dog couldn't have done the deed.

Which is to say, it once again goes to the strength of the evidence for these things and the plausibility of hypotheses in the face of that evidence, and not just the idea that it is, to some finite degree, possible.

[Dragoonster]

Let's hypothesize that an Alien Big Cat is caught by an amateur cryptozoologist who was led to a site by a single, vague sighting by just one witness. And that there weren't any other sightings/remains/etc. in that area, just going off of that.

Would that be a victory for cryptozoology?

[William Parcher]

I watch MonsterQuest quite a bit and they had ome interesting big cat video from Scotland.

It shows a black house cat, possibly feral. I'm unaware of any video or still photos from the UK that obviously show a leopard, jaguar, cougar, etc. I've seen lots of this purported visual evidence. It is clear that people are taking video and photos of house cats, and yet they believe it is a "big cat".

[Cuddles]

Close, but we have no way of knowing if the hobbits actually spawned any little people myths.

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of people shoehorning new discoveries to fit myths, but I'm not aware of any examples of a mythical definitely being based on a single real animal.

Note that this does not mean that myths aren't inspired by reality, but there's a big difference between people seeing horses and animals with horns and making up a myth about a combination of the two, and there actually being a one-horned horse that had stories told about it.

This is like how some people think that Komodo dragons started the (European) dragon myth. Although it's possible they could've helped contribute to the legend, the fact of the matter is that dragons are the result of grossly exaggerated stories about constrictor snakes (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Dragons#Ancient_sources). You can even read scans from an old book on the matter here (http://monsterbrains.blogspot.com/2008/01/ambroise-pare-considered-as-one-of.html).

I'm not convinved at all, and that skeptiwiki link doesn't support your claim. As it explains very well, there are many different myths about dragons, some parts clearly inspired by snakes, although by no means simply exaggerated stories about real snakes, and others having very little to do with snakes at all. In fact, I think the most relevant quote here is:
The fact that translators have often chosen this word does not mean that there are identical or mutually supporting accounts of dragons worldwide.
There is no single source of dragon myths. There are a huge number different sources, some based vaguely on real things, others completely made up, and they have all become very mixed up with each other as cultures have interacted with each other. The "ancient sources" section of that article all clearly refer simply to snakes, albiet unfeasibly large one. The fact that an ancient word for snake was used hundreds of years later to refer to fire-breathing, knight-eating European style dragons does not mean that the one is simply a variation of the other.

There are news cites in the UK for injuries to animals that are attributed, without witnesses, to a big cat:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4599441.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3169923.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/3186521.stm

Exactly. There are plenty of claims of big cats, but I have yet to see any evidence of anything other than the occasional escapee, and I'm not aware of any report of a wild big cat actually attacking a person. As William Parcher says, there are plenty of videos and pictures of perfectly normal small cats, and often foxes and dogs as well, but the big cats remain confined entirely to blurry pictures and unsupported anecdotes.

[EHocking]

There have been attacks in Scotland by big cats. Mostly on livestock and occassionally on small kids.

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared[2] by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours[1]--And that was just from the flies alone[3]. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.

DeeMy bolding.

[1] It took just under a week
[2] It did not disappear - the bones[3] and skin remained.
[3] Maggots feed on dead flesh and don't devour bones.

Video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ64jthnOxQ)
Time lapse sequence starts at 5mins.

I've read a number of BF proponents making similar, inaccurate claims about the speed at which bodies "disapear" in the wild. It seems the more inaccurate the claim (as long as it supports their beliefs) the less the proponents seem to challenge the evidence.

[William Parcher]

Cryptozoology is really not a science. It is a social intrigue and hobby. I think it would be more accurately referred to as Cryptozoophilia - the love of cryptic animals. More precisely, based on how the majority of its followers engage in their hobby - it is the love of the idea of cryptic animals.

[Correa Neto]

Uhm...

Then call me a cryptozoophilist, since I do love the idea of cryptids (especially the little mermaid - she is hot- fishy but hot). It happens, however, that I don't think they (or at least most of them) are real because there's little if any reliable evidence to support their reality.

Better say cryptozoophilia is the refusal of letting go the idea of cryptids being real despite the fact that the odds are zero for all practical purposes.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I'm not convinved at all, and that skeptiwiki link doesn't support your claim. As it explains very well, there are many different myths about dragons, some parts clearly inspired by snakes, although by no means simply exaggerated stories about real snakes, and others having very little to do with snakes at all.

I originally was going to respond by clarifying that I meant the basic idea of an European dragon has a base in large snakes, but other attributes that we identify with dragons today got grafted onto it over the years. However, I soon realized that I'd be saying the same basic idea as this:

There is no single source of dragon myths. There are a huge number different sources, some based vaguely on real things, others completely made up, and they have all become very mixed up with each other as cultures have interacted with each other.

But since I didn't want to have spent some time looking up links for nothing:

http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast262.htm
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1260098

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

AMM, I can't defend the buffalo legend, not my tribe. But the event was newsworthy and they then pointed out a few predictions concerning it's birth.

Sounds like it was a slow news day. The fact remains that white buffalo were confirmed a long time ago and not recently like you claimed.

Whether the florens people inspired which myth is unimportant being they lived approx 13,000 yrs ago, concurrent with modern humans.

Um...if their not inspiring myths is unimportant, then why did you offer them as an example of a mythical creature being discovered?

[JohnG]

Then call me a cryptozoophilist, since I do love the idea of cryptids...

Count me in, too. I love the idea of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot as much as I did as a kid, maybe even more. It's just that the evidence for their existence isn't convincing for me anymore.

Still, if anyone wants to get a chapter of a cryptozoophilist society together, I'll print the fliers and bring pie.

[tyr_13]

Isn't it funny how a lot of these 'bad, ebil, closed minded, skeptics' who are so biased against these cryptids (and other woo) are the same people who would love to find this stuff? Count me in. I love the idea of psychic powers, telekinesis, bigfoot, nessy, etc, but that doesn't mean I believe them.

[geni]

With regards to the ABC issue in the recorded cases where big cats have escaped they haven't lasted long. The UK is a very hostile enviroment for them. Full of roads and those roads are full of cars. And even if they avoid those there is very little of the UK that doesn't have people moveing through it on a fairly regular basis. Population densities in the UK rather limit the posibilities.

[Aepervius]

There have been attacks in Scotland by big cats. Mostly on livestock and occassionally on small kids.

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.

Dee

"It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone"

Gross exageration or downright lie. Firstly maggot would explain only disappearance of the soft tissue. From a forensic site : "In warm weather, conducive to fly growth, maggots can consume 60 per cent of a human body in less than a week. ". And that is in the GOOD condition. Guess how long it takes in spring/autumn or even worst, winter. Also guess what the maggot do to the 10 or 20% of non soft tissue / bones : nothing.

ETA: I see this was corrected by many people anyway, never mind ignore me.

[Correa Neto]

Isn't it funny how a lot of these 'bad, ebil, closed minded, skeptics' who are so biased against these cryptids (and other woo) are the same people who would love to find this stuff? Count me in. I love the idea of psychic powers, telekinesis, bigfoot, nessy, etc, but that doesn't mean I believe them.
Believers share a common factor- the need of an external enemy, someone else to blame. They just can't admit that there's little if any support for their claims/beliefs. They can't admit thet their reasonings, methodology and conclusions are flawed. Someone else must be blamed for their flaws. Guess who's to be blamed, who will become the external enemy? The unbelievers, those who point the flaws - the skeptics.

Cryptids are never found? Blame it on the close-minded mainstream scients and skeptics. It can't be because there's no cryptid out there.

Failed to convince them UFOs are real? Blame it on the close-minded mainstream scients and skeptics. The evidence can't be weak and your reasonings utterly flawed - you can't see any problem with them.

Failed to convince them about the true nature of the fabric of reality you just discovered after a major insight? Blame it on the close-minded mainstream scients and skeptics. Your pet theory can't be a castle of cards.

Your psi experiments always fail? Blame it on the "skeptical effect". It can't be because there's no psi.

Those people are not convinced by your global conspiracy theory? They must be brain-washed sheeple or even spooks. It can't be because there's no global conspiracy...

Your deity made no miracles? Blame it on the unbelievers. It can't be because there's no deity.

Had sex with children? Blame it on Satan and/or influence of infidels and their atheist modern culture. You can't have a psychosexual disorder.

Your country's economy goes bad? Blame it on foreign imperialistic capitalism. It can't be due to your fail proof economic policy.

Can't find a job? Blame it on another ethnical group. It can't be due to your own poor choices or sheer bad luck.

[manofthesea]

Sounds like it was a slow news day. The fact remains that white buffalo were confirmed a long time ago and not recently like you claimed.



Um...if their not inspiring myths is unimportant, then why did you offer them as an example of a mythical creature being discovered?

I don't think anyone can be so presumptious to deny there were myths derived from these little people.

[sanguine]

I don't think anyone can be so presumptious to deny there were myths derived from these little people.

I think the more reasonable query back to you might be, "Do you think that a putative* small hominid that apparently existed in Indonesia more than 13,000 years ago inspired the various myths of 'little people' in Europe and elsewhere?"

Sure, it's reasonable that after they disappeared in Indonesia (circa ~11,000 BC or so) the local homo sapiens still told some "little people" stories for a bit-- assuming they were really discernible from the other local primates. But even though they were cutely nicknamed "hobbits" by modern researchers, it's a stretch to suggest that these stories crawled their way back upstream against the migration flow of humanity and spread throughout much of the rest of the world.

That's also moving the goalposts a bit. Sure, floriensis appears to have been a contemporary of sapiens. So was neandertal, right? So can I just call them the source for the bigfoot story and we can all be done with it?


*Some folks still dispute the legitimacy of floriensis as a species and not deformed sapiens. As a biologist but non paleo- or anthro- person, my semi-amateur take on the evidence is that floriensis looks more like a species.

[Elizabeth I]

Count me in, too. I love the idea of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot as much as I did as a kid, maybe even more. It's just that the evidence for their existence isn't convincing for me anymore.

Still, if anyone wants to get a chapter of a cryptozoophilist society together, I'll print the fliers and bring pie.

Isn't it funny how a lot of these 'bad, ebil, closed minded, skeptics' who are so biased against these cryptids (and other woo) are the same people who would love to find this stuff? Count me in. I love the idea of psychic powers, telekinesis, bigfoot, nessy, etc, but that doesn't mean I believe them.

Me, too. I would love for Nessie to be real. For some reason, I feel a deep personal connection to her.

I will bring brownies (the chocolate bar cookies, not the small persons :)) to the first meeting.

[Mark6]

Me, too. I would love for Nessie to be real. For some reason, I feel a deep personal connection to her.

I will bring brownies (the chocolate bar cookies, not the small persons :)) to the first meeting.

If Nessie is anything like a plesiosaur, she would appreciate small (as in, bite-sized) persons more than cookies.

[kitakaze]

(snip)
*Some folks still dispute the legitimacy of floriensis as a species and not deformed sapiens. As a biologist but non paleo- or anthro- person, my semi-amateur take on the evidence is that floriensis looks more like a species.

We've discussed the ebu gobo = H. floresiensis = orang pendek before and suffice it to say the evidence to support the idea is lacking. When you look at the purported casts of orang pendek they look nothing like what we see in the hobbit's feet.

From what I've seen I would agree that H. floresiensis are almost certainly a separate species. I just last night was watch a documentary on the hobbits in which a paleoanthropologist said that he would be extremely excited but in no way surprised if a population of living hobbits were found in some jungle of Sumatra or elsewhere in Indonesia. I don't think that was an unreasonable statement though I think for most ordinary people they would be pretty surprised.

[manofthesea]

I think the more reasonable query back to you might be, "Do you think that a putative* small hominid that apparently existed in Indonesia more than 13,000 years ago inspired the various myths of 'little people' in Europe and elsewhere?"
.

I'm not real precise as to the nature of European myths.
But there are Polynesian and other Pacific Rim stories of little people. I'm sure Europe had their own inspirations for myths and legends.

There was a question during the TV show on the hobbit discovery that wondered if the hobbits evolved in place from erectus or sapien. Or if they migrated to the place that the discovery was made. There's no answer yet.
Who knows, maybe they left the frigid environs of Europe and settled in Indonesia?

[Starthinker]

We have dwarves and midgets even today and I'm sure one wandering into some medievil village would have sufficed to start a "little people" myth. Occam's Razor.

[sanguine]

We have dwarves and midgets even today and I'm sure one wandering into some medievil village would have sufficed to start a "little people" myth. Occam's Razor.

This.

As a similar-ish example, if you look back at Sumerian and Akkadian texts and materials, angel-type creatures are often pictured as hermaphroditic (and if you've seen the 1995 movie "The Prophecy" they used that idea there). In other texts, they describe "birth omens" and one of them is the birth of a hermaphroditic person or animal. So in this case, you can draw a nice line from the witnessing of the real event to its incorporation into a mythological entity.

[George152]

In 24 hours flies ate a deer, including its bones and hair???

Those Scottish flies are real mean

[kitakaze]

New cryptosillyness DVD trailer -

Chasing Discovery: Lives and Struggles of Crytpozoologists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxRJH4vqkcY).

Crytpozoologist: "We have a definite zoological problem."

Yes, you do. You are neither zoologists or contribute to the field in any way whatsoever.

[kitakaze]

Bigfoot IQ test:

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2280

(Not a test of the intelligence of Bigfoot but rather trivia for Bigfoot enthusiasts.)

I have no embarrassment admitting a score of 10/10.:D

[Mark6]

I checked the link, and loved the unintentional irony of the topmost poster's tag line:

"...if the skeptics are right and there is no such creature as Bigfoot, then it is a fact that thousands of Americans and Canadians are either prone to hallucinations, or compulsive liars, or unable to recognize bears, deer and vagrants" – Janet Bord

Considering that there are several hundred million Americans and Canadians, yes I would say it is entirely probable that several thousands of them are either prone to hallucinations, or compulsive liars, or unable to recognize bears, deer and vagrants.

[William Parcher]

A cryptozoophilist talks about skepticism on Cryptozoology.com (http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=1&pid=621709).

The following are excuses/criteria certain skeptics claim (some on this site and some from TV specials) to be the reasons a person has seen a cryptid...


It's like a crazy nightmare ride.

Then comes Part 2 (http://www.cryptozoology.com/forum/topic_view_thread.php?tid=1&pid=621907).

Although we must agree to disagree about our conclusions I will say two quick things. First; Doug is 6'5, 270lbs (so he claims), and when that thing 'barked at them' Doug and his ex came running as if the apacolypse was behind them. If it was a teenager in a suit, I think Doug would have handled him/her. Secondly; I have never seen a white brick that looked like this?

[William Parcher]

I was watching Tremors II the other day and then I went onto the wikipedia page upon which I ended up on the page for the creatures in the movie, and linked from that page was the Mongolian Death Worm. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_Death_Worm)


Death Worm Expedition Departs (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/farrier-exp/)

The expedition and documentary, which would cost him (David Farrier) between $15,000 and $20,000, would take a serious look at the Worm and what it was, Farrier said.

He said he was interested in the Death Worm because it was one of the most outrageous creatures that were rumoured to exist.

However, it was also one of the mythical creatures that had a better chance of being real.

Rumours could inflate the reputation of things such as the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, but sparsely populated Mongolia was not a place where rumours were going to propagate, Farrier said.

Is that good logic?

[ugot2bekidding]

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.

Dee

The irony here is that in their effort to prove it's unlikely to stumble upon animal remains in the woods they used the remains of a deer that they..um, stumbled upon. (Ok so it was road kill...but, the road was probably close to the woods. Besides, where's all the bigfeet road kill? Even if they are smarter-than-your-average bear, don't people, even, get hit by cars?)

Anywhoo, as a skeptic, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I had a blast reading Bernard Heuvelmans.

[makaya325]

Besides, where's all the bigfeet road kill? Even if they are smarter-than-your-average bear, don't people, even, get hit by cars?)

I agree. Not only that, but if Bigfoot was hit by a car, it would result in major media coverage and would be front page news.

[doctoratlantis]

I agree. Not only that, but if Bigfoot was hit by a car, it would result in major media coverage and would be front page news.

Actually I've seen a lot of this kind of collision.
http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/images-news/mar-2.jpg

This kind of thing is so common now you can buy tickets and watch it!

[makaya325]

Actually I've seen a lot of this kind of collision.
http://www.bigfoot4x4.com/images-news/mar-2.jpg

This kind of thing is so common now you can buy tickets and watch it!

Do you know what this means? 10.00$ to see BF crushing cars! (10.00$ extra for freezer option, along with biscardi autograph):D

[William Parcher]

Cryptomundo has a new blog (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/edgescience/) and I'm trying to figure out the point that Loren Coleman is making.

Bulletin! Cryptozoology Is Being Used By Scientists

We all heard about the new species of that bald-headed bird, oh, so innocently found recently. Now here's the rest of the story, the confirmation of the cryptozoological method, indeed, quietly happening in what is sometimes called EdgeScience.

This bald-headed, pink-faced songbird was "accidentally found" (according to the media) by scientists who were surveying a limestone outcrop in Laos. But was there more to all of this than means the eye?


What is this cryptozoological method he is talking about? I don't get it.

[paximperium]

What is this cryptozoological method he is talking about? I don't get it.Unscientific blind random luck.

[makaya325]

WP, there are two kinds of cryptozoology:

the real, Scientific Cryptozoology consists of mainstream scientist's exploring remote area's of Africa, Asia, Etc. and finding new species of Animals, such as the YETI crab!( Which was in the ocean). Even though it is a scientific impossibility for anything over 10ft, even in the ocean, to remain hidden to current day, that does not mean there is no aura when discovering new species. My best friend, who's a girl (Karlyn), Boyfriends uncle is a Taxidermist. While on an expedition in Africa, capturing Monkey's, he said that he saw "A Chimpanzee-Gorilla mix, that was enormous, and was making an aggressive gesture at him". Sounds like the Bili ape.

[William Parcher]

I think he means talking to local people about their creatures. Is he somehow equating that with cryptozoology as opposed to zoology?

[paximperium]

I think he means talking to local people about their creatures. Is he somehow equating that with cryptozoology as opposed to zoology?
"This bald-headed, pink-faced songbird was "accidentally found" (according to the media) by scientists who were surveying a limestone outcrop in Laos."
What "talking to local people"?

[William Parcher]

What "talking to local people"?


This bit...

To help us with some of the more cryptic species, yes indeed, we do rely rather heavily on the extensive knowledge of local hunters; when it comes to taxa that are used for food or decoration, these guys really are the experts out there!

[Akhenaten]

WP, there are two kinds of cryptozoology:

the real, Scientific Cryptozoology consists of mainstream scientist's exploring remote area's of Africa, Asia, Etc. and finding new species of Animals, such as the YETI crab!( Which was in the ocean). Even though it is a scientific impossibility for anything over 10ft, even in the ocean, to remain hidden to current day, that does not mean there is no aura when discovering new species. My best friend, who's a girl (Karlyn), Boyfriends uncle is a Taxidermist. While on an expedition in Africa, capturing Monkey's, he said that he saw "A Chimpanzee-Gorilla mix, that was enormous, and was making an aggressive gesture at him". Sounds like the Bili ape.





Where are your references?

[GT/CS]

WP, there are two kinds of cryptozoology:

the real, Scientific Cryptozoology consists of mainstream scientist's exploring remote area's of Africa, Asia, Etc. and finding new species of Animals, such as the YETI crab!( Which was in the ocean). Even though it is a scientific impossibility for anything over 10ft, even in the ocean, to remain hidden to current day, that does not mean there is no aura when discovering new species. My best friend, who's a girl (Karlyn), Boyfriends uncle is a Taxidermist. While on an expedition in Africa, capturing Monkey's, he said that he saw "A Chimpanzee-Gorilla mix, that was enormous, and was making an aggressive gesture at him". Sounds like the Bili ape.

Bolding and coloring mine.

Do you have a source for this statement or is it just more of your absurd nonsense?

[kitakaze]

Cryptomundo has a new blog (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/edgescience/) and I'm trying to figure out the point that Loren Coleman is making.

What is this cryptozoological method he is talking about? I don't get it.


Cryptofool Coleman up to his usual foo foo, desperately trying to validate his crypto-gobbledy-gook so people might be more inclined to buy one of his books and learn more about the 11 species of Bigfoot in North America or donate to the museum (home crypto swag collection).

Sorry, Loren. Cryptozoology is still not a science and never will be. Same goes for your hominology dreck or whatever else you want to stick a pipe in your mouth and say "-ology" after. No schools teach cryptozoology, there are no degrees in it, and no scientists being paid to research it. Not one cryptozoologist, which is a sophisticated way to say "fortean addict", has ever made a single contribution to zoology, biology, or any other of the natural sciences. I would suggest busting open the museum donation piggy bank and seeing if you can take some online zoology courses. Here, I'll lend a hand...

http://www.zoology.msu.edu/online-courses.html

[makaya325]

[QUOTE=William Parcher;5259981]:eye-poppi:eye-poppi The constant contradiction and self-confusion is just boggling.[QUOTE]

I would still EXPECT new species of Sharks, but whether they are larger than 10ft, has yet to be shown or supported, Wise guy

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Back on topic please.

[kitakaze]

A little something for the fortean addicts...

Do you believe? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYqDPRUrWqY)

[William Parcher]

Taken from another thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=135788&page=24)...


You did use cougar, and that is of course Puma concolor (of any subspecies).

I use cougar because panther is a misnomer.


The whole of the evidence for USA jaguarundi outside of South Texas is limited to sighting reports, yes? But you are speaking of folks who don't even say they are seeing a jaguarundi. These people say "cougar" and you say it could have been jaguarundi instead, yes?


Yes and yes, with the caveat that there is at least some potential track evidence to go along with the sightings. The reasons that I believe that jaguarundis may be responsible are in no particular order...
1- Jaguarundis once inhabited a much larger portion of the South than their currently known habitat (as did the cougar), so we known that at least at one point they were there.
2- Jaguarundis actually display a gray or black phase unlike the cougar, meaning that the jaguarundi could actually account for the sighting of a "black panther".
3- Being considerably smaller than the cougar jaguarundis would have less environmental impact, be more likely to avoid detection, and need less range in order to operate.
4- The size differential between jaguarundis and cougars isn't so great that it couldn't fit in the margin of error for an eyewitness.
5- What I witnessed was nearly within touching distance and was clearly not a cougar, "panther", jaguar, or other big cat. At the time I didn't know what a jaguarundi was and wrote it off as being a "black panther". It wasn't until later that I found out that there was an animal that actually matched what I saw.

[William Parcher]

1- Jaguarundis once inhabited a much larger portion of the South than their currently known habitat (as did the cougar), so we known that at least at one point they were there.


I'm curious about this. Do you have any online references? I remember reading that it was once thought that Arizona was historic range for jaguarundi, but now it is thought not - or at least there is no physical evidence for it.

[William Parcher]

Uh oh. The IUCN (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/9948/0) is now saying that they are probably/possibly extinct in the USA and that includes Texas.

It is probably extinct in the US (south Texas) (Sunquist and Sunquist 2002, A. Caso pers. comm. 2007).

Possibly extinct: United States (Texas)

[Bitter Monk]

Uh oh. The IUCN (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/9948/0) is now saying that they are probably/possibly extinct in the USA and that includes Texas.

If the IUCN is correct that would be sad news. Not because of my own pet hypothesis, but because they are a beautiful species regardless of where they do or don't exist. I did find some literature mentioning their adapting to different terrains which at least gives hope for their continued survival.

As to their prior habitat this http://www.nwf.org/cats/catsSouthwest.cfm NWF page shows their historic range extending into the Southwest. I was able to find references to ocelots historically ranging as far as Louisiana (another interesting possibility for the so called "panther").

Here's hoping that no matter where they are the jaguarundis keep on keeping on.

[William Parcher]

As to their prior habitat this http://www.nwf.org/cats/catsSouthwest.cfm NWF page shows their historic range extending into the Southwest. I was able to find references to ocelots historically ranging as far as Louisiana (another interesting possibility for the so called "panther").


I'm skeptical of that map because it makes no distinctions between the three species of "Border Cats". It's as if all three had identical historical ranges. I'm gonna go ahead and say that I doubt it, or that there is no evidence for it.

Also notice the perfectly straight lines at the north and east borders of the split ranges. What is that all about? Are those enormous cat-proof fences from days of old? I think we should look further for something scientific concerning the historical American range of the jaguarundi.

I did find this interesting article from Texas Parks & Wildlife...

Rarest Cat of All (http://www.tpwmagazine.com/archive/2005/sept/legend/)

With no confirmed sightings since 1986, the jaguarundi may have fled to thornier pastures in Mexico...

Reports of jaguarundi spottings crop up with some regularity in Texas. But the similarity in size and appearance to a house cat, rather than its population density, is the most likely reason for the frequency of sightings. Proof is in much of the Yeti-style snapshots and shaky videos that capture, in the final analysis, only fleet-footed Fluffys. However, a jaguarundi sighting usually doesn't involve just any old house cat. Rather, it is a house cat gone wild.

"We had a videotape sent to us from a hunting lease a few years ago that the person described as being taken in an area at least 50 miles from any houses," TPWD mammalogist John Young recalls of one jaguarundi alert. "The cat in the videotape was a house cat that was running wild. Wild house cats do not look the same as our pets. They are much more muscular, and walk and act differently, giving them a different appearance."

[Bitter Monk]

I'm skeptical of that map because it makes no distinctions between the three species of "Border Cats". It's as if all three had identical historical ranges. I'm gonna go ahead and say that I doubt it, or that there is no evidence for it.

Yeah the map itself isn't superb by any stretch. You have to read the text to see the difference in species range.

Jaguars have been documented historically in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and southern Louisiana, but today, the jaguar has been virtually eliminated from the U.S., and it is gone or missing from approximately half its range.

Historically, ocelots in the U.S. roamed the forests and scrub habitat of Texas, Arizona, and possibly Louisiana and Arkansas.

Historically, jaguarundis inhabited much of Central and South America and parts of the southwestern U.S.

The quoted text you provided about the domestic cats gone wild is interesting. When I was in GITMO there were feral cats on the leeward side of the base, including a female that was raising a litter under our duty trailer.

[Bitter Monk]

I guess for the sake of disclosure I should share more information regarding the sighting I mentioned.

What I witnessed was nearly within touching distance and was clearly not a cougar, "panther", jaguar, or other big cat. At the time I didn't know what a jaguarundi was and wrote it off as being a "black panther". It wasn't until later that I found out that there was an animal that actually matched what I saw.

When I was 14 we were rabbit hunting in Greene County, GA. We were hunting an area that was mixed swamp, overgrown fields, and forest. Our dogs had been on a long run about midday. I was alone along one of the fields when the dogs started to cut across a patch of woods across the field I was next to. Towards the middle of this field was a small mound. I decided to head towards this mound to see if I could get a shot. As I headed towards this little mound the dogs broke out of the field and started running in my direction so I started running trying to get to the top of this mound before the dogs passed me by. Just as I started to top the mound a larger than a house cat cat came barreling up over the mound from the opposite side. As soon as I saw the cat I put on the breaks so to speak. The cat immediately changed direction and shot off to its left but not before coming within just a few feet of me. Before I could even level my shotgun it had shot down the side of the mound and was lost in the tall grass.

In the short amount of time I had to observe it I could see a cat that I would estimate was close to three feet long. The shoulder height was harder to estimate because the cat was in a full run but it was clearly larger than any house cat. The three things that stuck out distinctly to me was the color, which appeared to be nearly solid black, the ears, which seemed close to the head, and the tail that seemed amazingly long in comparison to the body. The last thing I saw was this long tail whipping through the air as its body disappeared into the grass on the side of the mound.

[William Parcher]

You have to read the text to see the difference in species range.

Yeah I see that, but I still do not like the non-specificity.

and parts of the southwestern U.S.

Like what parts? There has to be records of fossils, bones, parts, etc. to qualify as confirmed historic range. I'm presuming this stuff is in scientific records somewhere.

I found this (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Arizona/Documents/Redbook/Jaguarundi%20RB.pdf) from Nevada-Arizona Academy of Science.

RANGE: Historic: South Texas, the east and west coasts of Mexico, southern Mexico, and Central and South America. There is no historical evidence that jaguarundis occurred in Arizona.


More... (http://www.jstor.org/pss/40021308) no photos or specimens ever from Arizona or Sonora.

This is one reason why I do not like that blended "Border Cats" map. It has you thinking that jaguarundi once lived in Arizona.

[William Parcher]

Interesting story. I couldn't say that what you saw was a jaguarundi. They are very out of place in Georgia. Are you (and any others) thinking that these cats are breeding there and other nearby states (FL/MS/AL/LA)? There is no roadkill nor any other biological evidence for a single individual, let alone a breeding population. You do think the jaguarundi is the cause for some cougar/panther reports in the south?

[Bitter Monk]

Interesting story. I couldn't say that what you saw was a jaguarundi.

To be completely honest neither can I. The only things I do know are that it was not a house cat, and the jaguarundi is a close match for it.

They are very out of place in Georgia.

You won't find me arguing that point. They would be very out of place if they were documented there.

Are you (and any others) thinking that these cats are breeding there and other nearby states (FL/MS/AL/LA)?

In order for them to be that far from their known range, and knowing they aren't a migratory species, they would have to be breeding locally if in fact they were found in any of those states (assuming of course it wasn't a lone escaped exotic).

There is no roadkill nor any other biological evidence for a single individual, let alone a breeding population. You do think the jaguarundi is the cause for some cougar/panther reports in the south?

This is why I referred to potential evidence of their existance. I fully recognize that outside of sighting reports like my own there really isn't much else to go on. I do however stand by my belief that the jaguarundi (or possibly another known species of Central American cat) makes for a more suitable candidate for "black panther" reports than the cougar.

[William Parcher]

I do however stand by my belief that the jaguarundi (or possibly another known species of Central American cat) makes for a more suitable candidate for "black panther" reports than the cougar.


The other C/A cats besides jaguarundi and cougar are spotted (ocelot, jaguar, margay).

"Black Panther" eyewitness reports are ubiquitous throughout the US east of the Miss River. These come from far more states than those I listed. You really don't think the jaguarundi is causing BP reports from Virginia do you?

I have even more suitable candidates for all those areas including GA...

1. Housecat
2. Canid
3. Fabrication (folk tradition)

[Bitter Monk]

The other C/A cats besides jaguarundi and cougar are spotted (ocelot, jaguar, margay).

Jaguars can be melanistic. There are also melanistic bobcats. Either would be a better candidate for the "black panther" than the cougar.

"Black Panther" eyewitness reports are ubiquitous throughout the US east of the Miss River. These come from far more states than those I listed. You really don't think the jaguarundi is causing BP reports from Virginia do you?

You're quite right about the range of reports. In fact it isn't even ubiquitous to just the areas you've mentioned. For the purpose of my hypothesis I see the jaguarundi as black panther candidate being limited to those areas of the southern US possessing suitable habitat. Understand however that I'm not suggesting that all "black panther" sightings are of jaguarundis. I'm also not arguing that all "black panther" sightings are real. However being a known animal capable of exhibiting a coloration that could be mistaken for black, and given that there are areas of reports that would be suitable habitat in my mind makes it a better candidate than the cougar. In an area like Virgina I would think a melanistic bobcat would be the more likely culprit assuming it wasn't one of the three choices you listed below.

I have even more suitable candidates for all those areas including GA...

1. Housecat
2. Canid
3. Fabrication (folk tradition)

Well of course those are more suitable until legitimate evidence comes forward. Bear in mind I never took the stance that there were unquestionably populations of jaguarundis spread through the southern states. I simply shared my own experience and provided a potential hypothesis for some of the reports of "black panthers".

[William Parcher]

Jaguars can be melanistic. There are also melanistic bobcats. Either would be a better candidate for the "black panther" than the cougar.

Of course there are melanistic jaguars. But the closest population of wild jaguars (Mex) do not exhibit melanism. Mel bobcats are very rare and seem to be limited to Florida.

I am still going to contend that the BEST candidates for black panthers are housecats, dogs or fabrication. Mel jaguar, mel bobcat or jaguarundi are going to fall into my category of special pleading or extremely unlikely. The reason I call those special pleading is because they excuse "good folks" of making "very foolish" mis-id errors of housecat or dog... or even "worse" that folks would just go ahead and make things up for fun or tradition.


You're quite right about the range of reports. In fact it isn't even ubiquitous to just the areas you've mentioned. For the purpose of my hypothesis I see the jaguarundi as black panther candidate being limited to those areas of the southern US possessing suitable habitat. Understand however that I'm not suggesting that all "black panther" sightings are of jaguarundis. I'm also not arguing that all "black panther" sightings are real. However being a known animal capable of exhibiting a coloration that could be mistaken for black, and given that there are areas of reports that would be suitable habitat in my mind makes it a better candidate than the cougar. In an area like Virgina I would think a melanistic bobcat would be the more likely culprit assuming it wasn't one of the three choices you listed below.

If you look at presented photo or video evidence of "black panthers" or "black cougars" you see black housecats. (A young black jaguar escaped captivity last year and was videotaped on a front porch clawing at the door before it was captured.) Importantly, there is no good evidence that the animals responsible for BP, BC or even normal cougar actually are these animals. The evidence suggests that folks are wrong or fibbing. I don't know why that is so difficult for some people to accept. It may be that Bigfooters are especially quick to defend folks and their eyewitness testimonies because of their own personal belief (Bigfoot is out there too).


I simply shared my own experience and provided a potential hypothesis for some of the reports of "black panthers".

I'll try to bring this back to the original point (from the other thread)...

Note that folk tales never start with "The following is not true and never actually happened..."


No, they start with "Oh my God you're never going to believe this..."

The South is rich with folk tales and lore of boogers, haints, et al. It really goes beyond just the realm of weaving yarns and into the very fabric of the culture. You can't drive very far in the southern Appalachians without coming across a "Booger Holler" or "Booger Mountain". That said, and having grown up in that culture, there is still a line between lore and what some would refer to as "local knowledge". The same person that might spin a fantastic yarn about a wampus cat could turn around and provide a very matter of fact accounting of seeing an out of place cougar in the same manner as if they were describing a particularly large buck they had observed.

It's about the line that you mention between "lore" and "local knowledge". You cite the Wampus Cat as lore, and the Cougar as local knowledge. If cougars are not living in a place where they are claimed.... then how does this qualify as any kind of legitimate knowledge held by the local folks? Exactly what is it that they know?

[Bitter Monk]

I am still going to contend that the BEST candidates for black panthers are housecats, dogs or fabrication. Mel jaguar, mel bobcat or jaguarundi are going to fall into my category of special pleading or extremely unlikely. The reason I call those special pleading is because they excuse "good folks" of making "very foolish" mis-id errors of housecat or dog... or even "worse" that folks would just go ahead and make things up for fun or tradition.

And again, I'll agree that of course those are the best candidates barring physical evidence. A person should be skeptical of any claim barring evidence in support of the claim, and in this respect you're absolutely right to do so.

If you look at presented photo or video evidence of "black panthers" or "black cougars" you see black housecats. (A young black jaguar escaped captivity last year and was videotaped on a front porch clawing at the door before it was captured.)

Do you have a link? I'd be really interested in reading about the jaguar or seeing the video.

Importantly, there is no good evidence that the animals responsible for BP, BC or even normal cougar actually are these animals. The evidence suggests that folks are wrong or fibbing.

I haven't argued against the lack of evidence from the beginning. I'm sure you're used to having to beat this issue home with some people but I can assure you I'm not one of them.

I don't know why that is so difficult for some people to accept. It may be that Bigfooters are especially quick to defend folks and their eyewitness testimonies because of their own personal belief (Bigfoot is out there too).

I'm going to see if I can get this across the right way because I'm really not trying to win this discussion because I know lacking verifiable proof there is no winning for my side. I do accept that in the absence of evidence skepticism towards any claim should be the rule and not the exception. I've never seen a ghost. I've never seen an alien. I'm highly skeptical towards both barring evidence to the contrary. However, I have had an instance where I saw a black cat that was clearly not a house cat or a dog. Because of this experience I have to consider that at least some reported BP sightings are real. In doing so I have to consider potential candidates for possible BP sightings, and have come to the personal conclusion that at least in some instances the jaguarundi is a more viable candidate than the cougar.

Now bear in mind I know that my own personal experience carries exactly zero weight in the debate. I have no evidence to support my claim and would never expect or plead for someone to use my experience as support for the possibility of jaguarundis or any other cat being the source of legitimate BP sightings.

I'll try to bring this back to the original point (from the other thread)...

I hope I'm not derailing this conversation. Contrary to what you might think this is one of the best discussions I've had on any forum in quite a while and I'm really enjoying it.

It's about the line that you mention between "lore" and "local knowledge". You cite the Wampus Cat as lore, and the Cougar as local knowledge. If cougars are not living in a place where they are claimed.... then how does this qualify as any kind of legitimate knowledge held by the local folks? Exactly what is it that they know?

To put it simply just because an area has a tradition of tales, it doesn't mean that there isn't the possibility that at least some are not tall. I don't expect you to agree, but I hope you at least give me credit for the pun.

[William Parcher]

Do you have a link? I'd be really interested in reading about the jaguar or seeing the video.

I got ahead of myself when I called it a mel jaguar. I'm pretty sure it's a mel leopard. Escaped or released, and it was declawed. It was shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy.

Here (http://www.kmbc.com/news/16369255/detail.html) is an article with the video.

AFAIK, it's the only genuine outside-of-captivity "black panther" documented in America in who-knows-how-long. It probably wasn't on the loose for very long at all.

ETA: Cryptomundo (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/neosho/) on the story. I'm posting as I find these things... so there could still be an article out there that confirms the species. I'm still looking.

[William Parcher]

Here we go (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/neosho-pardus/), it was melanistic leopard.

From article linked at above...

"We can tell quite a bit about these animal's origins by examining their bodies," said Beringer. "The fact that the leopard from Neosho had no claws tells us it was a captive animal. It was in excellent physical condition, with plenty of body fat, but it had nothing in its stomach. That is another sign that it was escaped or released from captivity. A wild cat would be able to get food for itself."

The pads of the cat's paws were worn smooth, a condition commonly associated with living on a concrete floor.

[William Parcher]

And again, I'll agree that of course those are the best candidates barring physical evidence. A person should be skeptical of any claim barring evidence in support of the claim, and in this respect you're absolutely right to do so.


It isn't simply that those are the best candidates - it's that those are what we get when folks do present some sort of evidence. A photo or video of housecat. Pawprint of canid or bobcat. Etc. These common candidates are so consistently the cause of reports that we have no good reason to think that any given report is anything else (such as genuine cougar/jag/leopard/jaguarundi).

My skepticism isn't limited to this specific. I'm skeptical that "common folk" know what they are talking about when they make claims of unusual local animals. That is general and prejudicial but it's difficult to argue otherwise when it is so consistently true.


I'm going to see if I can get this across the right way because I'm really not trying to win this discussion because I know lacking verifiable proof there is no winning for my side.

There's really no winning for "my side" either. I can't prove that Bigfoot, Big Cats, or even Jaguarundis are not out there.

I'm highly skeptical towards both barring evidence to the contrary. However, I have had an instance where I saw a black cat that was clearly not a house cat or a dog. Because of this experience I have to consider that at least some reported BP sightings are real. In doing so I have to consider potential candidates for possible BP sightings, and have come to the personal conclusion that at least in some instances the jaguarundi is a more viable candidate than the cougar.

But a "black panther" sighting is not real if the animal was actually a jaguarundi. It's a misidentification. I know what you are trying to say, but I need to make my point. What would be more ideal is if folks who saw a jaguarundi would say something like "I saw a dark cat that wasn't any housecat. It also wasn't large enough or shaped like a cougar, leopard, or jaguar. What do you think it could have been?" Instead we get "I saw a black panther." Or saw a black cougar.

I hope I'm not derailing this conversation. Contrary to what you might think this is one of the best discussions I've had on any forum in quite a while and I'm really enjoying it.

No, if anything I was the one who willingly took this away from Bigfoot and into folk culture and theory. I like researching animals and cryptozoology is a keen interest as well. I am highly skeptical of folk cryptozoological claims because I think I understand human nature as well as the animal kingdom.


To put it simply just because an area has a tradition of tales, it doesn't mean that there isn't the possibility that at least some are not tall. I don't expect you to agree, but I hope you at least give me credit for the pun.

I understand that. But you cited the Wampus Cat as pure fiction folk tale. How do you know that the legend isn't based on some real animal? Bigfooters consistently argue that the various Native American wildman legends are based on the real creature we call Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is not a folktale - then why can't the Wampus Cat be not a folktale?

[Bitter Monk]

I got ahead of myself when I called it a mel jaguar. I'm pretty sure it's a mel leopard. Escaped or released, and it was declawed. It was shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy.

Here (http://www.kmbc.com/news/16369255/detail.html) is an article with the video.

AFAIK, it's the only genuine outside-of-captivity "black panther" documented in America in who-knows-how-long. It probably wasn't on the loose for very long at all.

Thanks for the link. I thought the closing sentence was interesting.
No one in the area has reported it missing, but animal control officials said it could have roamed as much as 100 miles from its home.

Of course there's absolutely no way to prove that either way but if the animal had ranged over a distance before being killed it might actually explain a few sightings. ;)

I pretty much agree with everything else you posted but I would like to address these two points.


But a "black panther" sighting is not real if the animal was actually a jaguarundi. It's a misidentification. I know what you are trying to say, but I need to make my point. What would be more ideal is if folks who saw a jaguarundi would say something like "I saw a dark cat that wasn't any housecat. It also wasn't large enough or shaped like a cougar, leopard, or jaguar. What do you think it could have been?" Instead we get "I saw a black panther." Or saw a black cougar.

I understand that. But you cited the Wampus Cat as pure fiction folk tale. How do you know that the legend isn't based on some real animal? Bigfooters consistently argue that the various Native American wildman legends are based on the real creature we call Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is not a folktale - then why can't the Wampus Cat be not a folktale?

In regards to the first part I absolutely agree. In regards to the second, at least where I grew up, the Wampus Cat was known to be a creation like a snipe hunt or Santa Claus. That's why I separated it into the folk tale category.

[Cainkane1]

There's a lady down the road who's convinced there's some kind of large cat/beastie that's been killing local cats. There's no shortage of rabbits for the beastie to eat (I once saw a fox look confused over where to begin). It's just the space issue. Where does the BRitish Big Cat stand in the ranks of cryptozoology?
Your country does have large cats. Probably escaped Pumas from the USA. They turned black from inbreeding. They do indeed kill and eat small animals including sheep. I saw one on TV once.

[Cainkane1]

"It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone"

Gross exageration or downright lie. Firstly maggot would explain only disappearance of the soft tissue. From a forensic site : "In warm weather, conducive to fly growth, maggots can consume 60 per cent of a human body in less than a week. ". And that is in the GOOD condition. Guess how long it takes in spring/autumn or even worst, winter. Also guess what the maggot do to the 10 or 20% of non soft tissue / bones : nothing.

ETA: I see this was corrected by many people anyway, never mind ignore me.
I used to live in a really rural part of georgia and I used to see remains of animals fairly often. Dog skeletons and such. Georgia has raccoons and possums and masggots and flies too but they usually leave something like a skull behind at least. If large creatures like a bigfoot really existed they would leave something behind when they died.

I was watching a program on cryptozoology once when a short tale about the grass man came on. Lots of people saw this creature when it suddenly stopped appearing. One day some hikers came upon a completely intact primate skull. It was examined and fund to be the skull of a babboon that had apparently escaped from somewhere. The skull was completely bare of flesh and its my guess youd see something like that if bigfoot existed.

[AvalonXQ]

I used to live in a really rural part of georgia and I used to see remains of animals fairly often. Dog skeletons and such. Georgia has raccoons and possums and masggots and flies too but they usually leave something like a skull behind at least. If large creatures like a bigfoot really existed they would leave something behind when they died.

I was watching a program on cryptozoology once when a short tale about the grass man came on. Lots of people saw this creature when it suddenly stopped appearing. One day some hikers came upon a completely intact primate skull. It was examined and fund to be the skull of a babboon that had apparently escaped from somewhere. The skull was completely bare of flesh and its my guess youd see something like that if bigfoot existed.

Without turning this into a bigfoot thread, my understanding is that they are assumed to collect and dispose of their remains. You're not likely to find too many human corpses lying around for the same reason.

[William Parcher]

...you cited the Wampus Cat as pure fiction folk tale. How do you know that the legend isn't based on some real animal? Bigfooters consistently argue that the various Native American wildman legends are based on the real creature we call Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is not a folktale - then why can't the Wampus Cat be not a folktale?


...at least where I grew up, the Wampus Cat was known to be a creation like a snipe hunt or Santa Claus. That's why I separated it into the folk tale category.


I don't know much about the Wampus Cat other than I've seen it on folktale and cryptid lists. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampus_cat) is Wikipedia, FWIW. There seems to be two realms of WCs.

The Wampus cat is a fearsome critters variously described as a large sort of water panther with glowing eyes that stalks its prey at night. The wampus cat is often compared to the Ewah of Cherokee mythology that was a woman who disguised herself in the skin of a mountain lion to spy on the men of the tribe as they sat around the campfire and told sacred stories on a hunting trip. When the woman was discovered, the tribe's medicine man punished her by transforming her into a half-woman, half-cat, who supposedly still haunts the forests of East Tennessee.

Another legend of the Wampus cat comes from the eastern part of Alabama. Supposedly, a secret program was carried out by the government in the 1940s to create an agile, fierce message carrier to be used on the European front during World War II, much like passenger pigeons were used in World War I. This program was based near Cheaha Mountain in the Talladega Forest, an area that was and remains very sparsely settled. The creature was part Mountain Lion and part Gray Wolf. However, several male and female specimens of the newly created species escaped, and were never captured. Sightings of these hybrid creatures have been reported in the area ever since, with (supposed) sightings occurring as far south as the Everglades and as far north as the Great Smoky Mountains. They have also been blamed for breaking into chicken coops, mauling livestock, and even stalking humans. Several instances have been recorded of actual attacks, but most are believed to have been mountain lion attacks.

Maybe the WC isn't folktale and is instead "folk knowledge" which you explained as seeing something genuine but calling it something else. I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this other than that I'm trying to justify the argument that Bigfoot is folklore and a folktale.

Wampus Cat caught on video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEysYWl6nM). Well, it sure does look like a fox with a fur issue. I've seen footage of guys in furry suits that were labeled "Bigfoot". Isn't it the same thing? Same thing being... there is no Wampus Cat nor Bigfoot... so folks have to create their own.

This is the only known video of the legendary Wampas Cat. This video was taken in central North Carolina. Few people have ever even seen a Wampas Cat. Some stories say it is a huge monstrous creature. But it is believed to be a mix between a raccoon, possum, a fox, and a normal house cat.

[Drewbot]

This website claims there is a feral population of Jaguarundi in Florida

http://www.wildcatconservation.org/Jaguarundi.html
Actual population numbers are not known. A feral population of escaped pets is said to have been established in Florida, where they were introduced in the 1940's. Hunting is prohibited over much of their range with Brazil, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guyana the exceptions. CITES has placed the species overall on Appendix II, with the North and Central American populations on Appendix I.

Florida fish and wildlife has this to say about the Jaguarundi
Jaguarundi Herpailurus yagouaroundi 1934 Not reported breeding Unknown
http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/Nonnative_Mammals_index.htm

[William Parcher]

Where is the evidence for jaguarundi in Florida?

Roadkill?
Photos or film?
Shot or trapped?
Finding bodies or parts?
Etc?

What is there besides stories?

[William Parcher]

Florida fish and wildlife has this to say about the Jaguarundi

http://myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/Nonnative_Mammals_index.htm


The state basically says we got nothing but anecdote. They could say that about the Skunk Ape.

Species Account: This small cat is a native of Texas to South America. No specimen has been found in Florida, and the evidence for its presence consists of scattered eyewitness accounts which are suspect, given the jaguarundi's similarity to domestic cats. There have also been some sightings of this animal reported in coastal Alabama. The absence of road-killed specimens in Florida argues strongly against the presence of anything more than isolated escapees. The Jaguarundi has been on the United States Endangered Species List since 1976.

At least we have a photo of the skunk ape. ;)

[Bitter Monk]

At least we have a photo of the skunk ape. ;)

Touche'. Not too many have seen the rarely seen third photo from that series.

[William Parcher]

I've referenced this paper before and I guess it would be suitable again at this point.


Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132731)


We present three examples of biological misunderstandings, all of them with significant conservation implications, that resulted from the acceptance of anecdotal observations as empirical evidence. To avoid such errors, we recommend that a priori standards constrain the acceptance of occurrence data, with more stringent standards applied to the data for rare species. Because data standards are likely to be taxon specific, professional societies should develop specific evidentiary standards to use when assessing occurrence data for their taxa of interest.

Anecdotal data are considered notoriously unreliable by most scientists, and many disciplines have endeavored to limit or eliminate their influence. However, anecdotal information continues to influence our political and legal systems as well as the public’s understanding of the natural world.

[Marduk]

I've referenced this paper before and I guess it would be suitable again at this point.


Using Anecdotal Occurrence Data for Rare or Elusive Species: The Illusion of Reality and a Call for Evidentiary Standards (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132731)

sounds to me like another call for science to lower its standards of evidence
no deal, doesn't work like that
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee
:D

[William Parcher]

Marduk, you made a joke right?

The paper is a call for elevating scientific standards. Eyewitness reports are not enough to establish the presence of rare or elusive species.

With each passing year, it seems as though the Ivory Billed Woodpecker really is extinct. That the witnesses were wrong even though they were professionals. It was all based on eyeballing and a short blurry video that is worse than the worst Bigfoot video. It seems to be true as we have no good evidence that the woodpecker is out there, or even was out there when the claim was made a few years ago. If true, the US government got fooled in a big and expensive way. Of course the citizens pay for everything anyway.

Is there any lesson to be learned? Maybe not. Because (as with Bigfoot) now there is no way to prove that the bird really was extinct and that it was observer error. It's like the existence claim must stand as accurate until further notice. But what is the further notice if a negative (nonexistence) cannot be proved? Money is still being spent on the search to confirm the rediscovery. Dang!

[Dragoonster]

The Animal Planet show "River Monsters" might be a positive case for using anecdotal evidence. It features a guy who travels the world seeking huge (and sometimes rare) fish to catch. Often he inquires about areas from the locals. Also often their stories about the fish seem hyperbolic, and he rarely catches anything as large as some of their claims. But at least on a cursory look their tales might help him scout locations for likely presences of the fish. I'd reckon it's the same for naturalists.

To sum, I don't find anything wrong with using anecdotal evidence to look for better evidence. It shouldn't be used just by itself, but as a guide of where/what to look for it's probably useful.

[Dragoonster]

Marduk, you made a joke right?

The paper is a call for elevating scientific standards. Eyewitness reports are not enough to establish the presence of rare or elusive species.

With each passing year, it seems as though the Ivory Billed Woodpecker really is extinct. That the witnesses were wrong even though they were professionals. It was all based on eyeballing and a short blurry video that is worse than the worst Bigfoot video. It seems to be true as we have no good evidence that the woodpecker is out there, or even was out there when the claim was made a few years ago. If true, the US government got fooled in a big and expensive way. Of course the citizens pay for everything anyway.

Is there any lesson to be learned? Maybe not. Because (as with Bigfoot) now there is no way to prove that the bird really was extinct and that it was observer error. It's like the existence claim must stand as accurate until further notice. But what is the further notice if a negative (nonexistence) cannot be proved? Money is still being spent on the search to confirm the rediscovery. Dang!

On the other hand, if an IBW specimen had actually been found and taken, would that anecdotal evidence be elevated as confirming that the IBW was likely found in situ and not planted as a hoax? Would it be seen in a more scientific light? It seems that the same sort of evidence is labelled crypto woo when the species aren't found, but if they're found the same evidence is suddenly scientific. With that sort of process crypotzoology can never win, because as soon as a crypto species is confirmed as existing, it ceases to become a crypto species.

Would finding an IBW be a win for cryptozoology? Would finding a jagaurundi be a win for it? If not it would seem a strange coincidence if crypto people believed these species existed, and they turned out to actually exist. Perhaps the crypto people throw a big enough net that at least some baseless predictions turn out to be true, but I imagine there are some normal people who think the IBW exists but aren't into bigfoot or anything.

[William Parcher]

On the other hand, if an IBW specimen had actually been found and taken, would that anecdotal evidence be elevated as confirming that the IBW was likely found in situ and not planted as a hoax? Would it be seen in a more scientific light?

I think that a very comprehensive set of tests would be performed (then replicated and peer reviewed) to determine various facts about the specimen. Tests that would determine if the specimen was from a time period when the bird was last confirmed to exist. Are you talking about an entire carcass, or a feather, or what?

It seems that the same sort of evidence is labelled crypto woo when the species aren't found, but if they're found the same evidence is suddenly scientific. With that sort of process crypotzoology can never win, because as soon as a crypto species is confirmed as existing, it ceases to become a crypto species.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here.

Would finding an IBW be a win for cryptozoology? Would finding a jagaurundi be a win for it?

I would say yes on both counts (but a conditional yes on the jag). Cryptozoology champions what folks have to say about "hidden" animals. They are primarily interested in confirming existence, not nonexistence (i.e. cryptozoologists don't run around saying that beavers probably don't exist). In some cases, these are species that are already known to exist or did previously exist. Folks have been claiming to see IBWs here and there and off and on since the last living one was confirmed. IOW, folks have been saying they weren't really extinct because they saw one. Actually confirming that to be true would be a crypto win because people were always claiming to see something that wasn't supposed to be there. I think the jaguarundi would be conditional upon the exact circumstances and location of the confirmation. Finding a specimen in S. Texas (where they most recently were confirmed to exist) is not the same kind of win as finding one in Georgia or Florida.

But regardless, crypto wins for the IBW or the jag don't automatically transfer legitimacy to any other proposed cryptid. IOW, finding an active IBW nest in Arkansas does not mean that Bigfoot probably exists, nor does it increase the chances that BF exists. As it stands now, the recent intensive searches for the IBW have not turned up any Bigfoots in spite of folks saying they do occur there in Arkansas.

If not it would seem a strange coincidence if crypto people believed these species existed, and they turned out to actually exist. Perhaps the crypto people throw a big enough net that at least some baseless predictions turn out to be true, but I imagine there are some normal people who think the IBW exists but aren't into bigfoot or anything.

Well, cryptozoologists and cryptozoology (which is essentially a non-professional pastime or endeavor) wasn't very excited about the IBW before the rediscovery that graced the world media, and they aren't very excited about the US jaguarundi either. It's no surprise that Bigfoot is the popular cryptid. It's popularity truly dominates over whatever is the next most popular cryptid. I'm not even sure what #2 would be.

[novaphile]

Hmmm... I can't see the need to invent weird (crypto) animals for the world, when the world contains things as weird as the Tuatara.

(Apologies, I can't post any links yet, but wikipedia has a good article about them.)

[William Parcher]

Hmmm... I can't see the need to invent weird (crypto) animals for the world, when the world contains things as weird as the Tuatara.

(Apologies, I can't post any links yet, but wikipedia has a good article about them.)


I know what you mean. But I might be able to anticipate what a cryptofan might say in response to you.

"I am intrigued with the weird Tuatara just as much as you are. But I have the Tuatara and one more weird creature. I have Tuatara plus Bigfoot. My world is even richer than yours. I didn't invent the Bigfoot. It was here before I was even born."

Here's the Wiki link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara) Thanks for bringing it up.

[Gribble]

I was fascinated by cryptozoology when I was a preteen/early teenager and I still have a fondness for the idea of previously dubious creatures turning up. I wonder if there are still believers in "tatzelwurm" in the Alps?

Miss Kitt,
I too shared your interest in "dubious creatures" and if people could just go back to admitting they had an interst in animal mysteries instead of calling themselves "cryptozoologists" they might argue less and learn more.

If you google for images of "tatzelwurm", and then "Proteus" you might find interesting similarities :-)

Regards, Gribble

[novaphile]

Not quite as spectacular as the tatzelwurm but the Gippsland Giant Earthworm can be quite surprising. I've heard of people mistaking them for snakes...

See this page (http://bassbush.htmlplanet.com/index_2.html) for example.

:)

[William Parcher]

Especially for Drew at this holiday season....


Michigan Giant Snake of 1949 (http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mi-snake49/)


A posse of Salem citizens - 100 men strong and armed with an assortment of weapons - set out to get the monster Sunday...

...a local farmer reported, a huge snake - some 17 feet long - appeared while he was driving his tractor,... "Its head was standing four feet off the ground,"

Some of the local folks have a theory that the snake is one that escaped from a circus in Ann Arbor 30 years ago.

But conservation officer Davey Crockett of Ypsilanti doubts that. That serpent was a tropical one, he explained, and would have found the going rough in a Michigan winter.

Wasn't that guy on Miami Vice?

[William Parcher]

Nature Conservation unable to identify mysterious creatures (http://www.informante.web.na/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5460&Itemid=108)


Concerns that unknown creatures reigning terror on villagers are linked to witchcraft have deepened after footprint studies by the nature conservation left more questions than answers about the identity of the creatures.

Most recently, one of the alleged giant dog-like creatures reportedly attacked a 16-year-old boy at the village, leading to his death at the Oshakati State Hospital. In another case, a woman at the village has allegedly become mentally disturbed after the creatures ate all her livestock.

According to an official at Nature Conservation in Ondangwa, the footprints of the creatures were unlike anything they had ever seen, which made it virtually impossible to name the creature. "At first we thought the footprints might belong to wild dogs, but there is such a large distinction like the size of the paws that we soon realised that the prints were of an animal we have never encountered," said the official.

[Bitter Monk]

Nature Conservation unable to identify mysterious creatures (http://www.informante.web.na/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5460&Itemid=108)

“At first we thought the footprints might belong to wild dogs, but there is such a large distinction like the size of the paws that we soon realised that the prints were of an animal we have never encountered,” said the official.

I'm wondering how big the size has to be before you can just rule out a really big dog. It also doesn't help that they imply that there are additional differences in the tracks but only list the size.

[Marduk]

Marduk, you made a joke right?

The paper is a call for elevating scientific standards. Eyewitness reports are not enough to establish the presence of rare or elusive species.

The paper is not a call to lower scientific standards I agree. Anecdotal evidence is not, nor ever has been regarded as scientific proof, thats not about to change

With each passing year, it seems as though the Ivory Billed Woodpecker really is extinct. That the witnesses were wrong even though they were professionals. It was all based on eyeballing and a short blurry video that is worse than the worst Bigfoot video. It seems to be true as we have no good evidence that the woodpecker is out there, or even was out there when the claim was made a few years ago. If true, the US government got fooled in a big and expensive way. Of course the citizens pay for everything anyway.

Irrelevant, the Ivory billed woodpecker has been proven to be a real animal, bigfoot has not.


Is there any lesson to be learned? Maybe not. Because (as with Bigfoot) now there is no way to prove that the bird really was extinct and that it was observer error. It's like the existence claim must stand as accurate until further notice. But what is the further notice if a negative (nonexistence) cannot be proved? Money is still being spent on the search to confirm the rediscovery. Dang!
did you completely misread the pdf or are we arguing at cross purposes here, I suggest you go back and read the conclusions, its actually arguing that anecdotal evidence should never be used to establish a suspected presence of any animal therefore saving cash on expeditions to find data to support anecdotal evidence. Bigfoot included, it actually ridicules bigfoots existence and compares it to the Loch Ness Monster. How did you miss that ?
:D

[William Parcher]

The paper is a call to lower scientific standards, I don't see how you can claim otherwise. Anecdotal evidence is not, nor ever has been regarded as scientific proof, thats not about to change

You have completely misread the pdf, I suggest you go back and read the conclusions, its actually arguing for the opposite of what you think, that anecdotal evidence should never be used to establish a suspected presence of any animal therefore saving cash on expeditions to find data to support anecdotal evidence. Bigfoot included, it actually ridicules bigfoots existence and compares it to the Loch Ness Monster. How did you miss that ?
:D


What? A lowering of standards would mean that almost any eyewitness claim is acted upon without establishing the facts. Look at the abstract...

Anecdotal occurrence data (unverifiable observations of organisms or their sign) and inconclusive physical data are often used to assess the current and historical ranges of rare or elusive species. However, the use of such data for species conservation can lead to large errors of omission and commission, which can influence the allocation of limited funds and the efficacy of subsequent conservation efforts. We present three examples of biological misunderstandings, all of them with significant conservation implications, that resulted from the acceptance of anecdotal observations as empirical evidence. To avoid such errors, we recommend that a priori standards constrain the acceptance of occurrence data, with more stringent standards applied to the data for rare species. Because data standards are likely to be taxon specific, professional societies should develop specific evidentiary standards to use when assessing occurrence data for their taxa of interest.


ETA: From the conclusion...

In all three of the case histories presented here, reliance on anecdotal occurrence data led to significant errors regarding the presence, population dynamics, and range of the species in question.

[Marduk]

What? A lowering of standards would mean that almost any eyewitness claim is acted upon without establishing the facts. Look at the abstract...

maybe you should have read my post after I'd edited it
;)
started to respond then stepped out for a minute didn't you

[William Parcher]

I never left the chair. I quoted your post then looked for what I wanted in the paper. I do not understand where the paper asks for or suggests a lowering of scientific standards.

[Marduk]

I never left the chair. I quoted your post then looked for what I wanted in the paper. I do not understand where the paper asks for or suggests a lowering of scientific standards.

so it took you 7 minutes to write less than 20 words ?

go back and read what I wrote again please, you are misquoting me and apparently are saying the same thing that I am and that the paper is,
that anecdotal evidence should be ignored
;)

[William Parcher]

Oh great. You went in and changed a number of things. I didn't see all of your edits. You made a 180 degree on this I see.

The paper is not a call to lower scientific standards I agree.

Ok. I guess we are in agreement.

[Marduk]

Oh great. You went in and changed a number of things. I didn't see all of your edits. You made a 180 degree on this I see.


nope, no u turn, just a brain fart with the word "not" which I corrected the second I read my post through, you posted 6 minutes after I'd changed it. You can see this from the listed edit time at the bottom of my post.

;)

[William Parcher]

Here is what you wrote a few days ago.


sounds to me like another call for science to lower its standards of evidence
no deal, doesn't work like that
WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiinnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee
:D

Yeah, so when I read just a while ago that you thought it was a call for lowering standards... I figured you were staying with that idea.

I'm completely done with you here. I think something is wrong and very strange about the way you are addressing me.

[Marduk]

I was making a joke about the ambiguity of the title of the paper, this was why I qualified my statement with "sounds to me"
sorry you missed that, this might help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_humour
http://www.zyworld.com/albionmagazineonline/features2.htm
;)

[I Ratant]

I watched a dead Labrador Retriever which had been discarded out back in the desert. Over a period of about a week, it just got stinky, until some kids found it and played with it, and moved it to a more accessible location. It then disintegrated into mostly bones and skin in about 2 weeks, from animal predation.
There's mostly just the spine left with some of the skin now.
It's a fairly common situation, a period of weeks needed to reduce an animal to bones.

[William Parcher]

I'm wondering how big the size has to be before you can just rule out a really big dog. It also doesn't help that they imply that there are additional differences in the tracks but only list the size.


It doesn't make sense and it may not be a legitimate claim. IOW, the article could contain errors such as the "Nature Conservation" not actually being unable to identify any animal tracks. The location is Namibia. Here is a list of their mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Namibia). They have the full gamut of big predators but not all may be present at this specific location. At first I thought Nature Conservation would be a non-profit organization (http://www.nnf.org.na/index.php), but now I think it's possibly a university department (http://www.polytechnic.edu.na/academics/schools/nat_res_tourism/conserv/conserv.htm).

I saw references to witchcraft and that can be a big red flag. Any local naturalists, wildlife managers or zoologists would certainly take keen interest in any "cryptid". I'm not expecting any follow up story.

[Marduk]

It doesn't make sense and it may not be a legitimate claim. IOW, the article could contain errors such as the "Nature Conservation" not actually being unable to identify any animal tracks. The location is Namibia. Here is a list of their mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Namibia). They have the full gamut of big predators but not all may be present at this specific location. At first I thought Nature Conservation would be a non-profit organization (http://www.nnf.org.na/index.php), but now I think it's possibly a university department (http://www.polytechnic.edu.na/academics/schools/nat_res_tourism/conserv/conserv.htm).

I saw references to witchcraft and that can be a big red flag. Any local naturalists, wildlife managers or zoologists would certainly take keen interest in any "cryptid". I'm not expecting any follow up story.

this is amusing
here is a real news report describing the same event but not written by a reporter who believes in witchcraft
Oshana farmers complain about Etosha lions killing their cattle
Cattle owners in the Uuvudhiya Constituency of the Oshana Region are complaining about lions killing their cattle.
One of the farmers, Iipinge Shetunyenga, claimed that 20 cattle had been caught by lions last week. He told The Namibian that he had lost two head of cattle, while another farmer, Mweufunga Keendjele, lost 17 and a man identified only as Mbaimbai had lost a valuable bull. Shetunyenga said lions escaped from the Etosha National Park because of the poor state of the park's boundary fence.
"We farmers are very angry with the Government, especially the Veterinary Department, for not keeping away the wild animals, such as lions, hyenas and so on," Shetunyenga said.
He said the farmers might demand compensation from Government if the fence was not repaired soon.
According to Shetunyenga, the problem has been reported to the Uuvudhiya Constituency Councillor, Amutenya Ndaafa.
When approached by The Namibian, the Oshana State Veterinarian, Dr Joseph Kapapero, said no such problem had been reported to his office, but he would investigate the complaint.
He told The Namibian that he had lost two head of cattle, while another farmer, Mweufunga Keendjele, lost 17 and a man identified only as Mbaimbai had lost a valuable bull.Shetunyenga said lions escaped from the Etosha National Park because of the poor state of the park's boundary fence."We farmers are very angry with the Government, especially the Veterinary Department, for not keeping away the wild animals, such as lions, hyenas and so on," Shetunyenga said. He said the farmers might demand compensation from Government if the fence was not repaired soon.According to Shetunyenga, the problem has been reported to the Uuvudhiya Constituency Councillor, Amutenya Ndaafa.When approached by The Namibian, the Oshana State Veterinarian, Dr Joseph Kapapero, said no such problem had been reported to his office, but he would investigate the complaint.
http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=41571&no_cache=1
Hehe, crypto-lions, only in Namibia
;)
I would suggest that if the original claim you posted is true that the "Nature Conservation" was not able to identify any animal tracks, that they said this while looking at their feet and whistling nonchalantly, admitting that they were their lions would leave them liable for damages

[William Parcher]

Is that article from September 18, 2007?

[Marduk]

yup, if you google around you'll see that this problem has been going on since 1984
http://www.hellonam.com/nature-reserves/5268-historical-review-etosha-national-park.html
Futhermore it was recognised that these two objectives are equally important and are relianton on scientifically conducted research for their implemention. Whilst the objectives appear ethically unassaible in their approach to the conservation of Etosha,the Master plan never reached fruition because the management strageties set out were unattainable.For example the plan stated that in order to retain its intergrity.Etosha will be fenced as a closed unit so as to execlude the emigration of all large terrestrial animals.(italics are the author’s).Clearly this is not feasible as fence-breaking by elephants trespassing by lions and hyaenas and entry by domestic stock continued despite extremely costly operations to electrify large sections of the fence.(The biologist inspected the entire fence of 850km by aircraft on 29 August 1984 a day taken at random.).He recorded and mapped a total of 96 complete breaks and 134 partial breaks (Berry 1984).Thus the Master Plan for Etosha remained in theory only and with Independence for Namibia scheduled for 1990,decision makers suspended its implementation.
http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=9270&no_cache=1
18.05.04 Farmers blame Ministry for raiding lions
http://huntnetwork.net/modules/news/print.php?storyid=1248
20.09.07 Namibia: Oshana Farmers Complain About Etosha Lions Killing Their Cattle
http://allafrica.com/stories/200502240643.html
24.02.05 Namibia: Lions Attack Herdsmen
http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=26480&no_cache=1
16.03.06 Faulty fence worsens conflict (this one has a lot of good detail)
seems to be endemic
didn't you check this ?
;)
Tribal societies tend to put any bad event down to witchcraft, in the same way that cryptozoologists put anything they can't explain down to the extraordinary, rather than the mundane

[William Parcher]

Tribal societies tend to put any bad event down to witchcraft,


But in all the articles you cited, the tribal people accurately blame lions.

[Marduk]

But in all the articles you cited, the tribal people accurately blame lions.
yup, I was referencing the brilliant and highly credible article that you posted, or are you trying to deny that Namibian tribespeople have a huge belief in witchcraft ?

that'd be a good one, its a well known fact and I can post you about 200 links supporting it if you like, or you could go ask this guy
http://www.klausdierks.com/images/Namibia.Kavango.Mukwe1.jpg
he's a Witch doctor, from Kavango, Namibia
:D


I saw references to witchcraft and that can be a big red flag. Any local naturalists, wildlife managers or zoologists would certainly take keen interest in any "cryptid". I'm not expecting any follow up story.
you got your follow up, but thats ok, I'm not expecting thanks or anything.
:)
the Namibian paper you linked to seems to be the equivalent of the Weekly world news, it has a tendency to sensationalise mundane stories in the same way that Bigfoot researchers sensationalise mundane evidence, no wait, didn't I say that already
:p

[William Parcher]

yup, I was referencing the brilliant and highly credible article that you posted, or are you trying to deny that Namibian tribespeople have a huge belief in witchcraft ?

No, not denying it at all. It's just really difficult for me to converse with you.

Tribal societies tend to put any bad event down to witchcraft,

They are blaming lions and bad fences from 2004 right up until my article. No mention of witchcraft or giant unknown creatures until December 2009.

you got your follow up, but thats ok, I'm not expecting thanks or anything.

Thank you for finding those stories.

the Namibian paper you linked to seems to be the equivalent of the Weekly world news, it has a tendency to sensationalise mundane stories

I believe it. But according to what you say about the tribes blaming witchcraft for bad things... my article sounds like what would come straight out of their mouths.

[Marduk]

No, not denying it at all. It's just really difficult for me to converse with you.

Thats because you have taken it upon yourself to make that factual, I have no difficulty conversing with you


They are blaming lions and bad fences from 2004 right up until my article. No mention of witchcraft or giant unknown creatures until December 2009.

Its been going on since before 1984, the tribal people will still say witchcraft even if its a known animal, the animals intent in this case would generally be believed to be the result of a sorceror or bad witch doctor intent on deliberate harm, in the same way that the rest of the world during the middle ages would put crop failure down to witches being abroad, theyre just a little scientifically impaired is all.


I believe it. But according to what you say about the tribes blaming witchcraft for bad things... my article sounds like what would come straight out of their mouths.
Yes, but reporting the mythological beliefs of uneducated tribesmen in credible international news is not really valid, or newsworthy. Its more the kind of thing that interests anthropologists. These people believe that being spat on by a witchdoctor can make them immune to bullets. Its about belief, not science. The paper you originally linked to is not a good source imo for factual information.

as for the original claim for dog like footprints
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/3136908506_74c492a15e.jpghttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3237/2652385224_d0a2052880.jpg
one of these is a Hyena footprint and one is a dog footprint, you'll need to remember that the type of dogs they get in Namibia are the wild variety and are much smaller than Hyenas, along with their footprints. Its not just been lions that have been escaping, but Hyenas and Elephants too, Elephants don't eat cattle though (at least not while anyones watching)

;)

[Bitter Monk]

I'm wondering if this "Nature Conservancy" would choose to no identify the tracks as a known species in favor of not pissing off the locals, or as Parcher mentioned to avoid setting themselves up for potential libel.

Tribal Leader - "These are the tracks of the magic beasts."

Nature Guy - "Idiot those are lion prints... *poof* <--turns into frog.

[William Parcher]

I'm wondering if this "Nature Conservancy" would choose to no identify the tracks as a known species in favor of not pissing off the locals, or as Parcher mentioned to avoid setting themselves up for potential libel.

Tribal Leader - "These are the tracks of the magic beasts."

Nature Guy - "Idiot those are lion prints... *poof* <--turns into frog.

It was Marduk that mentioned liability, not me.

I would suggest that if the original claim you posted is true that the "Nature Conservation" was not able to identify any animal tracks, that they said this while looking at their feet and whistling nonchalantly, admitting that they were their lions would leave them liable for damages

But Marduk's claim is that the NC said "unknown species" not the villagers.

[Marduk]

But Marduk's claim is that the NC said "unknown species" not the villagers.

I think its important to remember here that this claim was not made by the NC directly, but is either claimed by the villagers (who believe in witchcraft) or the pseudo-journo (who believes in witchcraft). The nature conservation as you saw from the links I posted is well aware that the tracks are Hyena or Lion, as they are the two predatory animals escaping from their habitat.
;)

[Bitter Monk]

It was Marduk that mentioned liability, not me.


My mistake. I still can't help but wonder if that wouldn't be the case though. Feign ignorance rather than anger the locals.

[William Parcher]

The report also suggests that while Government does not compensate people for losses caused by problem animals, there was a need to come up with a mechanism that would enable local communities to benefit from wildlife that causes losses, such as giving the meat of problem animals to affected communities.

Yes, we recommend that you eat the lions that ate your livestock.

[Marduk]

Yes, we recommend that you eat the lions that ate your livestock.

pity they don't do that really, the amount that lion meat would fetch in the chinese market would more than refund their lost cattle costs and probably pay for a new house, truck, swimming pool as well.
;)

[William Parcher]

A retired public school teacher is going looking for cryptids. Canadian in Utah to seek 'strange creatures seldom seen' (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705354304/Canadian-seeks-strange-creatures.html).


"I'm certain they exist," based on many expeditions and interviews, (John) Warms told the Deseret News.

These gigantic (prehistoric) beavers are his favorite focus. Though believed to be extinct for over 10,000 years, these are scientifically named "castorides Ohioensis" and can grow to up to 9 feet tall and weigh 440 pounds. He stresses that the fact that these giant beavers actually existed makes some of his claims much more plausible.

"I have encountered people in northern Manitoba and along the Alaska Highway who claim to have seen the bear-sized creature," he said. "I saw one in southern Manitoba, swimming, and the head was about basketball size. They seldom come ashore; that is why we don't know about them."

There are even tales of what he calls "underwater moose" and giant frogs, among other water creatures.

He also said he once met a Manitoba Interlake hunter (now deceased) who thought he shot a wounded moose in some willows in 1941. "It took me thirty-five years to figure out what I had shot," the old man told Warms. He had supposedly shot and killed a bigfoot (but that term was unknown until 1958).

Warms' interest in such creatures began 15 years ago. He has found that Native Americans who live near lakes and rivers are the best sources for encounters with such creatures. Once they know he believes in such creatures, too, he finds they are very talkative about them.

What does his wife think of his creature quests? "She wishes I were an ordinary person," Warms said.

Photo of gigantic beaver replica is at his website (link in article).

[Jeff Corey]

A retired public school teacher is going looking for cryptids. Canadian in Utah to seek 'strange creatures seldom seen' (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705354304/Canadian-seeks-strange-creatures.html).




Photo of gigantic beaver replica is at his website (link in article).

And this shows Professor A. F. Konigsberg and his encounter with a giant chicken.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfrShu_Lp2A

[Bitter Monk]

Those giant beaver hunter jokes just write themselves.

[mikeyx]

Those giant beaver hunter jokes just write themselves.

truerer words....................

[WGBH]

:D

[Drewbot]

@ Parcher- thanks for the Michigan Giant Snake Story

Re: Namibian mystery animals
Many African tribes believe in witchcraft, in fact, in Death in the Long Grass
http://books.google.com/books?id=yCXQNj5NN20C&lpg=PA285&ots=CKXzw3eOjI&dq=%22death%20in%20the%20long%20grass%22%20witchcr aft&pg=PA285#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Peter Capstick makes mention of the lycanthropic witchdoctor, who can change into a hyena. This is probably the same paranoia which is engaging the local Namibians. They won't try to kill it because of possible retribution.

[William Parcher]

The Religious Struggle over Cryptozoology (http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/02/18/the-religious-struggle-over-cryptozoology/)


As it turns out, the search for hidden animals attracts two very different religious elements: the New Age and creationism...

But why would New Agers and creationists both be drawn to the hunt for Bigfoot?...

Because cryptozoology has positioned itself on the periphery of the scientific establishment, it offers these groups hope of undoing scientific paradigms and creating room for new sources of meaning and cultural authority.


From the comments...

I am a "Bigfoot" field researcher. I look for proof to either substantiate the existence of this creature or prove it. The vast majority of the people that I have met and discussed the subject of this possible creature with, are Christians and believe this creature is one of God's creations. Some believe it is actually refereed to in the Bible. Some believe his may be a direct decedent of Esau or even Cain? I do not know, my quest is to find out if any of this is real or just hype. So far, the evidence that I have gathered suggests strongly, that it is a real animal.

[Cainkane1]

@ Parcher- thanks for the Michigan Giant Snake Story

Re: Namibian mystery animals
Many African tribes believe in witchcraft, in fact, in Death in the Long Grass
http://books.google.com/books?id=yCXQNj5NN20C&lpg=PA285&ots=CKXzw3eOjI&dq=%22death%20in%20the%20long%20grass%22%20witchcr aft&pg=PA285#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Peter Capstick makes mention of the lycanthropic witchdoctor, who can change into a hyena. This is probably the same paranoia which is engaging the local Namibians. They won't try to kill it because of possible retribution.
All of this takes a backseat to the four foot walking frog.

[Marduk]

All of this takes a backseat to the four foot walking frog.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WJ5A3G_mQXI/SqEctx8iwOI/AAAAAAAAAdk/VXHgt2u8Ks4/s400/hypnotoad.jpg