CryptoZoology

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I've decided to make a thread about whether you guys think CryptoZoology is valid, or if its Bullshit.

For those of you who dont know what it is, allow me to break it down for you.

Crypto = The shit we've made up
Zoology = The Study of animals

As such Cryptozoologists dedicate their work to finding things like the Lochness Monster, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, etc.

What do you guys think?

- Kuja

 

[SVX-Zexion]

Study of animals? No way but then again It depends which animals. Not all animals.

I say no, sorry... I don't like It at all.

 

[Dionysos]

It's the study of either animals that we thought were extinct, but perhaps are not, or the study of animals that appear in myth and legend and looking for evidence to support claims that they exist...

I think usefulness of Cryptozoology depends on the creature. With some creatures plausible theories and possibilities arise, but with others it appears to be merely crap.

 

[Davey Gaga]

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here and say that I believe this "Cryptozoology" may not be such a bad thing. I think it's a perfectly plausible profession - there's no reason that these creatures cannot possibly exist and someone has to prove the sceptics wrong. Whatever happened to the world being flat? Some ridiculous people thought, "hey, what if it's round?" and went about studying and gathering evidence to prove this theory.

The only criticism I'd have is that it shouldn't be their day job. Then again, who are we to shoot down someone who has a dream of proving the existence of creatures thought to exist only in myths?

 

[Dionysos]

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here and say that I believe this "Cryptozoology" may not be such a bad thing. I think it's a perfectly plausible profession - there's no reason that these creatures cannot possibly exist and someone has to prove the sceptics wrong. Whatever happened to the world being flat? Some ridiculous people thought, "hey, what if it's round?" and went about studying and gathering evidence to prove this theory.

The only criticism I'd have is that it shouldn't be their day job. Then again, who are we to shoot down someone who has a dream of proving the existence of creatures thought to exist only in myths?

I agree. I've always been interested in reading about this.. And I think it is great when people think outside of the box. Think beyond what we know, and look at possibilities... Nothing is impossible! We're only humans, animals.. We're not guardians of the universe who know everything, so we should stop pretending that we do.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I agree with you guys cryptozoology is very intrigueing. However in terms of the Lochness Monster I have trouble believing that a Pleisiosaur, or however you spell it, somehow got stuck in the Lochness and is still alive. A dinosaur of that size couldn';t possibly live in the Lochness considering theres not alot of things it could eat. But two self-proclaimed cryptozooligts claim the Lochness Monster is an Eel that was born castrated.

In terms of Bigfoot, Penn and Teller, whos show I loved made a fake video about Bigfoot and got many hits on Crytozoologists who claimed they were experts. A Zoologist knew right away the video was fake. Of course by no means that doesnt mean Bigfoot doesn't exist.

But anyway I agree with the person who said it shouldn't be somebodys main job.


Good opinions, keep posting

- Kuja

 

[Socrates]

I've decided to make a thread about whether you guys think CryptoZoology is valid, or if its Bullshit.

For those of you who dont know what it is, allow me to break it down for you.

Crypto = The shit we've made up
Zoology = The Study of animals

As such Cryptozoologists dedicate their work to finding things like the Lochness Monster, Bigfoot, Chupacabra, etc.

What do you guys think?

- Kuja

CryptoZoology is fascinating stuff, but its not realistic. I agree with you said regarding the Lochness Monster.

Everything that appeals to our imagination, always makes life more exciting doesnt it?

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Rockman X]

I agree with you guys cryptozoology is very intrigueing. However in terms of the Lochness Monster I have trouble believing that a Pleisiosaur, or however you spell it, somehow got stuck in the Lochness and is still alive. A dinosaur of that size couldn';t possibly live in the Lochness considering theres not alot of things it could eat. But two self-proclaimed cryptozooligts claim the Lochness Monster is an Eel that was born castrated.

I seriously doubt Nessie exists. The coelacanth (and even gators and crocs, for that matter) are proof that prehistoric creatures CAN survive into modern times, but something of a plesiosaur's size would hardly be able to survive in a loch. It might be able to survive in a full-sized ocean, and there are plenty of marine species that have yet to be discovered, but it's doubtful.

The one creature that has always caught my attention though is the dragon. Think about it, cultures around the world all have different mythologies, but the idea of dragons seems to be shared across the globe, from Europe to Asia to South America. I don't think any exist now, but it's quite possible that at one point they did. Maybe not an actual European fire-breathing dragon (I'm sure a great deal is embellishment), but there was likely some sort of large reptilian species that prompted all the legends.

 

[Socrates]

I seriously doubt Nessie exists. The coelacanth (and even gators and crocs, for that matter) are proof that prehistoric creatures CAN survive into modern times, but something of a plesiosaur's size would hardly be able to survive in a loch. It might be able to survive in a full-sized ocean, and there are plenty of marine species that have yet to be discovered, but it's doubtful.

The one creature that has always caught my attention though is the dragon. Think about it, cultures around the world all have different mythologies, but the idea of dragons seems to be shared across the globe, from Europe to Asia to South America. I don't think any exist now, but it's quite possible that at one point they did. Maybe not an actual European fire-breathing dragon (I'm sure a great deal is embellishment), but there was likely some sort of large reptilian species that prompted all the legends.

The person who took the Nessie picture has admitted it was a fake I think.

Dragons are wonderful, they play leading roles in many movies and games. Now the issue I have with Dragons is how they all look different from European-South American Standards,.

Asian Dragon - Four Small legs, No Wings, Mane, Long Body
European Dragon - Four Legs, Two Full Wings, Dark Coloured
Mexican Dragon - No Legs, Feathery Wings
South American - Two Legs, many Bird-Like Qualities

As you can see amerindians paint the Dragon as a bird give or take, the chinese paint it as a snake with dragon qualities, and the Europeans paint it as a Reptilian like creature. As such...how do we know if dragons truly existed, and what they looked like? What you say might be true, and believe me I'd love it if Dragons were real.

~ Socrates the Great

 

[Okami]

The closest thing to a dragon would be a Pterosaur, but they're extinct. Tsuchinoko's are VERY likely to exist, as they are a type of snake. Bigfoot is possible, but they must be ultra-rare. loch-ness doesn't exist, this theory has been going for over a century, so it's most likely dead if it even did exist.

 

[Rockman X]

Asian Dragon - Four Small legs, No Wings, Mane, Long Body
European Dragon - Four Legs, Two Full Wings, Dark Coloured
Mexican Dragon - No Legs, Feathery Wings
South American - Two Legs, many Bird-Like Qualities

As you can see amerindians paint the Dragon as a bird give or take, the chinese paint it as a snake with dragon qualities, and the Europeans paint it as a Reptilian like creature. As such...how do we know if dragons truly existed, and what they looked like? What you say might be true, and believe me I'd love it if Dragons were real.

That's very true. And if I recall, some of the dragons in Polynesian lore were actually able to take different forms, one actually being a shark. But aside from Polynesian and South American dragons (although the Mayan Quetzalcoatl was often depicted as a feathered serpent, and the Aztec Xiuhcoatl was a fire serpent), there seems to be one big theme running through dragon lore: they are all large, serpentine-like creatures. The English term worm/wyrm referred dually to dragons and serpents, and the Greek word δράκων, meaning serpent, is where the terms drake/dragon/draco come from. Serpentine creatures can also be seen in Iranian lore too, especially the figure Zahhāk, who is sometimes depicted having dragon-like qualities.

Maybe they're all just fairy tails dreamed up by people who liked snakes too much, but perhaps at one point in history there were massive snakes roaming the continents and people made stories to explain them. It's certainly more interesting to think that

 

[Dionysos]

I've actually heard that dragons are merely different cultures interpretations of dinosaur bones that had been found in different periods of history.
This actually happened with quite alot of mythological creatures.. If large bones were found, the Ancient Greeks for example, would suggest that they were the bones of a hero, or some mythological creature of their stories. For example I'm sure I have read somewhere that the area where the griffins were meant to populate was an area where there were many beaked dinosaur finds, that some people in the past may have discovered before the modern age, leading to the origin, or a confirmation of that story.

The same is possibly true with dragons... In different parts of the world every now and then dinosaur bones would be found, and the different cultures would give their own interpretations as to what the creature would look like, spawning the different looks.

It's only recently when we came up with the term Dinosaur that we had a label for these kind of finds, and knowledge about what they actually were. In antiquity finds such as the skull of a T-Rex would probably translate into being the head of a dragon, or some similar creature.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I've actually heard that dragons are merely different cultures interpretations of dinosaur bones that had been found in different periods of history.
This actually happened with quite alot of mythological creatures.. If large bones were found, the Ancient Greeks for example, would suggest that they were the bones of a hero, or some mythological creature of their stories. For example I'm sure I have read somewhere that the area where the griffins were meant to populate was an area where there were many beaked dinosaur finds, that some people in the past may have discovered before the modern age, leading to the origin, or a confirmation of that story.

The same is possibly true with dragons... In different parts of the world every now and then dinosaur bones would be found, and the different cultures would give their own interpretations as to what the creature would look like, spawning the different looks.

It's only recently when we came up with the term Dinosaur that we had a label for these kind of finds, and knowledge about what they actually were. In antiquity finds such as the skull of a T-Rex would probably translate into being the head of a dragon, or some similar creature.

Hey argor, your thread about FF Movie stars was brilliant =D.

What you say is true, I believe Dragons originated as a chinese depiction in art, and made its way west.

What you say could very well be true, but alas nobody knows.

- Kuja

 

[Dionysos]

Hey argor, your thread about FF Movie stars was brilliant =D.

What you say is true, I believe Dragons originated as a chinese depiction in art, and made its way west.

What you say could very well be true, but alas nobody knows.

- Kuja

Yeah, my Movie Stars Thread went better than I thought.. for a few days! No-one has posted for ages though... It's still alive and not deleted yet though as far as I know!

Hmmm.. As for Cryptozoology, I just wish more people took part in this type of thread! I live for this stuff!

 

[Contra Fates]

The one creature that has always caught my attention though is the dragon. Think about it, cultures around the world all have different mythologies, but the idea of dragons seems to be shared across the globe, from Europe to Asia to South America. I don't think any exist now, but it's quite possible that at one point they did. Maybe not an actual European fire-breathing dragon (I'm sure a great deal is embellishment), but there was likely some sort of large reptilian species that prompted all the legends.

I think a fair amount of stories about Dragons, at least for the European version of them, can be accredited to The Bible, in The Revelations. That seems to be the oldest European trace of the fire-breathing Dragon, since in the Bible, the Dragon symbolized Satan. Since Satan is usually matched with 'fire,' that would make sense. But, again, Greek Mythology also included stories about Dragons. I only mention The Revelations, since most of Europe was very religious, and likely read The Bible more than they would have read Greek Mythology, or other ancient texts that made mention of it.

I definitely agree though, that the idea of the dragon is very widespread, since, like you said, there have been many ancient pictures and legends found in many areas around the world.

As for Cryptozoology, I don't have a problem with it. It's a bit unfair to say that just because a few people in the field are nutty, that it discredits all of them. Most cryptozoologists are just trying to disprove or prove these myths, and in a sense, it makes them similar to the guys on 'Mythbusters.'

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

I think a fair amount of stories about Dragons, at least for the European version of them, can be accredited to The Bible, in The Revelations. That seems to be the oldest European trace of the fire-breathing Dragon, since in the Bible, the Dragon symbolized Satan. Since Satan is usually matched with 'fire,' that would make sense. But, again, Greek Mythology also included stories about Dragons. I only mention The Revelations, since most of Europe was very religious, and likely read The Bible more than they would have read Greek Mythology, or other ancient texts that made mention of it.

I definitely agree though, that the idea of the dragon is very widespread, since, like you said, there have been many ancient pictures and legends found in many areas around the world.

As for Cryptozoology, I don't have a problem with it. It's a bit unfair to say that just because a few people in the field are nutty, that it discredits all of them. Most cryptozoologists are just trying to disprove or prove these myths, and in a sense, it makes them similar to the guys on 'Mythbusters.'

Personally I dont find anything wrong with it either , but I think people should consider it a hobby and not a job.

After all many of these so-called myths have turned out to be fakes:

1. Bigfoot - Somebody made tracks out of custom sandals

2. Lochness Monster - Guy attached clay or wood to the top of a toy boat and took a picture

3. Chupacabra - While nothing has discredited this yet, The Chupacabra excuse is mainly used in spanish-speaking countries, and hardly anywhere else in the world, as such I have an issue with this "thing" being real. Also the appearance differs person-person.

- Kuja

 

[FF7Guru]

Cryptozoology is a valuable science in my opinion. Mostly small scale stuff, rather than Nessie and dragons, is (dis)proved though. There was a lot of oxygen that wasn't supposed to be there until 1996, and someone proved that a certain type of microbe existed on coral in salty water, and went on an expedition to Shark Bay to find some. These microbes pump out 140,000 tonnes of oxygen a year each, and the Shark Bay coral is full of them. Thus, Cryptozoology explained something. Cool, isn't it.

 

[IamKazam]

I believe that Cryptozoology is a neccessary branch of science, it packs a lot of excitement into just plain zoology. Have you ever watched those shows where they go in search of unidentified animals?....Sure, it is probably fake, but it is exciting nonetheless. And i agree it should be a hobby, not an actual profession.

One thing i hate is when people bash cryptozoologists for their beliefs. Personnally, i dont think anyone should that something dosnt exist, rather they should accept the possibility that it COULD exist.(now i understand that if there is solid evidence that a creature dosnt exist than they can say so. Example:Nessie)

Now im probably a little bisased to this since im a native to the Pacific Northwest and ive always been fascinated with it since i was very little, but look at something like Bigfoot. just because we havent found evidence that supports it yet donst mean it does not exist. It just means we have not found the right evidence. Im not saying i do believe in it, but i believe it could exist.

Now with any "unknown" creature(not just bigfoot but ill use it as an example) but you have got to take a lot of things into consideration.

A) Look at how much of the world man has yet to set foot in(if im not mistaken some 30% of the forests in the Pacific Northwest has never been explored) also im sure there is plenty of the worlds uncharted wilderness that may not be accesible to man. just the other day i was out hunting with my dad and we were in some really rough terrain after about 6-hours of hiking we had to turn back because we were wet, cold and running out of light. we had been trying to get into this basin all day, but we were cut short due to lack of supplies. if you have a creature that lives in the habitat and can navigate it easily and can survive out there, wouldnt you agree it would be very hard to find?

B) people also claim that just because no bodies have been found a creature couldnt exist. There is a lovely thing called decomposition. Now lets assume that a bigfoot died somewhere in the wilderness(even if it in an explored, accesible part) The wilderness is a HUGE place. Maybe by the time someone gets to where the body is, it is decomposed enough to the point where you cant tell what it is, if you even notice something like that in a think foresty area. Combine this with option A and think about the chances of actually finding a body.

i just wantt to finish by aplogizing for this being a lengthy post

 

[One-winged Demon]

Dragons first appeared in the Iliad(a Greek myth that is about a siege THAT HAPPENED IN TRUTH but has has some mythological stuff inside it):''Agamemnon had a blue dragon painted in his armor''.Also my father had watch a documentary that explained how dragons could fly(even if they had wings they would be too heavy to fly) and throw flames.

 

[Dionysos]

Dragons first appeared in the Iliad(a Greek myth that is about a siege THAT HAPPENED IN TRUTH but has has some mythological stuff inside it):''Agamemnon had a blue dragon painted in his armor''.Also my father had watch a documentary that explained how dragons could fly(even if they had wings they would be too heavy to fly) and throw flames.

A fan of the the Iliad, good man . Yeah the Iliad is based on what may have been truth, the Mycenean Greeks for sure are likely to have gone to war against Troy, seeing that they were aggressive and very militaristic in their society. We might find records for Troy in the archives and records of the Hittites when more is discovered over there.

Yes dragons have appeared in myth countless times throughout history, not always as dragons but as other mythical creatures. Today we find skeletal remains of giant lizards and call them dinosaurs, in the past such remains may have been labelled as monsters, dragons or other mythical creatures.

Some people see anatomically correct lifelike t-rex heads on some greek vases used as the base for a mythical creature. Such as the depiction of "the monster of Troy" in this vase...

Some people would take that to resemble that of a skull of a T-rex or similar dinosaur, which was found and interpreted by all the Ancient Greeks could think to do with it.

There's been some evidence that can be interpreted in ways that imply that the ancients did find such bones and have interpreted them to fit in with their stories.

The creatures of myth are likely to be based on what they think they see in the bones, or perhaps that the bones confirm that of a story already told.

But.. The other possibility is that some of these creatures did exist, survive and live in these times that have died out or been hunted, or perhaps still live now. Likewise, for all we know, some dinosaurs might still live now. I keep hearing of reports in the forests of Papua New Ginuea...