The Tactical Strategist Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Well, I know about black bears in the east. They are the only native bear there anyways. I just think it's all because of their elusive nature. The Lynx, is an elusive animals. Yes, I know we have seen them, but they are secretive. In the planet earth documentaries, it even says a man can live his whole life in the artic forests and never see a Lynx, or even a trace of one. We are slowly getting more and more evidence, and better too. Now a question I have is, what about the Sasquatch like relatives in other countries. Such as the orang pendek, which is a smaller version living in Vietnam. People there know the wildlife, and spend their days in the jungle. And in the rural villiges, they probably haven't heard of bigfoot, yeti, etc, so there is nothing to spark the idea for hoaxes And you would be amazed on how many times I've read that wiki page on Mokele Mbembe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Well, I know about black bears in the east. They are the only native bear there anyways. I just think it's all because of their elusive nature. The Lynx, is an elusive animals. Yes, I know we have seen them, but they are secretive. In the planet earth documentaries, it even says a man can live his whole life in the artic forests and never see a Lynx, or even a trace of one. We are slowly getting more and more evidence, and better too. Now a question I have is, what about the Sasquatch like relatives in other countries. Such as the orang pendek, which is a smaller version living in Vietnam. People there know the wildlife, and spend their days in the jungle. And in the rural villiges, they probably haven't heard of bigfoot, yeti, etc, so there is nothing to spark the idea for hoaxes And you would be amazed on how many times I've read that wiki page on Mokel There are a lot of indigenous natives legends about things we know are just legends, Should we be searching for unicorns? what in your opinion is the best evidence for bigfoot? Edited February 18, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Hah a, actually, in fact, unicorns did exist then went extinct. But not what your thinking off, with a horse and a horn. Some say it was a species of cattle, and some scientists think it's a creature I believe was called, elasmotherium. But anyway, I honestly just think maybe natives, and the sheer numbers of sightings. But Im distracted, as I'm busy, so as what I can think of, that's it for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 The Lynx, is an elusive animals. Yes, I know we have seen them, but they are secretive. And yet, we have multiple museum voucher specimens, clear footage and photographs, detailed, first hand observed documentation of their life history traits - so why none for Sasquatch, since clearly we have detailed data and specimens for other elusive, shy intelligent species? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Yes. But in one of your sources, which I read, it did say we've only been after the squatch for some 5o years. The lynx, probably longer than that, with more people after it to. And other animals to infer behavior on. And intelligent, yes, but maybe not as intelligent as a squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Yes. But in one of your sources, which I read, it did say we've only been after the squatch for some 5o years. The lynx, probably longer than that, with more people after it to. And other animals to infer behavior on. And intelligent, yes, but maybe not as intelligent as a squatch I'll ask again, what is the best evidence for bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share Posted February 18, 2015 Honestly, hard evidence is difficult to find, and only is in good supply if your a cryptozoologist. But I think Natives, and the sheer number of sightings. I beleive that lots of evidence is a hoax, but with so many hoaxes, we are led to believe everything is a hoax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) I would suggest, if you like mystery animals and how belief in them comes to pass, you research the legendary freshwater seahorse of Lake Titicaca , it lacks the glamor of bigfoot but it's existence or lack there of can be traced back to real events.... Edited February 19, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Honestly, hard evidence is difficult to find, and only is in good supply if your a cryptozoologist. I feel they should share their good supply of hard evidence with non-cryptozoologists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I wasn't kidding about the seahorse it is avery interesting story and contains nearly all the elements of bigfoot, native beliefs, assumptions made due to belief in natives word in what they observe and it was even accepted by science for quite some time and is still talked about and considered real by some people and it has the same feel of reality to it many legends have and people are still searching for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 I've heard of the lake, but not the seahorse. Sounds interesting. I think my favorite cryptid is the Mokele mbembe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel Chase Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Natives, and the sheer number of sightings. You place a lot of stress on this, but Native Americans also believed in wendigos, and that eating human flesh would turn you into one. In other words, just because they believed in Sasquatch, that doesn't make it real. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Honestly, hard evidence is difficult to find I think the main issue is that if you wished to have any other species formally recognized, you'd need to bring that hard evidence to the table - including a voucher specimen, comprehensive comparison with related species and more and more in contemporary taxonomy, DNA to show its evolutionary distinction and relationship with extant species. With an absence of this data, you'd be forced to fall back on the null hypothesis of "no new species has been discovered". I don't think so called crypto- taxa should be given a pass on meeting the same standards. Mainstream taxonomists are providing it day in, day out with much more difficult to capture species, in vastly more remote environments, with vastly less manpower and funding. The standard which cryptozoologists are expected to meet to join the ranks of legitate science are clear, and the perpetual failure to meet those standards is telling. I'd be happy and excited to change my perspective in light of acceptable evidence, but as it stands the evidence is uncompelling and the rational position is to accept the null and assume that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc do not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 19, 2015 Author Share Posted February 19, 2015 Did my post just disappear?! Crap. I'll rewrite it and post when I have time You place a lot of stress on this, but Native Americans also believed in wendigos, and that eating human flesh would turn you into one. In other words, just because they believed in Sasquatch, that doesn't make it real. Yes, but there is still a chance that it can. Lost of what they say can't be taken literally, and have to be interpreted. The aborigines of Australia told westerners about the platypus and it was placed as a cryptid. Same with the panda. There is still chances. What's to stop it from being a living fossil like the colecanth. Sasquatch could be gigantopithicus. But that can also lead to the idea of Sasquatch being an ancient creature that is now extinct and still living in the minds of natives. I want to let everyone know that I'm not a full on believer in cryptids, even if I act like I am. I just want a 100% way of knowing these animals can or can't exist. I'm afraid though, that may never happen Out of all the cryptids, I think even though it may seem the most far out, the Mokele mbembe has the best chance of being alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Did my post just disappear?! Crap.I'll rewrite it and post when I have time Yes, but there is still a chance that it can. Of course. However the same argument could be used for literally anything. There is a chance that there is an invisible dragon in my basement, but that's not a terribly convincing argument to start assuming there is one there. Similarly, the fact that there's an vague, unquantified chance Bigfoot exists isn't a compelling reason to start assuming it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Of course. However the same argument could be used for literally anything. There is a chance that there is an invisible dragon in my basement, but that's not a terribly convincing argument to start assuming there is one there. Similarly, the fact that there's an vague, unquantified chance Bigfoot exists isn't a compelling reason to start assuming it does. We can't let lack of evidence get in the way of a ripe old yarn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bignose Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I just want a 100% way of knowing these animals can or can't exist. Ok, just know that this is an impossible standard. The Theory of Gravity isn't 100%. The Theory of Sound isn't 100%. Newton's Law's aren't 100%. The Laws of Thermodynamics aren't 100%. 100% is never achievable in science. Because we aren't ever going to do 100% of the cases, because there are literally infinite cases. For example, we aren't going to test a 1.4578g mass in a gravity field, then test a 1.4579g mass, then test a 1.45785g mass, then test a 1.4579124g mass, and so on. What science does do is have a tremendous preponderance of evidence. We have studied a lot of masses in a gravity field, and the predictions we make have been shown to be very accurate, so we have extreme confidence in the Theory of Gravity. But it isn't 100%. There is always the possibility that someone will find a case where it is wrong. Hence, nothing in science is 100%. So, in the case of Bigfoot or any other creature, 100% is frankly an impossible standard. Until you can see literally every square foot of the earth at the exact same time, you can't eliminate a hiding place. And then, unless you can go back in time and do the same observation for all time, you'll still be able to argue that "oh, well, there USED to be be Bigfoots" In short, as Arete laid out, we have established criteria for establishing what science considers a species or not. Arguing about these lines are fine, and arguments still exist about these lines today. But, it has to be admitted that at the moment the evidence for Bigfoot isn't even close. It isn't just a matter of perspective. The total lack of tangible evidence is awfully powerful. Science naturally takes the skeptical position that until tangible evidence can be provided, it isn't considered mainstream. Sure, it will never ever be 100% sure that Bigfoot doesn't exist, as above that is literally an impossible standard. But it is pretty sure today because of the total lack of physical evidence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yes, I know that. I'm just extremely stubborn . So I'll argue it till either there is an extremely great theory that disproves it and can convince me. Do you know about the Mokele Mbembe. I know I've been bringing it up, but I think it would be a good topic for cryptozoology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Out of all the cryptids, I think even though it may seem the most far out, the Mokele mbembe has the best chance of being alive I remember maybe 10 or 15 years ago the local pygmies identified a Mokele mbembe in a book of the local wildlife that a BBC crew had shown them. They identified a rhino. Other photos and films of the beast show just hippos and elephants in the water at some distance. (For example the SyFy channel showed two hippos in the water that upon first sight looked like a dinosaur!) The effect of object on open water is that there size and distance is difficult to judge and misidentification is common. This I expect is the principal explanation for the loch Ness monster. Anyway, there is no evidence of a large unidentified animal living in the Congo area. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Well the Loch Ness a a special lake and has a lot to do. And you are semi right with the Mokele Mbembe. Different tribes have shown it as different things. Some have shown it to be a sauropod, some show as a rhino, some show as a mix, etc.different tribes have claimed different things, with the majority being a sauropod. And if I remember correctly, tracks have been found to, or at least reported. But evidence for the Mokele Mbembe is the hardest to get, I would imagine, because of the terrain and how secluded the jungle can be. But this isolation can help with this creature not going extinct and remaining hidden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Yes, I know that. I'm just extremely stubborn . So I'll argue it till either there is an extremely great theory that disproves it and can convince me. Be careful here. "I'm just extremely stubborn" sounds like you're proud of ignoring the preponderance of evidence against the thing you want to be true. And there will never be "an extremely great theory that disproves it", because it doesn't need one. The null hypothesis is enough. What should convince you is... evidence. Or a profound lack of it. Evidence is the difference between a trustworthy explanation and wishful thinking. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Sorry, I don't want to mislead anyone, it's possible that I can be convinced, but it'll be hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Sorry, I don't want to mislead anyone, it's possible that I can be convinced, but it'll be hard It's not something you need to apologize for. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of popular misconceptions about what a theory is, what a skeptic is, and what logic is. Most people don't think of these concepts the way those in science do. Being skeptical is good. But when faced with compelling evidence, or a distinct lack of it, maintaining skepticism starts to look more like denial. Just sayin'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Well the Loch Ness a a special lake and has a lot to do. And you are semi right with the Mokele Mbembe. Different tribes have shown it as different things. Some have shown it to be a sauropod, some show as a rhino, some show as a mix, etc.different tribes have claimed different things, with the majority being a sauropod. And if I remember correctly, tracks have been found to, or at least reported. But evidence for the Mokele Mbembe is the hardest to get, I would imagine, because of the terrain and how secluded the jungle can be. But this isolation can help with this creature not going extinct and remaining hidden Can you give any positive evidence or than your baseless claims for any of the supposed animals you keep claiming are true? Mokele Mbembe, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, any of them? You keep making vague claims, lets see some links that support your claims, I can sit here and type baseless claims all night, I can give links to claims of perpetual motion, I am quite sure that they would be soundly thrashed but it would at least be supporting the claims as best you can. I was trying to get you to look at the evidence for the seahorse of lake titicaca for a reason, the reason is why even science can be fooled and often non scientific claims are made to appear as though they are made by scientists and sometimes even picked up by scientists and professional science like museums can be fooled. To find out if something is supported by evidence you have to look past what you want to see and hear to what is actually real. http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=264352&t=7 You would be amazed at how many sources still cite the lake titicaca seahorse as real and still make claims the lake is full of marine species of fish when in fact it is not. Just too many red wagons are attached to the idea the lake contains marine species of fish and too many cart are overturned when the reality of the claims are known.... Mokele mbembe is fairly easy to see through, no actual scientist has accepted any of the proposed evidence as viable and everything from ecology to paleontology would appear to indicate there is no way a population of sauropod dinosaurs could have survived for 65 million years. The Loch Ness Monster has no supporting evidence and the lake itself is too small to support a population of large aquatic creatures and too cold for them to be reptiles and too empty of food for population of such large creatures to feed. Bigfoot is interesting in many ways due to it apparently actually having a creature it could actually be that was alive a reasonable amount of time ago but when you look closely you will find that the large ape it is based on looked much more like a gorilla and did not walk upright like a man and to say that native american legends support bigfoot would also have to lend credence to such creatures as thunderbirds and wengingos to name but a couple. This is not to say that cryptozoologists have never found unknown large animals, they have: http://listverse.com/2010/08/13/top-10-cryptids-that-turned-out-to-be-real/ native legends are not a good source of information about actual fauna of an area any more than the bible is a good source for unicorns or dinosaurs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now