Moontanman Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 But it does bring its assumptions and suppositions into question. If they are not rigorous enough to reject creationism as anti-scientific, then expecting their other works to be solid scientific works isn't likely. Nevertheless, this comes down to exactly the same thing as the rest of this thread, solid scientific evidence. In the end, it doesn't matter if the solid scientific evidence comes from a creationist website, a flat-earther website, Nature.com, or my dog's website. What does matter is the evidence itself. And I'm sorry, but that webpage is just story telling, no actual science. I mean, my goodness, the author at the end even admits he didn't even know where he was! He may feel that he's "a hairsbreadth away from locating and filming a specimen of Mokele-mbembe", but that and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee and that's it. It isn't evidence. Science has progressed past the dark ages of strong beliefs counting for anything. Actual evidence or get out. We're just pointing out that a site that is pushing a creationist agenda isn't going to be well known for being scientifically rigorous, and that that immediately brings any claims it brings into suspicion. To wit, even if they posted tonight supposed pictures or films of the creature, it would take quite a lot of analysis be verify that they aren't fakes. That website has shown it can't be trusted to perform science on the issue of creationism, it can't really be trusted to perform other high quality science. Where do you get a cup of coffee for $.25? Citation needed... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 @phil for all I agree that I don't like it when things become dramatized and people use cryptozoology against normal biology. But I do think cryptozoology is interesting in the thought of discovering new creatures, and it should be a science that is well respected. But they should use it to bash biology. Without biology, we wouldn't have cryptozoology. And with your thoughts on evidence, I do agree at being skeptical, but you can't discard it. People looking for bigfoot are more likely to see bigfoot then someone not. And I'm sure the same is true for the Mokele mbembe. But I bet tons of natives see these animals. But they don't have any way of capturing evidence, as they are so primitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzkpfw Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 So again, the lack of evidence is somehow evidence. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 @phil for all People looking for bigfoot are more likely to see bigfoot then someone not. This is not the appropriate way to apply Occams Razor to this question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) But I do think cryptozoology is interesting in the thought of discovering new creatures, and it should be a science that is well respected. But they should use it to bash biology. Without biology, we wouldn't have cryptozoology. And with your thoughts on evidence, I disagree, and am repeating myself here, but the minimum requirements for evidence in taxonomy and species description are clearly laid out and routinely followed by taxonomists every day. You know what they call "cryptozoology" which meets the minimum requirements to be considered science? Zoology. Btw - you shouldn't need cryptozoology to be excited about the discovery of new species. Legitimate, awesome species are discovered all the time: http://www.livescience.com/45798-images-top-10-species-2014.html Edited February 25, 2015 by Arete 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) People looking for bigfoot are more likely to see bigfoot then someone not. This is not the appropriate way to apply Occams Razor to this question How can Occams Razor possibly apply to the propensity of people seeing what they expect/want to see or to this question? Edit/ There have been many studies done on how humans see the world; the mind fills in the gaps, that the eye’s miss with guess’s based on what it expects to see. Edited February 25, 2015 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralDadmission Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 How can Occams Razor possibly apply to the propensity of people seeing what they expect/want to see or to this question? Edit/ There have been many studies done on how humans see the world; the mind fills in the gaps, that the eye’s miss with guess’s based on what it expects to see. My comment indicated that the assumption that statistically there is greater chance of people who are looking for a cryptoid to find one over someone who is not, cannot be accurate when the group not looking for the cryptoid is a profession that ceased searching for cryptoids shortly after the field of evoluition was established for biologists to gather data on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) I assume that since we are talking cryptozoology and not specifics here there is one or cryptids that have always puzzled me. First reports of a large alligator like animal in the canadian swamps and forests. A place where it is far too cold for alligators or their kin but reports have been made of such creatures, could we be talking about something similar to this? Also before the US became a country there was a report of a forest fire that scorched a large section of a small river in Ohio leaving behind large 10' or so lizards that had antlers, very odd stories. Lizards with antlers sounds like very large mudpuppies which have external gills that look like antlers. Edited February 27, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'm just going to leave this here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 I'm just going to leave this here: Since it's not really representative of reality i suggest you go to you tube to find all those missing pics now being displayed as short films.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tactical Strategist Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 @mootanman I haven't heard of those, but yes, they could be considered cryptids. I would love to read and learn about these. It would be quite interesting. Do you have any sites I can refer too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I’m struggling to understand why it matters whether or not these, as yet, mythical creatures exist or not. If they don’t exist, so what? There is so much to wonder at in the world we know about, to waste energy wondering at what may be. If they do exist; all I can hope is we never find them. Given our track record, we’re far more likely to have a catastrophic effect than a positive one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 @mootanman I haven't heard of those, but yes, they could be considered cryptids. I would love to read and learn about these. It would be quite interesting. Do you have any sites I can refer too I'll look into it, it's been many years since I discussed these animals.. Some place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Alps_giant_salamander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_Lake_Monster http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/nanfajan03/0034.html http://www.nanfa.org/archive/nanfa/nanfajan03/0030.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I'll look into it, it's been many years since I discussed these animals.. The cover picture on your UTube video is a mash-up. Cryptobranchidae grow 'only' to around 5ft. Your anecdote of "10' or so lizards" in Ohio is unreliable to say the least. I'm with the sentiment expressed several times here to reserve our amazement & investigational energies for verifiable life. Largest Living Organism: Fungus Armillaria ostoyae ... Humongous Fungus Until August of 2000 it was thought that the largest living organism was a fungus of the same species (Armillaria ostoyae) that covered 1,500 acres (600 hectares) found living in the state of Washington. But then mycology experts surmised that if an Armillaria that large could be found in Washington, then perhaps one just as large could be responsible for the trees dying in the Malheur National Forest in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. Researchers were astonished at the sheer magnitude of the find. This most recent find was estimated to cover over 2,200 acres (890 hectares) and be at least 2,400 years old, possibly older. ... Maybe this is what Sasquatch eats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) The cover picture on your UTube video is a mash-up. Cryptobranchidae grow 'only' to around 5ft. Your anecdote of "10' or so lizards" in Ohio is unreliable to say the least. I'm with the sentiment expressed several times here to reserve our amazement & investigational energies for verifiable life. Largest Living Organism: Fungus Armillaria ostoyae Maybe this is what Sasquatch eats. Well considering that Ohio is thousands of miles away from the Japanese giant salamander and is not the same species and possibly not even the same genus or even family so I don't understand why the size of one should affect the size of the other. It has been many years since I looked into this and it turns out the salamanders in Ohio were reported as 6 to 7 feet long but as i said I see no reason to think the size of one would influence the size of the other. The picture in the video is forced perspective and I was just using it as an example of giant salamanders that do still exist. The ones known vary in max size from about 5 to 6 foot long. The one reputed to live in the wilds of canada is supposed to be quite large as well having been seen laying on the banks of remote lakes in groups much like alligators in more tropical climes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Koolasuchus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_giant_salamander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_giant_salamander While the reports from Ohio are nothing but anecdotal they were officially recorded by people with no agenda of cryptozoology fame to motivate them as are the reports of the far canadian north it is also true that very large amphibians once roamed the earth even into the Cretaceous. In some places they occupied a similar ecological niche as alligators do in more tropical regions but in much colder regions one being reported from antarctica at the end of the Cretaceous. I am not suggesting these animals are real but since the reports were never sensationalized in quite the way that other cryptids are it might be possible to dig up info that is not tainted by the human tendency to look for faime. Their propensity for cold habitats, even in modern times to me at least makes them a little more reasonable, their modern counterparts are very elusive rarely being seen and they still occupy cold habitats. Cold regions of the world, especially aquatic habitats are not very well explored, If I was going to go cryptid hunting and wasn't looking for the fame and glory of bigfoot or Mokele Mbembe I would choose lakes of the far north but the physical dangers of extreme cold, wild animals, and difficulty reaching these remote regions is more than enough to keep most cryptozoologists away I think... Edited February 28, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 ...I am not suggesting these animals are real but since the reports were never sensationalized in quite the way that other cryptids are it might be possible to dig up info that is not tainted by the human tendency to look for faime. Their propensity for cold habitats, even in modern times to me at least makes them a little more reasonable, their modern counterparts are very elusive rarely being seen and they still occupy cold habitats. ... Erhm...but...well, you are suggesting they are real. The Wiki page on the salamanders I linked to gave 4.7 feet as the max size, which you then after commented '5 to 6 feet'. On the other hand, you first said 10 feet in Ohio but then the 5 to 6 feet. ?? In any case, they are not the same rank of cryptid as Sasquatch and that ilk inasmuch as no one questions extant giant salamanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Erhm...but...well, you are suggesting they are real. The Wiki page on the salamanders I linked to gave 4.7 feet as the max size, which you then after commented '5 to 6 feet'. On the other hand, you first said 10 feet in Ohio but then the 5 to 6 feet. ?? In any case, they are not the same rank of cryptid as Sasquatch and that ilk inasmuch as no one questions extant giant salamanders. The chinese giant salamanders get larger but my point was could the reports on canada be something similar not the same animal. I see no reason to think that giant salamanders in northern north america would be the same animal and ancient salamanders got quite large some as much as 4 meters long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 The chinese giant salamanders get larger but my point was could the reports on canada be something similar not the same animal. I see no reason to think that giant salamanders in northern north america would be the same animal and ancient salamanders got quite large some as much as 4 meters long. A big MEH. By posting the salamander video and other such comments you made you are suggesting there's something real to be investigated in such 'reports'. Bunch of damn nonsense and I'm with Phi when he said: I don't like the fascination for cryptids. I think it attempts to sensationalize biology, and gives the impression that normal creatures aren't fantastic enough. ... Not only that aspect, but the popularized cryptid crap is demeaning to scientists and the scientific method. Par for this course though I suppose if 90% of the threads on this forum are any indication. Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 A big MEH. By posting the salamander video and other such comments you made you are suggesting there's something real to be investigated in such 'reports'. Bunch of damn nonsense and I'm with Phi when he said: Not only that aspect, but the popularized cryptid crap is demeaning to scientists and the scientific method. Par for this course though I suppose if 90% of the threads on this forum are any indication. Good grief. I was trying to point out that cryptids are not always some fantastic creature that could not exist but there are many possible mundane creatures that are still unknown to science, some are found every year. The reason why cryptids have such a low reputation is that most of the people who search for them ignore animals that are really possible and go after things that almost certainly cannot be found with the hopes of making huge amounts of money from gullible people. The supposed cryptids i pointed out are not famous, not even unlikely, they are mentions in footnotes of reports that were odd at the time but never really looked into for various reasons, lack of interest being one of the most likely. Coming across a bunch of dead salamanders in the early 1800's in a remote location no matter how big they were was unlikely to spur huge amounts of interest. The only thing demeaning to science is the people perpetrating hoaxes to make money off the gullible. Historical records do occasionally mention odd things that are not "sexy" enough for modern con artists to whip up interest, these things interest me far more that monsters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I was trying to point out that cryptids are not always some fantastic creature that could not exist but there are many possible mundane creatures that are still unknown to science, some are found every year. The reason why cryptids have such a low reputation is that most of the people who search for them ignore animals that are really possible and go after things that almost certainly cannot be found with the hopes of making huge amounts of money from gullible people. The supposed cryptids i pointed out are not famous, not even unlikely, they are mentions in footnotes of reports that were odd at the time but never really looked into for various reasons, lack of interest being one of the most likely. Coming across a bunch of dead salamanders in the early 1800's in a remote location no matter how big they were was unlikely to spur huge amounts of interest. The only thing demeaning to science is the people perpetrating hoaxes to make money off the gullible. Historical records do occasionally mention odd things that are not "sexy" enough for modern con artists to whip up interest, these things interest me far more that monsters... Fair enough. But as the OP makes it clear this thread is about monsters, your salamanders are guilty by association. The doctored still on your vid only adds to such guilt as I'm sure you can see and agree. Any chance you could provide some sources for the reports you have mentioned? On a final note, maybe you could start a non-monster cryptid thread that reflects your true interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Fair enough. But as the OP makes it clear this thread is about monsters, your salamanders are guilty by association. The doctored still on your vid only adds to such guilt as I'm sure you can see and agree. Any chance you could provide some sources for the reports you have mentioned? On a final note, maybe you could start a non-monster cryptid thread that reflects your true interest. That vid was just the first I came up with, you are correct it is click bait, I am familiar with that salamander and to be honest it never occurred to me that anyone would take the pic seriously... I already gave some links but they do not lead to active links any longer, it will take some digging to find them i am sure.. http://en.wikipedia....iant_salamander http://en.wikipedia....le_Lake_Monster http://www.nanfa.org...jan03/0034.html http://www.nanfa.org...jan03/0030.html http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2009/12/muirheads-mysteries-pink-unknowns-in.html http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/09/giant-salamander-ogopogo.html Edited March 1, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 That vid was just the first I came up with, you are correct it is click bait, I am familiar with that salamander and to be honest it never occurred to me that anyone would take the pic seriously... I already gave some links but they do not lead to active links any longer, it will take some digging to find them i am sure.. http://en.wikipedia....iant_salamander http://en.wikipedia....le_Lake_Monster http://www.nanfa.org...jan03/0034.html http://www.nanfa.org...jan03/0030.html http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2009/12/muirheads-mysteries-pink-unknowns-in.html I'll have to find Scippo Creek on a map as some of my ancestors settled parts of Ohio around the time(s) of the alleged reports. Be that as it may, you seem to have swung back to monsters and the suggestion that 100+ year old reports are sufficient reason to look for them. Well, it's on topic I suppose. . PS Nope; Scippo Creek is central Ohio & my kin were in Elyria & North Ridgeville up North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) I'll have to find Scippo Creek on a map as some of my ancestors settled parts of Ohio around the time(s) of the alleged reports. Be that as it may, you seem to have swung back to monsters and the suggestion that 100+ year old reports are sufficient reason to look for them. Well, it's on topic I suppose. . PS Nope; Scippo Creek is central Ohio & my kin were in Elyria & North Ridgeville up North. Your definition of monsters and mine would seem to be a bit different.. Would you mind explaining how i swung back to the monster thing? Through out this thread I have tried to draw away from the monster aspect, the freshwater seahorse which was a real thing people believed in that fooled scientists, museums, field researchers and serves as a great example of how rumors can be the result of complete lies... Edited March 1, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Your definition of monsters and mine would seem to be a bit different.. Would you mind explaining how i swung back to the monster thing? Through out this thread I have tried to draw away from the monster aspect, the freshwater seahorse which was a real thing people believed in that fooled scientists, museums, field researchers and serves as a great example of how rumors can be the result of complete lies... You gave a link to Turtle Lake Monster. Swing, swang, swung. As I'm not interested in playing word games, I'll leave you and the others to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 You gave a link to Turtle Lake Monster. Swing, swang, swung. As I'm not interested in playing word games, I'll leave you and the others to the discussion. They always call these things monsters, doesn't matter what it is, modern hype always come to the for. Find an extra large eel, it's a monster, a two foot frog, it's a monster, catch a giant sturgeon it's a monster, I certainly do not name them I most certainly cannot can't rename them. Stick your head in the sand over semantics, I do not make the names and the names have nothing to do with the reality of the creature... 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