I just thought i'd ask you guys what you feel of the various cryptozoological animals that are claimed to have been seen around the world (e.g. Bigfoot, Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, Skunk Ape etc). Do you guys believe in these creatures and if they turn out to be real, would you like to see them in captivity? Personally, I don't believe in them, there is not enough factual information and reliable accounts for me to consider their reality. However, I can see how some of these stories came to be... (Sorry if there has already been a thread on this...)
I don't really know what I think. I remember when I was little My dad told me stories about the "pilliga yowie" he has the actual newspaper clipings of the time. Actually had some pretty gruesome pictures of stock and things that didn't really look like dog attacks. Also told me a story of when he was seventeen they were camping and they forgot some supplies so two of the guys went back in to pilliga (it's a small town in NSW surrounded by scrub, full of pigs, goats and horses) his mates thought it would be fun tp play on the recent yowie stories. . . resulted in one of them nearly being shot. As for what to do with them, I don't really know. If you put them on display it would be great for research but for some reason I've always imagined them yetti's big foot etc, to have almost human like intelligence so good luck keeping them in a nice naturalistic exhibit.
that would be a no, no, no and another no! all this stuff is complete fantasy and i really don't believe in so much as a hint of it. its one thing to believe a thylacine still wanders the woodlands of tasmania or that a yet-to-be-discovered spider monkey lives in the bolivian amazon. but to think that plesiosaurs live in a scottish lake or that a ginat ape man wanders the forests of the 3rd most populated continent on earth is just pure rubbish!!
I think so but I'd term it closer to the discovery of the Platypus, i.e.: When the first Platypus skins were sent back to Europe from Australia in the late 18th - early 19th century biologists, taxidermists and zoologists etc thought it was a hoax... Similarly when the first reports from European explorers (and the stories related to them by African natives) came of the Okapi, people didn't believe that the glimpses of an animal the Explorers were reporting seeing in the forest could really be an animal that was half horse, half giraffe, half zebra (too many halves) with a huge tongue or that they couldn't have already discovered it...
... and what happened to 'Orang Pendek'? A few years ago it was suggested scientists were on the verge of a breakthrough relating to its discovery and it was about to leave the realm of fiction, and become fact- but nothing further.
Methinks you're talking about Loy's monkey(or Ape)? the 'thing' that was photographed (after it was shot) sitting on a box-"the only clear photograph of an animal which isn't known to science" The planking on the box was supposed to be of a size that would make the monkey much larger than conventional spider monkeys. To me it looks very like a spider monkey, unfortunately the presence or absence of a tail can't be seen from the photo. Being as there's already one sort of 'giant' spider monkey( the Muriqui or woolly spider monkey) I suppose its not inconceivable there is another one too.
Normal monkey, little box in my opinion. It would've helped if there was a background or people in the shot
Over here in southwestern British Columbia there are several small yet avid groups of people who steadfastly refuse to believe that there aren't sasquatch/big foot roaming the Rocky Mountains. A small town named Harrison Hot Springs (pop. 1,300) has at least 5 sasquatch statues mounted on streetcorners or motels, and have unofficially adopted the apelike man. The whole notion of bipedal monsters trampling through the Canadian forests is ridiculous, but in Harrison a person can obtain a map of supposed bigfoot sightings and then venture off on a personal quest for the great man-apes. Hilarious...
Even thought I don't really believe in ape men an all that stuff. I still find it unnerving to go walking through the bush (especially at night) where there have supposedly been sightings in the past, as well as places where people have gone missing. every easter I go camping in a National Park here called Nangar. . . last year a fellow went missing in the park after getting a taxi to take him the 1.5 hour trip from Orange. This along with the absence of the usual goats and kangaroos at night made it quite a bit scarrier than usual. Of course there were people trying to scare us with weird stories of aliens and big foot. The scarriest thing was a very strange triangle made of sticks and rocks with webs made of twine surrounding it. I can still remember where it is on top of a cliff that is quite hard to access. Our camping trips have become quite scary now.
Very much so, but either they didn't think of that- or carefully omitted to do so, whichever way you look at it... The box was supposed to hold Paraffin or fuel cannisters of some sort- but that doesn't help us much relating to its actual size....
I wouldn't just generally dismiss cryptozoological research as pure nonsense and fantasy. Unfortunately, the public always equalizes this term with daydreamers who are trying to catch monstrous fantasy creatures with a butterfly net and cement. In its serious version, I'd rather consider c. a rational methodical approach within zoology to "dig deeper", similar to ethnobotany: listen to the native ethnic people, especially to hunters, plant collectors, elders etc and have an open, yet always sceptical ear for their folcloristic tales and myths about the animals known to them. There might been a grain of interesting truth among a lot of human fantasy. Check out farmer's markets and other reloading points of the animal trade with a keen and skilled eye. Control the systematics of the animal collections and old scientific protocols of museums. Read old traveler reports and maybe dig deeper if interested. Most likely, You won't find a Nessie or Bigfoot by doing so-but You might find another animal like the dingiso, Congo Peacock or Kawekaweau. And sometimes, all You have to do is watch TV to discover a new species (Varanus yemenensis). Or You just go to Your local fish trader and take a closer look at the L-catfish there. Sometimes, the cryptid You're looking for might no longer exist-like the Yarri, the Marozi or the Giant Bennu Heron. Still, looking for hints to confirm the actual former existence of that species can be quite interesting and useful. The so-called "Wild Hominids", just like Nessie and Thylacines, always attract a lot of hoaxers, pranksters and crackpots-just like in the case of the mentioned De Loy's Ape and others. The constant discussion about "Homo floresiensis" as a valid species and its connection to myths about the Ebu Gogo just nourishes this aspect; I personally am rather conservative and coy when it comes to the subject of "Wild hominids".
It is mainstream view in zoology that many animals remain undescribed, including few larger mammals. Nobody would be surprised at discovery of kuproh or new beaked whale. However, cryptozoology is generally about creatures like ape-men, living dinosaurs, pterosaurs and plesiosaurs. These are improbable because of several reasons - long extinct (e.g. giant Mesozoic reptiles), unsupported by fossils (e.g. apes in North America) and undetected despite repeated searches.
Sorry, but this is not correct; this is just the widely popular "monster hunter" aspect of the cryptozoology. Serious, realistic cryptozoology as orginally intended by Heuvelmans has more to offer than silly monsters.
kifaru - people have been looking for thylacines ever since the day they were declared extinct, there have been many well-funded expeditions and at any given time plenty of poorly funded fanatics out there searching their arses off. not to mention all the bushwalkers. and yet, like bigfoots and skunkapes, the camera always jammed, was out of batteries, clicked and scared the animal off etc.. they are unfortunately, extinct. its a common misconception that thylacines once inhabited the entire island of tasmania - they didn't . instead they were much more adapted to the the grassy woodland habitats that was offered to them on mainland australia. fortunately for them a the northeast corner of tasmania also was of this habitat type and they continued to survive there after their dingo-caused extinction on the mainland. unfortunately for them, this habitat of open grassland woodland was also the easiest to turn to cultivation for for the early settlers who turned virtually the entire area into pasture. so its worth remembering, not only were they persecuted by hunters, but they lost their habitat as well. thus holding-out for thylacines continued existence in the temperate rainforests of tasmania is a bit like expecting to find lions in the jungles of africa. unlikely.
I went three times and they never showed for me.... Actually I think this very long article(Magnificent Survivor) is written by someone who still chooses to believe the 'myth' of its survival despite all the contra-evidence. There are some photos of prints and 'tail drag' marks in a sandy cave offered as evidence- of course the latter could have been caused by just about any larger member of the Tasmanian Fauna. I say- don't look in Tassie, look in New Guinea.....
