Undiscovered Creatures Thread (Nessie, BigFoot, etc.)

[Xei]

Staged school shootings, chemtrails, Bigfoot... I swear Extended Discussion used to be better than this. No offence. I think your original post is just a matter of semantics. What does "Big Foot" actually mean? If you just mean an undiscovered species of ape living in some indeterminate area of the world, nobody can really rule that out. Undiscovered mammals exist... this is not controversial. That's no reason to have a positive belief in any specific creature, though.

[Descensus]

Staged school shootings, chemtrails, Bigfoot... I swear Extended Discussion used to be better than this. It's fucking wacky. R/S is better than ED these days.

[Arra]

I have no idea if these things exist or not. After reading about the giant squid thing in the OP, I ended up looking giant squids up on youtube and wasting about 30 minutes. Anyway, there's this sea monster called Ogopogo which lives relatively close to me in BC. I think the main problem with most of these supposed monster sightings is that they could be interpreted in many ways. Like the Ogopogo one, for example. The sightings all look kinda like this: And people's imaginations get carried away and they think they're seeing some snaky dinosaur thing, while really it just looks like it could be shadows on the waves or something. Maybe the bottom of the lake creates odd waves, or the mountains around it make weird reflections. Whatever it is, the movements don't look like a real animal's. I haven't looked into the Lochness Monster myth (put a documentary on my 'watch later' playlist), but it seems to me that if it really did exist, people would have seen it by now, or gotten some hard evidence. What are the chances that they'd get a bunch of shadowy, los-res or far-away photos, especially in the modern age where everyone has an HD camera on them? These types of pictures just make the whole thing more mysterious and interesting to us, which makes people seek it out, and since they're looking for it, if they notice something a little odd they'll think it's the monster. I think it would be awesome if the megalodon turned out not to be extinct though. It's hard to google that shark without finding "Could giant shark still exist?", etc. You don't get people hypothesizing and some believing that other extinct animals may still exist, because no one cares. The thought that a giant shark could exist, though, is just so exciting and scary that it becomes like an urban legend in a sense.

[TimeDragon97]

I never said it was proven to be a hoax. You misinterpreted SilverWoof's recap of what I had said on another thread. In fact on that thread I had to straighten out somebody else who had leaped to the same conclusion. What I actually said is that one of the guys who had been involved in filming it came forward and revealed that they had had a costume made and deliberately made the film as a hoax. I don't remember all the details, which guy it was and all that, it's been a long time since I read about it, too lazy to look it up right now. As I recall I think it was the guy who wore the costume. I know who you're referring to, and I think he's lying for money and attention. Not surprisingly, all the people who love Bigfoot refuse to accept his testimony. Just as they refuse to accept that the famous plaster castings of footprints were also a hoax, perpetrated by a construction worker who wanted to freak out his co-workers so he carved some big wooden feet and placed footprints around the construction site, thereby giving Bigfoot his name. That's a gross generalization. I actually accept the latter as a hoax. There is also a cryptozoologist -- Bernard Heuvelmans or something, I think -- thinks the Patterson film is a hoax. You seem to be under the preassumption that all Bigfoot believers are gullible morons. It seems people accept a lot of nonsense as so-called 'evidence'. Hair samples that supposedly have been identified as 'not from anything we know'? Who did the identification - could have been some guy who just looked at the hair and said "Welp - don't look human to me, nor do it look like my dog's hair. T'aint from nothin' I ever saw before!" Even if it was examined by biologists and found not to be human or any other particular species that can be identified, all that would mean is it's not from anything we can identify. It doesn't prove it's from a tall human-ape hybrid. "I can't identify this" is not proof of anything. I never said it was. It shows something is going on that needs to be investigated. And stop calling 'Squatch "human-ape hybrids".

[DarkKiky0]

I think it would be awesome if the megalodon turned out not to be extinct though I personally am a fan of the megladon still possibly existing. I don't know why, maybe because we know it did exist and it's survival is more probable then most of the other myths, and I once herd a hypothesis that made perfect sense as to how it could still be alive. I am very critical on every myth I hear before I accept it as possible. The majority of the ones I have read about I have found are either fake or people seeing something out of something else. This one video I saw was supposedly an unidentified creature swimming in a lake. Everybody SWORE it was real because it was a video and the creature was in the middle of the video and it was taped for a good time, but I took one look at it and automatically knew it was just an elephant swimming. The video was so obvious, and the thing that stumped me was how a "professional biologist" looked at the video and said it was something he had never seen before. What?!? That seriously made me question his credibility. I am certainly not a biologist but I know a swimming elephant when I see one. Take a look at the video and see what you think. Type in "turkish lake monster" and its the second video down titled "lake van monster in turkey". I guarantee if it had it's trunk sticking up people would say it was the loch ness monters cousin or something.

[TheSilverWolf]

That's another reason I hate hoaxers. You get some idiot that wants to mess with everybody, so they put together some cheap film a 3 year old could make better, and post it as "proof x exists" and then everyone else who is halfway sane looks at it, scoffs at the hoaxer, and then labels all people who believe in "x" as crackpot morons. It's like the statements that keep referring to Bigfoot as a "human-ape Hybrid." Did I ever say I think human-ape hybrids are walking around? No I did not. I never once stated I think Bigfoot is a human-ape hybrid. Some people think that's exactly what Bigfoot is. Many more do not. The real problem this comes down to, and why so many scoff at people like me, Darkk, TimeDragon, and others who believe in the possibility of these creatures existing, is people who make hoaxes. Be they professional grade hoaxes, with high quality, realistic looking videos, or childish hoaxers who film things purposefully grainy and/or blurry, OR use obvious CGI; all of them have one thing in common: They make the rest of us look completely stupid. I have to disagree with the idea that Bigfoot is "too big" for us to have never come across it by now. Also, the creature is not restricted to just one part of the world, as that person (can't remember who posted it, don't want to lose this post to go back to the last page and find it), said in their post. The Yetti is the arctic's version of Bigfoot; it's the same creature, only instead of being seen in the jungle, it's seen in snowy mountainous terrain instead. But that's just me; I am able to believe it's possible for us not to have discovered it yet, because in reality, Bigfoot isn't all that big. It's only a foot or two taller than humans, and compared to many of the animals around, we humans aren't very big either. Plus, the fact is, if we are still discovering new (animal) life on this planet, what's to say that we won't one day find whatever is responsible for all the Bigfoot sightings? ~SilverWolf~

[juroara]

Honestly, I'm scared for these hoaxers. If you're an idiot running around in a forest wearing an ape costume, you're only asking a trigger happy american to make you into a mantle piece.

[TheSilverWolf]

I have only one thing to say to that Juroara, and I'm lucky I can manage to even type it: LMAO!!!!!!!

[Descensus]

I have to disagree with the idea that Bigfoot is "too big" for us to have never come across it by now. Also, the creature is not restricted to just one part of the world, as that person (can't remember who posted it, don't want to lose this post to go back to the last page and find it), said in their post. The Yetti is the arctic's version of Bigfoot; it's the same creature, only instead of being seen in the jungle, it's seen in snowy mountainous terrain instead. But that's just me; I am able to believe it's possible for us not to have discovered it yet, because in reality, Bigfoot isn't all that big. It's only a foot or two taller than humans, and compared to many of the animals around, we humans aren't very big either. Plus, the fact is, if we are still discovering new (animal) life on this planet, what's to say that we won't one day find whatever is responsible for all the Bigfoot sightings? ~SilverWolf~ I can't imagine many of the new species being discovered these days include organisms that are very large. An ape-like creature should not be difficult to find, especially if it's larger than the average human, even just by a foot or two. This is ignoring the stated habitat of something like Bigfoot, which is pretty unanimously the Pacific Northwest of the US. This is even ignoring the possibility of a population of these kinds of creatures. If ancient legends of the Himalayan settlers include creatures such as the Yeti, there can't be just one or two fumbling around in the wilderness these days (assuming they're not going extinct). Everything we know about animal populations suggests that if such creatures are real, we shouldn't have to strain to find them. There should be more than one. We should find bones and fur that don't match any known animals, fecal remains, odd habitats, corpses, etc. We have none of that despite years of legends. In cases such as these, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[TheSilverWolf]

Ah, but I think you missed my own personal theory, BlueLine. I do think that this creature would have to be near extinct. For one, if there were the numbers you are saying, I think there'd probably be more sightings of them. Maybe not, because really, how likely is it for you to go out and see a wolverine, even if you are an experienced hiker that spends years in the woods? But, given the creature, I would say if this creature weren't endangered or near extinct, we'd probably see more of them and we would probably have definitive proof by now that they do exist. You make good points, BlueLine, it's just I think you're missing the idea I have, in that Bigfoot is some animal that is extremely shy (many animals are this way, even wolves--they flee at the faintest sign of a human), and it is either endangered or near extinction. With both of those together, I think that really would explain our lack of physical evidence. ~SilverWolf~

[Descensus]

Ah, but I think you missed my own personal theory, BlueLine. I do think that this creature would have to be near extinct. For one, if there were the numbers you are saying, I think there'd probably be more sightings of them. Maybe not, because really, how likely is it for you to go out and see a wolverine, even if you are an experienced hiker that spends years in the woods? But, given the creature, I would say if this creature weren't endangered or near extinct, we'd probably see more of them and we would probably have definitive proof by now that they do exist. You make good points, BlueLine, it's just I think you're missing the idea I have, in that Bigfoot is some animal that is extremely shy (many animals are this way, even wolves--they flee at the faintest sign of a human), and it is either endangered or near extinction. With both of those together, I think that really would explain our lack of physical evidence. ~SilverWolf~ I didn't miss the point. Generally people only speak of ONE Big Foot or ONE Yeti, not populations. But they had to have come from a larger population, which leads me to question why we haven't found any of its deceased counterparts. Even if it's shy, it's not invisible. At least the history of its species isn't invisible.

[TimeDragon97]

Where are the Bones? » CliffBarackman.com

[DarkKiky0]

This is ignoring the stated habitat of something like Bigfoot, which is pretty unanimously the Pacific Northwest of the US. This is even ignoring the possibility of a population of these kinds of creatures. If ancient legends of the Himalayan settlers include creatures such as the Yeti, there can't be just one or two fumbling around in the wilderness these days (assuming they're not going extinct). Everything we know about animal populations suggests that if such creatures are real, we shouldn't have to strain to find them. There should be more than one. We should find bones and fur that don't match any known animals, fecal remains, odd habitats, corpses, etc. We have none of that despite years of legends. In cases such as these, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I have answered all these in previous posts. Sightings of Bigfoot have happened all over the united states, including Virginia and Florida, though in Florida he is called the skunk ape. I used to live in Virginia and it was in all the papers that someone claimed to have saw Bigfoot in the area that I lived. I made a joke to my brother that he needed to stop streaking in the woods, because he is 6' 4" with thick, dark brown hair , and people in my area tend to drink, but I do know that plenty of people who don't drink have sighted Bigfoot in Virginia. I also gave a list of all the different Bigfoots all over the world, and explained how people have found tufts of hair that were from and unidentified creature and footprints that were proven not to be fake. I also remember that fecal remains have been found too possibly from Bigfoot. Bigfoot has been so studied into and searched for so much that they gave creatures like him a name, Squatches, and have figured out his behaviors, like how they communicate with knocks on trees and yowls.

[TheSilverWolf]

There's also sightings in Alaska too, Darkk--they are called Yeti up here, as I said in my other post. Well, SOME up here call it yeti anyway; I prefer Bigfoot because I prefer one term to describe the same animal.

[TimeDragon97]

No, they are still called Sasquatch in Alaska. Yeti live in the Himalayas.

[TheSilverWolf]

Huh, weird Time-Dragon, I've heard Alaskan's use the term too. Borrowing I guess :p