Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8
The New Cryptid Discussion topic; Discuss here !
Topic Started: Aug 11 2015, 01:22 PM (6,298 Views)
Cross
Member Avatar
Eldritch Minds

Murdock129
Aug 19 2015, 09:40 AM
The problem with the elephant theory is kinda simple. Elephants would be noticed in Scotland, and when Elephants were in the lake, it'd only explain the minimal numbers of sightings that coincide with Elephants being in the Loch for whatever reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to defend the Loch Ness Monster, as far as Cryptids go it's one of the least plausible (in it's typical description) but the Elephant theory is pretty substandard and unconvincing
Well... I knew you'd find your way into this topic.

Spoiler: click to toggle
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


Dinosaw222
Aug 19 2015, 06:44 PM
Any cryptids with plausible evidence that are not Bigfoot, Yeti, Mokele Mbeme, Burronjor or the Mngwa
I literally don't have any idea what you're trying to say

Quote:
 
Well... I knew you'd find your way into this topic.
This is my subject, I've been in these debates longer than most have been in this community. Naturally I had to find my way here so long as I was within the community
Edited by Murdock129, Aug 19 2015, 09:22 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Denomon3144
Member Avatar
Pick a god and pray!

Murdock129
Aug 19 2015, 09:18 PM
Dinosaw222
Aug 19 2015, 06:44 PM
Any cryptids with plausible evidence that are not Bigfoot, Yeti, Mokele Mbeme, Burronjor or the Mngwa
I literally don't have any idea what you're trying to say
I think he's trying to ask what some cryptids with plausible evidence are, excluding the ones he listed.
Ignoring the fact that the Mokele Mbembe and Burronjor are not plausible at all. :/
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ignacio
Member Avatar
Ex Corrupt Staff

I don't think there is evidence of any of those cryptids anyway.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


Bigfoot and the Yeti have some substantial evidence, not overwhelming evidence, but some substantial stuff.

Mokele Mbembe and Burrunjor are both very implausible and lack any substantial evidence. Plausible cryptids are more along the lines of Giglioli's Whale, the Mngwa (or Nundu) or the majority of oceanic cryptids (e.g. Lusca, though the basic Octopus version, not the Sharktopus ridiculousness).

As for evidence, you have more evidence for things like the Texan Chupacabra, Orang Pendek or such.

This is all speaking in the typical depictions of those cryptids that is, for example Nessie as a Plesiosaur is not plausible nor does it have substantial evidence. Nessie as a large freshwater Eel, Fish (possibly a new Genus) or similar also lacks evidence, but is far more plausible.

Speaking of the Plesiosaur thing, basically that means Nessie is a Lazarus Species, and in my view the majority of Lazarus Species that aren't either living in the Ocean or went extinct more than a few thousand years ago at VERY most.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ignacio
Member Avatar
Ex Corrupt Staff

Isn't the Texan Chupacabras just a coyote/dog hybrid with scabies?
Edited by Ignacio, Aug 20 2015, 12:01 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Admiral General Aladeen
Member Avatar


Ignacio
Aug 19 2015, 11:59 PM
Isn't the Texan Chupacabras just a coyote/dog hybrid with scabies?
That is correct.

I'm sure some sightings could have also been a hybrid/sick individual of the various breeds of Mexican hairless dog.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Posted Image Narukota
Member Avatar
blah

Ignacio
Aug 19 2015, 11:59 PM
Isn't the Texan Chupacabras just a coyote/dog hybrid with scabies?
IIRC, here are the differences between a Chupacabra in Texas/Southern USA and the Mexican Chupacabra:

Texan/Southern USA: A coyote/dog that's just covered in scabies.

Mexican: huge demonic demon with red eyes and vampire teeth that suck the blood out of your livestock.

There's also the incident when a Mexican lady called Puss In Boots a Chupacabra, but we'll just call that a false hoax.
Edited by Narukota, Aug 20 2015, 12:53 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Paleop
Member Avatar
Paleopterix

my opinion:

sasquatch: I think this is one of the most plausible cryptids, most likely a rare hominid or primate, why do people think gigantopithacus when looking for a logical excuse for bigfoot's existence?
also this is awesome
(I honestly considered putting one in my scale of north American animals)

modern day megalodon: xD
not likely, too few whales... .___. too much animal planet....

lake monsters: most likely big fish. speaking of witch, when humans show up bigger fish tend to be culled off and as a result giant fish become rarer and the size qualifications for being a big fish shrink as the species maximum size does. (I hope I made sense....

living fossils: maybe some birds could adapt to look like non avian dinosaurs, however the chance of living non avian dinosaurs is about as common as winning one in the lottery :|

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Ignacio
Member Avatar
Ex Corrupt Staff

My only problem with Bigfoot being a giant undiscovered hominid is how come hasn't been "discovered" yet? There are sightings all over North America and China. An animal that large, living forests that people frequent should have been discovered by the scientific community by now.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Paleop
Aug 20 2015, 01:35 AM
lake monsters: most likely big fish. speaking of witch, when humans show up bigger fish tend to be culled off and as a result giant fish become rarer and the size qualifications for being a big fish shrink as the species maximum size does. (I hope I made sense....)
Let's not forget that when it comes to fish most people tend to exagerate the size of the thing they have seen/caught. Never understood if it's sheer ignorance, a mistake caused by water reflection or just people trying to look cool.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


Ignacio
Aug 20 2015, 10:55 AM
My only problem with Bigfoot being a giant undiscovered hominid is how come hasn't been "discovered" yet? There are sightings all over North America and China. An animal that large, living forests that people frequent should have been discovered by the scientific community by now.
I'd be more swayed by this if it weren't for the existence of both Grizzly Bears and Pandas, which in spite of their size are extremely elusive. Considering we knew of Panda's supposed existence, and where they were living, for decades before any were actually found my western science, it doesn't seem so implausible that a similarly sized animal might be living in an even more remote location.

As for Grizzly Bears, while they are seen more often, they're not incomparable to the size most Bigfoots are described as, and are much harder to find than most would think, as well as very difficult to find dead due to rate of decomposing.

While this isn't proof of Bigfoot by any means, the creature's size does not disqualify it's existence, especially considering the undoubtedly low population and generally unexplored regions they are reported to exist in. People tend to forget just how huge these forests are, and how little they're explored
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Undoubtedly a good and thought-provoking argument, but there's still the fact that scientists have been actively searching for Bigfoot for decades now, and solid evidence of the animal's existence still has yet to come to light. There's being elusive, and then there's just being a ninja.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Cheshire Litten
Member Avatar
The Eyes that follow you in the Alolan forests

You see, how long did it take us to find the giant squid (Probable Kraken Explanation) quite a long time since the Kraken was first reported.

And i know that the deep sea is less explored but still.
Edited by Cheshire Litten, Aug 20 2015, 01:13 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Murdock129
No Avatar


People were actively searching for the Panda during that sixty year period, to quote anthropologist George Agogino:
Quote:
 
“From 1869 until 1929, a period of sixty years, a dozen well-staffed and well-equipped professional zoological collecting teams unsuccessfully sought an animal the size of a small bear in a restricted area . . . The giant panda lives in the same general area and at the same general elevation as the Yeti, yet this animal has remained hidden for over sixty years.”


Yes people have looked for Bigfoot, but they've never been searched for in the same degree that the pandas were, same with the Yeti, more often than not Bigfoot and Yeti hunters are either underfunded, or are TV shows/individuals of less than scientific repute.

Quote:
 
You see, how long did it take us to find the giant squid (Probable Kraken Explanation) quite a long time since the Kraken was first reported.
Not even close to comparable, the ocean, especially the deep ocean is less explored than the moon, while I agree that it's nowhere near impossible for large undiscovered animals to exist on land, to compare the situation to almost anything in the ocean is ridiculous.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 8