Cryptozoology Thread! Rejoice!

[Gorosaurus Rex]

The only species I actually think has a chance of being real is Sasquatch. Not to say that there aren't a ton of hoaxes etc. out there, but there is a fair amount of believable proof for his existence. Besides, its far easier for me to be believe that a bunch of hominids have lived in remote regions of the American wilderness for years than giant serpents live in our great lakes.

[kikomia]

I believe in aliens. It's not like we are the only being in existence. And what if God is an Alien? Oh my....

[Gorosaurus Rex]

I didn't think aliens technically fell under the category of cryptozoology.

[kikomia]

I didn't think aliens technically fell under the category of cryptozoology.

I always though aliens, ghost and cryptids were in cryptozoology.

[Gorosaurus Rex]

Cryptozoology, when regarded as an actual science, typically refers to species of animal whose existence that have yet to be completely proved by science. These typically end up referring to creatures such as the Yeti, Molkele Mbember, Nessie, Sasquatch, etc. Aliens, or the study of UFO's, typically fall under the even goofier science of Ufology or if regarding to the search of extraterrestrial life under Astrobiology.

[SuperSaiyan4Godzilla]

Aliens belong within the pseudoscience of ufology.

Cryptozoology and ufology both fall under the category of the studies of the paranormal and supernatural.

[Legionmaster]

It's silly that people think that adding the suffix -ology all of a sudden makes something science.

[wataru]

It's silly that people think that adding the suffix -ology all of a sudden makes something science.

sci·ence
   [sahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

[Legionmaster]

It's also silly that people think that quoting Webster's gives a complete and accurate definition of a word with a complex, specific meaning.

[FlamingZilla23]

Dude, why are you necro-posting all these threads?!

Did i do something bad?

I just wanted to say something about the dover demon being possibley a grey alien do to their similarites.

[wataru]

It's also silly that people think that quoting Webster's gives a complete and accurate definition of a word with a complex, specific meaning.

Except it does.

[HeiseiGodzilla117]

It's also silly that people think that quoting Webster's gives a complete and accurate definition of a word with a complex, specific meaning.

Except it does.

It gives a fairly accurate general definition. But I don't really think it gives the complete definition.

[Legionmaster]

It's also silly that people think that quoting Webster's gives a complete and accurate definition of a word with a complex, specific meaning.

Except it does.

You know, I'm just going to do this the easy way and explain why neither are sciences using your own (borrowed) definitions.

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Neither cryptozoology nor ufology deals with defined facts or truths. That already rules out this definition, but neither are systematic in anything anyway.

2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Neither cryptozoology nor ufology have found anything with observations (which certainly have not been systematic in any fashion), and you can't do experiments with things that don't exist.

3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.

This is one of those stupid definitions that is just a general category for schoolbook sciences, which cryptozoology and ufology aren't. Neither are a legitimate part of the scientific community.

4.
systematized knowledge in general.

Again, an oversimplified generalistic definition, which cryptozoology and ufology fail in because neither do things systematically using the scientific method.

5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

See the above four reasons and you'll notice a pattern: lack of systematic, scientific study. Neither cryptozoology nor ufology are sciences, because neither actually do science.

[The H-Man]

I enjoy reading about most of these creatures, but as I get older I'm getting very skeptical about them. A lot of cryptozoology is just plain misidentification, like the "giant octopus" remains that were found at St Augustine turned out to be a dead whale.

[SpanishBulldog63]

I enjoy reading about most of these creatures, but as I get older I'm getting very skeptical about them. A lot of cryptozoology is just plain misidentification, like the "giant octopus" remains that were found at St Augustine turned out to be a dead whale.

same with the south african cryptid Trunko;both turned out to be globsters(giant floating chunks of blubber)

[HeiseiGodzilla117]

I enjoy reading about most of these creatures, but as I get older I'm getting very skeptical about them. A lot of cryptozoology is just plain misidentification, like the "giant octopus" remains that were found at St Augustine turned out to be a dead whale.

same with the south african cryptid Trunko;both turned out to be globsters(giant floating chunks of blubber)

If ever a cryptid turned out to be real, I would have hoped it was Trunko.

[Hellspawn28]

I enjoy reading about most of these creatures, but as I get older I'm getting very skeptical about them. A lot of cryptozoology is just plain misidentification, like the "giant octopus" remains that were found at St Augustine turned out to be a dead whale.

I thought Giant Octopus are real because I remember reading that Krakens would be mistaken for a North Pacific Giant Octopus and Giant Squid's? I do agree with you but I think some of the creatures could end up being proven one day seeing how everything is moving to HD. Allowing people to get clear pictures of these types of things for once.

[anguirusnut94]

As I recall, Gorillas were technically 'criptids' for a number of years, so I'm holding out hope for Bigfoot, really.

[Legionmaster]

Gorillas and other jungle-dwellers were semi-cryptids because Europeans hadn't explored the jungle very well yet. America has been pretty well covered by now. Not to mention large mammals tend to be pretty easy to find. So there's that.

The other issue is that apes didn't exist in the Americas until our human ancestors came over. There's absolutely no way a rogue group "devolved" (I use the term loosely) into 'squatches. There's no fossil or archeological evidence anywhere that suggests 'squatches migrated from Asia, and there's no way a tiny population of a large mammal would have persisted for tens of thousands of years, let alone undetected.

[SpanishBulldog63]

if there are two groups of cryptids i believe are existant,they are 'squatches and ocean-dwelling cryptids(maybe a few lake ones).we've only discovered a small percentage of the oceans,who knows what the hell we havent found yet.