Cryptids of the deep

[Dinwar]

Do they find it at all sobering that new species of animals are usually found by actual zoologists and never by "weekend warrior" knuckleheads who are so busy looking for wookies that they don't notice the undiscovered species of mouse that they trampled over during one of their half-witted "expeditions"?

Know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

This actually happens a lot in paleontology. Amateurs often find tremendously important fossils (merely finding new species is so common as to not be worth noting). Some famous paleontologists spent their entire lives looking for organisms they never found. Neither are called cryptozoologists; they're called scientists (the amateurs I'm thinking of were editors of peer-reviewed journals). The thing is, both appreciate, as you say, the importance of things that cryptozoologists would consider too dull to worry about. Who cares about crabs or worms? The answer is, people who know what they're talking about.

 

[Checkmite]

My god, a "cryptozoology" thread that isn't about Bigfoot or Loch Ness. You have my undying gratitude.

Carry on.

 

[Venom]

Is it a coincidence that the most famous cryptids are big, "sexy" dangerous creatures straight out of mythology, legend and folklore

If only sirens and mermaids were real.
I'd be on the case before MonsterQuest could ever pick up the trail.

 

[William Parcher]

There could be a Jaguar Shark.

 

[Resume]

How about Ocean Ocelots?
https://sites.google.com/a/greymain.school.nz/the-ocean-ocelot/faq-s

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Forgive me if this has been done before, but I watched Discovery Channel's megalodon documentary last night. This morning, I thought I'd have another look at the film footage they showed.
I really didn't expect to discover (pun intended!) that the whole thing was made up- fake footage, actors playing biologists etc.
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/...kes-outrage-with-fake-shark-week-documentary/
I expect this sort of thing from the likes of Infowars or the Sunday Sport, but Discovery? Shame on them.
What on earth do they hope to gain from this?

 

[baron]

Cryptids are only interesting until they've been discovered, and which point they become just creatures. Everybody has heard of sea serpents but mention the oarfish, a stereotypical looking sea monster up to 40 feet in length (anecdotally twice that), and the same people will look at you blankly and shrug their shoulders. It will be the same with any undiscovered big creature as soon as its existence is proven, we'll never be able to say that a monster has been discovered.

 

[Dinwar]

What on earth do they hope to gain from this?

Well, free advertising, for one thing.

More seriously, there's a long and proud tradition of....well, there's not really a good word for it. Mock-scientific publications? Pseudo-scientific would be good if the word was available. Anyway, it's stuff that fits all the forms of scientific investigation, but is completely and utterly fake. Here is a personal favorite. Plastic clips for bread bags aren't biology, yet someone spent a rather remarkable amount of time and effort pretending they are. I also own three different works on classification of dragons. The geology of Skyrim discussion is remarkably interesting; the game accidently makes perfect geological sense, even the underground portions.

Here's the thing: scientists are nerds. We spend a lot of time working on obscure and arcane concepts, and we actually enjoy using them in weird ways. It's a way to both practice our skills in novel environments, and to have a bit of fun with our jobs.

That said, we are supposed to warn people they're seeing something fake. It's all fun and games until someone believes it; then it becomes fraud. Obviously within reasonable limits, that is--no one expects scientists to remove all possibility of crazy people believing them, because crazy people are inherently unpredictable.

It will be the same with any undiscovered big creature as soon as its existence is proven, we'll never be able to say that a monster has been discovered.

That's the thing that always gets me about cryptid research: the stuff they're looking at is astonishingly dull. A bipedal ape is only interesting because we are bipedal apes. A plesiosaur is interesting, but it's also the most popular dinosaur out there. In contrast, I can show you stuff that's so weird that you couldn't make it up in fiction--no one would believe it. Bipedal crocodiles that ate dinosaurs. Giant carnivorous turkeys with stubby back legs and claws the size of sabers (we think they were carnivorous anyway; we're not sure). Barnicals that exhibit a life history remarkably similar to plants' alternation of generations, and which take over the minds of their hosts. Then there's the REALLY weird stuff, by which I mean stuff that's so far out there that we have no idea how they even worked. Archaeocyathids are a great example. We kinda sorta think we know why they're shaped the way they are, but that's as far as it goes. Vendian stuff is so weird that we've been debating what they are for over a century. We aren't sure if they're animals; most people are convinced, but good arguments against it have been made. And those are just off the top of my head; give me some time and I could come up with many, many more. Even the normal stuff in paleontology is weird and wonderful. I once found the lower third of a Camelid scapula--and that piece was as big as my whole scapula. This thing could look in a two-story window.

My point is, cryptids, even if they were found to be true, would be pretty tame.

 

[Cervelo]

So this is how you work. It's like a binary sort removing opposition and leaving you feeling correct.

Welcome to Jodie's world!

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Forgive me if this has been done before, but I watched Discovery Channel's megalodon documentary last night. This morning, I thought I'd have another look at the film footage they showed.
I really didn't expect to discover (pun intended!) that the whole thing was made up- fake footage, actors playing biologists etc.
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/...kes-outrage-with-fake-shark-week-documentary/
I expect this sort of thing from the likes of Infowars or the Sunday Sport, but Discovery? Shame on them.
What on earth do they hope to gain from this?

I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but the Discovery, Nat-Geo and History channels in the UK show utter crap like that all the time. These channels have sunk so low into the depths of bollocks that it's little wonder they're seeing fake Megalodon's. I'd say they're hoping to gain ratings and nothing more. ***** is in right now.

 

[baron]

My point is, cryptids, even if they were found to be true, would be pretty tame.

IMO once you've seen the mimic octopus at work, it's difficult to imagine that anything - past or present - could surprise you ever again.

 

[Dinwar]

IMO once you've seen the mimic octopus at work, it's difficult to imagine that anything - past or present - could surprise you ever again.

Even that's just a mollusk, though. A surprising one, to be sure, but it's an extreme version of the stuff that's the bread and butter of paleontology.

A walking crinoid, on the other hand, can only be compared to an ent.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm not sure what it's like in the US, but the Discovery, Nat-Geo and History channels in the UK show utter crap like that all the time. These channels have sunk so low into the depths of bollocks that it's little wonder they're seeing fake Megalodon's. I'd say they're hoping to gain ratings and nothing more. ***** is in right now.

Neither am I: I'm English, but living in Saudi Arabia.
They're showing it again tonight, along with another "documentary" called "Megalodon: The New Evidence". Hence my presence here.

 

[Lucian]

I didn't ask for an explanation I was simply stating an observation. If it's unidentified, it's a cryptid, and it happened to be in the ocean.

If we were to take a tribesman from the jungle and show him a dead shark and he couldn't identify it, does it make it a cryptid?

To that tribe, it does. It's a matter of perspective.

Not by any honest definition. "Cryptid" has a generally accepted use, and this is not it. Using "cryptid" to mean "anything anyone sees that they can't identify" is an attempt to expand the category of "cryptid" to include numerous legitimate sightings, thereby proving that things like Bigfoot and Nessy are legitimate.

Oh, I don't know--I like this completely non-useful redefinition of "cryptid" because it means I've totally seen cryptids! For instance, one night a few weeks ago, I was a passenger in a car driving along a very dark country road in a heavily wooded area. Suddenly, a creature dashed in front of the car. The size, color, and general impression of facial pointiness were not inconsistent with a red fox. However, it moved so quickly that I can't say for sure what it was. Thus, cryptid. It could have been a dog or a freakishly tall cat (Monster Moggie!). Since I live in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, it could have been the Jersey Devil. Hey, just because I didn't see wings doesn't mean there weren't wings. Regardless, since I didn't see it well enough to positively identify it, it was, according to this new definition, a cryptid. Yay!

 

[JohnG]

Oh, I don't know--I like this completely non-useful redefinition of "cryptid" because it means I've totally seen cryptids! For instance, one night a few weeks ago, I was a passenger in a car driving along a very dark country road in a heavily wooded area. Suddenly, a creature dashed in front of the car. The size, color, and general impression of facial pointiness were not inconsistent with a red fox. However, it moved so quickly that I can't say for sure what it was. Thus, cryptid. It could have been a dog or a freakishly tall cat (Monster Moggie!). Since I live in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, it could have been the Jersey Devil. Hey, just because I didn't see wings doesn't mean there weren't wings. Regardless, since I didn't see it well enough to positively identify it, it was, according to this new definition, a cryptid. Yay!

I've never seen a giant hominid shambling its way through the woods or some intriguingly indistinct lake monster, but I have had a couple of uncanny encounters that make me somewhat sympathize with sincere eyewitnesses who claim to have had those sorts of experiences.

About 20 years ago I took my nightly walk through my suburban neighborhood. As I was walking down a fairly dimly lit street I saw, only a few yards away, some sort of...something that appeared to be a living creature. It appeared to be about two feet long and maybe six inches wide and moved like an inchworm, only much faster. It was partially obscured by some autumn leaves that had collected in the street and rustled through the leaves fairly loudly.

I have no earthly idea what that something was and for all I know I might have spotted some heretofore undiscovered creature. What seems far more likely though (alas) was that I spotted some known animal, like a skunk or opossum that was perhaps injured, which would explain the unusual gait. The dark, obscured setting, combined with the unusual movement created a sort of monster to my eyes and ears. I still remember that feeling of the uncanny and while I sometimes poke fun at cryptozoologists I totally understand that thrill they feel when they see or hear something strange. I can't/won't claim to have seen a "cryptid" though, any more that I can claim that the fast moving lights I occasionally see in the sky are alien spaceships.

 

[Venom]

I have no earthly idea what that something was and for all I know I might have spotted some heretofore undiscovered creature. What seems far more likely though (alas) was that I spotted some known animal, like a skunk or opossum that was perhaps injured, which would explain the unusual gait. The dark, obscured setting, combined with the unusual movement created a sort of monster to my eyes and ears. I still remember that feeling of the uncanny and while I sometimes poke fun at cryptozoologists I totally understand that thrill they feel when they see or hear something strange. I can't/won't claim to have seen a "cryptid" though, any more that I can claim that the fast moving lights I occasionally see in the sky are alien spaceships.

I can also attest to a fairly strange encounter I once had. There was an enormous bird-shaped shadow I saw pass me. The shadow on the ground must have had a wingspan of 20 feet or more. I looked above and just saw birds in the distance, no hang gliders I could find in my vicinity, no low flying, quiet planes anywhere. I don't know anything about light and shadow or how they can be distorted. That was truly perplexing for me. I still think about it at least once a week.

 

[Damien Evans]

Well, free advertising, for one thing.

More seriously, there's a long and proud tradition of....well, there's not really a good word for it. Mock-scientific publications? Pseudo-scientific would be good if the word was available. Anyway, it's stuff that fits all the forms of scientific investigation, but is completely and utterly fake. Here is a personal favorite. Plastic clips for bread bags aren't biology, yet someone spent a rather remarkable amount of time and effort pretending they are. I also own three different works on classification of dragons. The geology of Skyrim discussion is remarkably interesting; the game accidently makes perfect geological sense, even the underground portions.

Here's the thing: scientists are nerds. We spend a lot of time working on obscure and arcane concepts, and we actually enjoy using them in weird ways. It's a way to both practice our skills in novel environments, and to have a bit of fun with our jobs.

That said, we are supposed to warn people they're seeing something fake. It's all fun and games until someone believes it; then it becomes fraud. Obviously within reasonable limits, that is--no one expects scientists to remove all possibility of crazy people believing them, because crazy people are inherently unpredictable.

That's the thing that always gets me about cryptid research: the stuff they're looking at is astonishingly dull. A bipedal ape is only interesting because we are bipedal apes. A plesiosaur is interesting, but it's also the most popular dinosaur out there. In contrast, I can show you stuff that's so weird that you couldn't make it up in fiction--no one would believe it. Bipedal crocodiles that ate dinosaurs. Giant carnivorous turkeys with stubby back legs and claws the size of sabers (we think they were carnivorous anyway; we're not sure). Barnicals that exhibit a life history remarkably similar to plants' alternation of generations, and which take over the minds of their hosts. Then there's the REALLY weird stuff, by which I mean stuff that's so far out there that we have no idea how they even worked. Archaeocyathids are a great example. We kinda sorta think we know why they're shaped the way they are, but that's as far as it goes. Vendian stuff is so weird that we've been debating what they are for over a century. We aren't sure if they're animals; most people are convinced, but good arguments against it have been made. And those are just off the top of my head; give me some time and I could come up with many, many more. Even the normal stuff in paleontology is weird and wonderful. I once found the lower third of a Camelid scapula--and that piece was as big as my whole scapula. This thing could look in a two-story window.

My point is, cryptids, even if they were found to be true, would be pretty tame.

You should know better than that. In fact I'm certain you do, but for those who don't, Plesiosaurs, Icthyosaurs and Mosasaurs were not Dinosaurs.

 

[Venom]

You should know better than that. In fact I'm certain you do, but for those who don't, Plesiosaurs, Icthyosaurs and Mosasaurs were not Dinosaurs.

I also take issue of its supposedly being more popular than T. rex or Deinonychus.
Or even Mokele Mbembe Apatosaurus.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Neither am I: I'm English, but living in Saudi Arabia.
They're showing it again tonight, along with another "documentary" called "Megalodon: The New Evidence". Hence my presence here.

I know there's been a couple of Megalodon "specials" over here but for the life of me I can't discern which one was which. When I initially heard about it a few years ago I'd hoped for something...well, a lot better. Needless to say I'd heard nothing about the production or direction of the show, but being a massive fan of all things prehistoric and especially all things Shark, I was expecting a decent show and essentially got Monster Quest complete with a CGI monster.

Probably one of the worst things I've seen on those channels was the Russian Yeti documentary, and I use the word "documentary" bloody loosely.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Since I live in the New Jersey Pine Barrens, it could have been the Jersey Devil. Hey, just because I didn't see wings doesn't mean there weren't wings.!

There aren't enough topics on the Jersey Devil, imo, I've a soft spot for that sod. The stories behind the legend are rather interesting. I quite like New Jersey, tbh.