Cryptozoology

[William Parcher]

I watch MonsterQuest quite a bit and they had ome interesting big cat video from Scotland.

It shows a black house cat, possibly feral. I'm unaware of any video or still photos from the UK that obviously show a leopard, jaguar, cougar, etc. I've seen lots of this purported visual evidence. It is clear that people are taking video and photos of house cats, and yet they believe it is a "big cat".

 

[Cuddles]

Close, but we have no way of knowing if the hobbits actually spawned any little people myths.

Exactly. There are plenty of examples of people shoehorning new discoveries to fit myths, but I'm not aware of any examples of a mythical definitely being based on a single real animal.

Note that this does not mean that myths aren't inspired by reality, but there's a big difference between people seeing horses and animals with horns and making up a myth about a combination of the two, and there actually being a one-horned horse that had stories told about it.

This is like how some people think that Komodo dragons started the (European) dragon myth. Although it's possible they could've helped contribute to the legend, the fact of the matter is that dragons are the result of grossly exaggerated stories about constrictor snakes. You can even read scans from an old book on the matter here.

I'm not convinved at all, and that skeptiwiki link doesn't support your claim. As it explains very well, there are many different myths about dragons, some parts clearly inspired by snakes, although by no means simply exaggerated stories about real snakes, and others having very little to do with snakes at all. In fact, I think the most relevant quote here is:

The fact that translators have often chosen this word does not mean that there are identical or mutually supporting accounts of dragons worldwide.

There is no single source of dragon myths. There are a huge number different sources, some based vaguely on real things, others completely made up, and they have all become very mixed up with each other as cultures have interacted with each other. The "ancient sources" section of that article all clearly refer simply to snakes, albiet unfeasibly large one. The fact that an ancient word for snake was used hundreds of years later to refer to fire-breathing, knight-eating European style dragons does not mean that the one is simply a variation of the other.

There are news cites in the UK for injuries to animals that are attributed, without witnesses, to a big cat:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4599441.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3169923.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/3186521.stm

Exactly. There are plenty of claims of big cats, but I have yet to see any evidence of anything other than the occasional escapee, and I'm not aware of any report of a wild big cat actually attacking a person. As William Parcher says, there are plenty of videos and pictures of perfectly normal small cats, and often foxes and dogs as well, but the big cats remain confined entirely to blurry pictures and unsupported anecdotes.

 

[EHocking]

There have been attacks in Scotland by big cats. Mostly on livestock and occassionally on small kids.

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared[2] by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours[1]--And that was just from the flies alone[3]. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.

Dee

My bolding.

[1] It took just under a week
[2] It did not disappear - the bones[3] and skin remained.
[3] Maggots feed on dead flesh and don't devour bones.

Video here
Time lapse sequence starts at 5mins.

I've read a number of BF proponents making similar, inaccurate claims about the speed at which bodies "disapear" in the wild. It seems the more inaccurate the claim (as long as it supports their beliefs) the less the proponents seem to challenge the evidence.

 

[William Parcher]

Cryptozoology is really not a science. It is a social intrigue and hobby. I think it would be more accurately referred to as Cryptozoophilia - the love of cryptic animals. More precisely, based on how the majority of its followers engage in their hobby - it is the love of the idea of cryptic animals.

 

[Correa Neto]

Uhm...

Then call me a cryptozoophilist, since I do love the idea of cryptids (especially the little mermaid - she is hot- fishy but hot). It happens, however, that I don't think they (or at least most of them) are real because there's little if any reliable evidence to support their reality.

Better say cryptozoophilia is the refusal of letting go the idea of cryptids being real despite the fact that the odds are zero for all practical purposes.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I'm not convinved at all, and that skeptiwiki link doesn't support your claim. As it explains very well, there are many different myths about dragons, some parts clearly inspired by snakes, although by no means simply exaggerated stories about real snakes, and others having very little to do with snakes at all.

I originally was going to respond by clarifying that I meant the basic idea of an European dragon has a base in large snakes, but other attributes that we identify with dragons today got grafted onto it over the years. However, I soon realized that I'd be saying the same basic idea as this:

There is no single source of dragon myths. There are a huge number different sources, some based vaguely on real things, others completely made up, and they have all become very mixed up with each other as cultures have interacted with each other.

But since I didn't want to have spent some time looking up links for nothing:

http://bestiary.ca/beasts/beast262.htm
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1260098

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

AMM, I can't defend the buffalo legend, not my tribe. But the event was newsworthy and they then pointed out a few predictions concerning it's birth.

Sounds like it was a slow news day. The fact remains that white buffalo were confirmed a long time ago and not recently like you claimed.

Whether the florens people inspired which myth is unimportant being they lived approx 13,000 yrs ago, concurrent with modern humans.

Um...if their not inspiring myths is unimportant, then why did you offer them as an example of a mythical creature being discovered?

 

[JohnG]

Then call me a cryptozoophilist, since I do love the idea of cryptids...

Count me in, too. I love the idea of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot as much as I did as a kid, maybe even more. It's just that the evidence for their existence isn't convincing for me anymore.

Still, if anyone wants to get a chapter of a cryptozoophilist society together, I'll print the fliers and bring pie.

 

[tyr_13]

Isn't it funny how a lot of these 'bad, ebil, closed minded, skeptics' who are so biased against these cryptids (and other woo) are the same people who would love to find this stuff? Count me in. I love the idea of psychic powers, telekinesis, bigfoot, nessy, etc, but that doesn't mean I believe them.

 

[geni]

With regards to the ABC issue in the recorded cases where big cats have escaped they haven't lasted long. The UK is a very hostile enviroment for them. Full of roads and those roads are full of cars. And even if they avoid those there is very little of the UK that doesn't have people moveing through it on a fairly regular basis. Population densities in the UK rather limit the posibilities.

 

[Aepervius]

There have been attacks in Scotland by big cats. Mostly on livestock and occassionally on small kids.

And the whole thing about not finding bodies and remains. When's the lasttime anyone stumbled over a dead bear? MonsterQuest did a great test using a road kill deer to see how long it would take before the body disappeared by scavengers, decomposition, etc. They estimated a month. It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone. Throw in animal predation from bears, wolves, foxes, etc, and that's why they've never found any bigfoot remains.

Dee

"It took just over 24 hours--And that was just from the flies alone"

Gross exageration or downright lie. Firstly maggot would explain only disappearance of the soft tissue. From a forensic site : "In warm weather, conducive to fly growth, maggots can consume 60 per cent of a human body in less than a week. ". And that is in the GOOD condition. Guess how long it takes in spring/autumn or even worst, winter. Also guess what the maggot do to the 10 or 20% of non soft tissue / bones : nothing.

ETA: I see this was corrected by many people anyway, never mind ignore me.

 

[Correa Neto]

Isn't it funny how a lot of these 'bad, ebil, closed minded, skeptics' who are so biased against these cryptids (and other woo) are the same people who would love to find this stuff? Count me in. I love the idea of psychic powers, telekinesis, bigfoot, nessy, etc, but that doesn't mean I believe them.

Believers share a common factor- the need of an external enemy, someone else to blame. They just can't admit that there's little if any support for their claims/beliefs. They can't admit thet their reasonings, methodology and conclusions are flawed. Someone else must be blamed for their flaws. Guess who's to be blamed, who will become the external enemy? The unbelievers, those who point the flaws - the skeptics.

Cryptids are never found? Blame it on the close-minded mainstream scients and skeptics. It can't be because there's no cryptid out there.

Failed to convince them UFOs are real? Blame it on the close-minded mainstream scients and skeptics. The evidence can't be weak and your reasonings utterly flawed - you can't see any problem with them.

Failed to convince them about the true nature of the fabric of reality you just discovered after a major insight? Blame it on the close-minded mainstream scients and skeptics. Your pet theory can't be a castle of cards.

Your psi experiments always fail? Blame it on the "skeptical effect". It can't be because there's no psi.

Those people are not convinced by your global conspiracy theory? They must be brain-washed sheeple or even spooks. It can't be because there's no global conspiracy...

Your deity made no miracles? Blame it on the unbelievers. It can't be because there's no deity.

Had sex with children? Blame it on Satan and/or influence of infidels and their atheist modern culture. You can't have a psychosexual disorder.

Your country's economy goes bad? Blame it on foreign imperialistic capitalism. It can't be due to your fail proof economic policy.

Can't find a job? Blame it on another ethnical group. It can't be due to your own poor choices or sheer bad luck.

 

[manofthesea]

Sounds like it was a slow news day. The fact remains that white buffalo were confirmed a long time ago and not recently like you claimed.



Um...if their not inspiring myths is unimportant, then why did you offer them as an example of a mythical creature being discovered?

I don't think anyone can be so presumptious to deny there were myths derived from these little people.

 

[sanguine]

I don't think anyone can be so presumptious to deny there were myths derived from these little people.

I think the more reasonable query back to you might be, "Do you think that a putative* small hominid that apparently existed in Indonesia more than 13,000 years ago inspired the various myths of 'little people' in Europe and elsewhere?"

Sure, it's reasonable that after they disappeared in Indonesia (circa ~11,000 BC or so) the local homo sapiens still told some "little people" stories for a bit-- assuming they were really discernible from the other local primates. But even though they were cutely nicknamed "hobbits" by modern researchers, it's a stretch to suggest that these stories crawled their way back upstream against the migration flow of humanity and spread throughout much of the rest of the world.

That's also moving the goalposts a bit. Sure, floriensis appears to have been a contemporary of sapiens. So was neandertal, right? So can I just call them the source for the bigfoot story and we can all be done with it?


*Some folks still dispute the legitimacy of floriensis as a species and not deformed sapiens. As a biologist but non paleo- or anthro- person, my semi-amateur take on the evidence is that floriensis looks more like a species.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Count me in, too. I love the idea of the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot as much as I did as a kid, maybe even more. It's just that the evidence for their existence isn't convincing for me anymore.

Still, if anyone wants to get a chapter of a cryptozoophilist society together, I'll print the fliers and bring pie.

Isn't it funny how a lot of these 'bad, ebil, closed minded, skeptics' who are so biased against these cryptids (and other woo) are the same people who would love to find this stuff? Count me in. I love the idea of psychic powers, telekinesis, bigfoot, nessy, etc, but that doesn't mean I believe them.

Me, too. I would love for Nessie to be real. For some reason, I feel a deep personal connection to her.

I will bring brownies (the chocolate bar cookies, not the small persons ) to the first meeting.

 

[Mark6]

Me, too. I would love for Nessie to be real. For some reason, I feel a deep personal connection to her.

I will bring brownies (the chocolate bar cookies, not the small persons ) to the first meeting.

If Nessie is anything like a plesiosaur, she would appreciate small (as in, bite-sized) persons more than cookies.

 

[kitakaze]

(snip)
*Some folks still dispute the legitimacy of floriensis as a species and not deformed sapiens. As a biologist but non paleo- or anthro- person, my semi-amateur take on the evidence is that floriensis looks more like a species.

We've discussed the ebu gobo = H. floresiensis = orang pendek before and suffice it to say the evidence to support the idea is lacking. When you look at the purported casts of orang pendek they look nothing like what we see in the hobbit's feet.

From what I've seen I would agree that H. floresiensis are almost certainly a separate species. I just last night was watch a documentary on the hobbits in which a paleoanthropologist said that he would be extremely excited but in no way surprised if a population of living hobbits were found in some jungle of Sumatra or elsewhere in Indonesia. I don't think that was an unreasonable statement though I think for most ordinary people they would be pretty surprised.

 

[manofthesea]

I think the more reasonable query back to you might be, "Do you think that a putative* small hominid that apparently existed in Indonesia more than 13,000 years ago inspired the various myths of 'little people' in Europe and elsewhere?"
.

I'm not real precise as to the nature of European myths.
But there are Polynesian and other Pacific Rim stories of little people. I'm sure Europe had their own inspirations for myths and legends.

There was a question during the TV show on the hobbit discovery that wondered if the hobbits evolved in place from erectus or sapien. Or if they migrated to the place that the discovery was made. There's no answer yet.
Who knows, maybe they left the frigid environs of Europe and settled in Indonesia?

 

[Starthinker]

We have dwarves and midgets even today and I'm sure one wandering into some medievil village would have sufficed to start a "little people" myth. Occam's Razor.

 

[sanguine]

We have dwarves and midgets even today and I'm sure one wandering into some medievil village would have sufficed to start a "little people" myth. Occam's Razor.

This.

As a similar-ish example, if you look back at Sumerian and Akkadian texts and materials, angel-type creatures are often pictured as hermaphroditic (and if you've seen the 1995 movie "The Prophecy" they used that idea there). In other texts, they describe "birth omens" and one of them is the birth of a hermaphroditic person or animal. So in this case, you can draw a nice line from the witnessing of the real event to its incorporation into a mythological entity.