I knew about the Thunderbird, but not the rest of them. That was interesting, I wonder if they mistook the California Condors for these things. Based on what I read they were more wide spread a few hundred years ago.
 
Last edited:
I think the pterosaur would be an easy thing to misidentify but it's still fun to read about them.

Would a person claiming a modern living pterosaur sighting be considered woo, or just a common everyday mistaken person?
 
Would a person claiming a modern living pterosaur sighting be considered woo, or just a common everyday mistaken person?

If someone said "It kinda looked like one of em terodactyls" then no

If they said "I definitely saw a pterosaur out of my truck window, it was no big bird, it had a long snout and leathery wings and was 20 feet long"

then yes


I think mis-identification becomes woo once you add certainty
 
I didn't say "100% certainty" but if you refuse to even ponder that it might have been a mundane thing but would rather cling to "it was a bigfoot" then I think it's woo
 
I tell you what Shrike, as close as these were I don't think I was mistaken but could have been. The shoulder was even with the road so that wouldn't explain it. As soon as I see one with something next to it for scale I'll snap you a pic.
Jodie, ask 5 people to show you tall their neighbor's dog is holding their hand at about the right above the ground. Then, measure that distance. I'd bet most of them will be way too high/low.
 
Would a person claiming a modern living pterosaur sighting be considered woo, or just a common everyday mistaken person?

Just reading about the incident, I would give the person the benefit of the doubt and simply say they were mistaken. They might be stark raving mad for all I know,which goes a bit beyond the woo factor.
 
Then most Bigfoot Believer people aren't woo at all, because they wouldn't describe their strength of belief at 100%.

I've never liked qualitative percentages like that. Most are meaningless. If you act as if you believe it, or based on that belief, you're certain for any non-pedantic definition of the term. You want to talk stats, give me the numbers and the equations. It also means that we can't call someone woo if they have any doubts whatever about the quality of the evidence, which clearly contradicts SOP with statistics (they use some standard of significance, usually 95% [but not always--PAUP's bootstrapping and jackknifing standard is 50%]). What you're saying is that even an insignificant doubt makes one not woo.

In other words, being certain in most statistical discussions means being 90%, 95%, or 99% certain.
 
Jodie, ask 5 people to show you tall their neighbor's dog is holding their hand at about the right above the ground. Then, measure that distance. I'd bet most of them will be way too high/low.

I could have very easily been mistaken about the height, I've made mistakes in depth perception and size before, especially now that I've gone to bifocal contact lens since then. This was 5 years ago, it was right on the other side of my passenger window. I think I would be hard pressed to misjudge that incident, but the others? It's a very good chance that I did because of the distance.
 
Not to take the discussion too far afield, but WP seems curious as to what constitutes woo as it relates to seeing and believing in cryptids.

As a starting point, I look at what I would consider the innate plausibility of the cryptid in question. It is a unicorn/pegasus distinction. If some one claims to see a horse-like animal with a long horn protruding from its head between its eyes, or claims there is a species of such an animal existing, I would require good evidence for its existence. I would not rule it out as a possibility, because there does not appear anything about such an animal that would rule it out of bounds as a naturally occurring animal.

On the other hand, if someone said they saw a horse with large bird-like wings, and that horse was able to take flight as easy as any bird, I would not hesitate in dismissing the account out of hand, due to the obvious contrariness of such a creature to our hard earned, progressive knowledge of the world. If people believed the pegasus "eyewitness," I would consider their belief woo.

Second consideration would be the plausibility of the cryptid in a larger context. If thousands of people were claiming to see horse-like animals with horns ("unicorns") in various mundane places, and over time, and no definitive verification ever occurs, then I would find such a proposed cryptid slipping down the plausibility slope to the inviting pool of woo.

As for "certainty," I find that folks are certain about alot of things that we ought not be certain about, at least epistemologically. This is due to traditional beliefs, wish fulfillment, intuition, ignorance, or a host of other belief inducements and causes that we usually don't associate as necessarily components of a woo factory.
 
I've never liked qualitative percentages like that. Most are meaningless. If you act as if you believe it, or based on that belief, you're certain for any non-pedantic definition of the term. You want to talk stats, give me the numbers and the equations. It also means that we can't call someone woo if they have any doubts whatever about the quality of the evidence, which clearly contradicts SOP with statistics (they use some standard of significance, usually 95% [but not always--PAUP's bootstrapping and jackknifing standard is 50%]). What you're saying is that even an insignificant doubt makes one not woo.

In other words, being certain in most statistical discussions means being 90%, 95%, or 99% certain.

No, I'm not saying that. I was restating and emphasizing what StankApe said in order to show my disagreement.

He thinks that if a Bigfoot Believer and Eyewitness isn't certain about their sighting then they aren't woo. It was me that equated certainty with "100% strength of belief".

When I wrote that one-liner I took Stanky's idea to its logical conclusions. It becomes absurd when you think about it.



I'm really simple and straightforward with this...

If you seriously think that Bigfoot exists then you are woo.

If you seriously think you saw a Bigfoot then you are woo.
 
well that's what I was saying too. If somebody says "I don't know what I saw, but it seemed similar to one of them Bigfoots I hear about" I don't think you are woo, just mis identifying an animal.

Once you make the leap from "IDK" to "I saw Bigfoot" then you ARE woo. % of belief level be damned
 
The Onza

The Onza is one of the more credible cryptids. No monster here, the Onza is a big cat in northwestern Mexico that is said to be distinguishable from a puma, a species it nevertheless closely resembles. The locals have allegedly known of the Onza since the Aztecs. It is said to be more dangerous and ferocious, but slightly smaller, than the puma. Some locals believe it is a hybrid between a jaguar and puma. Other explanations for the Onza consist of the mundane, a sub-species of puma or offspring of old female pumas, and the fanciful; it is a surviving American Cheetah (both the puma and the jaguarondi are related to the African Cheetah). The American Cheetah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_cheetah

Folklorist J. Frank Dobie wrote a story about the Onza in 1931, but it was a tall tale, giving the cat supernatural shape shifting attributes. Big game hunter Russell Annabel wrote an article about the Onza for Sports Afield in 1961, detailing his killing of the big cat. He described the Onza: He looked like a heavy shouldered, lean-hipped puma with an uncommonly small head -- except he had a black tail-tip and a black line on his back from the kidney region to the tail. He exactly matched descriptions of the onza that we’d had from scores of vaqueros, meat-hunters, timber scouts, wandering Indians, and wildlife-wise residents of the lost, forlorn wilderness villages. There was no doubt in my mind that the animal would be new to science…. Annabel sent the bones and pelt to Sports Afield and the magazine forwarded the remains to the American Museum of Natural History in New York for identification. It was determined that Annabel had killed a puma.

In January 1986, an Onza was killed in Sinaola. Cryptozoologists from the International Society of Cryptozoology, Richard Greenwell and Troy Best, investigated. Greenwell described the dead cat: It had a remarkably gracile body, with long, slender legs and a long tail. The ears also seemed very long for a puma (about 100 mm), and small horizontal stripes were found on the insides of its forelimbs, which, as far as determined to date, are not found in puma. Tissue samples and bones were collected. At Texas Tech, an electrophoresis comparison with a Big Bend puma sample showed no difference between the Onza and the puma. Later, mito-DNA tests were run at the National Cancer Institute in Washington and the results showed that the Onza was genetically indistinguishable from a puma.

Here is a short article from the Cryptid Zoo web site about the Onza: http://www.newanimal.org/onza.htm

Here is Matt Bille’s web page on the Onza. Bille is one of the few cryptozoologists who has his feet on the ground, most of the time. Here, he argues that the Onza is a puma reality still bodes well for the field of cryptozoology: http://mattbille.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-onza-success-for-cryptozoology.html

There may be a linguistic explanation for the Onza, more than a biological one. In the June 2008 issue of Mastozoologia geotropically, Ernesto Alvarado Reyes makes some interesting observations about The legend of the Mexican onza. He states concerning wild felines in Latin America, …it is very common that one species receives two different names in the same locality. The name onza is usually applied in this sense. This leads to the common misunderstanding that there are two different species that in fact are just one. Reyes argues, The word onza in Mexico, when applied together with another common name to refer to the same species in the same locality, is used to distinguish certain varieties or individuals with recessive traits that make them look different to most individuals of their population. Sometimes, as the rarest phenotypes that is called onza is the less frequently found, incredible stories far from reality are created around it.

Whatever the case, I went to central Mexico recently to visit my loving and lovely Mexicana wife, and while hiking the piedmonts with her and her brother, I asked about the onza and they both are sure of its existence. They say it isn't a puma.
 
Last edited:
Trunko

Trunko is the name cryptozoologist Karl Shuker gave to an unusual sea animal seen in November, 1922, off the coast of Natal, South Africa and later found on the beach near Margate, dead. On November 1, according to a newspaper account, among many witnesses, a Huge Balance viewing from shore could see oceanic fisticuffs in the form of "two whales fighting with some sea monster." The article continues: He got his glasses and was surprised to see an animal that resembled a polar bear, but in size, was equal to an elephant. This object he observed to rear out of the water fully 20 feet and strike repeatedly at the two whales, but with, seemingly, no effect. The fight went on for fully three hours, gradually nearing the shore, but it grew too to make further observations. Next morning the man found the monster high and dry on the beach.

I would say that this is a very interesting sighting. Here is a short piece on Trunko from a crypto-zoo site: http://www.unknown-creatures.com/trunko.html

Here is a rendering of Trunko from a fan of cryptids: http://hundredmythologyhaiku.blogspot.com/2009/12/day-ii-trunko.html

Here is a page from a contemporary magazine that published photos of the beached, white hairy monster. (Photos and article just recently found -- and presented on Shuker's web site.) http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_awaeWdWdJ...unko+article+p2,+Wide+World+Mag,+Aug+1925.jpg

The impression the eyewitness had concerning the sea monster, that it was an elephant sized polar bear-like animal, and others' ideas that the creature indeed had an elephant-like trunk, and that it was fighting furiously with two orcas, were mistaken. In all probability, they saw two killer whales feeding off of a dead whale, moving it around as they fed. The "globster" on shore was all that remained, the whale's skeleton probably at the bottom of the bay, it's flesh torn away. Impressions of the rotting dead animal also contributed to what people thought the creature might have looked like while living.

Shuker solves this old mystery here: http://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2010/09/behold-trunko.html
 
Last edited:
I can just imagine, a giant sturgeon washed up on a beach here in SC and caused a big stir not too long ago. In it 's decayed state you could easily imagine a dead dragon or a sea serpent. I had no idea sturgeons got that big.
 
Jodie,

Do you recall how large the fish was?

I brought up the Trunko story because it demonstrates how people will take ambiguous stimuli and "see" things less ambiguously, even if their interpretation is very far fetched, like seeing an elephant sized polar bear fighting two killer whales.

The Trunko case also reminds me of the time a co-worker and I were watching a hawk trying to carry off a squirrel on the front lawn. It would carry the squirrel a few yards at a time, and then land. We first saw it not twenty yards from us; after it got a hundred yards or so away, we went back in. Last we saw, the bird was still having difficulty keeping in the air with its prey.

When we got back inside, I was surprised to hear my co-worker tell everyone that the squirrel was putting up a really good fight with the hawk. I saw it differently: the squirrel was definitely a dead squirrel, killed before we were even on the scene.
 
I can just imagine, a giant sturgeon washed up on a beach here in SC and caused a big stir not too long ago. In it 's decayed state you could easily imagine a dead dragon or a sea serpent. I had no idea sturgeons got that big.
There's considerable speculation that at least some Lake Champlain "Champ" sightings are actually of extremely large sturgeons. Even without the " I swear it was thiiiiiiis big" phenomenon, these guys can get Awfully damn big!
 

Back
Top Bottom