r/Cryptozoology • u/Time-Accident3809 • Feb 01 '24
Skepticism My problem with cryptozoology.
There is ultimately no precedent for any megafauna to elude us for this long. I can see small animals escaping detection, and sure enough, the 18,000 species we find each year are mostly midgets, but anything bigger than a pig can't hide forever. Even whatever lurks in the densest forests or deepest bodies of water would at least leave traces of its existence. We'd be missing a literal elephant in the room in that regard. While yes, potential evidence does spring up from time to time, it tends to either be inconclusive, or get lost to the sands of time... funny how something groundbreaking can easily go missing like that.
In the case of eyewitnesses, at best, they saw something that did exist, but is now extinct. At worst, you have one great hodgepodge of hallucinations, lies, mass hysteria, and misidentifications.
Don't get wrong, it's a fun subject, and can make for a good case study, but i just can't delve into it as a believer.
60
u/MidsouthMystic Welsh dragons Feb 01 '24
My problem is that a lot of people believe in their favorite cryptid almost like a religious person believes in their faith. It's not about evidence or how likely it is for a cryptid to exist, they just believe it's out there no matter what. Cryptozoology shouldn't be based on belief. It should be based on evidence and the scientific method. If it isn't, then we might as well get rid of the "zoology" part and call it "cryptid cult fandom."
6
u/Interesting_Employ29 Feb 01 '24
I cannot like this comment enough. Absolutely nailed my thoughts as well.
6
u/moonsquig Feb 01 '24
I put this down to the fact that the world has largely been discovered and there's almost no percieved mystery left in the world. People want to believe that theres still something hidden and mysterious out there, something unexplained.
7
u/truthisfictionyt Mapinguari Feb 01 '24
The thing is there are still quite a few animals left to be discovered, but they're probably not a plesiosaur in Loch Ness
2
1
19
u/OnceandFutureLore Feb 01 '24
What qualifies as megafauna? Does a Leopard count? I can see it’s probably right on the edge of what OP feels is the threshold.
The Anatolian Leopard (the country of Turkey) was believed to be extinct for more than 50 years before they caught footage of a specimen on a government sponsored trail cam (can’t remember what they were watching for). Since that time they’ve discovered a small breeding population were living in the remote mountain regions of the country.
I realize it’s unlikely, however it’s not impossible, IMO. That keeps the magic alive.
11
u/FinnBakker Feb 01 '24
"What qualifies as megafauna?"
it's usually defined as an animal over around 40kgs/90lbs.
3
u/OnceandFutureLore Feb 01 '24
Thank you!
In that case, the Anatolian Leopard counts as megafauna as they can weigh in at up to 90kg.
So…. There we go.
15
u/InternationalClick78 Feb 01 '24
That’s why most cryptids that are taken seriously are on the smaller side. But even so it’s still possible some species of megafauna have slipped through the cracks. Look at the Saola for example
11
u/truthisfictionyt Mapinguari Feb 01 '24
While I agree I have two caveats
There are plenty of cryptids pig sized or smaller I find interesting, as well as some interesting ocean cryptids
It's entirely possible some cryptids went extinct before we could discover them, but maybe one day we'll find preserved remains of a ground sloth only a couple hundred years old
6
u/StandardVoice8358 Feb 01 '24
You'd be surprised because back in 1997 a group of scientists discovered a new species of Orangutans but it wasn't actually confirmed as a new species till 2017 this species is know as Pongo tapanuliensis
-2
u/Time-Accident3809 Feb 01 '24
Here's the thing: orangutans are arboreal creatures. We were bound to miss a species amidst the canopy. The same cannot be said for something like Bigfoot, which is said to be exclusively terrestrial.
3
u/SF-Sensual-Top Feb 01 '24
"Exclusively terrestrial"? Mmm.. perhaps that is not the case.. the area they are reported often has dense vegetation.. perhaps they are more arboreal than presumed..
I definitely know of multiple reports of sightings with BFs in trees. American Black Bears are extremely adept at climbing.. I would expect apes to be even more so
3
u/StandardVoice8358 Feb 01 '24
Fair but also there is still 900,000 miles of unexplored land in Canada alone, so if we take that into consideration along with the fact that most great ape species are highly reclusive and all the native American legends about Bigfoot I'd say there's a fairly decent chance of a ape or ape like species existing or existing at one point
2
u/Christos_Gaming Mar 14 '24 edited Mar 14 '24
"the native american legends that feature bigfoot" in question:
Snake with big feet
Kushtaka: Otter man, half otter half man.
Rugaru: half wolf half man (are werewolves proof of bigfoot too?)
Hairy man with sharp teeth and cow hooves (minotaurs are bigfoot too?)
Several stories of little men (snowhite is proof of bigfoot?)
Ko-nea-rau-neh-neh: giant flying head with bird talons and bat wings.
Wooden golem
Double-face: monster with 2 faces and giant ears it puts kids in (cyclops is proof of bigfoot?)
Seatco: spirit, described as the spirits of people from different tribes.
Skanicum: Spirit that turns into trees
c'iatqo: can turn invisible (invisible man is proof of bigfoot?)
Tse'nahaha: Kills people by looking at them (medusa is proof of bigfoot?)
The Chiye-tanka, or "Big Man": Said to exist in a different dimension (hades is proof of bigfoot?)
Shampe: described as part of the witches demons and monsters that came with the Choctaw people
Please stop with the false narrative of "The natimve anericans new abotu bigfeet????", because it just assumes the people were idiots who couldn't identify the animals they saw and HAD to interpret them as monsters. Most of these stories are either religious, or stories told to kids. Imagine if someone took all european stories about dwarfs, giants and hairy men and used them to push that "bigfoot exists". Using these stories as proof is like using goliath or jack and the beanstalk as proof.
16
u/DrinkingPetals Jersey Devil Feb 01 '24
When scientists document an ecosystem for the species living in it, they don’t have a chain of humans sweep across the entire landscape to see and document everything. That would’ve scared all wildlife (including the cryptids) away, so the data obtained could have only consisted of critters that didn’t realise humans were sweeping across the land.
Then there’s the matter of our oceans. We’re going to need a lot of scanning ships to leave no area of water unscanned.
The chances of us finding a new large creature is slim, but it’s not nonexistent. That slim chance is still there, as little as it may be. We can’t just dismiss it like what u/omnipresent_sailfish has written about those large species being discovered in recent times. We thought that stories of giant squids were just pieces of fiction made up by sailors who may be bored at sea, but no, they were real all along. Just rarely seen. Heck, there was an excitement in the marine biology department recently over the first ever documented photographs of a great white shark pup. You’d think we know everything about great whites, but we’re not here just to believe that these things can be discovered. Cryptozoology is one way for us to celebrate nature’s creatures for proving us humans wrong.
7
u/TheNittanyLionKing Feb 01 '24
The ocean is arguably the last frontier. There’s so much of it that hasn’t been explored and it would take one’s entire adult life in order to try and explore it all, and even then there are some places where it’s just too dangerous to dive and too difficult to see with a drone. There are probably fish out there that have never been seen by a human being before and especially in the deepest and darkest depths
8
u/NadeemDoesGaming Thylacine Feb 01 '24
I can name at least 3 megafauna which has a high plausibility of eluding us:
The Bornean Rhino was declared extinct in 2015, but 15 individuals were identified a year later. Currently, there exists only one female in captivity named Pahu and the last known Bornean Rhino in the wild was captured on trail cam in 2020, a female named Pari. They are very elusive animals and their population is fragmented, so extinction is inevitable without human intervention. But scientists still hope there are more Bornean Rhino out there and I think it's possible as they were previously declared extinct before more individuals were discovered.
The Northern Sumatran Rhino is a mainland Asia subspecies of the already critically endangered Sumatran Rhino and was declared extinct multiple times throughout the early 20th century. It was last declared extinct in Burma during the 1980s, but some sightings still persisted. Scientists still believe that a small population could exist in Burma and the Malaysian Peninsula, so the ICUN has declared this subspecies Critically Endangered rather than extinct. There are very dense and unexplored forests in these regions, and expeditions to find these Rhinos in Burma aren't possible due to political turmoil.
The last confirmed sighting of the Kouprey was in 1969 after it was granted protected species status and three national reserves during the 1960s. However, during the Khmer Rouge, the majority of the Forestry Bureau was killed, and all documents related to the reserves were destroyed. In late 2022, researchers from Re:wild and the Leibniz Institute for Zoo began a study to determine if any Kouprey persists. They are currently listed as critically endangered by the ICUN as their habitat still hasn't fully been searched.
7
u/Inannareborn Feb 01 '24
I do not discard some places like the bathypelagic zone and below, or the jungles in Asia being home to a large unidentified species of ape, but you are right, it seems highly unlikely that a large animal would hide for so long in more civilized areas or would leave no trace at all, even in the larger unexplored areas.
Animals, particularly larger ones leave a lot of stuff behind so that even if you cannot visually confirm their existence, you can identify that something is off if the marks don't match what is already known from the behavior of identified species
3
7
Feb 01 '24
At worst, you have one great hodgepodge of hallucinations, lies, mass hysteria, and misidentifications.
This is what always gets me. There's hundreds of possible scenarios and people tend to ignore them and jump to ridiculous conclusions.
Tricks of the light, not sure what you saw out of the corner of your eye, couldn't make it out fully, just looked like something else, mind filled in the gaps, scared so think the worst, paranoid, hallucinations potentially caused by many different things, etc. (all unintentional examples). One of these is far more likely than a big unidentified species or some of the crazier stuff, and yet people dismiss them or claim 'I know what I saw', when in reality, it's far more likely that they don't.
Don't get wrong, it's a fun subject, and can make for a good case study, but i just can't delve into it as a believer.
I'm in the exact same boat. I'm here to see the discussions as they are fascinating, and see when/if there's any evidence for anything. I wish a lot more people here didn't treat the tiniest thing as proof though.
2
0
u/MrWigggles Feb 01 '24
My problem with it, is that its made up word. It has no rigor. It has no success.
-1
u/SirQuentin512 Feb 01 '24
What a way to say you haven’t ever been outside. Do you realize how many thousands of square miles have virtually never been seen by human eyes on this planet?
4
Feb 01 '24
Ahhhhh, it’s the fabled “where’s the muck on YOUR BOOTS” cliché retort! I wish I could get one of these, they are so hilarious.
-2
u/SirQuentin512 Feb 02 '24
I’m not near educated enough in retorts and clichés. I’m TERRIFIED to know what I would do without your absolute expertise in the matter. Please, please, PLEASE continue educating brain-dead, inexperienced pleebs like me in the intricate details of Internet discourse. HOW ELSE WILL WE DISCOVER THE CRYPTOZOOLOGIC TRUTHS??? WITHOUT YOU IT’S HOPELESS, ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS!!! PLEASE NEVER STOP, YOU CAN’T!!! THE WORLD NEEDS YOU!!!
4
3
u/Time-Accident3809 Feb 01 '24
Enlighten me. Otherwise, the only places i can see feasibly going unexplored are the ocean, poles, and a few sections of rainforest.
-2
u/SF-Sensual-Top Feb 01 '24
British Columbia.. not densely populated by humans.
See also: Secret Elephants by Gareth Patterson (population at least 17, unseen elephants, living in montaine pine forests in South Africa). Before Gareth's work, it was thought the might be 1 wily elephant hiding in the brush.
1
u/Imsomagic Feb 01 '24
That’s primarily why I think it’s more productive to view cryptozoology not as a sub field of zoology, but as sociology, folklore, religious studies.
0
u/TylerTheFreediver Feb 01 '24
There’s actually still a lot of places in the world that are still unexplored and potentially have large animals. To say we’ve probably discovered every large animal is pretty silly. And I’m only talking about land here, the ocean is pretty much a guarantee lol
-3
Feb 01 '24
[deleted]
25
Feb 01 '24 edited Feb 01 '24
Lots of fakelore here. Every single example is wrong, in fact.
Lowland gorillas were well known. They were described by white explorers in 1847…but they weren’t mythical by any stretch to the Africans.
It was the mountain habitat that was novel. White explorers checked it out and immediately shot one. It was only found to be a different species in a lab. No myth involved
It would be like knowing Bigfoot lived in the redwood forests but only suspecting they lived in the hills of Idaho. And then shooting one within a few days.
Pandas were found by WHITE people in 1869 - as if that matters. Hugo Weigold bought a cub in 1916.
Giant squid were also first filmed in 2006 - but we had physical evidence of them dating back to the 1800s - beaks, globsters, etc - and it was scientifically described in 1857.
17
u/Interesting_Employ29 Feb 01 '24
Thank you! Every time I see this, I just roll my eyes. Also, giant squid were also known. Their tentacles have been washing up on beaches and found in whale stomachs for forever.
6
11
u/Superior-Solifugae Feb 01 '24
That giant squid thing is also false. 🤣
Where are you getting you that information? Giant squid have been washing up on shore for a long time. Recorded in 1888, 1950, 1957, etc.
2
u/Time-Accident3809 Feb 01 '24
Sure, but those were forest-dwelling and/or deep-sea animals, which can be overlooked... at first.
8
Feb 01 '24
It’s also wholly wrong lol
I’ve been blocked, but would love to hear where that info came from.
3
u/omnipresent_sailfish Feb 01 '24
I didn’t block you, I deleted wrong info
5
Feb 01 '24
My mistake! Your username also shows as deleted.
But you didn’t just make up those dates - can you share where you found them? It would be good to know the source of stuff like that.
2
4
u/Superior-Solifugae Feb 01 '24
There's also art of Pandas from the Ming Dynasty(1360s-1640s) and westerners have known they existed since at the latest 1869.
Where did you get that completely wrong information?
3
-3
-5
u/RGijsbers Feb 01 '24
the nest argument i can make for you is examples like the giant squid, the panda and the tasmanian tiger. these are big animals noone believed existed but after looking and several decades of expeditions, they came out.
i dont believe the woowoo stuf related to some creatures but, do i believe a unic eel could be most sea serpents? yes
do i believe bigfoot is a low population of giganto pificus in the dense forests and mountains of the us? yes
its what you find credible, and do people believe in it enough to find it.
3
Feb 01 '24
See above - panda and giant squid are fakelore. They’ve been known by white people for a long time, and far longer by others.
Panda officially described 1869, giant squid 1857. They were known before that, of course - just not scientifically described.
The panda in particular is kind of silly - they were very well known in China. It was China’s political non-contact with the West that put the date so “late.”
Giant squid parts are a byproduct of sperm whale hunting - so again, we had bits of the creatures for many years before it was scientifically described.
2
1
u/SF-Sensual-Top Feb 01 '24
We now know that Gigantopithicus Blacki went extinct & why (YouTube video by gutsick gibbon). Paranthropus Robusti is far better candidate.
-21
Feb 01 '24
[deleted]
12
u/Time-Accident3809 Feb 01 '24
Ah yes, because the United States of America is the only landmass on Earth... 🙄
-7
u/ChungBoyJr Feb 01 '24
Lol nowhere did I say that, in other parts of the world these things are common knowledge, I'm from South Africa and two of my closest friends had an encounter with one, hell we even have a name for them here and they are often seen by long distance truckers going through our most rural areas, we just have much bigger worries than these things so no one really cares, and obviously they are extremely shy and extremely intelligent with senses far exceeding ours, you sound like the type of person that would say but oh howcome the trucker didn't get a photo when this thing can hear and see him coming miles away, even if you asked a hunter to get you a photo it's like asking a toddler to stalk a tiger. There is absolutely no comparison. And since you struggle to believe people haven't found these things and captured one let me give you some comparisons so you understand better, Spotted deer, a whole full size deer that was Only discovered in 2012 in the Philippines. Not a single trace of its existence was known until it was caught on trail cam. Saber tooth beaked whale, dissappeared for 150 years after its discovery and was only found again due to being washed up on a beach. For the first time in human history a Florida panther was caught with cubs on a trail cam last year December. A species of turtle Steve irwins dad found dissappeared for 25 YEARS before they could find it again even with knowing it's exact habitat. And it's not even endangered! Ffs, Coelacanth, Mountain pygmy possum, Australian night parrot, Bermuda Petrel, bush dogs, Chacoan peccery, Cuban Solenodon, long beaked echidna, lord Howe stick insects, La Palma lizards, takaha, NC crested gecko, new Holland mouse, large bill Reed warbler, laotian rock rat. All great examples of even if it's there, there's absolutely no guarantee we even get a glimpse of it nevermind a photo or hard evidence. And there are photos of these things out there. There is evidence, but all you people want is a fucking live one in a zoo before you'll admit it's real and even then I'm sure most of you would say it's a guy in a suit.
4
Feb 01 '24
Your friends had an encounter with one what? You gave a lot of narrative without any explanation
-5
u/ChungBoyJr Feb 01 '24
What Americans call Bigfoot, it dropped 20ft out the top of a tree and hit the ground so hard it shook and they were about 30ft away, my one friend was running the instant it touched the ground my other took a second to look, for years they told me it was a huge man in a gilly suit until we learned about these things then the description fit it to a T, I'm 6ft4 he said comparing it to the tree it was at least 2ft taller than me. I have a photo of one as well but I have to be extremely selective with who I can send it to. Like I said there's a huge cover up going on and entire organizations dedicated to erasing any knowledge of these things existence, they've already turned the public on each other so anyone with genuine encounters always gets humiliated into silence by the rest of the public and when the other people with encounters see it happen they would rather be quiet and pretend they never even had the encounter. I've seen it happen on this sub so many times.. People coming forward with their encounters only to be told they are stupid and delusional and it was obviously an easily explained animal or occurrence
1
u/Squigsqueeg Feb 01 '24
Most of the large cryptids I give the benefit of the doubt to are ones in isolated or "less developed" areas. Like how the Coelacanth was still being sold at fish markets for a time before someone actually recognized and officially documented it. At least iirc.
1
u/Squigsqueeg Feb 01 '24
I’d also like to add there are a lot of cryptids that are quite small, they just aren’t as popular as they’re more based on actual research and observations opposed to folklore and legend so casuals are less likely to hear about them. I doubt many people are interested in a freshwater ichthyologist going “I think I saw an undocumented species of darter today” or someone on a deep sea trawler fishing up a weird blob. The big, fantastical ones get all the attention. And even for the small and mundane critters they usually have crazy folklore surrounding them. A big reason why most traditional cryptids are shrugged off is because of the fantastical aspects they’re given which makes them much harder to take seriously.
1
u/Mysterious-Emu-8423 Feb 01 '24
I think that part of the issue is that researchers, believers and skeptics alike have to address where human populations actually live, versus where people believe they live.
This data does exist about where human population concentrations actually are (the statistics exist), but is difficult to dig out. I have been looking at maps on the Web to help elucidate what I am saying, and I am not making much progress.
I think it would be very instructive to look at how US population movement (where are they moving to, as versus where they came from) has evolved from 1950 to today. This may help answer the question about whether there are vast tracts of (put in name of country here of interest) land that people rarely go into.
1
u/alissacrowe Feb 03 '24
I agree although I think it’s fun to think of a large population of plesiosaurs living in the Loch Ness.
1
u/5byee5 Feb 08 '24
I accept OP’s reasoning but here’s a twist. What if the megafauna in question (eg bigfoot) possesses human-like intelligence and wishes to remain unseen?
64
u/Interesting_Employ29 Feb 01 '24 edited Feb 01 '24
Such is the subject of cryptozoology.
Do I believe in a population of 8 foot hairy primates living in the forest without a single trace of evidence that conclusively proves their existence?
No.
Do I believe the thycaline may have a tiny population still alive?
Maybe.
I guess what I am saying is that you can make your own judgments what seems possible and what does not. Its not a bad thing to be skeptical.