99% Sure Sasquatches Do Not Exist

[Guest Jodie]

Using this logic I guess Trolls and Fairies are real since the natives of Norway and Iceland have reported seeing them for thousands of years.....

They were misidentified Sasquatch and aliens.

[Guest exnihilo]

It is interesting that objections to accepting reports from Pliny’s legendary menagerie as sufficient for the purposes of modern taxonomy are classified as über-pedantic, while Linneaus’ inclusion of a subhuman species in his taxonomic tome – the standard by which ‘described [by science]’ was set – is regarded as an embarrassing example of scientific credulity. The journalism of the past two centuries is rife with descriptions of BF-like ‘wild-men’ – on what basis is this regarded as clearly less credible than Pliny’s collection of dragons and basilisks? If Pliny is to be trusted, one day we may witness Saskeptic mounted in armor on the back of a dragon, flying forth to edit the unruly archives of the BFRO with a few well-placed jets of dragon-flame.

And perhaps we may legitimately marvel at those who object to the concept of a “discovered cryptid†on the apparent basis that a cryptid, once discovered, cannot be considered to ever have been a cryptid at all. While this formula does present significant obstacles to comparing the unknown and scoffed at with the known and formerly scoffed at, I am not sure that those obstacles amount to much more than a slightly obtuse method of begging the question.

Your honor.

[Guest]

It is interesting that objections to accepting reports from Pliny’s legendary menagerie as sufficient for the purposes of modern taxonomy are classified as über-pedantic, while Linneaus’ inclusion of a subhuman species in his taxonomic tome – the standard by which ‘described [by science]’ was set – is regarded as an embarrassing example of scientific credulity.

And the evidence that Linnaeus or anyone else had actually examined a physical specimen of said subhuman would be what, exactly? Pliny provides measurements of his giant squid. That's why I lend credence to the publication. The information suggests that he personally examined the creature of which he wrote.

Meanwhile, you keep missing the more important part where I keep offering to ignore ancient descriptions of giant squid and spot you 19 centuries with which to make your case that giant squid qualify as cryptids that had been discovered. By all means, provide us a list of references demonstrating the ostracism that 17th and 18th Century cryptozoologists experienced for expressing their interest in searching for giant squid, before Steenstrup came along to save the day for the squiddy faithful. If you're going to stick to a demonstrably false example of a cryptid in giant squid, at least have the decency to make your case that the species fits your own peculiar definition of what a cryptid is. We could pretend that giant squid had never been described until 2005 - you still have not provided any evidence that the species would fit your criterion of spawning ostracism for those scientists who risked their careers to look for it.

I've given multiple examples of cryptids that meet my criteria (and the logical part of yours), e.g., bigfoot, almas, yeti, orang pendek, yowie, yeren, mokele-mbembe, "Nessie," "Champ," "Ogopogo", and other lake monsters, chupacabra, thunderbirds, pterosaurs, etc. All of these are creatures that people claim to encounter yet for which no physical evidence has been brought forth to confirm their existence. I even add to this list known species that are now extinct, but that people continue to report while science can't seem to verify it: thylacine, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, etc. I consider all of these to be cryptids, and if one was discovered tomorrow, it would be an example of a cryptid that had been discovered. It wouldn't cease to have been a cryptid because it was now discovered; that's an absurd tautology.

We could be having a far more interesting discussion right now if you were willing to have one that actually addressed your own criteria for cryptids. You seem instead interested in digging an ever-deeper hole for yourself. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Guest MikeG]

I've given multiple examples of cryptids that meet my criteria (and the logical part of yours), e.g.,..........mokele-mbembe, .........

Did you miss my earlier post? (Number 212)

Sorry to drag just one tiny thing out of your whole long post, but this is one thing that I do know something about. I may well be the only person on the forum who has crossed what was then Zaiire (where Mokele-mbembe lived) overland, so I have taken an interest in this for a while. Apologies also for taking this thread slightly off-topic.

It is pretty likely that the creature referred to as mokole-mbembe (in one local language....there are around 900 languages in the DRC) is actually a ............

Mike

Mike

[Guest]

Speaking of boats, and giant squids, and leaving scientists of the time out of the equation- giant squids and other (now) known sea creatures certainly do meet the definition of "cryptid" as they for centuries were known as "giant menacing sea creatures"- including some whales, octopus, and giant squid. Of course this was before they became commonplace and "known" to science and the World. The only one's who witnessed them, were those who ventured out too Sea.

If someone came back from a trip at sea with tales of an eight legged creature with eyes the size of dinner plates- many of the time would have looked at them as if they were bonkers..

Sort of the same kind of look that those discussing their Bigfoot encounters get today....

Hmmm....

Art

[Guest]

Speaking of boats, and giant squids, and leaving scientists of the time out of the equation- giant squids and other (now) known sea creatures certainly do meet the definition of "cryptid" as they for centuries were known as "giant menacing sea creatures"- including some whales, octopus, and giant squid. Of course this was before they became commonplace and "known" to science and the World. The only one's who witnessed them, were those who ventured out too Sea.

If someone came back from a trip at sea with tales of an eight legged creature with eyes the size of dinner plates- many of the time would have looked at them as if they were bonkers..

Sort of the same kind of look that those discussing their Bigfoot encounters get today....

Hmmm....

Art

Well said, plus one.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

That's a good point, Art. The info was there though. I think one of the big differences is, not too many people back then knew what science was or were paying attention to it. Unlike today and unlike this forum. ... ...

I believe it was scientist numero uno, Aristotle that realized since whales give birth to live young, they are not fish. That's pretty good for that long ago. I couldn't find it on Wiki to back it up, so I might be wrong about that. I see your Pliney point, exnihilo. Aristotle was off a little with a few things too. He thought that since mountains are above the heavier earth element that they must be made of air and fire. Again, didn't see it on Wiki and recalling info from junior high is not my strong suit.

[Guest exnihilo]

The main problem with Aristotle being called a scientist is that he preferred the analytic to the empirical when developing his account of the world.

[Guest]

Speaking of boats, and giant squids, and leaving scientists of the time out of the equation- giant squids and other (now) known sea creatures certainly do meet the definition of "cryptid" as they for centuries were known as "giant menacing sea creatures"- including some whales, octopus, and giant squid.

But they WERE KNOWN (i.e., not just legends) as early as Aristotle. Giant squid, whales, etc. have been found washed up on beaches for as long as people have been hanging around beaches. There were physical remains that people collected, examined, and wrote about.

Both Exnihilo and I have offered definitions of "cryptid" for which a key component is "reportedly encountered by people but undescribed by science." That's where we agree on the definition. If there had been centuries of reports without description by science then we would have potential justification to consider giant squid to be cryptids. We have, however, the opposite: descriptions by ancient scientists that pre-date a good bit of the "sea monster" stories. Even if we push the date up and consider Linnaeus to be the beginning of real biological inventory that was considered by "scientific communities", we have Steenstrup publishing on giant squid in the 1850s.

Where is this long history of encounters that predates the collection and description of physical evidence? Where is the evidence of scientists ostracized for studying giant squid without specimens in the 100 years or so between Linnaeus and Steenstrup?

(edit - dup post)

Did you miss my earlier post? (Number 212)

Nope, but I might've missed if you asked for a specific reply.

The anecdote that some indigenous people identified a rhino photo as mokele mbembe is well known, but it certainly has not lain the myth to rest. I'm sure some forest elephant sightings spawned stories too. Check out the Wikipedia page for a chronological list of expeditions to the region, all without so much as a decent photograph. I read one of Mackal's books on the subject many years ago - it's cool stuff. Mokele mbembe meets my criteria for a cryptid in that it's reportedly encountered by people, but we have no physical evidence to confirm its existence.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Saskeptic

[Guest exnihilo]

Saskeptic, I've been weighing a number of ways to respond to your earlier post, but rather than fully developing them at present let me offer the key allegation: that despite your protests to the contrary, I believe that you have defined cryptid in a way that inextricably depends on whether it was later described by science. For example, to avoid the label "cryptid" you affirm early descriptions of squid based on their agreement with science's later knowledge. To avoid wasting a lot of time wrangling through recriminations, I think it would behoove our efforts if you would clarify your remarks or otherwise demonstrate my error.

[Guest]

. . . I think it would behoove our efforts if you would clarify your remarks or otherwise demonstrate my error.

Am I on Punk'd or something? Where's Ashton hiding? Dude, seriously.

Hint: see post #207 and actually read it this time.

As for this gem:

" . . . that despite your protests to the contrary, I believe that you have defined cryptid in a way that inextricably depends on whether it was later described by science."

Wrong again, Keebler, unless you think the multiple examples of cryptids I've repeatedly offered have been described by science and the rest of us missed the memo. Of course, it doesn't matter what I write, because despite my protests to the contrary your beliefs about my positions are predetermined.

[Guest exnihilo]

Saskeptic, it is clear that you are begging the question. This is because you have expressly excluded any creature that is now known to science from the category "cryptid," even when considered prior to their discovery. In effect, you have defined cryptid as that category of creature that presents NO legitimate reason to suspect that they exist. And I've seen enough of your writing through the years to know that if eyewitness reports or physical evidence of BF are introduced as a counter-point, you will categorically deny that any of it could be considered "legitimate" for one spurious reason or another. The fact is, even though you may find evidence to be suspect in some way, that does not mean that it does not exist. That just means that it's controversial, and if it's controversial it can be debated, and the debate can be legitimate. So the distinction between those that scoffed at the giant squid and those that scoff at BF is simply one of degree.

[Guest]

Saskeptic, it is clear that you are begging the question. This is because you have expressly excluded any creature that is now known to science from the category "cryptid," even when considered prior to their discovery.

If I had done that you would be correct, but I have not, so you are incorrect.

Given that I explained that I am happy to consider many different species as cryptids - even one on which you are fixated but refuse to provide evidence that it matches your own definition - I am left to conclude that you are attempting to cast me as a liar, which I'm told is against Forum rules.

In effect, you have defined cryptid as that category of creature that presents NO legitimate reason to suspect that they exist.

Wrong again. My definition is your definition, minus all the silly "ostracism" stuff you've claimed but for which you have not provided a shred of evidence. In fact, I listed Ivory-billed Woodpecker on my list of cryptids, and I suspect that they do exist.

Why are you making up things that are not my position, claiming them as my position, and then rebuking me for them?

And I've seen enough of your writing through the years to know that if eyewitness reports or physical evidence of BF are introduced as a counter-point, you will categorically deny that any of it could be considered "legitimate" for one spurious reason or another.

You may have seen it, but it does not appear that you have actually read any of it. You seem, for example, unaware of my multiple public statements that "I don't know" is the most responsible position for the vast majority of anecdotal encounters. I have written this many times on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0. Also, I have always included "real, live bigfoot" or something to that effect in my list of potential explanations for those encounters.

I can't tell if you are confusing me with someone else, if you have a significant reading comprehension deficit, or if you're intentionally waging a misinformation campaign against me. Whatever the explanation, it's lame, and you're really not presenting yourself in the best light.

So the distinction between those that scoffed at the giant squid . . .

And "those" would be whom, exactly? Can you provide any examples of scientists scoffing at those who attempted to study giant squid in the period, say, between 1750 and 1850? I'm giving you 100 years of history to make your case. Can you at least provide support for half of your own definition of cryptid?

(edit: dup.)

Edited December 21, 2011 by Saskeptic

[Guest exnihilo]

[under construction]

[Guest]

Speaking of boats, and giant squids, and leaving scientists of the time out of the equation- giant squids and other (now) known sea creatures certainly do meet the definition of "cryptid" as they for centuries were known as "giant menacing sea creatures"- including some whales, octopus, and giant squid. Of course this was before they became commonplace and "known" to science and the World. The only one's who witnessed them, were those who ventured out too Sea.

If someone came back from a trip at sea with tales of an eight legged creature with eyes the size of dinner plates- many of the time would have looked at them as if they were bonkers..

Sort of the same kind of look that those discussing their Bigfoot encounters get today....

Hmmm....

Art

Kinda like this?.............