Guest ZeTomes Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) One thing is a description of something, which could be exageratd, missenterpreted, fictionized, another thing is the biological reality. Not so scarcely as one might think, there are species somewhere more stranger than we could ever imagine making the finnest hoax a bad blurry sketch. Believe it or not reality is more stranger than fiction. But there's this thing which seems to me a paradox or a contradiction. The weirdest already discovered species don't get the same attention as a criptid yet undiscovered species, even one with its sparkling properties lesser than a proved biological entity... I mean, there aren't that many books sparkling about giant squids, narvals, or transparent fishes... or people mating with a coelacanths. And, not so many entusiastic cryptozoology people know anything about these strange existing creatures, at least I don't see that emotion concerning that. And even more puzzling for me is balancing the notion of an autist science to cryptozoological matters, when in fact, the mere validation of these weird creature's existence proves the oposite. So, I propose the exposition of these already proved existent creatures and their correspondent analogies of its myths and folklore. I start with the barreleye fish c'mon, a fish with binocular eyes and a transparent head for enhanced periferic vision... who are you kiddin' with? Edited May 28, 2011 by ZeTomes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 You are right. There are many more bizarre creatures on this Earth than Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 There's nothing "impossible" about bigfoot as a biological creature; apes exist, and they can be bipedal. We know that, and there are examples of such creatures out there. The problem is with the evidence, which isn't doesn't add up to anyhting conclusive. Look at the discovery of the platypus: When the first pictures of them were sent to Europe, people assumed it was a taxidermist's joke, because of how impossible the creature seemed. Lo and behold, a body was sent to be studied, and it turned out the creature was real. It seemed unlikely that such a creature could exist, but it turns out that it does, and there's evidence to prove it. The same can't be said about bigfoot, which is (at least theoretically) a much more "normal" creature. That makes me think the premise of this thread is actually a bigger strike against the existence of bigfoot than for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) There's nothing "impossible" about bigfoot as a biological creature; apes exist, and they can be bipedal. We know that, and there are examples of such creatures out there. The problem is with the evidence, which isn't doesn't add up to anyhting conclusive. Look at the discovery of the platypus: When the first pictures of them were sent to Europe, people assumed it was a taxidermist's joke, because of how impossible the creature seemed. Lo and behold, a body was sent to be studied, and it turned out the creature was real. It seemed unlikely that such a creature could exist, but it turns out that it does, and there's evidence to prove it. The same can't be said about bigfoot, which is (at least theoretically) a much more "normal" creature. That makes me think the premise of this thread is actually a bigger strike against the existence of bigfoot than for it. Please, put some HD image of platypus and if you know any myth about it also, otherwize its only speculation. Thank you No, I want to separate facts from fiction and I'm pretending to compare myths of several creatures already proven existen. The title is a provocation for questioning (but as one cannot ammend his post past (x) times, I couldn't add the "" refering to impossible and not).Thanks for advising otherwize I wouldn't even notice I was missing the quotes (assuming the satire would get through without them). PS: don't consider a strike questioning, satire and skepticism, they are very valuable atributes to healthy believing. Prescription of Ze Tomes Edited May 28, 2011 by ZeTomes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 I pretend to put everyday a diferemt strange creature already proven existent. I invite you to put yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 You are right. There are many more bizarre creatures on this Earth than Bigfoot. But, just because there's an odd species of fish offers precisely no evidence of bigfoot's existence. This thread is fatally rooted in illogic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 But, just because there's an odd species of fish offers precisely no evidence of bigfoot's existence. This thread is fatally rooted in illogic. It's seems you "fallaciating" yourself (*from fallacy - one that uses fallacy to ilude himself from his own pseudo-arguments - my invention) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 There was actually another thread like this not too long ago. The OP listed all the new species discovered in 2010. One of those was a six foot + monitor lizard with a biforcated penis living on an a heavily populated Luzon island that is in the process of being deforested. Evidently this was not the only new monitor species found, there was much more diversity than expected. How did something that large remain hidden? The explanation given was that no one was looking for it and it lived up in the canopy.... http://news.discovery.com/animals/giant-monitor-lizard.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 There was actually another thread like this not too long ago. The OP listed all the new species discovered in 2010. One of those was a six foot + monitor lizard with a biforcated penis living on an a heavily populated Luzon island that is in the process of being deforested. Evidently this was not the only new monitor species found, there was much more diversity than expected. How did something that large remain hidden? The explanation given was that no one was looking for it and it lived up in the canopy.... http://news.discover...tor-lizard.html Thank you Jodie for sharing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 (edited) Common name: Snub-nosed monkey technical name: Rhinopithecus discovered: 1872 region: Asia > southern China (Tibet, Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou) / northern Vietnam and Myammar myths: possibly Sun Wukong (Monkey King) / several parts of its body are considered medicine therefore the possibility of extinction particularities: short stump of a nose on their round face, with nostrils arranged forward. C'mmon, the Grinch? how badly can you photoshoped this, it's obvious fake... golden fur and blue face like avatars? Star Wars ewok cousins? Go bulls... someone else. Tonkin snub-nosed langur Myanmar snub-nosed monkey Golden Snub Nosed Monkey Gray snub-nosed monkey Golden Snub Nosed Monkey Golden Snub Nosed Monkey Golden Snub Nosed Monkey Gray snub-nosed monkey Black snub-nosed monkey Edited May 29, 2011 by ZeTomes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Common name: Alligator gar technical name: Atractosteus spatula discovered: 1818 region: Alligator Gar are found in the Lower Mississippi River Valley and Gulf Coast states of the Southeastern United States and Mexico as far south as Veracruz, encompassing the following US states: Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Florida, and Georgia. myths: The Native American people once used the scales of this big fish to create weapons and armour. Scales taken from large Alligator gar are big enough to create arrowheads from and are tough enough to deflect an axe blow. The Native American people also used their scales to make beautiful jewellery. Couldn't find literature connected to. particularities: prehistoric fish, possibly linkinking transformation of fish to reptiles. Head similar to alligator. C'mmon, a big 2.50m freshwater fish with a head of a crocodile..., aham, an alligator, suggesting evolution really occurs by showing a midle stage between fish and reptiles...? Get a life, aye... 10 feet (3.0 m) alligator gar caught at Moon Lake, Mississippi in 1910 Alligator Gar Alligator Gar Edited May 31, 2011 by ZeTomes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 But, just because there's an odd species of fish offers precisely no evidence of bigfoot's existence. This thread is fatally rooted in illogic. Which is why the only thing I said was that there are more bizarre creatures on this Earth than Bigfoot. By no means do I suggest this makes the existence of Bigfoot more likely. It was a slightly sarcastic stab at the OP for lack of logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Which is why the only thing I said was that there are more bizarre creatures on this Earth than Bigfoot. By no means do I suggest this makes the existence of Bigfoot more likely. It was a slightly sarcastic stab at the OP for lack of logic. I wonder if those guys are football adicted, to pro-bigfoot or to anti-bigfoot. Let the guy alone, his being bothered since Patterson's video C'mon you guys can do better than this! By the way what does it mean OP? Any legend or myth connected with any of the creatures posted here? Links necessary. (share your strange creature with us so that we all be delighted) Edited May 31, 2011 by ZeTomes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Ze Tomes: OP is the "opening Post", the one that starts the discussion. So in theory, all subsequent discussion should follow from that posted statement or information. (Rarely, does) On this alligator gar, does that sucker eat people? Sure looks like it might. Also, great photos of the snub-nosed monkeys. I never realized there were so many variations. One of my favorite monkeys, those blue faced dolls. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Ze Tomes: OP is the "opening Post", the one that starts the discussion. So in theory, all subsequent discussion should follow from that posted statement or information. (Rarely, does) On this alligator gar, does that sucker eat people? Sure looks like it might. Also, great photos of the snub-nosed monkeys. I never realized there were so many variations. One of my favorite monkeys, those blue faced dolls. Bill Greetings Bill! I was suspecting that, thanks for the information It seems not, none human casualty was reported. It's more like a sporting hunting gourmet, because it's so difficult to catch, The snub nosed monkeys are really astonishing, and the more recently discovered, the Myanmar snub-nosed monkey. could be really in the basis of some local legends. Unfortunatelly I haven't been able to fiind any... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts