Cryptozoology

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#21
ParkBoyz said:
Sea serpent? Plesiosaur? Name that Carcass!









"One of our readers, CryptoInformant, sent in a link to a website with photos that may, or may not, be an unexplained marine animal. The title of the page is "Sea Serpent? Plesiosaur?"

One day in June, about 1990, my friend Joanne Rauch and I hiked along the central Oregon coast at Cape Meares. We soon spotted a large object on the beach.

I took the pictures, but I can’t remember which camera I used at the time. I believe it was a Minolta 35mm point and shoot.

I paced the length of the "sea serpent" - 13 paces, approximately 33 feet since my pace at the time was a bit over 2.5 feet.

If the bent leg points to the head, the head was missing as far as I could tell, chewed or screwed off by a propeller, or perhaps rotted away.

Unfortunately, some liquid spilled on some of the pictures and efforts to clean them resulted in minimal damage. When that happened, I stopped my efforts to clean the photos. Somewhere in the house I have the negatives and when I get them, I’ll developed them and make better scans.

I called the Hatfield Marine Science center (Newport, OR) and described what we’d seen. Their best suggestion was that this is a gray whale, despite the tapering neck and tail. One woman suggested the bent flipper might be a grotesque penis. She didn’t see the pictures.

I’ve hiked the wilderness strip of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, a couple of hundred miles north of Cape Mears, and seen 4 dead gray whales over the years. None looked remotely like this-the grays don’t taper nearly so much at the tail and don’t taper at all at the head. The heads are massive.

What the heck is this thing???"

wow, if this is not a hoax it is a plesiosaur and nothing else

why didn't they call some expert to examine it?
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#22
^^I'm aware that the theory states evolution started long before the "Cambrian Explosion"; I'm referring to vertebrates in specific. And I can't refute it, but I can't say positively that no other body plans exist in some other species' that maybe we haven't discovered yet either. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And yea! That thing is weird, I have no idea if it's a hoax or not, but it looks like an authentic photo imo, but of course I'm not a photo analyst.. I wish they would of gotten it examined also.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#23
ParkBoyz said:
^^I'm aware that the theory states evolution started long before the "Cambrian Explosion"; I'm referring to vertebrates in specific. And I can't refute it, but I can't say positively that no other body plans exist in some other species' that maybe we haven't discovered yet either. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And yea! That thing is weird, I have no idea if it's a hoax or not, but it looks like an authentic photo imo, but of course I'm not a photo analyst.. I wish they would of gotten it examined also.
We're regularly finding new body plans - I gave you a list of the new phylla discovered in the last 50 years and there might be even more that I'm not aware of, but they are all small, the only really big and weird ones were Vestimentifera, but according to recent molecular data they and Pogonophora are actually polychaetes rather than separate phyla

What we certainly won't find is big macroscopic animal belonging to a new phylum or class; moreover, most of the creatures cryptozoology deals with fit very well into the current system of the animal kingdom
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#25
^^Propz

ThaG said:
We're regularly finding new body plans - I gave you a list of the new phylla discovered in the last 50 years and there might be even more that I'm not aware of, but they are all small, the only really big and weird ones were Vestimentifera, but according to recent molecular data they and Pogonophora are actually polychaetes rather than separate phyla

What we certainly won't find is big macroscopic animal belonging to a new phylum or class; moreover, most of the creatures cryptozoology deals with fit very well into the current system of the animal kingdom
I more or less agree with you though, I was just trying to keep an open mind. More than likely you're right...
 
Nov 16, 2004
849
26
0
#30
Y-S said:
how about we create a subforum in this GOM, as 'Cryptozoology'? That'd be interestin', would not it?
not it would

And do answer another question you made a topic about "Do any of you know what is this?" Is this what? lol just fuckin with ya.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
40
#31
^That would probably be a good idea, don't know if it'll happen though.

The Infamous Bigfoot Patterson-Gimlin film

The Patterson-Gimlin film is a short motion picture of an unidentified subject filmed on October 20, 1967 by Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin who claimed the film was a genuine recording of a Bigfoot. It has been hailed by some as genuine evidence for such a creature but by others to be a hoax.

The film has been subjected to many attempts to both debunk and authenticate. Some experts declared the film a hoax, showing a man in an ape suit. But some, such as physical anthropologist Grover Krantz, say the film depicts a genuine unknown creature. Others, such as ecologist Robert Michael Pyle, refuse to endorse the film as genuine, but Pyle also admitted that it "has never been convincingly debunked." (Pyle, 208)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film

Video:


Closer Look:
 

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#32
smeezy said:
not it would

And do answer another question you made a topic about "Do any of you know what is this?" Is this what? lol just fuckin with ya.
pfff lol

I say we make some changes in this forum - we should add up more subforums, like ''Cryptozoology', 'Events', 'Space Exploration', 'Religion' (since there's so many religion-related threads in here, isn't it?)

How about that? Nemo gotta hear that one!
 
Oct 14, 2004
2,782
0
0
46
#34
If you talk ocean life there is only so far we can go down. We dont what was here when God created this place. Good thread.
 

Y-S

Sicc OG
Dec 10, 2005
3,765
0
0
#36
MaKaVeLi_420 said:
^^i was just about to say that. I heard somewhere that we have only explored less than 1% of the ocean. pretty incredible......
Like I said before, more explorations is still needed in the oceans than in space

I bet you can find some more cities under them, you can disagree with me on that one if you want
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#37
MaKaVeLi_420 said:
^^i was just about to say that. I heard somewhere that we have only explored less than 1% of the ocean. pretty incredible......
the good news is that it's the most interesting 1% of it....

the ocean is much more homogenous than terrestrial habitats so we don't really need to explore 100% of it ;)
 
Dec 8, 2005
669
0
36
#38
ThaG said:
the good news is that it's the most interesting 1% of it....

the ocean is much more homogenous than terrestrial habitats so we don't really need to explore 100% of it ;)

you cant see what you cant see, i highly doubt we have seen the most interesting 1%, doesnt this thread evidence that?