South America is the world's 4th-largest continent in terms of land area. However, it has only the 5th-largest human population of all the continents on Earth. This means that there are still numerous wilderness regions on this amazing continent that are not yet explored, and might offer some incredible new zoological discoveries in the future.
All kinds of cryptids reportedly live on the South American continent. Among these are creatures which resemble dinosaurs. As I wrote about in my last post, one of these dinosaurs is a theropod-like beast which has occasionally been sighted in the deserts of northern Chile. However, there are also many other reports of dinosaur-like creatures coming from this area of the world.
Like the mokele-mbembe in Africa, a few people have reported seeing long-necked, herbivorous creatures resembling sauropod dinosaurs in the jungles of South America. For example, in 1946, a traveller named Leonard Clark was sailing up the Perene River in Peru, when he met several Indian tribes who told him stories about gigantic, long-necked plant-eating beasts which very closely resembled the sauropod dinosaur Diplodocus.
Also, on December 17, 1919, the infamous British explorer Colonel Percy Fawcett wrote a newspaper article about a close friend of his who had seen the head and neck of a creature resembling an Apatosaurus emerge from a river along the border between Brazil and Bolivia. After a while, the creature plunged back into the water, and disappeared. Col. Fawcett also claimed that his friend was a very honest man, and that he would not make up a story like this.
Most recently, in early 1995, a group of geology students studying quartz deposits in the Sinorca Mountains of eastern Brazil spotted two strange dinosaur-like creatures in the Paraguaca River. The eyewitnesses described both of the creatures as being around 30 feet long, with a very large and bulky body, a long neck that was about 6 feet long, and an 8-foot long tail.
In addition to what appear to be living dinosaurs, many other notable cryptids are also reported from the South American continent. Some of the most interesting are gigantic snakes reported from the rainforests of the Amazon. For the past 500 years, eyewitness accounts of enormous snakes similar to the anaconda have come from the Amazon. Once again, Colonel Percy Fawcett is involved in these stories, as well. In 1906, Fawcett wrote that he had shot an anaconda which measured about 19 meters (62 feet) from nose to tail. Immediately after Colonel Fawcett's story was published, it was ridiculed. However, many decades later, Belgian cryptozoologist Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans defended the veracity of the story. Heuvelmans argued that Fawcett's writing was usually honest and reliable, so there was no reason to doubt the integrity of this one.
Ever since then, numerous other people have also come forward with accounts of them seeing gigantic snakes in the Amazon rainforest. However, until now, no body has been found, which means that this remarkable creature still remains in the realm of cryptozoology, waiting to be discovered.
One more notable South American cryptid is the Mapinguari. This strange beast is a creature resembling a prehistoric ground sloth with red fur. It is reported to live in the Amazon rainforests of Brazil and Bolivia. There are many theories regarding the possible origins of the Mapinguari. Some dismiss it as pure myth, or as a folk memory of the giant megafauna that once existed in South America during the Pleistocene epoch. Other cryptozoologists have compared it to large, bipedal primates, such as the Sasquatch and the Yeti. Others think that it might be a relict population of ground sloths that survived extinction.
In any case, the Mapinguari is obviously a weird and fascinating beast, whatever it turns out to be.
These are just a few of the many amazing cryptids and unknown creatures reported from South America. In conclusion, South America is home to many remarkable cryptids, and it is an incredible place for cryptozoologists to investigate, in their search for new species.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The Living Dinosaurs of Northern Chile - Part 1
South America is home to many very unique cryptids. One of
these amazing creatures is a dinosaur-like beast that was seen numerous times
near the town of Arica, Chile in 2004.
The first sighting occurred at around 9:40 p.m on Thursday,
July 29, 2004. Dario Riquelme was driving a vehicle from Iquique to Arica.
Chilean Army official Hernan Cuevas, his wife, and his two young children were
with him in the car. The sighting took place about 17 kilometers South of
Arica.
Riquelme and the Cuevas family had left Iquique at about
6:00 p.m. They were only a few minutes away from arriving at Arica, when
something strange darted across the road in front of their car. Riquelme then
stopped the vehicle.
A few minutes later, a second one crossed the road. This
time, Hernan Cuevas and his 12-year-old daughter, Tania, could clearly see the
creature. They estimated that the creature’s height was around 2 meters.
Riquelme stated that the creature “looked just like a
dinosaur, walking on two legs”, and that it had “very large and noticeable
thighs”. He also described it as being “grey and hairless”.
Cuevas’ description of the creature was very similar to
Riquelme’s. 12-year-old Tania said that the creatures were very similar to
dinosaurs, and that they had relatively short arms.
All of the witnesses were amazed at how fast the creatures
crossed the road, and the length of the strides that they took as they walked
across. All of the witnesses have yet to find a satisfactory and logical
explanation for what they saw on that day.
In addition to this sighting, several other motorists have
also come forward to report encounters with strange creatures resembling
bipedal dinosaurs in late July 2004.
For example, about 2 weeks before this incident, the Abett de la Torre Diaz family also had a similar strange encounter of the cryptozoological kind. They were driving on the exact same road, at around the exact same time of day, when they had a similar sighting. This sighting apparently involved a group of 4 creatures.
At first, 2 creatures jumped over the car. Then, a few minutes later, 2 more creatures ran across the road in front of the car. The eyewitnesses described the creatures as "dog-faced kangaroos" which closely resembled "gargoyles". One eyewitness, Carmen Abett de la Torre Diaz, said that she wasn't sure if the creatures had wings or legs, but that the appendages were angled towards the back.
At first, the family kept their sighting a secret, in order to avoid humiliation and ridicule. However, after the Riquelme & Cuevas sighting was reported to the press, they decided to report theirs, as well.
For example, about 2 weeks before this incident, the Abett de la Torre Diaz family also had a similar strange encounter of the cryptozoological kind. They were driving on the exact same road, at around the exact same time of day, when they had a similar sighting. This sighting apparently involved a group of 4 creatures.
At first, 2 creatures jumped over the car. Then, a few minutes later, 2 more creatures ran across the road in front of the car. The eyewitnesses described the creatures as "dog-faced kangaroos" which closely resembled "gargoyles". One eyewitness, Carmen Abett de la Torre Diaz, said that she wasn't sure if the creatures had wings or legs, but that the appendages were angled towards the back.
At first, the family kept their sighting a secret, in order to avoid humiliation and ridicule. However, after the Riquelme & Cuevas sighting was reported to the press, they decided to report theirs, as well.
These sightings soon became so popular that, in 2009, the
Syfy show Destination Truth launched an expedition to search for these creatures. The team interviewed the local eyewitnesses, and talked to a paleontologist at the University of Tarapaca named Caodero Santoro. Santoro has been investigating accounts of these strange creatures for years, and he feels that a large predator could remain relatively undetected in the caves and canyons which dot the Atacama Desert, as long as there is vegetation, prey, and a source of water. Afterwards, the team went out into the desert, looking for evidence of this creature. However, their findings were inconclusive.
My hypothesis about these remarkable creatures is that they are not native to the Arica region. This is because they were only sighted for a brief 2-month period in 2004. I haven't heard of any other reported sightings either before or after. Also, there is probably not enough food and water in the Atacama Desert to support such large creatures. Therefore, what I think is that these cryptids probably live in the forests and canyons of northern Chile and southern Peru, and that a small population travelled to the Atacama desert of northern Chile in 2004. Afterwards, this population either died out, or moved on to someplace else.
When it comes to the identity of these animals, I cannot think of any other creature that would fit the bill besides a theropod dinosaur. The bipedal stance, the large, muscular thighs, the sharp teeth, and the reported speed and methods of locomotion remind me very strongly of these prehistoric creatures. I know that many people would consider this idea to be unlikely and somewhat far-fetched, but to me, it appears to be by far the most logical explanation.
As you can clearly see, South America is a very interesting place to visit, in pursuit of wonderful cryptozoological mysteries such as this. In my next post, I will write about some more South American cryptids. See you then.
My hypothesis about these remarkable creatures is that they are not native to the Arica region. This is because they were only sighted for a brief 2-month period in 2004. I haven't heard of any other reported sightings either before or after. Also, there is probably not enough food and water in the Atacama Desert to support such large creatures. Therefore, what I think is that these cryptids probably live in the forests and canyons of northern Chile and southern Peru, and that a small population travelled to the Atacama desert of northern Chile in 2004. Afterwards, this population either died out, or moved on to someplace else.
When it comes to the identity of these animals, I cannot think of any other creature that would fit the bill besides a theropod dinosaur. The bipedal stance, the large, muscular thighs, the sharp teeth, and the reported speed and methods of locomotion remind me very strongly of these prehistoric creatures. I know that many people would consider this idea to be unlikely and somewhat far-fetched, but to me, it appears to be by far the most logical explanation.
As you can clearly see, South America is a very interesting place to visit, in pursuit of wonderful cryptozoological mysteries such as this. In my next post, I will write about some more South American cryptids. See you then.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Science or Pseudoscience?
Many critics of cryptozoology often contend that it is a pseudoscience. A pseudoscience is a field of study that claims to be scientific, but the practitioners of that field do not use correct scientific methodology when they are conducting their research.
A good example of pseudoscience is creationism. This is because, ultimately, all scientific theories need to be falsifiable. And the claim that evolution is not true, and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, is simply not falsifiable. For example, some creationists might claim that the Devil planted fossils in the ground in order to test our faith. The problem with this claim is that there is no way of proving whether or not it is true. For example, God could have created the world 10 minutes ago, and left signs of it being far older than it really is, including false memories that he put inside of our brains. However, we quite simply have no way of testing the validity of this claim. Therefore, this claim is not a scientific hypothesis; It is, rather, a religious belief.
However, I am not, by any means, saying that science is somehow against, or at odds with, religion. Religion and science are 2 separate things, and there is nothing wrong with having religious beliefs. However, trying to scientifically prove that creationism is true is a pseudoscientific practice. Once again, this is because faith and belief are the providence of religion, while falsifiable theories obtained from experiments are the domain of science.
Another example of pseudoscience is ghost-hunting, and paranormal investigations. This is because science normally does not deal with the metaphysical, or the supernatural, since theories involving paranormal topics are usually not falsifiable.
However, there is nothing that is inherently pseudoscientific about cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is simply the search for new species. In fact, even a zoologist looking for a new species of insect can be said to be studying cryptozoology.
Therefore, in conclusion, if cryptozoology is practiced in a purely scientific manner, then it is definitely a valid science, and not a pseudoscience.
A good example of pseudoscience is creationism. This is because, ultimately, all scientific theories need to be falsifiable. And the claim that evolution is not true, and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, is simply not falsifiable. For example, some creationists might claim that the Devil planted fossils in the ground in order to test our faith. The problem with this claim is that there is no way of proving whether or not it is true. For example, God could have created the world 10 minutes ago, and left signs of it being far older than it really is, including false memories that he put inside of our brains. However, we quite simply have no way of testing the validity of this claim. Therefore, this claim is not a scientific hypothesis; It is, rather, a religious belief.
However, I am not, by any means, saying that science is somehow against, or at odds with, religion. Religion and science are 2 separate things, and there is nothing wrong with having religious beliefs. However, trying to scientifically prove that creationism is true is a pseudoscientific practice. Once again, this is because faith and belief are the providence of religion, while falsifiable theories obtained from experiments are the domain of science.
Another example of pseudoscience is ghost-hunting, and paranormal investigations. This is because science normally does not deal with the metaphysical, or the supernatural, since theories involving paranormal topics are usually not falsifiable.
However, there is nothing that is inherently pseudoscientific about cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is simply the search for new species. In fact, even a zoologist looking for a new species of insect can be said to be studying cryptozoology.
Therefore, in conclusion, if cryptozoology is practiced in a purely scientific manner, then it is definitely a valid science, and not a pseudoscience.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
What is Skepticism?
Skepticism means doubt, and it is one of the most important parts of the scientific method. However, most people are confused about what a skeptic really is, so I will now explain it in further detail.
A skeptic is somebody who examines something by asking questions and being curious. In other words, a skeptic is pretty much the same thing as a scientist.
I consider myself an open-minded skeptic, and so do many other cryptozoologists. However, what many people may be surprised to learn is that being a skeptic does not mean that you just automatically reject every claim that you hear. Indeed, doing so is the very opposite of skepticism! For example, if I tell somebody that I have just had a Bigfoot sighting, and they tell me that I couldn't possibly have seen one, because there is no such thing as Bigfoot, then they are not being skeptical at all. Instead, they are just denying that my sighting ever happened, before even bothering to take a look at my description first!
Indeed, it is my opinion that those people are not really skeptics at all, but are instead true believers, just like those who assert that every black dot on the water is Nessie, or every large furry creature is Bigfoot. They are not true skeptics. Not at all.
On this blog, I will examine any evidence or sightings that I might encounter from a skeptical, but open-minded, point-of-view.
A skeptic is somebody who examines something by asking questions and being curious. In other words, a skeptic is pretty much the same thing as a scientist.
I consider myself an open-minded skeptic, and so do many other cryptozoologists. However, what many people may be surprised to learn is that being a skeptic does not mean that you just automatically reject every claim that you hear. Indeed, doing so is the very opposite of skepticism! For example, if I tell somebody that I have just had a Bigfoot sighting, and they tell me that I couldn't possibly have seen one, because there is no such thing as Bigfoot, then they are not being skeptical at all. Instead, they are just denying that my sighting ever happened, before even bothering to take a look at my description first!
Indeed, it is my opinion that those people are not really skeptics at all, but are instead true believers, just like those who assert that every black dot on the water is Nessie, or every large furry creature is Bigfoot. They are not true skeptics. Not at all.
On this blog, I will examine any evidence or sightings that I might encounter from a skeptical, but open-minded, point-of-view.
The Scientific Study of Cryptids
If you've read my last post, you're probably wondering how cryptozoologists can approach their research in a more scientific manner. Well, in this post, I will try to explain that in a bit more detail.
First of all, the main problem that I have noticed with how many cryptozoologists conduct their research is the fact that they approach the situation from a biased perspective. In other words, they go out into the field and start searching for evidence to prove the existence of a particular cryptid. Well, that is not quite how real science works. It is my opinion that scientists should definitely try to be as objective and neutral as possible, when they are doing their research out in the field.
For instance, if I travel to Lake Champlain in order to investigate the claims that a large, unknown aquatic animal lives there, I should not try to search only for evidence supporting the existence of Champ. However, at the same time, I also should not try to search only for evidence against the existence of Champ, either. I should examine all of the available evidence, and then draw a conclusion based on my research, rather than on whatever pre-conceived notions I might have had before I arrived at the lake.
However, to be fair, it is not only the cryptozoologists who are guilty of conducting biased research. A lot of times, it is the debunkers who are not using the scientific method. I have often encountered people who automatically assert that a certain cryptid cannot possibly exist, even though they haven't even bothered to look at any of the evidence before drawing their conclusion.
In my opinion, both the true believers and the debunkers are guilty of not using the scientific method properly, in this case. When a good cryptozoologist goes out into the field, he/she should not arrive there with pre-conceived notions about the topic at hand. Instead, they should come there with an objective and open-minded attitude, and a willingness to discover new things.
First of all, the main problem that I have noticed with how many cryptozoologists conduct their research is the fact that they approach the situation from a biased perspective. In other words, they go out into the field and start searching for evidence to prove the existence of a particular cryptid. Well, that is not quite how real science works. It is my opinion that scientists should definitely try to be as objective and neutral as possible, when they are doing their research out in the field.
For instance, if I travel to Lake Champlain in order to investigate the claims that a large, unknown aquatic animal lives there, I should not try to search only for evidence supporting the existence of Champ. However, at the same time, I also should not try to search only for evidence against the existence of Champ, either. I should examine all of the available evidence, and then draw a conclusion based on my research, rather than on whatever pre-conceived notions I might have had before I arrived at the lake.
However, to be fair, it is not only the cryptozoologists who are guilty of conducting biased research. A lot of times, it is the debunkers who are not using the scientific method. I have often encountered people who automatically assert that a certain cryptid cannot possibly exist, even though they haven't even bothered to look at any of the evidence before drawing their conclusion.
In my opinion, both the true believers and the debunkers are guilty of not using the scientific method properly, in this case. When a good cryptozoologist goes out into the field, he/she should not arrive there with pre-conceived notions about the topic at hand. Instead, they should come there with an objective and open-minded attitude, and a willingness to discover new things.
What is Cryptozoology?
Cryptozoology is, simply put, the search for new species. More specifically, it is the study of creatures known as cryptids. A cryptid is a creature which might possibly exist, and which many people claim to have seen, but whose existence is not yet recognized by the majority of the scientific community.
The 3 most well-known cryptids among the general public are the Bigfoot, the Yeti, and the Loch Ness Monster. However, in reality, there are many more cryptids that are not as well-known as those three. A few examples include the Ogopogo, Champ, Yeren, Yowie, Orang Pendek, Milne, and the Dobhar-Chu. In addition to these, there are undoubtedly hundreds of more cryptids all around the world, just waiting to be discovered.
Cryptozoology is currently not an accepted branch of zoology, or a widely-recognized discipline of science. Indeed, many scientists think of it as being a pseudoscience, because they say that cryptozoologists do not use the scientific method. And, to to tell you the truth, I have to admit that those scientists are actually sort of right. You see, I think most cryptozoologists do not use the scientific method correctly. However, I know several that do.
The main reason why I started this blog is to spread the popularity of cryptozoology, in order for it to - hopefully- become more accepted by mainstream science one day. In other words, in this blog, I aim to show how cryptids can be studied correctly, by strictly adhering to the scientific method.
I will be writing more on this in the near future, so stay tuned! :-)
The 3 most well-known cryptids among the general public are the Bigfoot, the Yeti, and the Loch Ness Monster. However, in reality, there are many more cryptids that are not as well-known as those three. A few examples include the Ogopogo, Champ, Yeren, Yowie, Orang Pendek, Milne, and the Dobhar-Chu. In addition to these, there are undoubtedly hundreds of more cryptids all around the world, just waiting to be discovered.
Cryptozoology is currently not an accepted branch of zoology, or a widely-recognized discipline of science. Indeed, many scientists think of it as being a pseudoscience, because they say that cryptozoologists do not use the scientific method. And, to to tell you the truth, I have to admit that those scientists are actually sort of right. You see, I think most cryptozoologists do not use the scientific method correctly. However, I know several that do.
The main reason why I started this blog is to spread the popularity of cryptozoology, in order for it to - hopefully- become more accepted by mainstream science one day. In other words, in this blog, I aim to show how cryptids can be studied correctly, by strictly adhering to the scientific method.
I will be writing more on this in the near future, so stay tuned! :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)