Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cryptid Talk
Options
-
28-06-2011 10:29pm#1
Comments
-
Awesome!
A thread on cryptids. Not that I am the biggest believer but its always good exercise for imagination. : >
The sabertoothed cryptids from South America are supossed to be either surviving Smilodon or Thylacosmilus (actually, there's a Primeval spin-off book that deals with this- the writer chose Thylacosmilus and had them be controlled via pheromones by an intelligent future bird that used them as hunting dogs... but this is another story XD)
They are reported from Colombia, Peru and Brazil and are said to be striped like tigers; funny thing is, in Africa they also talk a lot about sabertooths, and they are also said to be semiaquatic, attacking hippopotami and ambushing any hapless human who swims in their territory. There is cave art depicting these sabertooths both in Africa and South America (but don`t ask me for pictures of this cave art XD).
Until recently, I believe the only South American sabertoothed cat (machairodontine) was supossed to be Smilodon populator. A recent discovery proved that there was also Smilodon gracilis and a new species of Homotherium ("scimitar cat").
But the cryptids are said to have extremely long fangs, which fit Smilodon (or Thylacosmilus) better than short-fanged Homotherium.
The very large size fits Smilodon better than Thylacosmilus, tho. Also, if we consider that Smilodon is supossed to have outcompeted (and perhaps even hunted) Thylacosmilus to extinction, that means it would be much more likely for the cryptids to be Smilodon and not Thylacosmilus.
Of course, there is also the possibility of an unknown species yet to be discovered as a fossil...
In Africa, there are supossedly two kinds (at least) of sabertoothed cat. One of them is the Mountain Tiger, said to have red fur (although some are black, possibly melanistic), a very short tail or no tail at all, and very long canines. It is said to live in mountain areas and to attack domestic cattle, but some say it only slits the throat of goats and sheep without eating any of them. Instead, it seems to prefer wild antelope as prey.
There's even a report of a hunter who was hunting eland in Chad and when he was near a cave, he heard a howl unless anything he had ever heard in the bush; his tracker refused to go near the cave, saying that the animal making the sound was the sabertooth.
The interesting part is that in some parts of Africa, an animal identical to the Mountain Tiger is described, but said to be semiaquatic and to feed mostly on hippos.
In Congo, the same creature is called Coje Ya Menia, the water lion; it is once again said to hunt hippos. Here's a pretty cool depiction of the creature:Since Smilodon isn`t known from Africa, some believe the Mountain Tiger may be a surviving Megantereon (the supossed ancestor of Smilodon), a cat the size of a leopard or jaguar but with huge paws and claws the size of a lion's, and very long fangs.
The other possible sabertooth from Africa is the Nundu or Ngwa, from Tanzania, said to be the size of a donkey (!!!), with grey fur and long canines (described by some as "tusks"). The creature is said to be very different from leopards and tigers; even in the 20s-30s when many people was attacked by a mysterious beast, some victims had some fur clutched in their hands, as they had tried to avoid being killed; the fur was grey and when analyzed, it proved to belong neither to lions or leopards. Cryptozoologists often say the Nundu could be a Dinofelis (sabertoothed metailurine, a felid ironically more related to house cats than to Smilodon), while others say it may be Panthera crassidens, which could be described as a leopard the size of a lion (a big game hunter said once that if the leopard was the size of the lion, it would be ten times as dangerous...)
But as much as I love the idea of a giant leopard wreacking havoc (I think leopards are super-badass), the fact that the creature is said to have "tusks" and to be the size of a donkey makes me think of Homotherium, the scimitar cat. It lived in Africa, had short sabers and could be enormous; some fossils found in the North Sea suggest a weight of about 400 kgs, one of the largest cats of all times.
Homotherium0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59073
I'd put a low ball bet on thylacines
But not in Australia, rather on the Asian mainland or in New Guinea.
I suspect there are unknown cetaceans out there in the sea. Ditto for unknown sharks and the like. The sea, especially the deep sea is bound to be hiding things. Going down in those robot rovers is like dropping into a rainforest at night with a torch. You're not likely to see much.
"Wildmen?". Though I know a chap who claims he saw "bigfoot" I have my doubts about a north american great ape for all sorts of reasons. The Yeti? Again major doubts for all sorts of valid(to me) zoological reasons. A missing great ape in SE Asia? I'd have far more hope, especially about orang pendek or similar. I'm pretty sure as one can be about that one.
More recent fossil "cryptids" that may be extinct now, but survived much closer to today? I'd put a bet down on the eurasian mammoth survived until maybe 5000 years ago. I'd put a big bet down that Neanderthal hung on in isolated areas until around 15,000 years ago and ditto for Erectus(I'd be looking in Australia for the latter).Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
I'd put a low ball bet on thylacines
But not in Australia, rather on the Asian mainland or in New Guinea.
I suspect there are unknown cetaceans out there in the sea. Ditto for unknown sharks and the like. The sea, especially the deep sea is bound to be hiding things. Going down in those robot rovers is like dropping into a rainforest at night with a torch. You're not likely to see much.
"Wildmen?". Though I know a chap who claims he saw "bigfoot" I have my doubts about a north american great ape for all sorts of reasons. The Yeti? Again major doubts for all sorts of valid(to me) zoological reasons. A missing great ape in SE Asia? I'd have far more hope, especially about orang pendek or similar. I'm pretty sure as one can be about that one.
More recent fossil "cryptids" that may be extinct now, but survived much closer to today? I'd put a bet down on the eurasian mammoth survived until maybe 5000 years ago. I'd put a big bet down that Neanderthal hung on in isolated areas until around 15,000 years ago and ditto for Erectus(I'd be looking in Australia for the latter).
Erectus in Australia? Interesting... but there isn`t any evidence of it having reached Australia, right?
Beautiful thylacyne photo BTW.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59073
Maybe not directly but then again the possible results of Erectus in Crete shows seafaring. The "Hobbits" of Flores if confirmed defo shows that ability, so Australia is not that out there. It's harder to miss for a start.Erectus in Australia? Interesting... but there isn`t any evidence of it having reached Australia, right? If they themsleves didn't make it then possibly the results of interbreeding between late Erectus and Sapiens did and the results of that admixture went to Australia. The Kow swamp finds from around 10,000 BP are interesting and show some very archaic features. EG here's a cranium from one fella;
Here's another;
You may note how rotated his skull is. To make it more flat faced modern and to make it less archaic looking IMH Rotate it to the right and look at the lack of forehead and very heavy brow ridges for a 10,000 year old modern. The teeth are larger than average and the chin is lesser and the skull capacity is within modern ranges it's still on the low side. Though lets not worry too much about that if Flores man is confirmed and the average Neandertal lad and lass would have a hatter looking for a bigger tape measure. Brainsize =/= modern or intelliegent or at least its a very fine distinction. Anyway, these lads may date back to 20,000 years but still very odd features for a modern. Australia is interesting in that the very earliest folks look less archaic than some who came later and then go back to modern again with some showing what we think of as archaic features. More on this later. Clearly there were more than one wave of immigration into Australia as the dingo DNA dating would back up. They come later than the first Australians and while I have no issue with Erectus making ocean going rafts/boats, I do think Fido is out of the picture on this score.
It would be my take that the first moderns who ran along the coast from Africa reached Australia as essentially Africans. One can see their "footprint" in places like the Andaman Islanders and other so called "negrito" populations on such Asian coasts along the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negrito I strongly suspect if you met an original Australian he'd look like "African" to modern eyes. Then the next wave of humans out of Africa and the Levant went more inland to avoid already occupied territory and cos we can't resist the "I wonder what's over there Ted" and encountered the various(and I do reckon various) archaic humans who had previously thought similar and continued to evolve in inner Asia. And as folks will got busy around the campfire doing the dance sans pants, bringing the older local genetic lines into our own. The recent discovery of another non related human, the Denisovans that has left markers in modern populations bears this out for me. I am kinda smarmy on this score as I posited this wild notion before they were discoverd in this very forum. It's rare enough I can say Yay me! on clever stuff like this so feck off. I reckon there are more "Denisovans" out there contributing to the family that is us. Where would I be looking? Mongolia and it;s environs and northern India and its environs.
On the "archaic features" front, it has long been my take that one has to be very careful discussing archaic features and the like, because of a historical bias towards European - even the ancient Greek - ideal of the "perfect" face. Which tends to be very flat in profile, high of forehead, small of teeth, small of nose(but high of bridge) and pronounced of chin. A face which is very much the outlier in human evolution. It's a very Eurocentric view. Not unnaturally as the bulk of the published stuff is European in nature. Or American, but their academia or it's internal focus is European or was previously. Look at the recent Neandertal reconstructions. The square peg evidence does seem to be chamfered a bit into the existing round hole theory. Observe how "modern", IE like Europeans they started to look and act the more we as Europeans realised we had their blood in our veins. They were a lot more apelike when we thought they had nada to do with us. Do NOT get me started on the reconstructions of late... Anyway... Many Africans have more mid face projection. They would have larger noses in general compared to europeans and asians. So an African researcher might take a very different view as to what "archaic" means and how to discern it. Of all populations they'd be right to, given their genetic diversity shows them to be both the oldest Humans on earth and therefore the "most evolved". A chinese researcher coming from his or her viewpoint might conclude that the Euro model wasn't flat faced enough. Indeed many of the current and past Chinese researchers were very much on the multiregional and very local evolution of the modern Chinese population. The subject of this, an Australian researcher might conclude that they're more of a continuation than the side branches others followed. Well it would be a scientific conference I'd love to be a fly on the wall for. Still I do think the Kow swamp folks and others in the record do show some interesting features that may be telling an interesting story.
Most of all this stuff and the more discoveries we make show how bloody amazing we humans are. Past and present. We walked and swam and explored and conquered every environment we came to and still kept going and brought our very human stories along for the ride. We've done this for at least a million years. I'd love to have a Tardis and go back and sit an Erectus lad or lass down in front of a telly and show them Neil and Buzz and their journey and their first steps on the moon. They wouldnt grasp the enormity of the tech/magic involved but I'd put money they'd understand the reasons for it and if given the chance would strap on the spacesuit and dance on the moon themselves and probably try to knap a handaxe with the basalt they found there.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
I think cryptozoology is more or less a thought exercise like Adam suggested. There are doubtless many creatures left to be discovered but there is only so much scientific discussion that can be had about an animal whose existence is yet unconfirmed.
There are however some interesting ones...
As Adam pointed out there is the water tiger of south america the one of the reports states
"In 1975, a “mutant jaguar” with 12-inch fangs was shot in Paraguay. A zoologist named Juan Acavar examined it and suggested it might be a surviving Smilodon."
Then theres the water lion of africa which is featured in the following reports:
"In 1907, big-game hunter John Alfred Jordan took a shot at an animal with leopard’s spots and two large fangs along the Migori River, where it flows into Lake Victoria, Kenya. He also found clawed tracks the size of a hippo’s."
These reports although interesting have not got a huge amount of eyewitness evidence (which in itself isnt 100% accurate) to back them up.
There are more reports of a creature called the ropen which was sighted around certain areas of papua new guinea. When shown a book of dinosaurs locals consistently pick out a Pterosaur like creature. There are also several non native accounts which are interesting particularly those made by american GIs who were stationed on the island at several times and describe the creature as follows:
This was a pterosaur it had a bony crest on the head. Long jaws. Sharp teeth. Long neck. Leatherywings. Wingspan, 3–20 feet. Glowing underparts and a Long tail with diamond-shaped fringe.
Returning to south America we have reports of the Mapingaura in Brazil which according to well respected zoologist David oren is a ground sloth. He interviewed over a hundred different people both native and non-native who again consistently pick out a reconstruction of a ground sloth as the animal they have seen.
As regards megafauna living undiscovered in the sea that would be a near definate in my book. There are thousands of sighting of "sea serpants" made by some very credible witnesses and of particular interest is the creature that is known as Caddy which is said to inhabit cadboro bay. Caddy is described as having a long serpent like body, a head like a horse or camal and a long mane.
In 1937 whalers were disecting a baleen whale and discovered a strange carcass of the type that none of them recognised. They sent the carcass to a museum director in british columbia who without conducting a proper examination threw it out declaring it a fetal baleen whale. Now these men were professional whalers who had disected hundreds of dead whales. They knew what a fetal baleen whale looked like. Luckily the whalers took a picture as seen below.
Several scientists have described this as a new species and given it the name "Cadborosaurus willsi". This whole incident has made me personally feel the need to question the attitude of science when it comes to the unknown and it also made me realise that scientists sometimes exhibit bias like every other member of society.
As regards wildmen im sure they lasted long enough to have at least been remembered in myths and legends of native people as creatures such as the siberian Chuchunaa or the mongolian almasty.Neanderthal expert myra shackely Is certain these are relict neanderthals. Im not sure I give much creedence to the yeti for the simple reason that there is several different accounts of the creatures description not a consistent account. As regards the bigfoot creature I think several thousand sightings all describing the same apearance, behaviour and habitat can only point to the existence of an unknown ape I dont think all the people involved are part of a consiracy I dont think thats believable.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
steddyeddy wrote: »Apologies everyone the ten foot speciimen of whatever that creature is was actually taken from a sperm whale stomach. The diet of sperm whales dont normally include basking shark.
Ok, I don´t read much about cryptozoology, I was just giving my opinion. My mistake.
Could it be perhaps the remains of an oarfish? It is a deep water bony fish AND has been known to be preyed upon by sperm whales. It is also the only bony fish long enough to fit the remains...
Badly decayed oarfish remains, maybe?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Ok, I don´t read much about cryptozoology, I was just giving my opinion. My mistake.
Could it be perhaps the remains of an oarfish? It is a deep water bony fish AND has been known to be preyed upon by sperm whales. It is also the only bony fish long enough to fit the remains...
Badly decayed oarfish remains, maybe?
No need for apologies its my opinion thats "out there" not yours I was just saying why it most likely isnt a basking shark. The thing about cases like this and even eyewitness reports is that people like fishermen, hunters and native peoples often have too much doubt attached to their sightings or knowledge of native wildlife. These whalers disected hundreds of fetal whales from whale uteri and were familiar with the contents of the whales stomach. Particularly the stomach of a sperm whale which was caught more frequently than most. They didnt think it was anything that was known and I would be inclinded to believe them.
There is a chance it could be an oar fish a badly decayed one but an oarfish doesnt have the rear fluke like the one in the picture. Another thing that is interesting is that people who seen caddy say the thing in the photo is what they saw. The meusem director Francis kermode (many might have heard of him from his research into bears) thought it was a baleen whale fetus in part because of its rear fluke which an oarfish doesnt have. Ed bousfiled and paul leblond who are members of the royal society of Canada conclude that this is an unknown animal with a different method of propulsion than most known animals. In his words the long spine and rear tail fluke suggest an undulating method of propulsion reminiscent of some members of the pinniped family. The giant squid was first discovered in the stomach of the sperm whale and the whalers had indentified it as belonging to something that was unknown and they were dimissed and the discovery and classification of the giant squid was delayed.0 -
-
-
Exactly. The photo doesn´t show enough detail; what looks like a "head" at first glance doesn´t really have any details to make sure it IS the head. All I see is a long, twisted, poorly preserved piece of something.
I honestly don´t see any rear flukes... the photo is simply not good enough. Either that or I'm as blind as a bat.
The whalers and the muesum director both agreed on a pair of rear flippers and a pectoral fin. Anyway wheter or not we agree on this there are a lot of interesting reports of other creatures out there.
The loch ness monster is not one I subscribe to but im open to debate on it. Keeping with the theme of the forum there have been reports of dinosaur like creatures coming out of the amazon and congo for years although a lot of the eyewitnesses descriptions leave a lot to be desired and interestingly enough there were no reports (that im aware of) before images of dinosaurs were well known to the public.
One of the reports that is taken more seriously is the Emela-Ntouka which is describe as semi aqautic, having a large horn and a beak.
An interesting one is the mystery of lake champlain. Along with the usual eyewitness sightings there is also recordings of a creature using echolocation in the lake which is strange because there is not meant to be an animal in the lake that uses echolocation. Aswell as the above there is the famous photo seen below.
It was taken in the 70s and has been analysed and its not thought to have evidence of photographic trickery. Skeptics argue that the picture is of a whale in mid roll or a black man swimming.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »The whalers and the muesum director both agreed on a pair of rear flippers and a pectoral fin. Anyway wheter or not we agree on this there are a lot of interesting reports of other creatures out there.
The loch ness monster is not one I subscribe to but im open to debate on it. Keeping with the theme of the forum there have been reports of dinosaur like creatures coming out of the amazon and congo for years although a lot of the eyewitnesses descriptions leave a lot to be desired and interestingly enough there were no reports (that im aware of) before images of dinosaurs were well known to the public.
One of the reports that is taken more seriously is the Emela-Ntouka which is describe as semi aqautic, having a large horn and a beak.
An interesting one is the mystery of lake champlain. Along with the usual eyewitness sightings there is also recordings of a creature using echolocation in the lake which is strange because there is not meant to be an animal in the lake that uses echolocation. Aswell as the above there is the famous photo seen below.
It was taken in the 70s and has been analysed and its not thought to have evidence of photographic trickery. Skeptics argue that the picture is of a whale in mid roll or a black man swimming.
It doesn´t look like a whale at all...as for a black man swimming, where are the joints in his arm? Lol
This is one of my fave cryptid photos- I saw it first in a magazine about dinosaurs like, ages ago, it had a small article dedicated to cryptids and it spoke of Nessie and Champ among others.
But... I think its unlikely that such enormous animals survived for so long without leaving fossils or being photographed or recovered when dead by anyone. Maybe they came in to the present through anomalies, a la Primeval? 0 -
-
-
-
It doesn´t look like a whale at all...as for a black man swimming, where are the joints in his arm? Lol
This is one of my fave cryptid photos- I saw it first in a magazine about dinosaurs like, ages ago, it had a small article dedicated to cryptids and it spoke of Nessie and Champ among others.
But... I think its unlikely that such enormous animals survived for so long without leaving fossils or being photographed or recovered when dead by anyone. Maybe they came in to the present through anomalies, a la Primeval?
No it doesnt look like either your right there. It is an interesting photo and to describe it as a particular animal such as a plesiosaur would cost me any scientific credibility. I think you can either describe an animal as known or possibly unknown based on a photo. Saying that I dont know what is in the photo. I dont have a huge problem with unknown creatures in lakes based on how little we knew about this guy seen below.
This animal is described in an old cryptozoological book I have from the 60s
as being unlikely to exist because the lake is only 200 metres wide and 600 metres long and 2 metres deep at the most.
To recap they found a 200 kilo, 2 metre wide "legend" that was unlikely to exist in a lake measuring 200 metres wide and 600 metres long and only 2 metres deep a most. The lake is also located in the middle of hanoi, the capital city of vietnam. They dont know how many turtles are in the lake.
I think based on this I dont personally believe its impossible for large creatures to remain undetected for hundreds of years in a lake at least 200 metres across and 600 metres long. How could I?
Chmaplain could support an animal this size at least given that its over 200km long and 23km wide! Saying that we need more proof that something unknown exists in the lake. I cant explain the picture if its an animal and not a hoax I dont know what it is. What is harder to explain is the recording of echolocation from within the lake by the Fauna Communications Research Institute in 2003. The institute concluded the sound is most like an orca or beluga whale but it is not an known animal.
As regards the picture George Zug of the Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Vertebrate Zoology analysed the photo. Zug states that the creature in the photo does not resemble any creature or animal living in Lake Champlain.
What will settle these matters once and for all is a body or at least a good piece of video evidence like the one which confirmed the existence of a unknown creature in hoan kiem turtle in 1998.0 -
Advertisement
-
I never bought the famous Champ photo. As much as I want there to be plesiosaus living today, that could be anything.
As for dinosaur like creatures in the Congo, Mekele Membe(sp) is one of the most famous and is often attributed as to being a sauropod type dinosaur. It has been suggested (and I find this far more likely) that it is in fact a not yet described by science type of large monitor lizard with an uncharacteristically long neck. When you think about it, this big bugger survived unknown by science for many years in an area less populated by humans than the Congo. It's one of the cryptids I'm holding out for.
Well I never bought claims that the creature in the photo is a plesiosaur. We dont know what is in the photo it wouldnt be scientific to identify it as a species of animal without a body.
As reagards mokele mbembe being a moniter lizard its quite possible we only have stories about the creature and the occasional track attributed to the creature seen below
(looks more like a Rhino track in my eyes)
We also have a picture drawn by the locals
0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »Well I never bought claims that the creature in the photo is a plesiosaur. We dont know what is in the photo it wouldnt be scientific to identify it as a species of animal without a body.
As reagards mokele mbembe being a moniter lizard its quite possible we only have stories about the creature and the occasional track attributed to the creature seen below
(looks more like a Rhino track in my eyes)
We also have a picture drawn by the locals
I agree, the track looks like a rhino's. But... the picture below is very intriguing, assuming of course that it is real.
The creature has obvious toes, and very long ones at that. It fits Galvasean's idea of a long necked monitor lizard. It certainly doesn´t look like a sauropod as much as many books would have you believe. Sure, a surviving sauropod is much more interesting than a lizard, but let's get real... kinda XD
I was going to say that a monitor lizard also fits the idea of a water-based creature better than a sauropod, but truth is this would probably be an arrogant claim, as if we knew everything about sauropods. There were probably semi-aquatic sauropods in the Mesozoic and of course, if this was a surviving sauropod, it would have evolved for millions of years, so it would probably look and behave very differently from its prehistoric ancestors...
But I'm sticking to my idea of the giant turtle for now. I like the idea of the giant monitor lizard about the same, but that was Galvasean's idea so I should defend mine XD
I agree about the soft shell turtle; seen from a distance it would appear to lack a shell. Imagine something like this, only with a longer neck:
Seen from over the surface it would look little like what most of we would consider a normal turtle, and more like some weird, unknown creature.
Interestingly, Mokele Mbembe is often said to have a small horn or "tusk" projecting from its face. Could it be the elongated nose of a giant soft shell turtle?0 -
I agree, the track looks like a rhino's. But... the picture below is very intriguing, assuming of course that it is real.
The creature has obvious toes, and very long ones at that. It fits Galvasean's idea of a long necked monitor lizard. It certainly doesn´t look like a sauropod as much as many books would have you believe. Sure, a surviving sauropod is much more interesting than a lizard, but let's get real... kinda XD
I was going to say that a monitor lizard also fits the idea of a water-based creature better than a sauropod, but truth is this would probably be an arrogant claim, as if we knew everything about sauropods. There were probably semi-aquatic sauropods in the Mesozoic and of course, if this was a surviving sauropod, it would have evolved for millions of years, so it would probably look and behave very differently from its prehistoric ancestors...
But I'm sticking to my idea of the giant turtle for now. I like the idea of the giant monitor lizard about the same, but that was Galvasean's idea so I should defend mine XD
I agree about the soft shell turtle; seen from a distance it would appear to lack a shell. Imagine something like this, only with a longer neck:
Seen from over the surface it would look little like what most of we would consider a normal turtle, and more like some weird, unknown creature.
Interestingly, Mokele Mbembe is often said to have a small horn or "tusk" projecting from its face. Could it be the elongated nose of a giant soft shell turtle?
I know nothing of sauropod dinosaurs im afraid but the turtle and moniter lizard idea are both valid ideas. As wibbs says a soft shelled turtle looks different from a hard shelled one. The picture is interesting alright and the area is extremely remote so who knows what could be there. Indeed one hundred thousand Gorillas were found to be living in the congo basin that were unknown to science so anything is possible.0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »I know nothing of sauropod dinosaurs im afraid but the turtle and moniter lizard idea are both valid ideas. As wibbs says a soft shelled turtle looks different from a hard shelled one. The picture is interesting alright and the area is extremely remote so who knows what could be there. Indeed one hundred thousand Gorillas were found to be living in the congo basin that were unknown to science so anything is possible.
Right... I was checking Wikipedia (which I KNOW its not reliable sometimes but anyways...XD), it seems that there is a number of cryptids lurking in the Congo basin besides Mokele Mbembe and Emela Ntouka; there seems to be a stegosaur lookalike, a giant eagle, and (ready for this?) a giant turtle!
It is called Ndenki, and said to be a huge (ready again?) soft shelled turtle possibly belonging, or related to Trionyx triunguis, which is seemingly the only known giant turtle from the Congo Basin. Here's a pic of a dead Trionyx triunguis:
According to some, Ndenki could be explained by the sighting of particularly large specimens of T. triunguis.
My question is, could Ndenki and Mokele Mbembe be the same thing, or maybe relatives?
But the fact that the Ndenki is always described as a giant soft shell turtle whereas Mokele is held to be something completely different seems intriguing to me...0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-UACM_8q_QAdvertisement