The Energon Pub

I was watching a program on the History channel yesterday about deep sea monsters, and it got my interest up a little again. I've never looked into cryptozoological creatures in depth before, but they've always fascinated me. What's your take on them? Anyone ever actually encountered one?

I personally think there are creatures out there that we have not found that do exist. I would love for the Loch Ness Monster to be real, cause I still have a love for dinosaurs. It would also be cool if the Mothman(the closest alleged creature to me, though I've never been to Point Pleasent), just because I would like West Virginia to have a little higher status.

it's plausible, the coelacanth was thought to be extinct yet was discovered to be real. Loch Ness not so much since alot of the loch is devoid of life there aren't many plants let alone fish to support a creature of that size. Champ the monster of lake Champlain is more likely. Jersey Devil and Mothman im not sure about, may have been a case of mistaken identity. Sasquatch may be possible since there were giant apes in North America at one point but still there would be more signs pointing to it's existance such as territorial markers, droppings etc.

Always loved the subject of Cryptozoology, and I don't look down on those who pursue it as a profession; the way I see it, someone has too. It's like being a professional editor - you spend your life looking for things others may have missed.

Nessie I don't believe so much, and Sasquatch I'm finding harder and harder to buy. If we're talking about a really primitive anthropoid, I don't think they would do such a good job of hiding from us. If they're a really advanced anthropoid, one would expect us to have had more territorial conflicts with them... Too many assumptions are required to explain why no one has even found a body yet.

Still, the Yeti, the deep sea creatures, the Amazon critters, and some of the African beasts I still wouldn't entirely discount. I think Africa in particular has myths describing creatures that sound like conventional sauropods and ceratopsians. Could be the myths were started by the discovery of a fossil, but...

As for Chupacabra... The part of me that wrote a short story about it almost wants it to be true, but I don't really think it is - although I don't have an alternative explanation for the bizarre livestock killings.

I think they could be out there, but I don't think about it too often.

Cryptozoology? YAY!! I mean, yes, entirely plausible.

Most of these stories are not possible. How could there be a whole species of underwater dinosaurs living in a lake and never be as prominent as the ants on the ground?


However some of these legends could easily be real or rare animals mistaken for the creatures. My buddy swears Bigfoot is some kind of ground sloth, and why not? People in the city don't realize just how much uninhabited forest land there actually is in North America. And 90% of Canada's population lives within 10 miles of the US border.

Also, they found a mutated wolf that was killing chickens and it looked just like the chupacabra.


Cryptozoology is a fascinating field, but it's not science the way actual biology and zoology is, no matter how empiracal you get about it. It's more along the lines of detective work.

It's a good hobby and whatnot, until you start "believing in" dragons and werewolves and all manner of mythological creatures. A line needs to drawn somewhere.

Caelus wrote:and Sasquatch I'm finding harder and harder to buy. If we're talking about a really primitive anthropoid, I don't think they would do such a good job of hiding from us. If they're a really advanced anthropoid, one would expect us to have had more territorial conflicts with them... Too many assumptions are required to explain why no one has even found a body yet..

You've brought up a few good points here.But there are some pretty eazy explaination for two of them.

Caelus wrote:As for Chupacabra... The part of me that wrote a short story about it almost wants it to be true, but I don't really think it is - although I don't have an alternative explanation for the bizarre livestock killings.

They do think they've found this one.DNA tests are pending.

Dark Zarak wrote:Most of these stories are not possible. How could there be a whole species of underwater dinosaurs living in a lake and never be as prominent as the ants on the ground?

Your thinking to big.....they may be only just a few hundred left.There are other sea life that were thought to be exstinked that were rediscovered within the last 100 years.

Dark Zarak wrote:However some of these legends could easily be real or rare animals mistaken for the creatures. My buddy swears Bigfoot is some kind of ground sloth, and why not? People in the city don't realize just how much uninhabited forest land there actually is in North America. And 90% of Canada's population lives within 10 miles of the US border..

Good theroy...I have not thought of that one.

Dark Zarak wrote:Also, they found a mutated wolf that was killing chickens and it looked just like the chupacabra..

There still not sure what it is the DNA test have not come back yet.....but it looks nothing like what people have described.

cryptozoology's cool, but i personally take it with a grain of salt. i'm sure there are scientific explanations if ever these strange creatures exist, but until science (or cryptozoology) manages to provide explanation or even confirm the existence of one, i'll just treat it as fiction - works to be enjoyed but not taken seriously.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Most of these stories are not possible. How could there be a whole species of underwater dinosaurs living in a lake and never be as prominent as the ants on the ground?

Your thinking to big.....they may be only just a few hundred left.There are other sea life that were thought to be exstinked that were rediscovered within the last 100 years.

In a lake? A few hundred dinosaurs? In a lake? Dinosaurs? Dude, it's silly.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:However some of these legends could easily be real or rare animals mistaken for the creatures. My buddy swears Bigfoot is some kind of ground sloth, and why not? People in the city don't realize just how much uninhabited forest land there actually is in North America. And 90% of Canada's population lives within 10 miles of the US border..

Good theroy...I have not thought of that one.

I grew up in the mountains. I lived on the edge of a huge forest for my entire childhood. Let me tell you, that **** goes on for a long time.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Also, they found a mutated wolf that was killing chickens and it looked just like the chupacabra..

There still not sure what it is the DNA test have not come back yet.....but it looks nothing like what people have described.

I thought they said it looks like that legendary monster. Which would explain how the legend came about. Another wolf sometime in the past mutated in a similar way and also killed a bunch of chickens. Now we have the same thing happening. I've seen a picture of it. It was on the front page of yahoo in those featured screencaps. It was an ugly black dog thing with no hair.

Dark Zarak wrote:Cryptozoology is a fascinating field, but it's not science the way actual biology and zoology is, no matter how empiracal you get about it. It's more along the lines of detective work.

It's a good hobby and whatnot, until you start "believing in" dragons and werewolves and all manner of mythological creatures. A line needs to drawn somewhere.

This is pretty much all that needs to be said about the overall credibility of the subject. It's great fun but not actual science.

Dark Zarak wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Most of these stories are not possible. How could there be a whole species of underwater dinosaurs living in a lake and never be as prominent as the ants on the ground?

Your thinking to big.....they may be only just a few hundred left.There are other sea life that were thought to be exstinked that were rediscovered within the last 100 years.

In a lake? A few hundred dinosaurs? In a lake? Dinosaurs? Dude, it's silly.

Not all dinosaurs were huge, some were as big as chickens and smaller!
It could be a whole new species.


I believe in a lot of things, and since I'm the big foot, well now you know that one is true!

I believe the most undiscovered life will be in really big forests and the ocean, that's my two cents.

Well every time someone takes a trip into the Congo, they end up discovering like 200 new species.

So, creatures listed under cryptozoology(some of em anyway) are a possibility. Like the Mokele Mbembe could be alive living in the Congo. Since that seems to be the only area that hasn't changed since dinosaurs were around.

zemper wrote:cryptozoology's cool, but i personally take it with a grain of salt. i'm sure there are scientific explanations if ever these strange creatures exist, but until science (or cryptozoology) manages to provide explanation or even confirm the existence of one, i'll just treat it as fiction - works to be enjoyed but not taken seriously.

Well then today is the day your lucky day........On September 30, 2004 researchers from the National Science Museum of Japan and the Ogasawara Whale Watching Association took the first images of a live Giant Squid in its natural habitat...the Giant Squid was preveuslt considered a myth. The platypus, giant squid, mountain gorilla, grizzly-polar bear hybrid and Komodo dragon are but a few creatures whose existence was denied by reputable scientists, who often refused to consider the evidence seriously and have all be found to exsist within the last 100 years or so.There are many more exsamples but I'm too tired to post them all.

There will still be plenty of unknown species knockin around, and not just tiny brown bugs. I would think most larger land animals would have been found by now, so no Yeti or dragons or nothin, but saying that, the Okapi was only found in the early 1900's I think? That Congo dinosaur thing, I highly doubt thats real...

Deep sea things, im still waiting for something super ace to be found on a dive, theres bound to be something wacky just waiting to be discovered.

This does not mean Nessie is real. It's too cold in Loch Ness for any reptile, theres not enough food, the place has been pinged to death with no results and come on, they need a whole load of these things to breed, they would have found one by now if there was any.


Also, people best not discover something that looks kind of like a mythological creature and name it after said creature. Like when they found that Kraken, we all knew there were giant squid, dosnt make it a fully fledged Kraken though.

Dark Zarak wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Most of these stories are not possible. How could there be a whole species of underwater dinosaurs living in a lake and never be as prominent as the ants on the ground?

Your thinking to big.....they may be only just a few hundred left.There are other sea life that were thought to be exstinked that were rediscovered within the last 100 years.

In a lake? A few hundred dinosaurs? In a lake? .

? Dude, it's silly..[/quote]

I wouldnt expect them to live in any of the lakes they've been reported to be seen in....some of lakes do open into larger bodys of water it is posible that these "Dinosaurs" as you called them are migrating trew the areas that they've been seen at.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Also, they found a mutated wolf that was killing chickens and it looked just like the chupacabra..

There still not sure what it is the DNA test have not come back yet.....but it looks nothing like what people have described.

I thought they said it looks like that legendary monster. Which would explain how the legend came about. Another wolf sometime in the past mutated in a similar way and also killed a bunch of chickens. Now we have the same thing happening. I've seen a picture of it. It was on the front page of yahoo in those featured screencaps. It was an ugly black dog thing with no hair.[/quote]

I've seen the pic's of what was caught and it does look like a cross of hairless fox and a kangaroo but it doesnt look very much like whats been reported over the years.Chupa is one of my fav on the topic of Cryptozoology ,it the only one that originated in Puerto Rico and thats where I'm from.Here are some artist redisions on what it may look like from eyewitness reports.

Here are some 3D rendering on Chupa.

This is what they caught and think is Chupa.It really doest look like whats been reported but thats not really say much....eyewitness reports are often innacurate.

That's just a manky wolf/dog. Or someone shaved it.

Tangent wrote:That's just a manky wolf/dog. Or someone shaved it.

You may be right.........we'll have to wait on the DNA test to be sure.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tangent wrote:That's just a manky wolf/dog. Or someone shaved it.

You may be right.........we'll have to wait on the DNA test to be sure.

How long does a DNA test normally take? It's been a fair while since they found it right?

I always wonder what cyptids would be related to. Like this one, it would be a canid right?

Tangent wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tangent wrote:That's just a manky wolf/dog. Or someone shaved it.

You may be right.........we'll have to wait on the DNA test to be sure.

How long does a DNA test normally take? It's been a fair while since they found it right?

I always wonder what cyptids would be related to. Like this one, it would be a canid right?

The one their doing the test on was only caught around the begining of September.And the amount of time it takes for a DNA test to come back depends on two factors....weter its a court case and who's paying for the test.I know that the a DNA test done on blood samples from a Big foot sighting last year took almost 9 months to come back.DNA test on the "Hobit" skeletel remains took about 2 years.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tangent wrote:That's just a manky wolf/dog. Or someone shaved it.

You may be right.........we'll have to wait on the DNA test to be sure.

How long does a DNA test normally take? It's been a fair while since they found it right?

I always wonder what cyptids would be related to. Like this one, it would be a canid right?

The one their doing the test on was only caught around the begining of September.And the amount of time it takes for a DNA test to come back depends on two factors....weter its a court case and who's paying for the test.I know that the a DNA test done on blood samples from a Big foot sighting last year took almost 9 months to come back.DNA test on the "Hobit" skeletel remains took about 2 years.

Awww, that is just too long! I will have forgoten all about it by then...Oh well, maybe there will be something else fun found in the meantime to keep me interested.

Tangent wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Tangent wrote:That's just a manky wolf/dog. Or someone shaved it.

You may be right.........we'll have to wait on the DNA test to be sure.

How long does a DNA test normally take? It's been a fair while since they found it right?

I always wonder what cyptids would be related to. Like this one, it would be a canid right?

The one their doing the test on was only caught around the begining of September.And the amount of time it takes for a DNA test to come back depends on two factors....weter its a court case and who's paying for the test.I know that the a DNA test done on blood samples from a Big foot sighting last year took almost 9 months to come back.DNA test on the "Hobit" skeletel remains took about 2 years.

Awww, that is just too long! I will have forgoten all about it by then...Oh well, maybe there will be something else fun found in the meantime to keep me interested.

Maybe some UFO's or USO's????????

I just read that the original Bigfoot video is 40 years old today. I can't believe how we all still debate whether it's real or not after all these years.