The Sea Serpent of Nantucket

In August of 1937, Gilbert Manter reported seeing a sea monster 120 feet long in the waters off of Nantucket, Massachusetts.  There was a subsequent sighting and footprints were even discovered on the beach.

Eventually, the monster showed itself and was even photographed!

As it turns out though, the sightings and footprints had been part of a hoax --more like a practical joke or publicity stunt-- orchestrated by Tony Sarg and some other local residents.  Tony Sarg was a children's book illustrator who also designed animated window displays for Macy's Department Store in New York.  He also created the first hot air balloons for Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade -- a skill that came in handy when he orchestrated the sea serpent hoax.

The hoax didn't last long though.  The "monster" was eventually inflated on Coatue and could be seen from the harbor, and the following day it was inflated on the South Shore where it was visited by many residents.

It seems this hoax was just all in good fun.

See video footage of the event below.  See more photos here.



Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
H/T

A bear can do more than stand on it's hind legs

I'm not saying all bigfoot sightings are misidentified bears, but the video below shows that bears are capable of walking on their hind legs some.  And sitting in chairs.  And playing the trumpet.  And hula hooping.



The bear is so talented, I almost wondered if he/she was really just a person in an elaborate costume.  But I'm pretty sure it's a real bear.

Real Monsters...?

The popular educational YouTube channel Vsauce2 did an episode on mythological monsters.  Some you've heard of, like werewolves and vampires, and some you might not have heard of, such as the encantado or vinegaroon.

A former cryptid finally caught on tape

We've known about the existence of the giant squid for a while, but until now, no one had filmed a living one it in its natural habitat.  Check it out below!

What if Bigfoot didn't need a significant breeding population?

For those with an interest in cryptozoology and Bigfoot (a.k.a. Sasquatch or Yeti), there are various theories out there as to what Bigfoot might be.  One theory is they may simply be an unidentified upright walking ape.  Another is they may be ape/human hybrids, or even just another tribe of humanity that has kept themselves hidden from the rest of us.  Some think they may be interdimensional beings or even visiting aliens.  And, of course, there are many that are skeptical of their existence at all, assuming the stories are just made up, hallucinations, or misidentifications.

We don't know much about interdimensional realities, if they even exist at all, and the idea that they may be interdimensional beings seems far-fetched...at least within our current level of knowledge.  There's little evidence that they are alien visitors either, besides circumstantial evidence that some sightings of Bigfoot have corresponded with sightings of UFOs.  And if they are simply living flesh and blood beings, then it is assumed they would need a significant breeding population to be able to sustain themselves as a species...and if a significant breeding population is needed, then skeptics question why they remain so elusive.

But what if they didn't need a significant breeding population?  Would they even need to breed at all if say, they were....immortal?

Immortal?  You think that sounds pretty far-fetched?  Yeah...actually, I guess it is pretty far-fetched.  But maybe we could consider that they live incredibly long lives and have trait known as negligible senescence (also see this cool video about aging).  Senescence is the process of becoming old.  But there are some organisms that exhibit negligible senescence, meaning they don't appear to age after their initial development into adulthood (or more specifically, they don't lose reproductive ability or have a measurable functional decline with age).  Hydras are even thought to be biologically immortal, meaning it's thought they only die due to injury or disease, and not through deterioration with age.  Lobsters also appear to exhibit negligible senescence and may even be capable of living indefinitely, barring injury, disease, or capture.  The tortoise is also known for long lifespans.  Some plants are known for longevity too, like the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine.  The Methuselah tree is estimated to be over 4700 years old.

So what if Bigfoot existed and exhibited negligible senescence?  What if they could live indefinitely...barring injury, disease, or capture?  If they were a community of biological immortals, perhaps reproduction would be limited or even unnecessary, and maybe they would choose to avoid us because it would put them at risk of being injured or captured?  So what if instead of needing a significant breeding population to sustain their existence, theres actually just a few hundred of them around the world total, and they are the same ones people have been seeing for many years?

Ok, so maybe the idea that Bigfoot could be biologically immortal still sounds far-fetched.  But what about the possibility that they just live exceptionally long lives?  What if the average lifespan was 1000 years and they rarely reproduced?  It could still explain why they are so rarely seen.

But then again, there's all those other theories mentioned above too.  And, of course, it's also possible that they really just don't exist at all.

Why are so many potentially paranormal videos still out of focus?

So I came across a purported video of a wooly mammoth today -- an animal that is supposedly extinct.  The report came from The Sun in the UK (not to be confused with the US supermarket tabloid simply called Sun).



Ok...so I guess it could kind of look like a wooly mammoth, but it is so out of focus, it could also simply be an elephant.  Another theory is that it is a bear with a fish hanging out of it's mouth...which is most likely what it really is (or CGI).

I just don't get why whenever something like this pops up, it's almost always out of focus. I can kind of understand some UFOs being out of focus because they tend be so far away, but video recording technology has progressed enough that I would think it should be easy enough for most people to take videos that are actually in focus. Even a lot of cell phone video cameras can take clear video..particularly the high end smart phone models. So why is the internet still getting out of focus paranormal videos?

But then again, if a video of a bear carrying a fish in its mouth was actually clear and in focus...I guess it wouldn't have been newsworthy, would it?  Maybe that's why paranormal videos are so often out of focus...out of focus videos are the only ones people misidentify as paranormal.

Cryptid Misidentifications

As I was out walking earlier, I saw a crane (the bird species, not the machine of the same name) fly by near a pond.  It's not the first time I've seen a crane in this area, and it might be the same one I've seen before.

But, even though I've seen a crane around here before, I don't see one very often.  Today when I saw it, I considered that its body type resembles drawings I have seen of certain types of pterosaurs (except the crane had feathers, of course).  I wondered if maybe people who had claimed to see a pterosaur or something like a pterosaur could have misidentified a large crane.

But I didn't wonder about it for too long.  I can't dismiss the possibility that someone might have misidentified a crane as a pterosaur, but I think it's rather unlikely.  When I saw the crane today, it was instantly obvious to me that it was a crane.  Even if it had been twice or even three times the distance away from me that it was, I'm sure I would have still known it was a crane.  Even if it had been so far away that I had to squint to see it and still couldn't quite make it out, my first assumption would have still been a crane or some other type of large bird, not a pterosaur.

I googled 'pterodactyl misidentifications', and it seems that fruit bats are a common suggestion for what alleged pterosaur sightings might be.  One article I found said that large fruit bats can have a pterosaur-like profile when seen in silhouette, especially to 'nonscientific observers', as if to suggest that identifying a bat required at least a masters degree in zoology or something.  I mean, come on, most people know what a bat looks like.  A lot of the pterosaur and thunderbird sightings I have read about - credible or not - described something larger than a fruit bat.  And I think if I were to see a larged winged animal flying around at night, my first guess would be a bat or an owl of some sort - not a pterosaur.  It would have to be exceptionally large before I would even start considering the possibility that it was some sort of pterosaur or thunderbird.  But hey, that's just me.

And what about these skeptics who suggest that bigfoot sightings are bear misidentifications?  I guess I can see the possibility of some sightings being bear misidentifications - assuming that the bear was seen from the back and only at a distance and the witness got scared and ran away in the other direction without investigating any further.  But when people describe seeing humanlike faces, how can that be confused with a bear?  And what of the size and body type?  Skeptics like using bears as examples because bears can stand on their hind legs, but bears have long torsos and short legs - they still don't look humanlike even when standing on their hind legs.

And it's not like people don't know what bears look like.  Even someone who has lived in a city or the suburbs all their life with no interest in hunting or camping knows what bears look like.  Some of the people who have claimed to have seen a bigfoot are outdoorsmen who are familiar with the area they sighted it at and the wildlife that is normally seen in the area.  So what are the odds that they would misidentify a bear as a bigfoot?

I realize there are some people out there who may be overly-anxious to believe in bigfoot and let their imagination get the best of them, but is that really what most people would do?  Wouldn't most people be able to recognize a bear when they saw one - even at a far away distance?  And I could be wrong, but even if they saw a bear at a far away distance and couldn't tell for sure what it was, wouldn't most people be likely to assume it was bear anyways?  Wouldn't most people be more likely to assume what they are seeing is something normal and common?

But like I said, I could be wrong; maybe most people wouldn't assume it was a bear.  Maybe most people do have the vivid imaginations the skeptics accuse them of having.

And here's another thought - wouldn't it be ironic if someone misidentified a bigfoot as a bear?

J

Dragons and Dinosaurs

Dragons are a creature that feature in the stories and mythologies of various cultures around the world.  They're mentioned in the Bible and ancient middle eastern stories, they feature prominently in east Asian traditions, and have also featured in ancient and medieval European folk tales.  The east Asians typically depict dragons as large snake-like creatures, while the Europeans typically depict them as sauropod-like creatures, oftentimes with wings.  While dragons may be depicted somewhat differently in different cultures, it seems that giant reptilian creatures of some sort feature in stories from all around the world.

So where did all these people get these ideas about giant reptiles?  The study of Paleontology has only been around since the 19th century, but people have been finding dinosaur fossils for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.  Could the stories of dragons have been developed by people who found dinosaur fossils?  If so, the next question in my mind would be how did they know the fossils were reptilian?  If they had never seen large reptiles before, what would make them think the fossils belonged to reptiles?  Even if someone in ancient times had found an intact skeleton of a sauropod, what about it would indicate to them it was a reptile instead of some bizarre cross between a giraffe and an elephant?

Some people point to the Ica stones as evidence that some dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as humans.  The Ica stones also depict scenes that appear to show men looking through telescopes, performing open heart surgery, and performing cesarean section births.  These stones are generally believed to be a hoax not only because of what they depict, but because one man who sold the stones claimed he had been carving them himself (Although it's been claimed that he confessed to carving them to avoid jail time, because if they were legitimate artifacts, they would be the property of the government, and therefore, illegal to sell.).

But the Ica stones are not the only depictions of dinosaur-like creatures from the past.

An ancient Greek mosaic known as the Nile mosaic of Palestrina depicts what looks like some sort of dinosaur like creature.

The temple of Ankor Wat in Cambodia has a depiction of what has been alleged to be a hippo with a lotus flower behind it.

It also looks a little bit like a stegosaurus.  I don't know if it is a stegosaurus, but I don't think it looks like a lotus flower and hippo either (tail looks to long to be a hippo to me).

A figurine found in Anatolia also bears a modest resemblance to a stegosaurus:

It might not be a stegosaurus, but it's hard to tell exactly what it is supposed to be after a few thousand years of weathering.

People argue over what these ancient artworks depict, but what about the depictions of dragons themselves?  Regardless of how you spin it, dragons resemble dinosaurs.  Any single depiction of a dragon might not match up exactly with any single known type of dinosaur, but there is no denying the obvious similarities.  I think it's also important to note that dinosaur skeletons are rarely ever found completely intact.  Modern depictions of dinosaurs are artists interpretations based partially on fossil evidence, and partially on guesswork.  With that in mind, there may be even more similarities than previously thought.

So where did the ancients come up with their ideas of dragons?  Are they the result of some ancient psychic having visions of the earth's distant past?  Or could people have seen 'ghosts' of dinosaurs, like a type of residual haunting?  Or could it be that ancient people found dinosaur skeletons and tried to visualize what they may have looked like (much like how modern artists try to visualize what they looked like based on scientific descriptions)?  Or is it just a mere coincidence that depictions of dragons just so happen to resemble depictions of dinosaurs?  Or could it be that humans and some dinosaurs did coexist at the same time?

Some people think that dinosaurs and humans not only coexisted at the same time, but that certain types of dinosaurs still exist today.  Some people have speculated that the Loch Ness monster and Champ may be plesiosaurs.  Chessie of the Chesapeake Bay is said to be a long serpent like creature, which some some have speculated might be a zeuglodon.

Of course, it's not known whether those sea serpents actually exist, much less if they are dinosaurs that survived extinction.  However, stories of dinosaurs surviving extinction are not limited to aquatic dinosaurs.  The Mokele-mbembe is allegedly a type of sauropod that lives in remote areas of the Congo today.  The term Mokele-mbembe translates to "one who stops the flow of water," because apparently the Mokele-mbembe is so large it can get into a river and stop the flow of water.   A handful of westerners have claimed to see the animal, and when locals of the region are shown pictures of animals known to exist in the region, they are able to identify them; when they are shown animals not native to the region, they draw a blank; when shown pictures of sauropods, they identify them as Mokele-mbembe (Although, according to the Wikipedia entry on the subject, a BBC documentary interviewed some tribe members who identified the Mokele-mbembe as a rhinoceros.  So I guess it may depend on which local you ask).  And it is not a situation where they are confusing the picture of a sauropod with a smaller sized reptile, because they are clear that the Mokele-mbembe is very large, and the name itself suggests that it is very large.

So what are the odds that some large sauropods could have survived extinction and still roam the earth in remote areas?  I don't know what the odds are, but it may be important to emphasize that the regions these animals supposedly inhabit are very remote.  We may have satellites and have charted the whole planet, but there are still plenty of places in the world that are rarely visited by people.  There are monuments in the Amazon that modern archaeologists have not excavated (not yet, anyway).  It's known that these monuments are there because they can be seen from an airplane.  But those monuments stay still.  They don't go anywhere.  A 'Mokele-mbembe' - whatever it is - can move around. So while there may be satellite images of the Congo and western investigators may have traipsed through the jungles at various times, the entire Congo is not under constant surveillance.  

Some people have also claimed to see pterosaurs flying through the sky.  There are also stories of flying serpents, which may or may not fit the description of what a dragon is.  A sighting of a flying serpent isn't necessarily paranormal though, as is it known that some snakes have the ability to glide through the air.  However, I doubt a small snake gliding through the air would be mistaken for a large dragon.

So is it possible that some dinosaurs survived extinction and still exist today?  Well, it's not only possible, it's true.  For anyone who doesn't believe that, I would recommend you go to the local zoo and look for an animal known as the 'crocodile'.  Crocodiles walked the earth with the Tyranosaurus Rex, and they still walk the earth today.  The Tuatara lizard also walked with dinosaurs.  Turtles lived with dinosaurs.  The coelacanth was once thought to be a prehistoric fish that had gone extinct, that is, until they found some living ones.  Certain types of insects, such as a grasshoppers and cockroaches, walked with dinosaurs too.  All of these animals look the same now as they did in the past.  All of these animals survived the dinosaur extinction.  Bugs, turtles, fish, and small lizards might not be dinosaurs, but crocodiles are.  Crocodiles are not the largest type of dinosaur, nor are they the smallest.  They are dinosaurs in every sense of the word.  They not only lived at the same time T-Rex's lived, but they are clearly large reptiles.  If you factor in their aggressive nature, the term 'terrible lizard' (which, of course, is what the word 'dinosaur' means) could be a fitting description.

So if crocodiles still exist, why not another type of dinosaur?  Could dinosaurs be the inspiration for dragons?  Could the dragons that the Chinese people revere have been some type of dinosaur that their ancestors had seen?  Could a dinosaur sighting have turned into a local tradition, which in turn spread to other communities, which eventually lead to a widespread tradition? Could a similar sighting somewhere else have produced similar results in other cultures around the world?

Something to ponder, I suppose.

Paranormal Hotspot: Mount Shasta

Photo by Bill Gracey.

On a whim, you decide you want to take a vacation and go on a multi-faceted paranormal investigation.  You want to investigate bigfoot, ghosts, aliens, UFOs, lost civilizations, mysterious ancient legends, and some sort of new agey beliefs too. But you just don't have the time and resources to visit the Pacific Northwest, the Myrtles Plantation, Roswell, Rendlesham Forest, Akrotiri, Teotihuacan, and Stonehenge.  So what are you to do?  Go to Mount Shasta of course!

The area around Mt. Shasta, CA has been inhabited for thousands of years.  The peak the city is named after has long been viewed as a sacred place to Native American tribes in the area.  It was thought that the mountain was the center of creation, and the Great Spirit created it by pushing ice and snow through a hole from heaven and then using the mountain to step onto the earth.  It was also thought that the Great Spirit, known as Skell, dwelled on the mountain after creation.  It even has a story of a great flood attached to it.

New Age groups have regarded the mountain as a sacred location as well.  It's been claimed that beneath the mountain is a very ancient city called Telos, which is allegedly where people from the ancient lost continent of Lemuria (a.k.a. Mu) settled after Lemuria was destroyed.  Allegedly, they continue to live beneath the mountain in a utopian like civilization.  Sometimes it's claimed they are physical people, sometimes it's claimed they dwell on a different plane of existence, perhaps as 4th or 5th dimensional entities (4th dimensional denoting a higher awareness of spirituality/consciousness, 5th dimensional meaning a non-physical intelligent entity).  The story of Telos actually comes from a fictional novel called A Dweller on Two Planets that was written in 1800s by Frederick Spencer Oliver.  It was thought that the author must have 'channeled' the story because he was only 17 and the depth of the topics covered seem to be beyond what a 17 year old of the time would have been capable of writing.  Decades later in the 1930s, the secret society known as the Rosicrucians would popularize the belief that advanced Lemurians lived beneath Mount Shasta.

Native American legends and New Age beliefs aside, there are many reports of strange phenomena occurring at Mount Shasta.

-Bigfoot has been sighted there. Link
-Ghosts have been sighted there. Link
-UFOs have been sighted there. Link Link 2 Link 3 (Update 11/16/12: Original Link 2 no longer worked so I replaced it with a new link I found and added a third link)

In addition to claims that Mount Shasta is an entrance to the hollow earth, it's also been claimed that there is an underground military base there.  Even Batsquatch has been sighted there!  Interestingly, Batsquatch is a creature allegedly sighted around Mount St. Helens, a stratovolcano.  Mt. Shasta is a stratovolcano also.

There's a lot stories regarding paranormal phenomena on Mt. Shasta, however it's hard to find a lot of good, credible research regarding those stories.  Some of the stories are probably fictional or fabricated, some of them may be misidentifications, others may be exaggerated.  However, despite some of the stories being questionable, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that Mt. Shasta is indeed a mysterious place.  Whether it's ghosts, legends, UFOs, or cryptozoology, a paranormal researcher can probably find something of interest to study at Mt. Shasta.  It seems to be quite the 'paranormal hotspot'.