Topic: Holy fucking ****! Mothman Prophecies 2012!

[BranDonk Kong]

Check this **** out!

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't believe its real, and here is why: If someone could get close enough and have enough time to get such an amazing shot of it then they would have also had ample time to capture it as well.

[ShyGuy]

Indrid Cold lives

[Chozo Ghost]

Indrid Cold lives

You Rang?

[Caliban]

It's a moth.

[Oblivion]

I don't believe its real, and here is why: If someone could get close enough and have enough time to get such an amazing shot of it then they would have also had ample time to capture it as well.

Nope. Ever seen pictures of wasps and ****? They don't capture those.

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't believe its real, and here is why: If someone could get close enough and have enough time to get such an amazing shot of it then they would have also had ample time to capture it as well.

Nope. Ever seen pictures of wasps and ****? They don't capture those.

I think you're missing my point. People don't capture wasps because they don't need to. They are common...  Something like this looks like it came from the imagination of Jim Henson while on LSD. If you were close enough to something this bizarre why wouldn't you capture it so you could prove it was real? You would have both fame and mucho dinero.

[Oblivion]

Is that the only picture they took? I figured they'd take more than one. Or maybe a video.

[Ian Sane]

If I saw something weird and I had a camera, I would probably take a picture first if I could.  Catching a flying insect is hard and if it flew away I'd have nothing, not even a picture.  I would go for the picture first and then maybe try to catch it.  Maybe that's what happened.

I would be less likely to buy this if it was some well-known cryptid like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.  In those cases people are trying to find footage and have any obvious incentive to fake something for publicity.  This looks more like "holy ****!  Look at that weird bug!"

[Chozo Ghost]

Speaking of Bigfoot, people often complain about how the pictures are always blurry, out of focus, poor quality, etc. But there are some really good Bigfoot pictures out there.

Like this, for example.



This was taken in florida, and its not out of focus or distant. You can see its an ape or something ape like. It could be hoax, but if it is a hoax a good deal of effort went into it. Its not your run of the mill bigfoot photo... you can actually see its face.

[Ian Sane]

Regarding Bigfoot, the Patterson-Gimlin film is a really clear shot of either a walking ape or some guy in an ape costume.  But that isn't some "squint and maybe it looks like something" shot.  It's clear as day.  The debate is entirely if the film was staged and faked but the footage is really good.

The Loch Ness Monster however is pretty much been proven as a complete hoax.  The whole thing started based on a photo that was later proven to be faked.

[ShyGuy]

Sea Serpent!

[Louieturkey]

I don't believe its real, and here is why: If someone could get close enough and have enough time to get such an amazing shot of it then they would have also had ample time to capture it as well.

Nope. Ever seen pictures of wasps and ****? They don't capture those.

I think you're missing my point. People don't capture wasps because they don't need to. They are common...  Something like this looks like it came from the imagination of Jim Henson while on LSD. If you were close enough to something this bizarre why wouldn't you capture it so you could prove it was real? You would have both fame and mucho dinero.

You realize there are camera lenses that can take that good of pictures from far away right?  20 feet away can be an amazing shot and if the cameraman is good enough, they can get a shot like that.

[Chozo Ghost]

Regarding Bigfoot, the Patterson-Gimlin film is a really clear shot of either a walking ape or some guy in an ape costume.  But that isn't some "squint and maybe it looks like something" shot.  It's clear as day.  The debate is entirely if the film was staged and faked but the footage is really good.

The interesting thing about the Patterson-Gimlin film was it was filmed back in the late 1960s which was exactly the same period of time that the Planet of the Apes films were made. If you've ever watched the planet of the apes movies, you can see how horrible the costumes are, but this was state of the art for hollywood special effects at the time. So if the Patterson film was a hoax, it is a very impressive one because it is far superior to what even hollywood could pull off in those days.

The Loch Ness Monster however is pretty much been proven as a complete hoax.  The whole thing started based on a photo that was later proven to be faked.

I agree. There is 99.9% certainty that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, because the whole entirety of the Loch has been methodically swept over with Sonar trying to find it. If there was anything as large as Nessie supposedly is, those sonar sweeps would have found it for sure.

Another issue is that Loch Ness is almost completely devoid of fish, so what would an animal that large eat? There isn't much food there. The waters are also very cold, which a reptile such as a plesiosaur wouldn't be able to survive in.

However, some have argued that Nessie is an apparition or something like that instead of a living animal. I guess if that's the case it would explain why the sonar wouldn't have detected it. Its definitely not a living plesiosaur, but it might be the lingering ghost of one that had lived millions of years ago and just never "passed over" for whatever reason.

Aside from that, its probably just a combination of hoaxes and known animals like seals and fish and so on.

[Ian Sane]

Regarding Bigfoot, the Patterson-Gimlin film is a really clear shot of either a walking ape or some guy in an ape costume.  But that isn't some "squint and maybe it looks like something" shot.  It's clear as day.  The debate is entirely if the film was staged and faked but the footage is really good.

The interesting thing about the Patterson-Gimlin film was it was filmed back in the late 1960s which was exactly the same period of time that the Planet of the Apes films were made. If you've ever watched the planet of the apes movies, you can see how horrible the costumes are, but this was state of the art for hollywood special effects at the time. So if the Patterson film was a hoax, it is a very impressive one because it is far superior to what even hollywood could pull off in those days.

The complexity of any costume needed to pull off that footage, combined with the existence of multiple apeman myths in a different cultures (ie: Yeti), is enough to make me very open-minded to the possibility of Bigfoot's existence.  Something like a plesiosaur ghost is a little too fantastic for me to even consider it, but why couldn't there be an undiscovered primate out there that walks on its hind legs?

[Stogi]

Because we would have kill it.

[Chozo Ghost]

The complexity of any costume needed to pull off that footage, combined with the existence of multiple apeman myths in a different cultures (ie: Yeti), is enough to make me very open-minded to the possibility of Bigfoot's existence.  Something like a plesiosaur ghost is a little too fantastic for me to even consider it, but why couldn't there be an undiscovered primate out there that walks on its hind legs?

A really good reason to believe in the possibility of Bigfoot is that a creature exactly like Bigfoot is known to have existed in China about 100,000 years ago. It was called Gigatopithecus and it walked on two legs and it was about 10ft tall. We know such a creature existed because we've uncovered the bones of it in caves, and the Chinese have been finding and grinding up those bones for thousands of years and using them as folk medicine.

So even if Bigfoot doesn't exist today, we can at least say something EXACTLY like it did exist at one time because we have the bones that prove it. And even though these bones were found way over in China, why couldn't such a creature have crossed over the Bering land bridge during the ice age just like the native americans did? I think its very plausible.

Even if Bigfoot is extinct today it might have survived long enough to have become part of the native American legends about Sasquatch. There has to be a reason why the Native Americans have these legends. There are no known apes of any kind indigenous to the western hemisphere, so why would Native Americans know to make apes on their totem poles and describe them in their legends? You can only describe something if you've actually seen it.

And as for the Yeti in particular, the Himalayas where it is reported to be located is right about exactly where Gigantopithecus once lived. The ancient Chinese probably wiped it out in China proper, but in the remoteness of the Himalayas a few of them might have survived, and might still survive to this day. Why doubt it? We have the Gigantopithecus bones, so we know something more or less identical to a Yeti lived at one time in roughly the same area where the sightings are being reported today.

[TJ Spyke]

But native americans came over about 40,000 years after Gigatopithecus became extinct. I don't believe that anything like bigfoot exists today and won't believe until there is credible evidence.

[Chozo Ghost]

But native americans came over about 40,000 years after Gigatopithecus became extinct.

Assuming it did become extinct. So far we haven't discovered any Gigantopithecus bones younger than about 100,000 years ago, but that doesn't mean that's when it became extinct. That's just the newest bones we've discovered. As I said, the Chinese have been grinding them up and using them in folk medicine for thousands of years (they believe they are dragon bones), so we don't really have a lot of bone specimens to go by.

TJ, there is a fish called the Coelacanth that people thought had become extinct millions of years ago, but then in the 1930s someone discovered it being sold in a fish market in Africa. So it goes to show that things we think became extinct a long time ago might really not be extinct after all. This might be the case with Gigantopithecus.

[TJ Spyke]

But there is a difference between a fish that live mostly in caves; and a 10 foot tall, 1200 pound ape. I get your point though.

[tendoboy1984]

The complexity of any costume needed to pull off that footage, combined with the existence of multiple apeman myths in a different cultures (ie: Yeti), is enough to make me very open-minded to the possibility of Bigfoot's existence.  Something like a plesiosaur ghost is a little too fantastic for me to even consider it, but why couldn't there be an undiscovered primate out there that walks on its hind legs?

A really good reason to believe in the possibility of Bigfoot is that a creature exactly like Bigfoot is known to have existed in China about 100,000 years ago. It was called Gigatopithecus and it walked on two legs and it was about 10ft tall. We know such a creature existed because we've uncovered the bones of it in caves, and the Chinese have been finding and grinding up those bones for thousands of years and using them as folk medicine.

So even if Bigfoot doesn't exist today, we can at least say something EXACTLY like it did exist at one time because we have the bones that prove it. And even though these bones were found way over in China, why couldn't such a creature have crossed over the Bering land bridge during the ice age just like the native americans did? I think its very plausible.

Even if Bigfoot is extinct today it might have survived long enough to have become part of the native American legends about Sasquatch. There has to be a reason why the Native Americans have these legends. There are no known apes of any kind indigenous to the western hemisphere, so why would Native Americans know to make apes on their totem poles and describe them in their legends? You can only describe something if you've actually seen it.

And as for the Yeti in particular, the Himalayas where it is reported to be located is right about exactly where Gigantopithecus once lived. The ancient Chinese probably wiped it out in China proper, but in the remoteness of the Himalayas a few of them might have survived, and might still survive to this day. Why doubt it? We have the Gigantopithecus bones, so we know something more or less identical to a Yeti lived at one time in roughly the same area where the sightings are being reported today.

Finding bones in a cave doesn't prove it was an ape-creature. Bones don't show fur, skin, muscle tone, etc.

[Caterkiller]

Pretty sure that moth is real. It looks awesome!

[ThePerm]

I figured out years ago that Trolls were probably the description for Neanderthals. They are pretty much the same thing, except I think trolls got bigger over time thanks to myths.

[Chozo Ghost]

Finding bones in a cave doesn't prove it was an ape-creature. Bones don't show fur, skin, muscle tone, etc.

Are you sure you weren't really born in 2004? Someone who was born in 1984 (or even 1994) should have more sense than this.

Bones do show muscle tone, as well as a hell of a lot more than you think. Plus have you ever heard of DNA? No, they don't show fur and skin, but we don't need that to know it was an ape. Do we need fur/skin to know that the dinosaurs were reptiles, or are you going to doubt that too? If EVERY credible scientist is in consensus that something is so then there is no reason for you to doubt it. Even if you don't fully understand the methods they used to come to that conclusion you should just accept it. If they don't know what they're talking about, then who the hell does?

[tendoboy1984]

What science thought was fact centuries ago isn't essentially true today. The earth has been proven to be round, we are not the center of the universe, there may be life on other planets, the universe is infinite, etc. New discoveries are made all the time, and science is constantly changing because of this.