🅱️there many more mystiques under yet the same sun?
Orynx/narwhal : unicorn?
Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience but like with a broken clock it’s right twice a day.
- Flatwoods Monster - was a distressed barn owl iirc
- sea serpents - oarfish
- Kraken - giant squid
- Mongolian death worm - some sand python I forgot the name of lol
- Mermaids - dugongs
I have no idea how drunk a sailor would have to be to see a pretty mermaid in a dugong but there you go lol
Flatwoods Monster was a distressed barn owl iirc
- Sasquatch - a senior developer, broken by society, wandering naked through the forest to feel true freedom just once before he dies of exposure
I thought mermaids were manatees? Its in the name lol
I got mixed up lol yes it was supposed to be manatees 😂 also the Flatwoods Monster was a distressed barn owl iirc
Post that shit top level for flatwoods yo
done 👍
Excellent 🫱🫲
There are many, MANY, MANY cryptids. Things we now call mythological creatures were, at one time, believed real in the same way moth man or the flatwoods monster is.
Griffins, sphinxes, minotaur, cyclops, to name a few.
Cyclops famously is thought to come from ancient elephant skull fossils
Modern ones are the results of the same pattern of human thinking, but elevated.
The premise of the question is flawed. Most of them are nothing but imaginations.
We don’t know for every one for certain, but we have plausable explanations or backgrounds for nearly every cryptid and mythological creature. Usually, the explanation is either a diseased animal, misidentified bones, or someone looking to make money.
I was unaware that these creatures had an entire pseudo science, but I guess it makes sense. But the definition of knowledge is antithetical to this entire study, since at it’s core it studies the undetermined. No question is stupid, but this is blatantly ignorant. Still I’m glad you asked it because I learned something new
There’s probably a liminality or like liminal stage between those two of more becoming and nothing
Know - no
Hold theories - still no (definitely many lost to history)
Of the modern documented set, it seems like there are decent theories, but far from definitive. I’d go as far as to say there’s a 50/50 chance that the field is right about at least 1 instance, see Pasteur.
Agreed it’s toward the direction, but too far to say it’s substantial.
Yes.
Either they’ve been identified or it’s an animal with mange. For fun, go compare drawings of the Dover Demon with featherless owls, for instance.
Don’t go searching for hairless bears, though. They’re nightmare fuel.
Don’t feed the Yao Guai!
