Monster Quest - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Monster Quest

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Jun 25, 2009 0:39:21 This show, airing on History Channel, focuses on various methods used to attempt to find cryptids (animals so far unknown to science).

This week's episode was on the Mokele Mbembe, a large animal believed to exist in the Congo Rainforest. Accounts describe a large animal with a snakelike head; a long, serpentine neck; a body like an elephant's; elephantlike feet with 3 claws; and a long tail. Tracks believed to belong to the beast are roughly a foot in diameter. These point towards a small sauropod, which is reinforced by drawings made by some who have seen them. This creature has been in the oral tradition of the area's natives for thousands of years. It's highly improbable that they would describe a sauropod perfectly without already knowing of them.
#2
williamhm75
Jun 25, 2009 18:15:04
This show, airing on History Channel, focuses on various methods used to attempt to find cryptids (animals so far unknown to science).

This week's episode was on the Mokele Mbembe, a large animal believed to exist in the Congo Rainforest. Accounts describe a large animal with a snakelike head; a long, serpentine neck; a body like an elephant's; elephantlike feet with 3 claws; and a long tail. Tracks believed to belong to the beast are roughly a foot in diameter. These point towards a small sauropod, which is reinforced by drawings made by some who have seen them. This creature has been in the oral tradition of the area's natives for thousands of years. It's highly improbable that they would describe a sauropod perfectly without already knowing of them.

Interesting
#3
pigknight
Jun 25, 2009 18:16:46
This show, airing on History Channel, focuses on various methods used to attempt to find cryptids (animals so far unknown to science).

This week's episode was on the Mokele Mbembe, a large animal believed to exist in the Congo Rainforest. Accounts describe a large animal with a snakelike head; a long, serpentine neck; a body like an elephant's; elephantlike feet with 3 claws; and a long tail. Tracks believed to belong to the beast are roughly a foot in diameter. These point towards a small sauropod, which is reinforced by drawings made by some who have seen them. This creature has been in the oral tradition of the area's natives for thousands of years. It's highly improbable that they would describe a sauropod perfectly without already knowing of them.

My answer: Bad acid.
#4
Macarius
Jun 25, 2009 19:50:03 I keep catching the bigfoot episode, always bothersome. But , I caught the mini dino one too. I seriously doubt a dino could hide so effectively once we had an idea of what area it was living in.
Sauropods are pretty much air breathers. It couldn't hide in the depths like Nessie is apparently doing.
#5
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Jun 25, 2009 21:22:15 Actually, it probably could hide. The habitat is rainforest, and with the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it's dangerous to search for the beast.
#6
aradaine
Jun 26, 2009 13:37:33 Dangerous is a very light term when describing pretty much most of Africa. Especially the Congo.
#7
dirtyfrank
Jun 26, 2009 17:09:50 If it does exist it has thousands of square miles to roam around in a area that is very inaccessible to humans and that is vary thinly populated by humans.

Up until about 100 to 200 years ago the Gorilla was a myth.

The Coelacanth was thought to go extinct around the Cretaceous period but then live ones were found in 1938.
#8
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Jul 09, 2009 0:22:16 Well, tonight's episode was yet another Sasquatch episode. In this case, they were looking at cast footprints for metatarsal breaks (a feature in the foot found in apes, but not humans), analyzing the Patterson footage (an experienced costume-maker said it was definitely not a guy in a gorilla suit) and the Freeman footage (which looked pretty good to me), and finding that a majority of sightings occur in areas with 50"-100" of annual rainfall (which makes sense: large apes virtually require large amounts of rainfall for survival).
#9
dirtyfrank
Jul 09, 2009 0:42:25 Isn't the Patterson footage a hoax? I thought that one of the guys came out and said that he and some others were just screwing with one of their friends or something like that.
#10
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Jul 09, 2009 0:55:17 *shrug* It could be. Anyway, analysis has given conflicting views, and thus, I am somewhat skeptical of that particular bit of evidence.
#11
dirtyfrank
Jul 09, 2009 0:59:40 The evidence of someone admitting to pulling a prank on a friend? The person that it was said to be pulled on believes it as real but the other guy said that it was fake and a set up.

Truthfully, if ya want to you can over analyze thing to the point where you can find supporting evidence where there is non. Basically seeing stuff that ain't really there. I've seen a lot of analysis stuff on the footage before and some of it just seems like the bigfoot hunters are just seeing what they want to see and not seeing what's there.
#12
zombie_babies
Jul 09, 2009 9:02:02 Yeah, that happens a lot. My fiancee's son actually had me watch one of these shows. It was supposed to be about some new sea animal near Florida. We saw the 'evidence' footage and immediately determined that the creature in question was actually a manatee with a prop damaged tail. It was likely split by a boat - a common occurence for these animals. Well, it took all sorts of analysis and time for the morons to come up with the same answer. And some still doubted whether or not it was actually the case. What a bunch of tools. Yeah, higher education sure yields the best of the best. Did I mention my fiancee's son is 10? 10 years old and he figured it out in minutes. How's that Razor deal go? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer or something like that? ;) Guess these idiots never learned that in their fancy schmancy schools. :P

People see what they want to see - especially when reality is telling them that what they see isn't really there.
#13
Idolis
Jul 10, 2009 16:21:10 I watched the one about the Sasquatch film too and about the only thing that was cool was that in the analysis of the tape they found the creature had breasts, a fact that I was unaware of.

Maybe, I'm a little off but I find it hard to believe that some guy would dress up as a female Sasquatch.

Then again, I remembered too that one of the people who was there said it was a hoax. Now he could be telling the truth or he could have simply got tired of answering questions and made it up. Hard to say but the thing in the video definitely had a big pair of breasts.

Note:

I am not one to believe in things until we find a fresh carcass or live specimen in the flesh.
#14
Ragnar_Lodbrok
Sep 13, 2009 10:55:23
So, looks like the new season is starting up on Wednesday. Yet another sasquatch episode...
#15
bo0kw0rm
Sep 13, 2009 12:10:39
It just makes me frustrated that sometimes they spend half the episode speculating and still don't reach a conclusion!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Ragnar_Lodbrok Jun 25, 2009 0:39:21	This show, airing on History Channel, focuses on various methods used to attempt to find cryptids (animals so far unknown to science). This week's episode was on the Mokele Mbembe, a large animal believed to exist in the Congo Rainforest. Accounts describe a large animal with a snakelike head; a long, serpentine neck; a body like an elephant's; elephantlike feet with 3 claws; and a long tail. Tracks believed to belong to the beast are roughly a foot in diameter. These point towards a small sauropod, which is reinforced by drawings made by some who have seen them. This creature has been in the oral tradition of the area's natives for thousands of years. It's highly improbable that they would describe a sauropod perfectly without already knowing of them.
#2 williamhm75 Jun 25, 2009 18:15:04	This show, airing on History Channel, focuses on various methods used to attempt to find cryptids (animals so far unknown to science). This week's episode was on the Mokele Mbembe, a large animal believed to exist in the Congo Rainforest. Accounts describe a large animal with a snakelike head; a long, serpentine neck; a body like an elephant's; elephantlike feet with 3 claws; and a long tail. Tracks believed to belong to the beast are roughly a foot in diameter. These point towards a small sauropod, which is reinforced by drawings made by some who have seen them. This creature has been in the oral tradition of the area's natives for thousands of years. It's highly improbable that they would describe a sauropod perfectly without already knowing of them. Interesting
#3 pigknight Jun 25, 2009 18:16:46	This show, airing on History Channel, focuses on various methods used to attempt to find cryptids (animals so far unknown to science). This week's episode was on the Mokele Mbembe, a large animal believed to exist in the Congo Rainforest. Accounts describe a large animal with a snakelike head; a long, serpentine neck; a body like an elephant's; elephantlike feet with 3 claws; and a long tail. Tracks believed to belong to the beast are roughly a foot in diameter. These point towards a small sauropod, which is reinforced by drawings made by some who have seen them. This creature has been in the oral tradition of the area's natives for thousands of years. It's highly improbable that they would describe a sauropod perfectly without already knowing of them. My answer: Bad acid.
#4 Macarius Jun 25, 2009 19:50:03	I keep catching the bigfoot episode, always bothersome. But , I caught the mini dino one too. I seriously doubt a dino could hide so effectively once we had an idea of what area it was living in. Sauropods are pretty much air breathers. It couldn't hide in the depths like Nessie is apparently doing.
#5 Ragnar_Lodbrok Jun 25, 2009 21:22:15	Actually, it probably could hide. The habitat is rainforest, and with the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it's dangerous to search for the beast.
#6 aradaine Jun 26, 2009 13:37:33	Dangerous is a very light term when describing pretty much most of Africa. Especially the Congo.
#7 dirtyfrank Jun 26, 2009 17:09:50	If it does exist it has thousands of square miles to roam around in a area that is very inaccessible to humans and that is vary thinly populated by humans. Up until about 100 to 200 years ago the Gorilla was a myth. The Coelacanth was thought to go extinct around the Cretaceous period but then live ones were found in 1938.
#8 Ragnar_Lodbrok Jul 09, 2009 0:22:16	Well, tonight's episode was yet another Sasquatch episode. In this case, they were looking at cast footprints for metatarsal breaks (a feature in the foot found in apes, but not humans), analyzing the Patterson footage (an experienced costume-maker said it was definitely not a guy in a gorilla suit) and the Freeman footage (which looked pretty good to me), and finding that a majority of sightings occur in areas with 50"-100" of annual rainfall (which makes sense: large apes virtually require large amounts of rainfall for survival).
#9 dirtyfrank Jul 09, 2009 0:42:25	Isn't the Patterson footage a hoax? I thought that one of the guys came out and said that he and some others were just screwing with one of their friends or something like that.
#10 Ragnar_Lodbrok Jul 09, 2009 0:55:17	shrug It could be. Anyway, analysis has given conflicting views, and thus, I am somewhat skeptical of that particular bit of evidence.
#11 dirtyfrank Jul 09, 2009 0:59:40	The evidence of someone admitting to pulling a prank on a friend? The person that it was said to be pulled on believes it as real but the other guy said that it was fake and a set up. Truthfully, if ya want to you can over analyze thing to the point where you can find supporting evidence where there is non. Basically seeing stuff that ain't really there. I've seen a lot of analysis stuff on the footage before and some of it just seems like the bigfoot hunters are just seeing what they want to see and not seeing what's there.
#12 zombie_babies Jul 09, 2009 9:02:02	Yeah, that happens a lot. My fiancee's son actually had me watch one of these shows. It was supposed to be about some new sea animal near Florida. We saw the 'evidence' footage and immediately determined that the creature in question was actually a manatee with a prop damaged tail. It was likely split by a boat - a common occurence for these animals. Well, it took all sorts of analysis and time for the morons to come up with the same answer. And some still doubted whether or not it was actually the case. What a bunch of tools. Yeah, higher education sure yields the best of the best. Did I mention my fiancee's son is 10? 10 years old and he figured it out in minutes. How's that Razor deal go? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer or something like that? ;) Guess these idiots never learned that in their fancy schmancy schools. :P People see what they want to see - especially when reality is telling them that what they see isn't really there.
#13 Idolis Jul 10, 2009 16:21:10	I watched the one about the Sasquatch film too and about the only thing that was cool was that in the analysis of the tape they found the creature had breasts, a fact that I was unaware of. Maybe, I'm a little off but I find it hard to believe that some guy would dress up as a female Sasquatch. Then again, I remembered too that one of the people who was there said it was a hoax. Now he could be telling the truth or he could have simply got tired of answering questions and made it up. Hard to say but the thing in the video definitely had a big pair of breasts. Note: I am not one to believe in things until we find a fresh carcass or live specimen in the flesh.
#14 Ragnar_Lodbrok Sep 13, 2009 10:55:23	So, looks like the new season is starting up on Wednesday. Yet another sasquatch episode...
#15 bo0kw0rm Sep 13, 2009 12:10:39	It just makes me frustrated that sometimes they spend half the episode speculating and still don't reach a conclusion!