Andrew D. Gable
First Post
Re: Conclusions
True. Part of the reason I'm not as into cryptozoology as I once was is this, combined with the fact that when it does turn out to be something, it's not what we hoped (witness the onza, one of cryptozoology's best cases, which turned out after DNA analysis to be a mountain lion). Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe in the "normals", not the big monsters like Loch Ness, Bigfoot, or Mokele-Mbembe.
BTW, the buddy I mentioned who believed it was a jelly showed me a photo of a lion's mane jellyfish, which even has a fringe under the bell, similar to the fringe under the main mass seen in the 2nd photo. And as luck would have it, the largest jellies ever recorded were lion's manes.
Taren Nighteyes said:
True. Part of the reason I'm not as into cryptozoology as I once was is this, combined with the fact that when it does turn out to be something, it's not what we hoped (witness the onza, one of cryptozoology's best cases, which turned out after DNA analysis to be a mountain lion). Personally, I'm much more inclined to believe in the "normals", not the big monsters like Loch Ness, Bigfoot, or Mokele-Mbembe.
BTW, the buddy I mentioned who believed it was a jelly showed me a photo of a lion's mane jellyfish, which even has a fringe under the bell, similar to the fringe under the main mass seen in the 2nd photo. And as luck would have it, the largest jellies ever recorded were lion's manes.
Last edited:
