|
Post by lionking on Apr 15, 2007 7:02:40 GMT -4
www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/caddy.phpScientists thik it is a cadbosaurus... it was found in a belly of a sperm whale in year 1937..hadn't they threw the carcass away, they would have proved it existed. Althaugh lots of eyewitnesses say they saw him, unclear videotapes exist to set a visual proof (other than the still photos of the carcasses in the site above). It is interesting that the previous American indians had huge serpents drawings that look like it. they might have seen it as well. what do you think? I heard there is one in the Sin River in China
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 15, 2007 7:03:45 GMT -4
sorry it is Cadborosaurus
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 15, 2007 7:28:32 GMT -4
more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadborosaurus_willsiwww.21stcenturyradio.com/Caddy-7.3.2000.htmlI saw someyears ago a documentary about a gorilla/human like creature that the american found in vietnam and took with them. My grandmother said :so is it the sheeb/i]? I remember we as kids were frightened by that shee. if you don't eat well and behave well, the sheeb will come and take you. this is what we were told, but I thaught it was a myth made by old people. my grandma recently told me that people said that they used to see long time ago a hairy human like creature coming next to houses. maybe it was made up, but given the creature above findings, you never know.... maybe it was found but got extinct...interesting
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 16, 2007 9:22:32 GMT -4
Cryptozoology.com may not be the most reliable web site. The human/ape stories are around everywhere. The problem is that if the animal do exist, all we have is old stories. The physical evidence rests on blurry photos and plaster casts of foot prints, some of which have been shown to be hoaxed. There are no bones, which there undoubtedly wold be if the animals existed in a sufficient number to have a breeding population. I am certainly willing to accept the existence of such an animal given the proper evidence. In fact it would be a truly amazing event that I would like to have during my life time. But the evidence is just not there.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 16, 2007 10:34:45 GMT -4
I believe the photo of the bones found in whale's stomach is enough. also, two scientists are studying it as shown in the last site. the photo of the bones of the serpent-like creature was put on National Geographic. you can search the net for t. it was found in 1937.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 16, 2007 10:36:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 16, 2007 10:48:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 16, 2007 13:07:29 GMT -4
I believe the photo of the bones found in whale's stomach is enough. also, two scientists are studying it as shown in the last site. the photo of the bones of the serpent-like creature was put on National Geographic. you can search the net for t. it was found in 1937. I don't know what items in the photos are. Its hard to make them out. my main concern with the web site is the amount of material they have about Big Foot. Any site that takes perpetuates legends of Big Foot as a real creature has little standing in my book. I think there is no smoke without fire. Unless of course it is made by a chemical reaction.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Apr 16, 2007 13:30:58 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 16, 2007 14:55:09 GMT -4
Yes, but my attention span for cryptozoology is pretty short.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 16, 2007 17:09:21 GMT -4
Unless of course it is made by a chemical reaction.
Ummmm, fire IS a chemical reaction, more specifically an oxidation reaction that releases large amounts of energy in the form of heat and light.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 16, 2007 17:13:59 GMT -4
The point is, there is quite often smoke without fire. It's what produces charcoal, for example.
Every time cryptozoology comes up, I have two little words that its adherents don't seem to take to heart, and those words are "breeding population."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 16, 2007 18:18:47 GMT -4
The point is, there is quite often smoke without fire. It's what produces charcoal, for example.
Oh I know that, I was just getting at the "unless" part, which would indicate that fire wasn't a chemical reaction.
For loads of smoke without fire, pour concentrated Sulphuric Acid into a jar full of sugar, give it a stir, then stand well back. (and I mean WELL BACK.)
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Apr 16, 2007 19:09:59 GMT -4
For loads of smoke without fire, pour concentrated Sulphuric Acid into a jar full of sugar, give it a stir, then stand well back. (and I mean WELL BACK.) I remember that experiment being done in chemistry class, I don't recall it producing much smoke though, OTOH it did melt the temperature sensor we had in it (just the plastic bit admittedly, but it was still quite impressive). I wonder if they still have the desk with the scorch marks from one of the other experiments I suggested (potassium + dilute hydrochloric acid is fun to watch, from at least several meters away and preferably behind and safety screen).
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Apr 17, 2007 9:09:09 GMT -4
Unless of course it is made by a chemical reaction.Ummmm, fire IS a chemical reaction, more specifically an oxidation reaction that releases large amounts of energy in the form of heat and light. Thats why I do finance, not science, for a living. Thanks for the correction, it make the point clearer.
|
|