Animation Source Forums

Which one?



I could see an animal like that coming into existence most likely through genetic mutation and or other species cross-breeding.

I was talking about the mngwa. And I suppose a mutation is possible, although they assert very firmly that it is not any other kind of cat, particularly "simba" ("lion" in Swahili). So I'm dubious of mutation. As for a cross-breed, I don't think two species would interbreed in the wild consistently enough to produce them on a regular basis, and if the mngwas turned out to be fertile that would only prove that the parents species were not separate species at all.
On the other hand, a hybrid would be more apt to fit such a savage description - most hybrids, even of fairly docile species like horses and zebras, are known to be difficult to manage. And while a mutant seems unlikely in this case, I know of one cryptid which is almost certainly a mutant.

I agree about not wanting to run into this thing. There is a fact that must be remembered, there hasn't been sightings of more than one Mngwa at a time and the creature is fine attacking one or two people but expaditions seem to scare it off, this seems to idicate Mgnwa are solitary or possibly just live with a mate, ruling out lions, which normally live in large prides, which normally don't banish mutations, Albino lions stay in the pride despite their mutation. Its far larger than a leopard and has stripes, if its hybrid, one of its parents had to be a tiger, which even then that would require a species of tiger on a Savana envirnment, which in itself be a new find. And think about it, how much do modern humans explore that area? If this thing doesn't like large groups of people and kills lone humans, well you can see my point.

I guess ya would need some really brave humans. I wouldn't even feel safe around one of those Mngwas with a rocket launcher.

sorry i didn't read the whole topic it's a little too much for now but i'll just briefly explain the main cryptids and my opinions on them.

As for big foot, yeti, sasquatch ... we have new technology of which you set up a camera that detects movement and will record/take pictures. I'll explain this camera. I don't know the exact name for this camera but what you do is you set it up (anywhere most likely) and this camera will only turn on to movement infront or in view of this camera and it will record every bit of that movement until it's gone. Scientists have been using this for a couple of years now and have found many extinct or rare animals lately which would bring good findings. So that's somewhat of a point if they did exist wouldn't scientist do this as well set a camera trap and see if they can catch something no matter how smart these suppose primates. As i continue how come whenever someone finds hair of these animals they've never been able to trace any sort of DNA on it. They've found foot prints but they only take one cast of it?.. and they never mention a walking patern either, they just briefly say we found a foot print - wouldn't you normally find more than one?.. And also bigfoot sightings started pretty far back... how come we haven't found bones of these primates since they have the same lifespan as a human?.. now that's strange. I'd only believe this if there was a thorough enough evidence.

As for Loch Ness.. it's always hard to believe.. i've watched several TV shows where people would go looking for her and came up with nothing. Well they'd go on ships, using sonar reaching every inch of this lake. Although it's very hard to believe this because if it's been there for a long time and no bones have recovered and no evidence either. Of course if this animal ate fish there'd either be a big decrease in fish or hardly any fish at all but i don't know this and they don't mention the fish popularity in the Loch so that's another thing that can get you going and again this animal would be considered very very large so imagine the amount of fish it would eat no matter how "adapted" it would need a GOOD amount of food to survive all these years without starving.

The Jersey Devil is one that i don't know much of and same with El Chupacabra besides the fact it eats other animals blood. Again there are many different descriptions besides the fact that it walks on hind legs, has no fur and has fangs.. otherwise there are many different ways people describe it.. so i'm very doubting this cryptid or it's either a real animal and people are just saying different things because sightings happen in half a second cuz normally when people see it they always say "it happened so fast" and they just give any description that comes in mind that sounds scary because your mind also plays a part in this (long story about the mind and the sci-fi).

Megaladon is probably one of my favorite cryptids ^^.. it's hard to believe it is alive because for one there'd be no evidence because when sharks die there body sinks and it sinks so slow that their whole body desolves, including bones and flesh from the salt water, and the only evidence is their teeth and we still find teeth today but that makes very much sense since they have lived in our oceans and of course like any shark they had about or probably over 300 teeth lol so you can imagine how many teeth are down there.

We will never for sure know about all these creatures until there's thorough evidence. i.e bones, video, group sighting (it's kind of better if you have a group sighting depending how honest these people are then you have a lot of evidence on this), or anything that's just good proof lol.
Megaladon would be one i'd consider that MIGHT still be out there of course living in the deep like some have mentioned, since we were able to find the giant squid not long ago i don't see why we wouldn't find a giant shark ^^. Time will tell .

Bigfoot, I'm not going to answer at the moment. I'll have to look into some of those first. On the Loch Ness Monster, lack of bones would be pretty compelling except for the water in the loch. I don't remember the technical details, but apparently dead bodies do not float in Loch Ness. A woman once drowned in that loch a mere six feet from shore and they could never locate her body. It never floated to the top, and the water was too murky to see anything. If a human body could disappear, think what else could lay out in the depths?
On the matter of fish, my brother theorized at one point that perhaps Nessie can feed on plankton and other plant matter as well as fish, if not entirely in place of fish. This would make Loch Ness a very suitable environment, since the water is so thick with partially rotted (and possibly therefore more digestable) plant matter. People might say, "Well that rules out plesiosaurs; they ate only fish." Show me the evidence of that. Sharp teeth? Bears have sharp teeth, and they're omnivorous. Heck, the panda's got sharp teeth and it never eats meat at all. And camels, which are herbivores as well, have teeth which (from what I've read) can cost a man his arm.
As for the Jersey Devil, I'me dubious of that myself. I imagine something could be behind it, but what it is or even if it's natural... impossible to guess.
As for Megalodon, I agree. It's entirely possible that it could be out there.

I agree with Dragon Tamer on the omnivorious Loch Ness Monster, its very likely, particularally if Nessie is this strange species of whale some theorize, as whales are common filter feeders. And as for the radar thing, I believe the species has likely made its home in the underwater caverns beneath Loch Ness, which have air pockets it could breath, eleminating its need to surface. Bigfoot, I think the biggest support is the number of simular sightings on so many diffrent countries, dating back thosands of years, Sasquatch, Yeti, Hobagon (Japan), and so on. Megalodon, I believe it could be out there.

hehe never though of Nessie's eating habbits like that ^^ makes is plausible. And then again no researchers have exactly determined the exact diet of plesiosaurs besides the main fact that they ate fish like any sea dweller. Although i think maybe setting up the camera traps would be something they should consider on finding proof of the sasquatch/big foot/yeti or something they could think of doing. ^^

Come to think of it, I'm not sure if we even know that they did eat fish, unless someone has found a fossil plesiosaur with fish inside. But yes, it does make it more plausible.

Even if it wasn't fish there would still need to be lots of whatever it was they did eat. Plesiosaurs are large animals so not only would they probably need to eat a lot but there would have to be enough food not only for one plesiosaur, but for a large(and I mean very big population) to survive.

This is true, although of course some plesiosaurs were relatively quite small. But you make a good point, regardless.

Loch Ness has large quntaties of peat, which is decomposed plant matter, espicially near the buttom, one reason bodies are rarely found in Loch Ness, it covers them. A herbavore could easily feed on that, a population could as well. And we must take into acount it would have to be a fresh water plesiosaur, rather than a salt water one. Fresh water is less dense than salt water, thus meaning the energy needed to swim through it is less than the energy needed to swim through salt water, meaning Nessie would have less energy requirments than her salt water cousins.

That's another good point, although the peat might thicken the water (I honestly wouldn't know for sure). Very astute.

There are other factors. Loch Ness is cold fresh water, Nessie is obviously a reptile, this means, being cold blooded, theses creature's body functions, including need to breath, eat, and so on. This means that Nessie wouldn't need to eat or even breath as often but it isn't cold enough to drastically impare a reptiles movements. This basically means, Nessie can function almost normally but doesn't need to eat or breath as often, and reptiles don't feed very often as it is. A crocidile only needs to feed once every few weeks and lives a simular life. And there is also another reason nessie is hard to find, in addition to the foggy water, Nessie likely has natural comaflage that makes it difficult to see when it surfaces, maybe like a croc a partly submerged head is easily mistaken for a floating piece of debris.

But the odds of finding it after all this time with all this searching are really good so why haven't we found it?

Only two ideas make sense to me:

1)It's dead and died a while ago
2)It was never there in the first place