Comments on: Prehistoric Crocodile = Native American Water Monster?

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:32:23 +0000

If you think outside the box a little here it can all make a little more sense. I’m not saying this is right but suppose the uniformitarian view of the world isn’t correct? We certainly have a number of anomalies that don’t fit neatly into the time frames allowed. A world that changed quickly and drastically over a short period of time might have left remnants of creatures that went extinct theoretically millions of years before. The world might even give the appearance of being quite a bit older than it truly is.
I know it’s heretical and I’m not advocating any other theories or views here. Just wondering if current scientific views are the best because they are true or because we fail to see the big picture?
Our mythologies are full of creatures that later have been shown could have been the source of the stories yet supposedly died out long before there were humans to see them. We try to imagine that someone at some time noticed some bones and that must have been the source of the story. Dragons and dinosaurs come to mind as an example. This discussion here is another.
It just seems to me that science is missing something somewhere.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 05:42:43 +0000

These peoples would have had plenty of experience butchering animals, so figuring out the articulation of fossilized skeletons would not have been a big problem for them, I don’t think.

Doesn’t sound like enough evidence either way on whether the legends come from fossils, live animals, or both put together.

By: AtomicMrEMonster

AtomicMrEMonster — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:52:22 +0000

I’m not seeing much of a resemblence between the sketch and the Thalattosuchia. To me, it looks like someone drew a snake with a fish tail and antlers attached to it. Isn’t the combining of features from different animals to make a new creature common in folklore and mythology?

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:45:55 +0000

Another problem is that many fossils are not articulated, so they would have to be great at visualizing how one bone fits with another. I’m not saying they couldn’t, I’m just saying that it’s not likely.

By: Kathy Strain

Kathy Strain — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:21:46 +0000

This is such little work done on traditional Native American water monster stories, I’m not sure any conclusion would be fair or accurate. The ones that I have collected are so vastly different from each other, it would be difficult for me to ascertain a single source of the stories.

Could a fossil be the implement for a story? Sure. But a bunch of assumptions would have to be accepted: 1. the Native American recognized the fossil as being a one time living creature (fossilized bone feels like rock..not bone); 2. that the fossil lived in the water (wouldn’t an alligator fossil look like it walked on land?); 3. that the creature would be a “monster” to their culture; and 4. that this creature was responsible for all the bad things that happened in the water.

I’m sure it happened, but the question is, how often?

By: shovethenos

shovethenos — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:48:51 +0000

The “native artwork from fossils” theory may hold in some cases, but I am skeptical for some of the same reasons mentioned above. I think its a subtle attempt to define away some of the long records of sightings and artistic portrayals that exist for some cryptid animals. As in “Oh, we can’t count that as possible evidence, people were just making art based on fossils.” Without modern archaeological practices and equipment? Somewhat possible, but that doesn’t mean it should stop being considered as possible evidence, especially in areas with long periods of sightings.

Speaking of issues like this, have you been able to locate Dennis Hall, Loren?

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 20:56:11 +0000

Why is it that when modern people say they saw a water cryptid, they are taken seriously, but when ancients observe the same, it is almost always passed off as fossils.

Dead bones do not a live cryptid make.

By: mjmurphy

mjmurphy — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:45:51 +0000

cor2879,

Actually, I think it is more the other way around. Previous to Mayor’s work nobody really thought the Ancients had much interaction with fossils or pondered their meaning. But of course fossils can be quite common in certain areas and it isn’t surprising that people of an earlier time should try to work them into their own myths etc.

Now, while they obviously can’t explain modern sightings of cryptids, they CAN sometimes offer an explanation for why certain tribes, for example, have legends about animals that might resemble modern cryptids. Nessie-like animals have been reported almost worldwide and appear commonly appear in myths and representations (a bit like the drawing above). Fossilized Plesiosaur remains are also found world wide, some in extraordinarily good condition.

By: Bob K.

Bob K. — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 19:30:28 +0000

Personally, I tend to discount the “fossil explanation” for such creatures myself. Im sure many of you have read the ramblings of the late, great Indian guide and bear hunter Clayton Mack and his sightings of Bigfoot. However, he also reports shooting an aquatic dinosaur, and that it was explained to him that they shouldnt be alive now, but they are. I think more unusual critters, thought to be extinct, are waiting to be discovered.

By: cor2879

cor2879 — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:21:32 +0000

It’s interesting that the first conclusion always reached about this sort of thing is that peoples saw a fossil rather than a living specimen. Hey it’s certainly possible but how many large fossils have you ever just happened to see while exploring outside? I used to quite a bit as a child, and while I did find the occasional fossil, it was never anything more impressive than some tiny crustaceans or a fossilized egg. I’m sure it’s happened, but that can’t always be the explanation.