Cryptids

[Hercules beetle]

Sasquatch, Yetis, Chupacabra, Mothman,Nessie

[Hercules beetle]

Does anybody believe in these kind of creatures?
I have always been convinced by sasqautch. 

[radioactive347]

Some people may think I'm crazy but I do believe in almost all cryptids.

[stargatedalek]

I believe that there are reasonable explanation for any cryptid, but that's not to say I believe in the pop culture depictions

for example there is no way that the Loch Ness monster is a plesiosaur, the depictions given of it do not match up to our current scientific understanding of plesiosaurs and so that points towards any accounts claiming directly such being hoaxes, the same goes for Mokele Mbembe for the same reasons but with sauropods rather than plesiosaurs, in each case its possible that there was some real life creature that started the initial myths, but subsequent ones claiming to be surviving extinct animals were almost certainly fraudulent

[Hercules beetle]

Pretty sure everybody in the world has seen this, but still:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o

[AnimalToyForum]

Weeeeell... I'm a plesiosaur researcher, so I get asked a lot about living plesiosaurs.

Here's my take: http://plesiosauria.com/living_plesiosaurs.php

[sbell]

I'll be honest--the 'study' of cryptids, to me, never seems to behave like a true study. Instead, these studies often look like people trying to find evidence for their pre-conceived notions, and when it doesn't pan out (ever) the real work begins--creating excuses or new lines of 'evidence' for why they're still right.

At least when a study is based on trying to determine what, exactly, a myth might be based on there can be real discovery. Going out to prove that a tuft of fur is bigfoot (never has been) or a mis-identified ripple in a video must be a lake monster is not the best use of one's time.

And that bigfoot video is fake. It has been analyzed by many primatologists and anthropologists, and there is little reason to believe it is some sort of cryptid primate.

[brontodocus]

I wholeheartedly agree with what Sean wrote. It's usually more about excuses for lack of proof than anything else. And the most plausible rebuttals from scientists are often enough ignored. I see little differences between claims of bigfoot's existence, Cadborosaurus, Nessie, and medieval myths about dragons and unicorns. And do we need "research" of animals of very doubtful existence at all? Recent years have brought many unexpected discoveries about animals that were already known to science (the footage of a living Giant Squid or the discovery of the transparent head dome in the Barreleye Macropinna microstoma, etc.). Or the occasional new discoveries of previously unknown species like Tapirus kabomani (even if the animals may have been known before and only later were found to be separate, previously undescribed species).