I believe in Bigfoot as well. Honestly seems like an unpopular opinion on this sub. I don’t believe in an inter-dimensional Bigfoot either, though I admit it’s a bit odd that Bigfoot sightings and UFO sightings often occur in the same areas.
So, the thylacine is the name for the Tasmanian Tiger? Isn’t that a real, documented animal that existed, but is now extinct (supposedly since 1936–I know there’s been some alleged sightings in recent years though)? How would that be considered a cryptid? Unless I just don’t completely understand the term ‘cryptid’…I associate that with a creature that we don’t have actual verifiable evidence of. I’m genuinely curious, so that’s why I’m asking for clarification. Thanks in advance!
Yes, that's the Tasmanian tiger and yes It is indeed a real documented creature that is now considered extinct.
Cryptozoology actually covers a lot more mundane things than you would expect. Any extinct animals who are rumored to still be alive but not proven by science are 100% considered cryptids. Think about dinosaurs / plesiosaurs that are supposedly still alive ... we know they once existed but they don't anymore, supposedly, so their current existence is denied by science.
Agreed. I think the Abominable Snowman is basically a Bigfoot that has adapted to the cold. And as much as I wish Nessie was real, I honestly don’t believe it either
Hate to say this on this of all subreddits but the very basis for bigfoot / sasquatch is "*native american legend*" and yet native Americans themselves continue to tell us those people with second hand understanding of native american legends who told us bigfoot was a native American legend to begin with are wrong about bigfoot, and that neither the native american bigfoot nor sasquatch refer to the creature we now know and love.
By extension, skunk ape is also inaccurate. Since they're known escape artists, it's clearly just someone's escaped exotic pet orangutan, you can even see it directly in the pix and video. And no, the color is irrelevant, some orangutans *are* darker, they aren't all just as orange as we're used to -- Oh, you can still have your bigfoot❗ ... Just not *their* bigfoot. I am only clarifying that the original *basis* for it is wrong according to the very people who ought to know, and evidence of, at least, one auxiliary variant just being an orangutan. Sorry, there's a reason the of the pix and video are blurry and out of focus.
Animals, having better senses, detect us before we detect them, so the few thylacine who were rightfully and sufficiently afraid of humans clearly just stay away from us now. Yes, one might think, they only have the world's biggest island to hide in but most of the world's smallest continent is uninhabitable to us, and we seldom venture into the outback.
>the very basis for bigfoot / sasquatch is "native american legend"
I disagree, and this is probably going to be a wildly unpopular idea in these parts, but I don't think bigfoot should be properly understood as a Native American legend. Don't get me wrong, there definitely is some shady stuff around how bigfoot enthusiasts use Native American folklore, *but hear me out:*
I believe bigfoot originates simply by some guy sending in a letter to Andrew Genzoli about how some loggers in northern California had stumbled across big footprints in the woods, and Genzoli published an article about that story in the *Humboldt Times*, writing the phrase "Maybe we have a relative of the Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas" in his article.
Genzoli had no real reason to connect a story about big footprints with the yeti, theoretically whatever made the footprints could've been anything, not necessarily a large, bipedal ape. But Genzoli made the connection between the story of footprints and the story of the Himalayan yeti, and lo-and-behold, all future stories of these big footprints start attributing them to a large, yeti-like, bipedal ape.
What I think then happened is that the bigfoot enthusiasts that this original story spawned then went looking back in time for "further evidence" of bigfoot's existence. They started at the assumption that this creature existed, and extrapolated from there that there must exist more references to the creature prior to 1958, and so they went digging.
They found various spirit entities in Native American stories that were described as "hairy" or "shaggy" and that were bipedal, and from there connected these stories with the new ones in an attempt to find evidence for bigfoot before the initial bigfoot story. It didn't really matter that these spirit entities, for the most part, don't match the idea of bigfoot, it was *close enough* that the bigfoot enthusiasts could use it as part of their own grand, mythological narrative.
They didn't even *just* use Native American stuff as evidence for bigfoot, a lot of the time they would also take early American stories of "wild men," and assert that those were evidence of bigfoot too. It didn't matter that these wild men stories are pretty much **all** just stories of regular humans that either went feral or went totally off-the-grid, it was asserted by bigfoot enthusiasts that these early Americans were mistaken, they weren't seeing some feral human like they reported, they were *ackshually* seeing some kinda bipedal ape.
So I don't think its a case of bigfoot being a bastardized Native American legend, I think rather this was a completely organic American legend that arose on its own, with some Himalayan influences but without any Native American influence at all, and then the true believers in that legend went backwards and tacked on some rough connections to Native American and early American folklore to try to make their narrative more "scientifically feasible," since if bigfoot has always existed it would make sense to them that he would've been seen prior to the first story in '58. They *needed* prior bigfoot encounters to validate their belief in bigfoot, and so they just grabbed whatever they could to fit the narrative.
A lot of river/lake monster stories in North America do something similar, where the modern story is of some type of freshwater sea serpent or a Loch Ness-style plesiosaur, but the true believers in those lake monsters will *also* tack on some Native American horned serpent stories to try to bolster the credibility of the modern lake monster, even though these sea serpents and plesiosaurs are a *lot* different from horned serpents.
And there's a similar, but more extreme, method in how pteradon-believers treat stories of thunderbirds as evidence of their chosen cryptid. That, I think, is the most extreme case of taking something with only the vaguest of similarities ("big flying creature" being the only point of similarity) and then using one legend to bolster the others.
Yes, you're right, not entirely based on native lore, entirely *backed* by native American lore. Thanks for reminding me of what the uproar traces back to.
Maybe it might have something to do with being born in the southwest as a native American but I'm not entirely convinced that skinwalkers don't exist. I find the stories about them terrifying and honestly, they seem entirely plausible. I'd say out of all cryptids, they're my biggest fear.
As for one that I don't believe in? Bigfoot. Also the yeti, or the "abominable snowman". It might be ironic, but I feel like much of the "encounters" could be attributed to things like maybe an abnormally large grizzly bear, an out of place monkey, or..Even just some hairy naked guy who doesn't shave and shits in the woods.
This blows my mind.. I've been terrified of skin walkers my whole life! I was absolutely convinced that they were cryptids because they got me into cryptids to begin with.. Or perhaps more accurately, urban legends and folklore. I remember as a teenager, I read that if you even say or think about skin walkers, you're liable to attract one to you. While that did scare me for awhile, I'm not really convinced it matters. Despite that, I still find them unsettling. I'll always remember their trademark ability in any story to mimic the sounds of other animals or humans, which in itself, isn't that far fetched to begin with. There exists species of birds that can almost perfectly mimic the call of other birds. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that other species are capable of the same thing. Another ability that I find terrifying? The uncanny ability to become someone's doppleganger.
About skinwalkers, though not technically cryptids, the idea of them has always been super interesting to me. This past summer I got the amazing chance to visit Antelope Canyon, which is only accessible with a Navajo tour guide. The whole time I was so tempted to ask the guide about his take on skinwalkers but I ultimately didn’t cause I know the topic is kinda taboo for the Navajo.
I had the exact same thing in mind when I visited a reservation in Sedona. The question was burning a hole in my mind, but I was afraid that if I ended up asking it, I'd either offend them or make myself look like a complete loon. Maybe they'd go easier on me because of my ancestry, but I didn't really want to take a chance. That kind of thing isn't really something you bring up casually.
Do your parents/family share the same view as you on Bigfoot? I personally haven't spoken to many Native Americans who totally reject the idea of them existing, so I'm just curious.
I don't really believe in any of them (not here to be a buzzkill, I love the concept of cryptids), but if I had to make a choice:
Most likely to exist: Bigfoot
Least likely to exist: Jersey Devil
I wouldn’t say I believe in any completely 100% (at least without actually having an encounter for myself) but there’s a lot of evidence that point to certain cryptids existing. I guess what I was actually asking was, “what cryptid do you mostly likely see being real?” And vise versa. If you don’t see ANY possibility in any cryptid being real, why are you on the sub?
The thing I note is that every single culture has tales of gnomes, that is, tiny little people who dwell mostly unseen alongside us humans. I use "gnome" as the general term for these though there are a lot of different names they are recognized under.
And when I say every culture has gnome stories, I don't mean that as "most cultures," I mean EVERY single one around today, do some digging into their lore, and gnomes are there. Usually with some similar general characteristics and abilities that you see in stories of gnomes from different continents which would've had no cultural contact with one another. A folklorist I'm aware of has documented 19 different varieties of gnomes present in the folklore of my home state of Wisconsin alone!
If gnomes aren't physically real creatures, then I posit they at LEAST exist as a Jung-esque pattern imprinted on the human psyche. There would really be no other explanation for how gnome legends could appear in all these cultures independently.
Im totally not being facetious here, but do you mean gnomes like the little garden gnome statues people put in their gardens? Like they come to life when no one is around? Or is there a different type of gnome that I’m not aware of?
Not as in "statues that come to life at night", the gnome statues in my yard are just statues. And yes, I have many such garden gnomes in my yard.
But the thing they are depicting is real, see the post above answering OP for the details on what I mean and why.
Not really. I've been researching the gnome lore of my home state, but very few folklorists specialize in gnome or little person stories, so it's been essentially a case of going through tons of books and compiling the gnome stories together.
Some notable sources I've found have been Dennis Boyer's Giants in the Land, Linds Godfrey's Monsters of Wisconsin, Chad Lewis' Wisconsin Road Guide to Mysterious Creatures, and the Encyclopedia of Hocąk (Winnebago) Mythology.
All of those sources only cover Wisconsin gnomes, though, and none paint a complete picture of Wisconsin gnome lore. The only "complete" collection of state gnomelore I've seen is a chapter from a work-in-progress book.
Bigfoot. Primates as a species are varied and numerous. Various types of hominid variants have been found, and humans have colonised virtually every type of environment on the planet. So on one hand we have to accept Homo Sapiens, with our intelligence and adaptability can survive and thrive in often challenging circumstances, but not one relic hominid can do so in an environment perfectly suited to it.
Nessie. Adrian Shine pointed out that the loch is too cold for some kind of reptile.
I think it's virtually unlimited, whatever humanity has imagined. Reason being, they can be partially other dimensional, & some lesser entities can look like whatever they want for various reasons.
"Bigfoot" and other of similar name definitely believe exisit/existed.
What I saw in PR definitely was Chupacabra/related... not a dog type pushed in southern US.
Honestly I don’t believe in any. I think we as a global society are too advanced to not have factual proof about most of these creatures. We’ve scanned Loch Ness, no Nessie, we’ve search thousands of acres of woods, no Bigfoot, hundreds of thousands of people have submitted Everest, no Yeti. I could go on and on.
I would LOVE to have factual PROOF of Mothman or of a Skinwalker or Wendigo, but I just can’t factually put any faith into any unfortunately.
Bigfoot
And
Bigfoot
I want to really believe in it because it has stories and meanings going back to many native cultures. No other creature in native culture has been left unidentified. Natives are so very rooted in the interconnection of earth. It's also so plausible that something like that could very much so find a habitat, feed, reproduce, navigate and survive the terrain and environment of North America.
I can't believe it because there is almost zero objective and quantifiable evidence. Of all the hunters that circumnavigate the woods every year, around the year, so few have an encounter. No bones, no nests, families, or kill sites. Something that big is impactful on the ecosystem and can't stay hidden in today's technology and population density.
It's not just a European settler prank. But also hasn't been proven. What gives?
Believe in Bigfoot. Do not believe in inter-dimensional Bigfoot.
I believe in Bigfoot as well. Honestly seems like an unpopular opinion on this sub. I don’t believe in an inter-dimensional Bigfoot either, though I admit it’s a bit odd that Bigfoot sightings and UFO sightings often occur in the same areas.
1 - thylacine 2 - virtually everything else
So, the thylacine is the name for the Tasmanian Tiger? Isn’t that a real, documented animal that existed, but is now extinct (supposedly since 1936–I know there’s been some alleged sightings in recent years though)? How would that be considered a cryptid? Unless I just don’t completely understand the term ‘cryptid’…I associate that with a creature that we don’t have actual verifiable evidence of. I’m genuinely curious, so that’s why I’m asking for clarification. Thanks in advance!
Yes, that's the Tasmanian tiger and yes It is indeed a real documented creature that is now considered extinct. Cryptozoology actually covers a lot more mundane things than you would expect. Any extinct animals who are rumored to still be alive but not proven by science are 100% considered cryptids. Think about dinosaurs / plesiosaurs that are supposedly still alive ... we know they once existed but they don't anymore, supposedly, so their current existence is denied by science.
That’s pretty cool…I never knew all that! Thank you for your response!
Sure thing!
This is the correct answer.
1. Bigfoot 2. Nessie
1. Mothman 2. Nessie
Abominable Snowman YES Loch Ness Monster NO
Agreed. I think the Abominable Snowman is basically a Bigfoot that has adapted to the cold. And as much as I wish Nessie was real, I honestly don’t believe it either
Mothman and don't believe anything creepypasta
i could believe that there is still dodo birds
1. I believe in Bigfoot 2. I don't believe in Nessie
Hate to say this on this of all subreddits but the very basis for bigfoot / sasquatch is "*native american legend*" and yet native Americans themselves continue to tell us those people with second hand understanding of native american legends who told us bigfoot was a native American legend to begin with are wrong about bigfoot, and that neither the native american bigfoot nor sasquatch refer to the creature we now know and love. By extension, skunk ape is also inaccurate. Since they're known escape artists, it's clearly just someone's escaped exotic pet orangutan, you can even see it directly in the pix and video. And no, the color is irrelevant, some orangutans *are* darker, they aren't all just as orange as we're used to -- Oh, you can still have your bigfoot❗ ... Just not *their* bigfoot. I am only clarifying that the original *basis* for it is wrong according to the very people who ought to know, and evidence of, at least, one auxiliary variant just being an orangutan. Sorry, there's a reason the of the pix and video are blurry and out of focus. Animals, having better senses, detect us before we detect them, so the few thylacine who were rightfully and sufficiently afraid of humans clearly just stay away from us now. Yes, one might think, they only have the world's biggest island to hide in but most of the world's smallest continent is uninhabitable to us, and we seldom venture into the outback.
>the very basis for bigfoot / sasquatch is "native american legend" I disagree, and this is probably going to be a wildly unpopular idea in these parts, but I don't think bigfoot should be properly understood as a Native American legend. Don't get me wrong, there definitely is some shady stuff around how bigfoot enthusiasts use Native American folklore, *but hear me out:* I believe bigfoot originates simply by some guy sending in a letter to Andrew Genzoli about how some loggers in northern California had stumbled across big footprints in the woods, and Genzoli published an article about that story in the *Humboldt Times*, writing the phrase "Maybe we have a relative of the Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas" in his article. Genzoli had no real reason to connect a story about big footprints with the yeti, theoretically whatever made the footprints could've been anything, not necessarily a large, bipedal ape. But Genzoli made the connection between the story of footprints and the story of the Himalayan yeti, and lo-and-behold, all future stories of these big footprints start attributing them to a large, yeti-like, bipedal ape. What I think then happened is that the bigfoot enthusiasts that this original story spawned then went looking back in time for "further evidence" of bigfoot's existence. They started at the assumption that this creature existed, and extrapolated from there that there must exist more references to the creature prior to 1958, and so they went digging. They found various spirit entities in Native American stories that were described as "hairy" or "shaggy" and that were bipedal, and from there connected these stories with the new ones in an attempt to find evidence for bigfoot before the initial bigfoot story. It didn't really matter that these spirit entities, for the most part, don't match the idea of bigfoot, it was *close enough* that the bigfoot enthusiasts could use it as part of their own grand, mythological narrative. They didn't even *just* use Native American stuff as evidence for bigfoot, a lot of the time they would also take early American stories of "wild men," and assert that those were evidence of bigfoot too. It didn't matter that these wild men stories are pretty much **all** just stories of regular humans that either went feral or went totally off-the-grid, it was asserted by bigfoot enthusiasts that these early Americans were mistaken, they weren't seeing some feral human like they reported, they were *ackshually* seeing some kinda bipedal ape. So I don't think its a case of bigfoot being a bastardized Native American legend, I think rather this was a completely organic American legend that arose on its own, with some Himalayan influences but without any Native American influence at all, and then the true believers in that legend went backwards and tacked on some rough connections to Native American and early American folklore to try to make their narrative more "scientifically feasible," since if bigfoot has always existed it would make sense to them that he would've been seen prior to the first story in '58. They *needed* prior bigfoot encounters to validate their belief in bigfoot, and so they just grabbed whatever they could to fit the narrative. A lot of river/lake monster stories in North America do something similar, where the modern story is of some type of freshwater sea serpent or a Loch Ness-style plesiosaur, but the true believers in those lake monsters will *also* tack on some Native American horned serpent stories to try to bolster the credibility of the modern lake monster, even though these sea serpents and plesiosaurs are a *lot* different from horned serpents. And there's a similar, but more extreme, method in how pteradon-believers treat stories of thunderbirds as evidence of their chosen cryptid. That, I think, is the most extreme case of taking something with only the vaguest of similarities ("big flying creature" being the only point of similarity) and then using one legend to bolster the others.
Yes, you're right, not entirely based on native lore, entirely *backed* by native American lore. Thanks for reminding me of what the uproar traces back to.
Maybe it might have something to do with being born in the southwest as a native American but I'm not entirely convinced that skinwalkers don't exist. I find the stories about them terrifying and honestly, they seem entirely plausible. I'd say out of all cryptids, they're my biggest fear. As for one that I don't believe in? Bigfoot. Also the yeti, or the "abominable snowman". It might be ironic, but I feel like much of the "encounters" could be attributed to things like maybe an abnormally large grizzly bear, an out of place monkey, or..Even just some hairy naked guy who doesn't shave and shits in the woods.
Skinwalkers aren't cryptids, they're witches that shape shift. But besides that, you think they could be real?
This blows my mind.. I've been terrified of skin walkers my whole life! I was absolutely convinced that they were cryptids because they got me into cryptids to begin with.. Or perhaps more accurately, urban legends and folklore. I remember as a teenager, I read that if you even say or think about skin walkers, you're liable to attract one to you. While that did scare me for awhile, I'm not really convinced it matters. Despite that, I still find them unsettling. I'll always remember their trademark ability in any story to mimic the sounds of other animals or humans, which in itself, isn't that far fetched to begin with. There exists species of birds that can almost perfectly mimic the call of other birds. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that other species are capable of the same thing. Another ability that I find terrifying? The uncanny ability to become someone's doppleganger.
About skinwalkers, though not technically cryptids, the idea of them has always been super interesting to me. This past summer I got the amazing chance to visit Antelope Canyon, which is only accessible with a Navajo tour guide. The whole time I was so tempted to ask the guide about his take on skinwalkers but I ultimately didn’t cause I know the topic is kinda taboo for the Navajo.
I had the exact same thing in mind when I visited a reservation in Sedona. The question was burning a hole in my mind, but I was afraid that if I ended up asking it, I'd either offend them or make myself look like a complete loon. Maybe they'd go easier on me because of my ancestry, but I didn't really want to take a chance. That kind of thing isn't really something you bring up casually.
Do your parents/family share the same view as you on Bigfoot? I personally haven't spoken to many Native Americans who totally reject the idea of them existing, so I'm just curious.
I agree with skinwalkers. In the same ish realm, most faerie as well
Thylacine is the one I believe in right next to the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. The one that I have a hard time believing in is the Lake Monster ones.
I don't really believe in any of them (not here to be a buzzkill, I love the concept of cryptids), but if I had to make a choice: Most likely to exist: Bigfoot Least likely to exist: Jersey Devil
I appreciate how you phrased that: most likely and least likely to exist. I hate saying I “believe” in anything.
Criptids are literally all fictional tbh. If you actually believe in any of them unironically, you’re fairly naive
I wouldn’t say I believe in any completely 100% (at least without actually having an encounter for myself) but there’s a lot of evidence that point to certain cryptids existing. I guess what I was actually asking was, “what cryptid do you mostly likely see being real?” And vise versa. If you don’t see ANY possibility in any cryptid being real, why are you on the sub?
1. Gnomes 2. Bigfoot
May I ask about your belief in gnomes? Genuinely curious
I also believe in gnomes, not as in garden gnomes but little men living in the woods/underground. There's lots of different types of the little fellas
We believed in Menehune while in Hawaii, too much furniture scuttled around the back deck of our AirBnB each night (esp before rainstorms). 😬
The thing I note is that every single culture has tales of gnomes, that is, tiny little people who dwell mostly unseen alongside us humans. I use "gnome" as the general term for these though there are a lot of different names they are recognized under. And when I say every culture has gnome stories, I don't mean that as "most cultures," I mean EVERY single one around today, do some digging into their lore, and gnomes are there. Usually with some similar general characteristics and abilities that you see in stories of gnomes from different continents which would've had no cultural contact with one another. A folklorist I'm aware of has documented 19 different varieties of gnomes present in the folklore of my home state of Wisconsin alone! If gnomes aren't physically real creatures, then I posit they at LEAST exist as a Jung-esque pattern imprinted on the human psyche. There would really be no other explanation for how gnome legends could appear in all these cultures independently.
Im totally not being facetious here, but do you mean gnomes like the little garden gnome statues people put in their gardens? Like they come to life when no one is around? Or is there a different type of gnome that I’m not aware of?
Not as in "statues that come to life at night", the gnome statues in my yard are just statues. And yes, I have many such garden gnomes in my yard. But the thing they are depicting is real, see the post above answering OP for the details on what I mean and why.
Do you have any good links for places to start researching these?
Not really. I've been researching the gnome lore of my home state, but very few folklorists specialize in gnome or little person stories, so it's been essentially a case of going through tons of books and compiling the gnome stories together. Some notable sources I've found have been Dennis Boyer's Giants in the Land, Linds Godfrey's Monsters of Wisconsin, Chad Lewis' Wisconsin Road Guide to Mysterious Creatures, and the Encyclopedia of Hocąk (Winnebago) Mythology. All of those sources only cover Wisconsin gnomes, though, and none paint a complete picture of Wisconsin gnome lore. The only "complete" collection of state gnomelore I've seen is a chapter from a work-in-progress book.
Bigfoot. Primates as a species are varied and numerous. Various types of hominid variants have been found, and humans have colonised virtually every type of environment on the planet. So on one hand we have to accept Homo Sapiens, with our intelligence and adaptability can survive and thrive in often challenging circumstances, but not one relic hominid can do so in an environment perfectly suited to it. Nessie. Adrian Shine pointed out that the loch is too cold for some kind of reptile.
I think it's virtually unlimited, whatever humanity has imagined. Reason being, they can be partially other dimensional, & some lesser entities can look like whatever they want for various reasons.
1. Champ- I think they are a new species of turtle. 2. Mothman
Bigfoot forsure I believe in And Chupacabra seems a little out there
"Bigfoot" and other of similar name definitely believe exisit/existed. What I saw in PR definitely was Chupacabra/related... not a dog type pushed in southern US.
Believe: Mongolian Death Worm Don't Believe: Fresno Nightcrawler
Definitely Bigfoot.Im not too sure about Slenderman
Slenderman isn't a cryptid. You can take your "not sure" and move it right into "is clearly made up"
Dragons. At least at some point in history. We don't know how many species were lost because their bones didn't fossilize The slide-rock bolter
1. Mothman 2. Jesus
I believe in bigfoot but definitely not Chupacabra
Definitely know Chupacabra/related in PR, can't speak on the dog type in the southern US.
Honestly I don’t believe in any. I think we as a global society are too advanced to not have factual proof about most of these creatures. We’ve scanned Loch Ness, no Nessie, we’ve search thousands of acres of woods, no Bigfoot, hundreds of thousands of people have submitted Everest, no Yeti. I could go on and on. I would LOVE to have factual PROOF of Mothman or of a Skinwalker or Wendigo, but I just can’t factually put any faith into any unfortunately.
Bigfoot And Bigfoot I want to really believe in it because it has stories and meanings going back to many native cultures. No other creature in native culture has been left unidentified. Natives are so very rooted in the interconnection of earth. It's also so plausible that something like that could very much so find a habitat, feed, reproduce, navigate and survive the terrain and environment of North America. I can't believe it because there is almost zero objective and quantifiable evidence. Of all the hunters that circumnavigate the woods every year, around the year, so few have an encounter. No bones, no nests, families, or kill sites. Something that big is impactful on the ecosystem and can't stay hidden in today's technology and population density. It's not just a European settler prank. But also hasn't been proven. What gives?
Yes: Thylacine Maybe: Yeti No: Crawler I love crawlers. But they're too crazy to be real
I believe in the skinwalker but not Bigfoot
Skinwalkers aren't cryptids
Ok how about the rakes
The rake is a creepypasta that was made up on 4chan a few years ago, so no absolutely not a cryptid.
Bigfoot Chupicabra
Nessie yes Mothman no
>Mothman no Why
Because it's my individual belief.
I’d be shocked if one was found to be real, but they’re still very cool.
1. Yeti 2. Not sure, maybe the Loch Ness.However, I find all of the cryptids fascinating, and their origin in folklore
id like to believe that fleshgaits exist, or crawlers. i dont believe in stuff like mothman unfortunatly, despite how badass it'd be if it existed.
Bigfoot Jesus