Post #3558859

I have a genuine interest in cryptozoology. I've been interested in it for a long time. Everything from the Loch Ness Monster to Big Foot. But my interest is in the actual scientific study and research of the stories and any actual physical / photo / video evidence that creatures outside what we know exist. I approach cryptozoology largely in regard to either animals that are real, that we don't know about yet. Or as animals that existed at one time, but may or may not be exist now. One of my favorite modern cryptids for example is the Thylacine. (My character Ozo is one of these.) This was a real animal that lived in recent times. As little as around 100 years ago. We have photos and video of these animals alive. The last known confirmed example of the species was an animal that died at the Hobart zoo on Septermber 7th, 1936, most commonly referred to as "Benjamin". But we continue to hear stories of people seeing them today. And from time to time some evidence comes through that may support their continued existence. But along with that potentially credible evidence comes a slew of blurry photos, questionable eye witness accounts, and very shaky evidence. As well as people that just try to capitalize the hype around cryptozoology, trying to make the search for these creatures more like a reality TV show than actual research. Where people are eager to front even the most shaky evidence as proof. Hoping the viewer will know so little about the subject that they'll just be dazzled instead of recognizing for example the "thylacine" is a fox with a bad case of mange or a limp. It leads to all cryptozoology having a high noise to signal ratio, and degrades the real research, making cryptozoologists and those interested in the field look like crackpots. The following is colorized video and a photo of one of the last Thylacines ever held in captivity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gt0X-27GXM