The Discovery of Behemoth: A living breathing Dinosaur in the modern age

Legends are usualy conjured from fact.For example "the kraken"=Giant squid(archotuthis dux),the "giant man eating snakes of the Amazon"=Anaconda.There is more but I won go into detail.

reply to post by jkrog08


Not really.

There's also the problem that the Mokole Mbembe, as described, does not mesh with any of the Sauropod dinosaurs, However, it does mesh well with the early 20th-century idea of Sauropods - swamb-dwelling tail-dragging, erect-necked doofuses - which was the influence of the pulp novels that gave rise to the Mokole-mbembe.

Actual sauropods were land-dwelling creatures of open spaces with horizontal necks, for the most part. The brachiosaurids with the erect necks were all immense, and would not be easily missed - We could start by following hte huge swaths of trampled land they would leave in their wake, being herd creatures.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

Sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread 'til now.

None of the names mentioned yet are the man I saw, unfortunately. I googled them all and they are all part of failed expeditions where nothing was seen. I could only find one mention of the audio tape and succesfull expedition on a message board and they do not mention the name of the guy. Doh.



As to other speculations - I can't answer specific questions obviously, I shared all I remember.

How old would the thing be? Not 50 million that's for sure. These 'monsters' were reported by other tribes in Africa and yes, as someone previously shared, there are stories of the monsters being killed. There were (are?) more than one and that has sustained a small population.

There is absolutely no way modern man can find these things without going out into the thick of the jungle, and that is a serious undertaking... that's why so many expeditions failed. It sits along with Bigfoot as a 'hardcore crypto'. These things are out there, but they are living in the most rugged and remote terrain on earth.

Originally posted by Sovereign797
This guy is right. How old do you suppose this creature is? about 50 million years or so? If not, then where is it's mommy and daddy, and their mommy and daddy? There has to be at least 3 of these creatures living today, or having lived there recently. And a sustainable population of these creatures would be much larger.

This I disagree with, for several reasons.

We know pretty much nothing for sure about dinosaurs other than their bone structures. Who says dinosaurs aren't asexual? They may not need a male and female species to reproduce. Perhaps they can multiply on their own.

If they do reproduce by sexual reproduction, surely if the lake is large enough to hide one, it can hide several. There may be a small family of them living in the lake. These jungles in Africa are largely unexplored. Who knows what goodies lie out there just itching to be discovered?

reply to post by ChocoTaco369

Whatever ihe information that was circulating around 1985, it was enough to conveince National Geographic to contract SF (military) personell to accompany such a project, Like others the auster life and exsposure to extreme heat, insects and poisonous critters,, turned the project around after a few short weeks, I was a stand by medic,, someone else paid,,, to get on as a medic for the expedition. At that time I was told that they had pictures,, abit fuzzy but when enhanced,, clearly showed a Brachyasours relative,,

If we approach this from the angle of a skeptic, we hit a stumbling block.

Why would the pygmies make up such a story? Either they have nothing to gain and are being truthful, or are savvy enough to know that increased tourism in the area would benefit them because they could sell stuff to the crytozoologists.

From the account given, i would assume that the pgymies are being truthful, as the tourist interaction seems to be minimal.

I do not think the pygmies are making it up either. Even going back to the turn of the last century, two so-called myths turned out to be real: the Mountain Gorilla in Africa, and the Panda Bear in China were found to be living, breathing creatures. And in either 1936 or 1937, the Coelocanth, a prehistoric fish that was supposedly extinct for 65 million years, was found to still be alive off of the Madagascar and South African Coasts. And they have also been found to live off the Malaysian coast now, too. So it is distinct;y possible that a Mokele mbebe is a living breathing creature as well.

Lets not forget the Kraken myth being the giant squid also.

EDIT:So this isnt a one liner,if anyone wants to setup an expedition I AM GAME!

[edit on 3/23/2008 by jkrog08]

For a breeding population to exist, or continue to exist, you need to maintain a certain threshold of numbers. Given the size of sauropods, evidence would be obvious, it seems to me. It might, of course, be in the process of dying off, that might explain the small numbers...my other question is why would the speicies live in the swamp? Sauropods, according to current orthodoxy, were creatures of the open plain or savannah, maybe low scrub forests. They were, quite litterally, walking vacuum cleaners. Seems to me, the evidence of their existence would be obvious.

reply to post by jbmitch


So you were on the expedition?Did you just stay at the camp?

I think the whole idea of a "dinosaur in the jungle" is an old idea that's kind of mushroomed into some odd legend.

Even when they were alive, I don't think dinosaurs lived in jungles. As others have pointed out, these aren't even the right conditions for sauropods (as they are described)

Other than hippos, snakes, and crocodilians, (as far as large animals go) I'm not sure what other animals regularly go in and out of the water to the point of being submerged when they go in and stay in for a while.

I'm interested to see what, if anything, someone eventually finds.

Originally posted by seagull
For a breeding population to exist, or continue to exist, you need to maintain a certain threshold of numbers. Given the size of sauropods, evidence would be obvious, it seems to me.

Sure, there would be. Keep in mind that there are thousands of square miles of uninhabitated and even unexplored terrain. Rugged, impassable, and treacherous terrain. Populations are sparse, scattered and have no connection to civilization.

What would a couple of tribesman do when they stumble upon a large path of broken forest? They'll assume there is a monster there... and they aren't likely to end up on the evening news with their story.

Mokele Mbembe-

i remember this one. it lives in ta lake in the Congo last i heard. but in actuallity how can one of a species survive? there are similar stories like this about the amazon river in south america. there is said to be a pod of dinos living in the jungles and that some bones were discovered when they started cutting down the rainforest but it was coverd up.

in actuallity i dont know if there are any truths to any of these.
i know there have been some old (90's) and current (2003+) shoes covering this.

history channel did one where the team camped out on the edge of the lake for 4 days and all they heard were weird sounds. but take anyone to a lake where a supposed monster lives and you will hear weird stuff also.

scifi channel "Destiantion truth" had/has done one in the month of march this year, i havent seen that one yet but i hear the premises is about the same. the team camps out at the edge of the lake and waits.

it would be stellar if someone actually found a live specimen

~ghost

reply to post by NewWorldOver



That's true enough, it just seems that the results of their huge nutritional needs would be obvious. I, absolutely, would like to see a dinosaur in the classic sense found in the Congo.

Originally posted by Sovereign797

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

This guy is right. How old do you suppose this creature is? about 50 million years or so? If not, then where is it's mommy and daddy, and their mommy and daddy? There has to be at least 3 of these creatures living today, or having lived there recently. And a sustainable population of these creatures would be much larger.

To those that think it's out there: Are we to believe that a long line of these creatures has finally led to one last survivor which is there today? Or would you suggest there's quite a few out there?

And that doesn't even consider that a single "family" producing offspring within it's own gene pool would most likely result in some severe DNA defects, especially if the inbreeding took place over such a long period of time. So there would probably need to be several separate groups that breed in order to maintain a healthy population.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by John_Q_Llama]

I just watched a show on an expedition to see this. They were certain the captured film and when it hit the lab it was a series of hippos surfacing at the same time that had looked like a long set of humps.

They say bunk, but I was hoping there was something there right up to the reveal.

I just watched a show about this the other night, it wasnt monsterquest but along the same lines and a wee bit more light moodwise.

This lake is HUGE, there is an populated island in the middle of the lake that is 7KM long. Thats a good size island much less to be in a freshwater lake.

Ya know besides the whole dinosaur in the lake issue I enjoyed watching it because the island was full of healthy happy active African children with bright eyes and full tummies

reply to post by John_Q_Llama


With limited paleo experience, I will venture in here with a small question or rather a comment. I thought dinosaurs reproduced with eggs, much like reptiles and amphibians (and birds) do. Fossil eggs have been found in China. That might explain a small population but I would know very little about the genetic of breeding within a clutch of eggs.


[edit on 26-3-2008 by geologist]

reply to post by geologist


No, I think you're right about eggs. But I don't think there is a way to avoid DNA problems that arise as a result of inbreeding. The only thing that puzzles me, and this was mentioned in an earlier post, is asexual creatures. Are they exempt from such defects? I'm assuming that DNA works the same for all creatures though. For all we know the dinosaurs, Behemoth included, could have had some other mechanics at work with their reproduction, or perhaps if such a beast was alone or with a small group it would trigger reproductive processes that allow for healthy offspring. also, there have been reports of certain female animals giving birth without being around a male, so I would not be surprised if such a thing happens in nature as a survival mechanism.

I know in some frog populations, (and fish, I think) if there aren't enough of one sex, some of them "switch". I don;t know how this affects breeding, though.

I saw that show about the expedition on YouTube. It's Destination Truth. Kind of an anticlimactic ending. I see there point, but don;t you think the native people know what a hippo looks like at any distance?

Well, I hope they keep searching...

[edit on 27-3-2008 by IrvingTheExplainer]