End of Year

Mokele-Mbembe: The Beast of the Congo

Author and friend William Gibbons has recently released his book Mokele-Mbembe: Mystery Beast of the Congo Basin, which combines all of the research and exploration done in the Congo of Africa over the last several decades into one exciting journey. Mr. Gibbons, coauthor of the book Claws Jaws and Dinosaurs with Dr. Kent Hovind in 1999 after his third expedition to the Congo, says that 11 years later the evidence is even more overwhelming in favor of the beast. Mokele-Mbembe is an excellent overview that shows detailed fieldwork, and examines the real history of the monster known to the natives as Mokele-Mbembe. The creature is described as larger than an elephant, with a long neck and long tail. The pygmy natives that live in the largest swamp in the world testify to the truth of the dinosaur-like creature that still inhabits their land. Dozens of expeditions into the swamp have been completed, and lots of evidence gathered to make the remarkable claim that these creatures still roam the earth.

Most recently Mr. Gibbons’ book received the “Best Cryptozoology Book of 2010” award from Cryptomundo.com. One of the authors and editors of the site, Loren Coleman, stated:

This is an excellent example of the examination of histories, ethnoknown realities, and evidences of one cryptid and related probable species in a limited area, with expedition fieldwork detailed by one of those who was there. It takes the subject seriously, and gives a new treatment to the topic of Mokele-Mbembe in a well-executed overview. It is the kind of cryptozoological opus that should be individually produced on all the often-neglected cryptids. Congratulations to the author and publisher for this one!

,

Leave24 Responses to testMokele-Mbembe: The Beast of the Congo

  1. John Bebbington February 21, 2011 at 8:53 am #

    Sadly, no cryptid will ever be discovered for, if it were, it wouldn’t be a cryptid.

    Meanwhile, the various expeditions funded by the faithful to hunt for the jabberwock and bandersnatch keep the locals gainfully employed and ever grateful for the extra cash.

    As for “and lots of evidence gathered to make the remarkable claim that these creatures still roam the earth” such evidence as there might be (none of which I have seen) seems to prove the remarkable inability of these alleged huge beasts over many hundreds of years to roam anywhere at all.

    Do creationists never visit bookshops or libraries? Are they not aware that such places are stuffed full of make believe? Why do they think that educated western man may weave a vast industry of fictitious stories for their own enjoyment but uneducated pygmy swamp dwellers, without the benefit of the printed word, would not use their imaginations to scare the shitake mushrooms out of each other by the re-telling of ancient scary myths around the evening camp-fire?

    And even if a living pterosaur were discovered what would it prove in favour of YECism? Surely, all it would show was that science had been wrong in claiming that the entire race of dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago but that, in the light of new evidence, some species had manage to survive to the modern day. An unlikely event, admittedly, but not outside the bounds of possibility.

  2. Mindy Newell February 21, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    What is the threat of someone going to a remote location that is steeped in local folklore that represents an animal that may or may not exist but would have significant scientific repercussions. Besides didn’t this man write a book about this very animal and wouldn’t you buy it in a bookstore or rent it in a library? I would think anyone interested in scientific discovery would be excited about the prospect of a real life lost world. Prove him wrong without going to the bookstore or library. Go to the source. He did.

  3. John Bebbington February 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote:

    “constant speed” of light. How can light, which travels a varying speeds be called “constant speed”?

    Light travels at a constant speed in a medium of constant density. I proved it by ray tracing when I was about 12 years old.

    Do your brilliant scientist not know how the discern the difference between constant speed and average speed of a round trip?

    Yes, they do know how and, on, average, will have known since they too were 12 years old how to calculate the difference.

    Aren’t these the same geniuses that can’t figure out the “Unifying Field Theory”?

    Not necessarily. Not many scientists study the theory. And it’s “who” not “that”.

    Talk about being wise in your own conceit.

    The more educated the scientist the more he realises he doesn’t know. In my experience it is only religious fundamentalists who express certainty.

    I have empirically proven that the speed of light is not a constant.

    We speccies already knew light moves at different speeds in different media. If light was a constant in all media then I would have to return my multifocals and get my money back.

    and answered the dilemma to the “unifying field theory”

    I paid you the courtesy of reading your Facebook page. It is so full of error it is clear that you have little understanding of physics.

  4. Peter Moeller February 21, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    John Bebbington – is it a fair comment that you did not read the book?

    Before you ridicule the “lots of evidence” you should see what the book has to offer. Maybe they are not “ancient scary myths” but accounts like “my father-in-law was eaten by one”. You really have to read the book, otherwise you just show your prejudice.

  5. Duane February 22, 2011 at 3:41 am #

    When do we get to hear about Bigfoot, the Yeti and Nessie? Eric, just when I think you can’t top yourself you give us yet another gem. What exactly is this supposed to prove?

  6. Jeff Brace February 22, 2011 at 4:25 am #

    And what of the dinasaur bones found with living tissue in them?

  7. John Bebbington February 22, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    Besides didn’t this man write a book about this very animal and wouldn’t you buy it in a bookstore or rent it in a library? I would think anyone interested in scientific discovery would be excited about the prospect of a real life lost world.

    He hasn’t made the discovery yet. When he does I’ll be keen to read all about it.

    I went to a number of creationist and cryptid websites to read what they had to say including a summary of his book written by the man himself.

    It seems that he has no physical evidence of any cryptid other than lots of local nessie-type stories. According to some of the local eye-witnesses the Mokele-Mbembe is supposed to lay eggs in large nests out in the open. If this were the case you would expect that after 250 years of searching for physical evidence rather than relying on just hearsay somebody would have come up with something, wouldn’t you? But, no, they have discovered nothing. So what’s the point in wasting money on the book?

    Prove him wrong without going to the bookstore or library. Go to the source. He did.

    I don’t have to prove anything. Gibbon is making the claim so let him provide the proof. And good luck to him In his, so far, futile search for cryptids he has discovered one previously unknown species of monkey so it hasn’t all been a complete waste of his time.

  8. John Bebbington February 22, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    Peter Moeller wrote:

    John Bebbington is it a fair comment that you did not read the book?
    Before you ridicule the “lots of evidence” you should see what the book has to offer. Maybe they are not “ancient scary myths” but accounts like “my father-in-law was eaten by one”. You really have to read the book, otherwise you just show your prejudice.

    It’s a perfectly fair comment and so is my response. But the example you gave is not fair. It is just further hearsay and not evidence.

    Presumably, you are not prepared to testify to the truth of the existence of leprechauns – especially the one who keeps nicking all my biros.

  9. John Bebbington February 22, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    Jeff Brace wrote:

    And what of the dinasaur bones found with living tissue in them?

    Firstly, they weren’t bones but fossilised bones. Secondly, no “living” tissue has ever been found in a fossil. Living tissue only exists within a living organism or a laboratory.

    What was discovered by Schweitzer was what she believes to be the organic remains of once living tissue although the matter is not yet settled. Other scientists who have carried out many hours of scanning electron microscope analysis of various dinosaur fossils cam to the conclusion that what she had found was pretty much the equivalent of modern pond scum.

    So, who knows? It would be exciting if such tissue structures could be preserved over lengthy periods of time but my bet is that it doesn’t happen.

    .

  10. Geno Castagnoli February 22, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    Peter Moeller:
    You really have to read the book, otherwise you just show your prejudice.
    ####

    Geno asks:
    Have you read the Book of Mormon? The Bhagavad Gita? The Quran? The Tao? Dianetics? The complete works of Confucius?

    “You really have to read the book, otherwise you just show your prejudice.”

  11. Geno Castagnoli February 22, 2011 at 11:53 am #

    Jeff Brace
    And what of the dinasaur bones found with living tissue in them?
    ######

    Geno answers:
    “Living tissue” ? ? ? Really ? ? ? Never happened.

    There have been some dino bones that had soft tissue, but there wasn’t much more than a few protein fragments recovered.

  12. Jack Napper February 22, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    What is the threat of someone going to a remote location that is steeped in local folklore that represents an animal that may or may not exist but would have significant scientific repercussions.

    Absolutely nothing. It would be change what we know. It certainly wouldn’t disprove evolution as I’m sure some of you are hoping. It’s rather funny that you immediately jump to an illogical conclusion. If it were a “lost world” then the selective pressures which wiped out the beasts so long ago wouldn’t be present there. Of course there is just as much credible evidence for the Loch Ness monster.

    Besides didn’t this man write a book about this very animal and wouldn’t you buy it in a bookstore or rent it in a library? I would think anyone interested in scientific discovery would be excited about the prospect of a real life lost world.

    Actually he’s wrote a couple of books and been on a few expeditions which have all turned up nothing more than folklore. Oh, sorry and a photo they claimed was the creature’s head bobbing out of the water.

    If you think simply because someone writes a book is reason the scientific community should race to the bookstore I have a few other books you might wanna check out:
    The Chronicles of Narnia
    The Wizard of Oz
    Lost World
    Jurassic Park

    Prove him wrong without going to the bookstore or library. Go to the source. He did.

    Yeah, he went to the source and came back with what? More folklore and different descriptions of the “monster”. In one instance he claims that the creature is as large as an elephant with a long neck. The next he claims that it’s probably a Styracosaurus which does not have a long neck. He claims that one was killed with a spear. Oddly enough if you think about it this would destroy the “Hovind Theory” (which is easy to refute) of a pre-flood Earth with high pressure than made the massive beasts and man live to be 900+ years old.

    What I really want you to do is look at what you wrote. “Prove him wrong”? Are you seriously asking that skeptics attempt to prove a negative?

    I believe that magical pink unicorns who are sometimes invisible exist. PROVE ME WRONG.

  13. Jeff Brace February 22, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    John, Geno

    in 2005, a paper appeared in the journal Science that challenged the basic principles of fossilization from its very first sentence: “Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex” [source: Schweitzer, 3/25/2005]. The paper goes on to describe blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues, all found somewhere they shouldn’t be.

    According to the long-held view of fossilization, the presence of those types of tissue in a fossil is impossible. The paper’s primary author, Mary Higby Schweitzer, had come to this unconventional conclusion by approaching her research in an unconventional way.

  14. John Bebbington February 22, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    Kenneth Tyner wrote:

    The constant is based on the measurement of a round trip average speed, over a limited distance. Average speed and constant speed are not the same thing.

    So, according to you, Ken, the speed of light is dependant on its direction. What I would like to know is how my GPS knows which direction the signals are coming from as the coded information it receives does not tell it. It is obviously cleverer than the programmers designed it. Spooky.

    The whole point of the Michelson Morley experiment was that, contrary to your thesis, it demonstrated that the speed of light was direction independent.

    The greater the temperature of the star emitting EM, the faster light will travel, followed by attenuation (slowing down). The maximum speed of light has never been measured, nor can it be measured.

    So, according to you, when the moon passes in front of two stars, one a very hot blue star and the other a cooler red star, the blue star will re-appear before the red star when the moon moves away? That is not what is observed which rather sinks your boat.

    Furthermore, attenuation is not a slowing down of the speed of light but a reduction in the amplitude of its wave length, i.e. it gets dim. Its frequency (i.e. its colour) is not affected upon attenuation just as when you attenuate a radio signal by turning down the volume control the sound is muted but the pitch (the frequency) remains constant.

    As I suggested in a previous post your knowledge of basic physics, Ken, is severely limited.

  15. Duane February 23, 2011 at 3:03 am #

    What is this supposed to prove? What I’ve said all along. The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree. Next will be the Black Helicopters, the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, FEMA, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the International Zionist Conspiracy, the New World Order, the Tax Protester arguments … and so on.

  16. Jennifer Preston February 23, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    John Bebbington wrote:

    “As I suggested in a previous post your knowledge of basic physics, Ken, is severely limited.”

    Like I said Ken, Richard Feynman, Quantum Electrodynamics. Go Read.

  17. John Bebbington February 23, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    Jeff Brace wrote>:

    in 2005, a paper appeared in the journal Science that challenged the basic principles of fossilization from its very first sentence: “Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex” [source: Schweitzer, 3/25/2005].

    the

    Jeff, this was a preliminary finding. Further research has been carried out by not only Schweitzer but others as well and the findings are not as clearcut as the original headline might imply. The jura is still out on this one.

    According to the long-held view of fossilization, the presence of those types of tissue in a fossil is impossible. The paper’s primary author, Mary Higby Schweitzer, had come to this unconventional conclusion by approaching her research in an unconventional way.

    And it may be that she is wrong. We shall have to wait to see so, in the meantime, don’t get too excited that scientists may be wrong in believing that 65 million year old biological material can, under certain conditions, remain preserved. Joan Rivers, for instance.

  18. John Bebbington February 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    Mindy, I took time out to watch the You Tube film of Gibbon’s latest expedition.

    It found nothing other than some scratches on a river bank, some leaves missing from the lower limbs of a tree and a hole or two in a river bank which were described for no reason whatsoever as air vents which, it was suggested, would allow the sauropod in an undiscovered water-logged cave beneath to breathe while it “hibernated” during the dry season. Unfortunately for the thesis, the “air vents” vented nothing but themselves.

    It wasn’t explained why a sauropod who it was suggested spends the vast majority of its life submerged in a big river would need to “hibernate” – by which I assume they meant estivate. The bottom of a large river in the middle of a rain forest is not usually noted for being either hot or dry so I don’t understand why an animal supposedly much bigger than an elephant would find it necessary to do so.

    Perhaps you have some ideas.

  19. Geno Castagnoli February 23, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    Jeff Brace:
    in 2005, a paper appeared in the journal Science that challenged the basic principles of fossilization from­ its very first sentence: “Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex” [source: Schweitzer, 3/25/2005]. The paper goes on to describe blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues, all found somewhere they shouldn’t be.
    ####
    Geno:
    I’m familiar with the discovery. Your claim was “living tissue” was discovered inside the bones. As I pointed out, what was discovered was soft tissue with some protein fragments. Nothing even close to living tissue was found..
    ####

    Jeff:
    According to the long-held view of fossilization, the presence of those types of tissue in a fossil is impossible. The paper’s primary author, Mary Higby Schweitzer, had come to this unconventional conclusion by approaching her research in an unconventional way.
    ####
    Geno:
    Actually, the discovery was an example of serendipity. The bone was too large to load on the helicopter for removal, so they cut it in two. That’s when the material was discovered. As far as I know, no dino bone had been opened before.

    YEC think this example “disproves” evolution. To scientists, the discovery is an exciting find that will make it possible for us to learn more about dinosaurs than we ever thought possible. No serious scientist considers this find to be a serious problem for an ancient earth.

  20. Duane February 23, 2011 at 10:35 pm #

    @Jeff Brace February 22nd at 3:49 pm

    John, Geno

    in 2005, a paper appeared in the journal Science that challenged the basic principles of fossilization from­ its very first sentence: “Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex” [source: Schweitzer, 3/25/2005]. The paper goes on to describe blood vessels, bone matrix and elastic tissues, all found somewhere they shouldn’t be.

    According to the long-held view of fossilization, the presence of those types of tissue in a fossil is impossible. The paper’s primary author, Mary Higby Schweitzer, had come to this unconventional conclusion by approaching her research in an unconventional way.

    You are quoting outdated information. In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer’s samples contained bacterial biofilm, not T. rex tissue. The paper argues that while the T. rex bone acted as a protective layer, it preserved bacteria, not dinosaur protein. According to the paper, the objects that looked like red blood cells were spherical collections of iron and oxygen called framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric.

  21. Randy Miller February 24, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    I am 100% Creationist …
    The Word of God prescribes it, and science points to it.
    But a thought that comes to my mind concerning the Mokele-Mbembe legend is this …
    Satellite photography.
    Zoom in on the swamp and take a look from the sky.
    Or is it too forested?

  22. Jennifer Preston February 26, 2011 at 5:19 am #

    From last blog Kennth Tyner wrote:

    “Since light and gravity are both produced by the same EM wave of solar radiation, if gravity slows down due to entropy, then light also slow down due to entropy. They are both the same thing, lol.”

    I keep trying to tell you and just keep hitting a brick wall. But I feel it is my duty as a physicist to keep telling you.
    Gravity is not a particle, it is a force. Light is a massless particle called a photon, not a force. It can’t slow down, it’s based on the mass of an object, and the Theory of Relativity explains gravity. Therefore light and gravity are NOT the same thing. The reason why Mercury moves around the Sun the fastest goes back to the origin of the Solar System and the Conservation of Angular Momentum, the thing Kent got wrong in his seminar and associated it with the Big Bang, when it is really associated with star formation.
    When the cloud of Hydrogen becomes clumped together, it starts spinning, faster in the centre (Conservation of Angular Momentum). The hydrogen molecules are moving faster so they heat up, eventually combining to form Helium and ignite. Not burning, they don’t need oxygen, but the process of nuclear fusion begins, and the start start giving off vast amounts of energy. The left over hydrogen goes onto form (lot more to it than that) planets, but due to the Conservation of Angular Momentum, the planets nearer the Sun will be spinning faster than the planets further away from the Sun.

    In short, I don’t know what science textbook you are reading from but I am reading from the following:
    Fundamentals of Physics by David Halliday, Robert Resnick, Jearl Walker
    Introduction to Classical and Quantum Field Theory by Tai-Kai Ng
    Feynman Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman
    Mathematical Physics by Shigeji Fujita, Salvador V. Godoy
    And many more

  23. Peter England February 27, 2011 at 2:15 am #

    I’m totally uneducated, so go ahead and slam my comment.
    by the way “cryptid” is your word, I like the terms “living creature” or “beast of the earth” which obviously do exist. If you don’t want to believe something that you’ve never seen, why believe something no-one has ever seen, like helpful mutations leading to new species?
    a modified quote from Jurassic Park;
    God made dragons and behemoths, Man hunted them near extinction, God guided man, man ignored God, man re-invents dragons and “dinosaurs”, and uses the lack of evidence to disprove God… God destroys sin, the meek inherit the earth.

  24. Kenneth Tyner February 27, 2011 at 7:11 pm #

    John Bebbington, it would be nice if you actually addressed my points directly without the use of straw man arguments.

    I never made any mention to the direction of light. And the moon passing in front of stars of different temperatures makes no difference. The light from neither star will reach your eyes. So the one uncovered first is the one you would see first.