Featured Articles

© 2006 Jamie Hall

Air rods, also called "flying rods" and "sky fish," are something like crop circles in that even the skeptics admit they exist. The only question is what they really are. Invisible to the eye, they are picked up by cameras all over the world. Are they living creatures, alien probes, or some sort of 3D electromagnetic smudge? To believers in the cryptozoology-based theory of air rods, air rods are probably living creatures, and they are possibly related to older stories of atmospheric beasts. To skeptics, air rods are bits of flying debris, insects or birds filmed under unusual conditions, or blips on film that are due to errors in film processing.

Air rods were discovered in the 1990s. People found that some films of all types, ranging from home videos to movies seen in theaters, had odd disturbances that looked something like blurry rods that were mostly transparent, occasionally whitish in color. Most of these disturbances were fast-moving and barely visible to the eye. These rods showed up best against large areas of the same color, such as the sky.

The people who examined films for anomalies of this sort started calling what they did "sky fishing" because they usually started by looking at the areas of sky that were visible in films. They found that these rods were widespread. Countless films had them lurking almost imperceptibly in the corners, including old television shows, movies, films of sporting events, almost everything imaginable. There were simply too many examples to study them all, running into the thousands or tens of thousands. There were also air rods visible in photographs, but these were hardly studied at all for reasons that will become clear below. Close study of air rod films revealed a number of very interesting features. As these rods zoomed about, they displayed all the features of three-dimensional objects. In other words, they were not two-dimensional blotches on the camera lens or on the film itself, but something out there in the environment that was actually being filmed by accident...

© 2003 CNN.com

Scientists have revealed a mysterious recording that they say could be the sound of a giant beast lurking in the depths of the ocean. Researchers have nicknamed the strange unidentified sound picked up by undersea microphones "Bloop." While it bears the varying frequency hallmark of marine animals, it is far more powerful than the calls made by any creature known on Earth, Britain's New Scientist reported on Thursday. It is too big for a whale and one theory is that it is a deep sea monster, possibly a many-tentacled giant squid. In 1997, Bloop was detected by U.S. Navy "spy" sensors 3,000 miles apart that had been put there to detect the movement of Soviet submarines, the magazine reports. The frequency of the sound meant it had to be much louder than any recognised animal noise, including that produced by the largest whales. So is it a huge octopus? Although dead giant squid have been washed up on beaches, and tell-tale sucker marks have been seen on whales, there has never been a confirmed sighting of one of the elusive cephalopods in the wild.

The largest dead squid on record measured about 60ft including the length of its tentacles, but no one knows how big the creatures might grow. For years sailors have told tales of monsters of the deep including the huge, many-tentacled kraken that could reach as high as a ship's mainmast and sink the biggest ships. However Phil Lobel, a marine biologist at Boston University, Massachusetts, doubts that giant squid are the source of Bloop. "Cephalopods have no gas-filled sac, so they have no way to make that type of noise," he said. "Though you can never rule anything out completely, I doubt it." Nevertheless he agrees that the sound is most likely to be biological in origin. The system picking up Bloop and other strange noises from the deep is a military relic of the Cold War. In the 1960s the U.S. Navy set up an array of underwater microphones, or hydrophones, around the globe to track Soviet submarines. The network was known as SOSUS, short for Sound Surveillance System...

Copyright © Polenth Blake 1997-2007

Sea serpents and sea dragons have been reported by ships for a long time. They are obviously not that different to the dragons of mythology... it is simply that most of these do not have myths attached to them. The story comes from the retelling of the sighting. Some of the sightings remain mysterious and are possibly candidates for undiscovered species. Others seem more likely to be something more mundane. Faced with a topic like this, it is important not to be too quick to decide that all sightings must be true or that all sightings are explained by other things. Each case should be taken on its own merits.

Daedalus:  In August 1848, the HMS Daedalus was heading back to England from India. Whilst passing by the coast of Namibia, the ship encountered a sea serpent. Captain M'Quhae described the serpent as about 60 feet long. It was floating on the water, with its head held above the water. They could not see how it was moving as it was keeping its body still. Presumably there was some other part under the water propelling it. It was said to have a serpent's head, some sort of mane on its back and to be brown in colouration (with yellow-white around the throat).The sighting caused some controversy. Experts tried to come up with alternative theories for the sighting, rather than accepting it could be true. Examples of suggestions were it was a seal (the size was an error) or part of a ship being pulled by a harpooned whale or shark under the water. Neither seemed to be a mistake a seasoned (and sober) sea captain would be likely to make, though it is always possible.

Hydrarchos: In 1845 Albert C. Koch unveiled a complete sea serpent fossil skeleton, which he called Hydrarchos harlani. It was alleged that it had been recovered in Alabama. The bones were put on display for the public with a great deal of publicity. Koch certainly knew how to get the viewers in for his finds. It was soon discovered to be a fraud. Koch has constructed the creature from five fossil whale skeletons. Charles Lyell (1849) wrote about how the fraud had been worked out: ...

© TrueAuthority.com

The great Tyrannosaurus, the most feared member of the dinosaur kingdom . . . to think that this creature of such renown, such awe, and such sheer terror could possibly be still alive today simply baffles the human mind. Though seemingly ludicrous, could a living Tyrannosaurus, or quite possibly, a close relative of the Tyrannosaur, really be alive today? Is it scientifically possible? In the heart of Africa, to the amazement of many, there have been sightings of Tyrannosaur-like creatures -- one, in particular, by a plantation owner, John Johnson, and his slave. As the report goes, Mr. Johnson and his African slave were traveling through a swampy marsh in the Kasai valley in 1932. Suddenly, they came across a rhinoceros, and were cautious in not disturbing it. Then, to their immediate horror, a large, 42 foot (13 meter) long meter) long "lizard" leaped out of the trees and attacked the rhino. As it began to feed, the African servant fled in panic while the Swede literally fainted, falling to the ground. When he awoke, he found the creature still feeding, and had the opportunity to carefully observe it:

"It was a large beast, at least 12-13 meters long. It was reddish in coloration, with brackish-colored stripes going down. The legs were thick; it reminded me of a lion, built for speed. It had a long snout and numerous teeth. It gorged itself on the rhinoceros, which twitched with life still in it. (Note: the rhino was probably dead, but the Swede probably didn't know about involuntary muscle spasms.) After the creature had eaten its fill, it returned to the jungle slowly, its belly full of flesh." In reality, very few people have reported seeing what has been titled the "Kasai Rex," but the reports of those who have are all strikingly similar; the size differs slightly, but the color of the creature remains the same . . . a dark red. It may not be the Tyrannosaurus, but the Tarbosaurus, a close relative to the Tyrannosaurus. It well-fits the description of the Kasai Rex. If the animals do exist, it is believed that the beast, or beasts, live very deep within Congo jungles, only venturing out when food is scarce. In brief, the Tarbosaurus was a slightly larger specimen than the Tyrannosaur...

© TrueAuthority.com

Introduction: Snakes are some of the most feared creatures on earth. Long and legless, fast and flexible, they strike fear into the hearts of those unaccustomed to their presence. Like all reptiles, they are covered with scales, but unlike most lizards, snakes possess a thin, forked tongue, and along with having no true eyelids, they lack external ears. It doesn't come as a surprise, then, that most people are afraid of them, yet as a general rule, there is little to be afraid of. Not all snakes are venomous, and of the 3,000 species around the world that are, only about 15% are considered poisonous to humans.[1] There is, however, something else to fear besides venom. The largest snakes on earth are the reticulated python and the anaconda, both of which can grow to a length of 33 feet (10m) and weigh up to as much as 550 pounds (250kg). Case in point: they may not be poisonous to you, but they can easily kill you.[2]

The Anaconda: The focus of this article is, of course, the anaconda. In the boa family, the anaconda is a constrictor. That is, it kills its prey by squeezing. What is known as the common anaconda inhabits the rivers of northern and Amazonian South America, east of the Andes. There is also the yellow anaconda which lives in southern South America, but it is much smaller, reaching lengths of about only 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4m). Anacondas don't lay eggs as many others snakes do, instead giving birth to live young.[3] While the anaconda is also known as the "water boa," it spends a great deal of its time basking in the sun. Here, outside of the water, it is considered less dangerous, with its weight not being as well supported (for larger specimens). Still, inside or outside of water, they will hunt, though not necessarily in the sense of pursuing their prey. Anacondas are opportunistic hunters, like the crocodile, and typically will wait for their prey to come to them. That's not to say one won't slowly advance towards you if interested, but they rather prefer the surprise attack, being content to wait patiently close by. Simply put, anacondas are ambush experts..