Main Show Only – Cryptozoological Creatures – Coast to Coast AM

Researcher Nick Redfern spoke about a variety of cryptozoological creatures including chupacabras, Mothman, Bigfoot and werewolves. He investigated the spate of chupacabras sightings that took place in Puerto Rico in the mid-1990s, in which a creature that sucked the blood of livestock was said to have a monkey-like face, red glowing eyes, talon-like claws, and leathery wings. Black triangle sightings, ‘Men in Black,’ government personnel and the vicious chupacabras attacks were possibly all connected, he detailed. He learned through interviews of locals that the chupacabra incidents of the 90s were predated by similar attacks several decades earlier– a vampire-like creature was reportedly seen in Puerto Rico’s El Yunque rain-forest. In Texas, Redfern has collected numerous reports of anomalous winged creatures, including Mothman-type beings– humanoid creatures with large wings. He’s also looked into tales of werewolves. Rather than humans metamorphosing into wolves, accounts suggest large monstrous wolves that can walk on either two or four legs. They may have a paranormal aspect to them, with the ability to materialize and vanish, he added. WATCH THE LATEST VIDEO THAT CAME OUT TODAY HERE FAIR USE NOTICE: These Videos may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy
Video Rating: 5 / 5

arthur c clarkes mysterious world congo dinosaur giant snake
Video Rating: 4 / 5

You may also like...

56 Responses

  1. Maricela Rothrock says:

    Why don’t UFOs land on the White House lawn? If ET has advanced technology, why don’t they simply take over our planet instead of appearing randomly around the world? The answer may be the ETs are harvesting us, according to Nick Redfern in his latest book. He says there is a U.S. military think tank named the Collins Elite that concluded Earth is merely a farm and our souls a source of food for the Greys. As farmers care for their livestock until harvest, ETs protect their livestock and prevent it from self-destruction, such as with nuclear weaponry. Religions, governments, etc. are created as a means of self-government. Once the human physical body dies, the ETs ingest human soul energy, according to this U.S. military think tank. Thoughts?
    sqlguy – are you talking about chemical rockets as a source of propulsion?

  2. Heidi Cabrera says:

    Why don’t UFOs land on the White House lawn? If ET has advanced technology, why don’t they simply take over our planet instead of appearing randomly around the world? The answer may be the ETs are harvesting us, according to Nick Redfern in his latest book. He says there is a U.S. military think tank named the Collins Elite that concluded Earth is merely a farm and our souls a source of food for the Greys. As farmers care for their livestock until harvest, ETs protect their livestock and prevent it from self-destruction, such as with nuclear weaponry. Religions, governments, etc. are created as a means of self-government. Once the human physical body dies, the ETs ingest human soul energy, according to this U.S. military think tank. Thoughts?
    sqlguy – are you talking about chemical rockets as a source of propulsion?

  3. Maricela Rothrock says:

    Just a fun stupid trivia question 10 points to the first person that can tell me what is the only creature on the planet that live only for eating and reproducing.
    When I say this I mean that they do nothing else a dog plays and human does many things even fish can play at times. This creature does nothing else. There have been studies proving it.

  4. Janet Somerville says:

    I have been wondering on what monsters are more scary than others. Would it be monsters like in dead space that are relatively “real life” in the sense that they would be actual creatures you have to fight. Or, would it be the more supernatural monsters? Ghosts, and mythical creatures? On one hand, mythical monsters might need special ways of killing them that would be difficult to do, and on another the “real life” creatures can be killed as easy as anything else but shear numbers and lack of resources would be a problem. What are your thoughts?

  5. unshutoptic1 says:

    there are many parts of the world not yet explored by humans because it’s hard to survey those parts by foot.

  6. lefthandrocker says:

    lmfao @ the cabbie….today that cabbie would pull out a gun……”what the fuck you say about african dinosaurs motha fucka”

  7. zelda0521 says:

    guy at 3:53 is fuckin insane!

  8. samsoninthepit says:

    lol no where near 55ft, it was 33 feet numbnuts

  9. samsoninthepit says:

    lol repeat after me:
    I am sofa king
    we todd did

  10. myfairvanity says:

    sure, but have you ever seen a trouser snake?

  11. Swiati says:

    haha didnt saw that crazy running dude before.

    and nice confab with taxi driver

  12. facciaditosta says:

    why must we always kill anything that shows up thats different, what the hell is wrong with us, then there are no more to be born

  13. MissStephie1013 says:

    It’s as big as an elephant…or maybe a hippo…

  14. scottieman2 says:

    It’s as big as a battleship.

  15. dltanner99 says:

    The Dare Island Enigma is a novel about two boys who find something strange on the beach see video book trailer

  16. sesaya25 says:

    visit Sri Lanka

  17. skeaneable says:

    and up to this motherfucking day no one has come close in spotting or capturing the mokele-membe hell even Monster quest tried it and they fuckin fail all that expensive trip to the dangerous Congo was a waste of time.

  18. corymike1990 says:

    its funny we know more about space then our own oceans!!!!! and their can’t be criptids? Really?!!!

  19. troytblevins says:

    i,am sorry but these guys look like they are going to the congo to make love,not that theres any thing wrong with that.

  20. drafe007 says:

    my anaconda dont none unless ya got buns hun.

  21. XTRY4NTX says:

    if anybody knows where the myth of the dragon comes from feel free to leave a reply and i will tell you if you’re close

  22. XTRY4NTX says:

    i mean the one in this video just so i dont get some random reply

  23. prehistoric28 says:

    I’ve always been a big fan of cryptozoology stuff. Anyone else got wind that that Founder of PREHISTORIC CHANNEL has just written his first thriller book called THE ICE GORILLA. I read that the ICE GORILLA book is being looked at by movie producers in regards to turning the book into a movie. This will depend upon how well book sales go. I haven’t read the book yet. Has anyone read THE ICE GORILLA book yet????

  24. adamindahouse1 says:

    Finally serious cryptozoologists using evidence to find the creatures instead of creating massive books on how it evolved. These people are actually doing something constructive with evidence.

  25. GoGojiraGo says:

    “Finally”? This was made in the 1970’s.

  26. adamindahouse1 says:

    yes good point I didn’t realise. thanks for the correction.

  27. spindalis79 says:

    7:28 Cue the creepy 70s electronically produced music.

  28. zyancalikola says:

    Where did Jason Powell buy his wig?

  29. TheHarryMason says:

    ..never seen a “massive book” on how a cryptid theoretically evolved o.o

  30. 1swhittaker says:

    Huh! no explaination? Figures, another sheeple easily led down Darwins path of lunacy.

  31. 1swhittaker says:

    matbroomfield, LOL just as I figured, no expalination, just another sheeple afraid to ask questions.

  32. 1swhittaker says:

    Look at t he picture above, i know it’s a joke, but it’s a joke on people who will swallow anything.

  33. matbroomfield says:

    No explanation? There’s such an abundant wealth of evidence easily available everywhere you look that only a person deluded by parental indoctrination and wilfully blind would be able to dismiss it. DNA, the fossil record,transitionary forms, modern micro evolution, etc, etc. And creationists have what? A 3000 year old book by people who didn’t even know the world was round, germs existed, or the sun was the centre of the solar system. Yeah, sheeple. moron.

  34. 1swhittaker says:

    DNA? Expalin it. If left to chance and random nothing would exist. Fossil record? Extensive yet there has not been one single “bridge”/ transitionary form between species in it. Educate thine self. Modern micro evolution? Good Lord, the sand on which yee step slips at every turn. The bible? We are talking evolution vs Creationism. Does not have to include the bible, intelligent design.

  35. 1swhittaker says:

    Look outside your little bedroom, look up in the sky and you will see many possible theories beyond our solar system. If you lean on science then why not a civilization millions of years in advance of ours pathetic science? Bug, you need to educate yourself and stop using flawed theories created by racists.

  36. matbroomfield says:

    I fully accept that there are many possible theories – but no alternatives so far have any credible evidence.If at some future time science point towards panspermia, or whatever, and the evidence supports it, then I’m happy to revise my position. But simply because you can speculate does not make your speculation credible. It’s all about following the evidence.

  37. matbroomfield says:

    There are millions of transiotional species – what are you talking about?! All life on earth is transitional. Telling me to educate myself when it’s clear that you do not understand the slightest thing about evolution is like a kid telling Hawking to educate himself. Just go read about Darwin’s finches, or fruitflies or dog species if you want examples of micro evolution. You can see how species adapt to fit their environments.

  38. 1swhittaker says:

    Millions of transitional species?? Are you kidding me. Dog’s? What? All dogs come from grey wolves, fact. bred by man. Same as cattle, chickens, etc. etc. In the wild some mixing takes place but not between a turtle and a bird? Not one shred of cross over is proven. get your facts strat Einstein. There I raised you from Hawkins, heady bastard. You base your belief on theories to date uunproven. Adaptation yes but not cross over of species. No proof at all, go back to class. Failed!

  39. matbroomfield says:

    You clearly don’t understand what you are arguing about. Transitional species are not mixtures between turtles and birds – they are exactly what you yourself point out – the many breeds of dogs descended from a common ancestor for example. They demonstrate adaptation to different environments. That’s EXACTLY what evolution is. And then, over time, the breeds become so different that they can no longer breed with each other. These facts are totally proven. Research Darwin’s finches.

  40. 1swhittaker says:

    Thank you. Wolves and dogs can still breed, etc. Now look at the fossil record and show me a line in the sand. Darwinians would have us believe, over time, lightning struck minerals, goo crawled out of the muck, became an amphibian, then became a wolf, then decided hunting wasn’t great so the wolf went back to the sea and became a dolphin? The wolf would have starved and there would be no “Scruffy.” My theory (faith) is deluded? Wow. Thanks for schooling Dr. Dowhat?.

  41. matbroomfield says:

    You act offended when I provide the evidence that you requested (and clearly misunderstand). Do please try to be consistent. Asking for a line in the sand is ridiculous. There is no point when wolves “decided” anything. It simply becomes advantageous to have certain adaptations. As for wolves becoming dolphins, complete strawman. But I can show you mudfish that crawl on land and birds like penguins and american dippers that swim underwater. They all show the adaptation you seek.

  42. 1swhittaker says:

    No offence taken. You have no proof here and you are as concrete as a sidewalk. Please try not to be constipated. I know wolves didn’t decide anything, as in: man breeding every dog from them. One species, many variations (but no wings or scales) due to animal husbandry, not evolution. Adaptations you and Darwin speak of take much time, a species would die off or be eaten before they could make such drastic changes. Simple environmental adaptations, more hair, thicker padded feet etc. Yes.

  43. 1swhittaker says:

    A penguin has always been a penguin, a mudfish has always been a mudfish and the Dipper has always swam. Simply adaptation that you and Darwin spew takes more time then an organism has to wait.

  44. matbroomfield says:

    Not all dogs are the result of selective breeding, some are merely environmentally adapted – huskies, chihuahua, st bernards. Your assertion about animals being unable to adapt quickly enough is demonstrably false. For starters, it’s not about making drastic changes. It’s about the slight advantage given by small changes, such as better beaks or camouflage. Many cumulative changes lead to greater survival chance, and gradually, to changed species. It can be shown right now, with living species.

  45. matbroomfield says:

    No, a penguin has NOT always been a penguin, nor a mudfish a mudfish. It is is almost certain that at some stage a penguin was a bird that could fly and a mudfish was a fish without lungs that could not clamber out onto land. They are clear examples of animals in transition to creatures that have environmentally advantageous adaptations which have developed over time. You keep repeating this time mantra, but you clearly do not understand the mechanisms of evolution.

  46. 1swhittaker says:

    Again, please reread your essay. You acuse me of what you do yourself. Also, again where is your proof in the fossil record for any of this? None. There are freeze dried penguins in Antarctica thousands of years old. Right , no millions , but still no cross over fossils, no missing links. Man has been breeding dogs since he has been on earth. Dog bones and man, wolf bones and man, there is proof. You clearly have drank the koolaid of science “fact”. All theories with regard to this topic.

  47. 1swhittaker says:

    Lord have mercy? All dog breeds mentioned were selective breeding by ancient man to meet his needs. Other examples, cattle, horses, sheep, chickens, ducks, etc .etc.. Where do you make up your “facts?” It’s a cruel world out there, if you can’t swim in a moment, run, fly or defend yourself you are gone just that quick. No time to test the waters. In South America there are no monkeys sprouting wings to escape deforetation. No changes in the fossil record of flying fish changing in the least

  48. matbroomfield says:

    Penguins (Spheniscidae) have been on the earth for millions of years, but there is evidence that they branched off during the avian radiation of the cretaceous period, and that one of their ancestral predecessors was a family of intermediate birds called Waimanu. One of the so called missing links to use your language.
    Whether dogs were bred or naturally evolved is irrelevant. The fact that there are 100s of distinctly different types from a common ancestor shows that micro-evolution is possible

  49. 1swhittaker says:

    Mr Broomfield , now we are starting to turn the same page. “100’s of related “types”from common ancestors.” Not uncommon ancestors. There were common ancestoprs to all species. Actually fewer types of animals in the beginning. Through adaptation to gradual environmental changes, the basic animals branched out from their common ancestors/family/species. Where we part ways at this time is that I believe the basic animals were “made”, perfect genetic representations.

  50. matbroomfield says:

    No I don’t believe we are repeating the same ground – we are honing in on the crux of the issue.You seem to believe that the wolf was made perfect, and then, based upon nothing but faith or the Bible, that all dog species somehow derived from that. So if I can show you a non wolf from which the wolf evolved, presumably, that would upset your theory? Or would you simply reset back a generation, and so on, until we are back to single celled organisms? What are the “basic” animals you refer to?

  51. matbroomfield says:

    Many creatures have indeed become extinct PRECISELY because they were not able to adapt to environmental changes, including, it is suggested, neanderthals, who far from being our predecessors, MAY have been early rivals. However, not all environmental changes are instant, and not all changes need to be dramatic or obvious. Perhaps it is the more mobile or intelligent monkeys that are escaping deforestation, not the ones with wings. I’m sorry but your view of evolution is grossly simplistic.

  52. 1swhittaker says:

    You got me. I believe in a Creator that made you and I and all the creatures of the earth. More than likely not as we all appear now because we have had thousands of years to adapt to our environments, branching off from the first of each of our original kind. I have enjoyed our ping pong. I fear we will never come to agreement. Parting thought, Your faith/theory is valid to you. My faith is valid to me. Neither are proven. We shall have to wait and see won’t we. Take care God Bless.

  53. matbroomfield says:

    It’s been an interesting discussion. Parting thought for you: my belief is NOT based on faith – it’s based on evidence.Unusually for a creationist, you are looking at, and recognising exactly the same evidence of biological change, and then coming up with a different cause. It’s a shame you don’t apply the same evidenciary standards to that cause. Thank you for your time. Take care of yourself.

  54. Tommy Latham says:

    i’ve noticed the show is getting very religious lately, i imagine if you believe in religion you are predisposed to belief in the supernatural.
    but there is still a disturbing overtone of anti-atheist emotion rising to the surface.
    when bill nigh was on there was not one caller that agreed with him, i’ll admit that it was entertaining to hear how truly ignorant people can be, but i don’t agree with the religious slant the show has been taking over the past few months.
    ratings is ratings i guess.

  1. January 26, 2013

    Hi and thanks…

    […]There are certainly a significant details that way to take into consideration. That is a great point to bring up. I provide the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the quintessentia…

  2. January 26, 2013

    Thank you…

    […]Your place is important for me personally. Thanks! …[…]…