| User | Post |
|
11:21 am
July 7, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Post edited 11:23 am – July 7, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 11:25 am – July 7, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 11:28 am – July 7, 2011 by Nosfer
Nosfer said:
If you want this thread to be about Bilu, which it should, then post YOUR crusade against cryptozoologists where it should be. And I'll respond there. If you're going to post it here, I'll respond here. Or would you rather I moved that portion elsewhere?
Revenant said:
[Introduction removed] My original post wasn't directed at you. The line dealing with cryptozoology had nothing to do with you (it was a reflection of all the "facts" coming from FBF). Yet…there you go off again on YOUR crusade for the noble pursuit of hidden animals without fact or evidence to support it (still waiting for your lengthy list of what cryptozoology has discovered for themselves in the past 50 years…only the 38720375th time that I've asked…and really…your argument is pointless without it and how you don't see that is kind of odd…arguing for finding "hidden animals" without ever finding any…what was that snarky dichotomy line again in your other thread? And believing without proof…yes, the calling card of skeptics everywhere…).
So I eagerly await YOUR thread in the crypto section because I'm sure many here would now love to hear what you're so upset over…
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
11:24 am
July 7, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
So this was about our latest show on Animal Planet, then? Well, I'd have to agree considering what we've seen from them. But you could have saved a lot of trouble by referring to Moneymaker directly rather than the much more nebulous "they" and "99.9%"
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
11:44 am
July 7, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Now, what do you consider to fall into the realm of cryptids? Bigfoot obviously. Nessie probably. But, what other animals or types of animals fall into the realm of cryptid, hidden, suspected, etc…in your view? Forget the title of cryptozoologist for a minute for I don't give a damn about who discovers an animal but rather that it's been discovered. (and quite frankly I can see why few self-respecting investigators would assume that title given the stigma associated with it in places like here)
An animal thought not to exist and subsequently found is what matters. Those are the ones that, hidden for so long, are likely few in number and thus candidates for preservation, wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't you also agree that the job title of the person locating it is much less important than that it is found?
I agree that the "classic" cryptids (ie Bigfoot, Nessie) have a lot of controversial people going after them, and a lot of even more controversial theories surrounding them (to say the least, especially after watching five episodes of FBf!). But, if we're going to have any sort of discussion here, we're going to have to have some groundwork as far as what falls into these categories. Some halfways credible large cat sightings in Montana akin to your Florida Panther, say. Worthy of investigating and spending a few dollars? Is there any difference in your mind if the person searching for it is called a biologist, a cryptozoologist, a cryptobiologist, a climatologist, Josh, or Ted?
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
9:02 am
July 8, 2011
|
Patrick
| | |
| Investigator | posts 190 |
|
|
I am probably going to regret this, entering a war mid-way without knowledge of what has happened before, but I found this under the wikipedia entry for "cryptid"
George M. Eberhart of the American Library Association,[10] who has written for the Journal of Scientific Exploration on the difficulties of cataloging media materials about fringe science, classifies ten types of mystery animals under the cryptozoological umbrella:
- Distribution anomalies [known animals reported outside their normal range, e.g. the anomalous big cats of the U.K.];
- Undescribed, unusual, or outsized variations of known species [e.g. the giant anacondas reported from Amazonia or the spotted lions of East Africa];
- Survivals of recently extinct species [e.g. Ivory Billed Woodpecker presumed extinct ca. 1960, or the Steller's Sea Cow presumed extinct ca. 1770, both of which are occasionally claimed to have survived to the present];
- Survivals of species known only from the fossil record into modern times [e.g. the mokele-mbembe of central Africa, sometimes described as a living dinosaur];
- Lingerlings, or survivals of species known from the fossil record much later into historical times than currently thought [e.g. the woolly mammoth, presumed extinct ca. 12,000 BCE but occasionally purported surviving into later eras];
- Animals not known from the fossil record but related to known species [e.g. the Andean wolf or the striped manta-ray reported by William Beebe in the 1930s];
- Animals not known from the fossil record nor related to any known species [e.g. North America's Bigfoot or most sea serpents];
- Mythical animals with a zoological basis [e.g. the Griffin, partly inspired by dinosaur fossils of Central Asia];
- Seemingly paranormal or supernatural entities with some animal-like characteristics [e.g. Mothman, Black Dogs or some fairies from folklore];
- Known hoaxes or probable misidentifications [e.g. the Jackalope, an antlered rabbit created as a hoax or prank but possibly inspired by rabbits infected with Shope papilloma virus, which causes antler-like tumors].
Additionally, Eberhart argues for six exclusions from classification as a cryptid:
- Insignificance. "Cryptids must be big, weird, dangerous or significant to humans in some way."
- Lack of controversy. "Someone needs to observe a mystery animal and someone else needs to discredit the sighting. Cryptozoologists function as interventionists between witnesses and skeptical scientists."
- Erratics. "The out-of-place alligator […] that turns up in an odd spot, undoubtedly through human agency, is not a zoological mystery […] [I]f someone discovers a new species of alligator that lives only in sewers, that is a different matter."
- Bizarre humans [e.g. zombies]
- Angels or demons […] "the paranormal or supernatural is admitted only if it has an animal shape (a werewolf sighting, which might involve a real dog or wolf, or a mystery canid)."
- Aliens "[unless such extraterrestrials] arrived a long time ago and thus classify as residents."
|
|
|
9:47 am
July 8, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Thanks for the list Patrick. The classes given are ones I would generally agree with, including most of the exclusions. The listing could be even arranged in a rough order according to their probability of existence which could come into play when trying to determine if something was worthy of investigation.
#5 in the exclusions touches on the Are Cryptids Paranormal aspect.
I do take issue with the Jackalope being excluded, though
This list lays a good start to some groundwork, but I'd like to hear what others think…anyone with thoughts or opinions or additions or subtractions, feel free to chime in.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
12:05 pm
July 8, 2011
|
Patrick
| | |
| Investigator | posts 190 |
|
|
I don't think they exclude the jackalope at all, it is still in the list. It shouldn't be though, I raise them as a hobby. There certainly can't be any question as to their existence…… 
|
|
|
12:26 pm
July 8, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Whoops, you're right, it was at the bottom of the first list, not the last list…darn small screen on my phone lol
Known hoaxes or Misidentifications…hmmm (neglecting the fact that I have a picture posted on here of a Jackalope in the wild as proof of their existence) I wouldn't be too hasty to include known hoaxes…if they are proven as hoaxes.
But, then, who is to say that a legitimately suspected animal can't be hoaxed at a later date, independent of the first sighting. In that case, the specific instance could be debunked, but not the animal in general. Sort of like ghosts…a particular haunting can be explained through natural or faked causes, but it doesn't solve the general question about ghosts.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
2:39 pm
July 8, 2011
|
Patrick
| | |
| Investigator | posts 190 |
|
|
If known hoaxes aren't included, then FoF wounldn't be a crytpozoogolical show, it would just be GH…..
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
