| User | Post |
|
2:14 pm
December 21, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
I know this will be an odd thing to say, but…there are times that I hope that I'm really wrong. When surfing the web and seeing an interesting link, I click the link with the best intentions in good faith and drinking from my glass that is half full (not half empty). Maybe something can be learned. Perhaps it will just be something interesting. That…is what I want and who I want to be. Yet…beneath that glimmer of hope lies an ocean of skepticism. I'm almost certain what is to come next and it rarely ever disappoints…what comes next is just a bunch of crazy. What's that? You need proof?
I would now like to present Exhibit A to the court:
http://www.mania.com/lair-beas…..26910.html
This gem comes from Nick Redfern who is apparently pushing his new book "The NASA Conspiracies: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings, Censored Photos, and the Face on Mars." That is some fancy-schmancy title, no? At the very least, it instantly tells us where this article is headed.
Two things in the article stand out to me. The first…the lack of an actual full name of a witness. I mean I lived in Houston for a number of years. I knew people who worked at NASA. One guy named Bob told me that Mothman was never seen there, but they did have a bit of trouble with werewolves in the late '70's. Hmmm…see how easy it is to make up anything that you want without the name of actual people?
The other thing was this jewel:
"Back in 2004, I interviewed a woman named Desiree, whose father worked at NASA’s Houston, Texas-based Johnson Space Center, and who had a story to tell that was bizarre in the extreme. That does not mean, however, that we should dismiss it as being one of no merit, or one that lacks any meaningful value – only that we should view it with open minds and minds that are receptive to challenging ideas and bold, new paradigms."
View it with open minds. Challenging ideas. Bold, new paradigms. The battle cry of any Ufologist. The old "I'm about to say something really crazy with absolutely NO proof whatsoever, but…you should consider it as possibly true so you can't be labeled 'close-minded.'" The absolute master of this is that wild-haired guy from "Ancient Aliens"…our pal Giorgio Tsoukalos. He gets that wide-eyed look and exclaims "Just consider (insert wild nonsense here)." Then he has that smirk as if what said has any sort of relevance or intelligence. You know…and speaking of that guy…is it me or does it seem like he's always wearing the same cloths? Like he's wearing a costume or something. Maybe he fancies himself a Doctor Who wanna-be. Then again, he probably believes in Time Lords as well…
Anyway, back to our buddy Nick Redfern…
At this point, you may be asking…what about the Chupacabra? Remember that book with the oddly long title? Let's go ahead and take a look at where cryptozoology meet conspiracies head on. We'll call this Exhibit B:
http://www.mania.com/lair-beas…..26572.html
Is it me or….not being mean or anything but…do you really believe that Mr Redfern actually knows what constitutes a conspiracy? Was what you read a conspiracy? And is anyone even remotely believing that the two people at the end (if they even existed) were actually from NASA?
Um…wow. This is what happens when you cross a cryptozoologist with a ufologist…
Anyway…I just amended my Xmas list for Santa. I threw on Nick Redfern's "Man-Monkey, In Search of the British Bigfoot." I kid you not…
Exhibit C:
http://www.amazon.com/MAN-MONK…..1905723164
Why…of course there's a British Bigfoot. Why wouldn't there be? He's tall, scary, and has his tea at 5:00pm (the savage…).
Keeping an open mind is soooooo difficult these days…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
5:06 am
December 22, 2010
|
Learjet
| | Australia | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1119 |
|
|
This is an easy one. Exibit A and possibly B are Batman. Exibit C is Batman in a monkey suite. 
Revenant, you send me a pm but I am unable to read any pm's at the moment. I think the pm system is broked again.
|
|
|
|
|
8:24 am
December 22, 2010
|
Nick Redfern
| | |
| Guest
| |
|
|
Revenant
For the record, of course we can never say for sure that such stories are true. Indeed, I don't think there's a ufologist or cryptozoologist alive (or dead even) who hasn't at some point been hoaxed. I certainly have, and practically every ufologist or cryptozoologist I know certainly has too (even if only once or twice). Whether they publicly admit to it, however, is a very different matter.
But where you say: "…see how easy it is to make up anything that you want without the name of actual people?" it's important to note that the interview with the farmer in Puerto Rico re the Chupacabras and the two people allegedly from NASA was filmed for a TV show on animal mutilations, that aired on Canada's Space Channel in 2005 or 06 (I forget which year now, but it was one of the two). The whole interview was video/audio-recorded. Same with the Mothman story re a TV shoot (not yet aired). So, there's no making things up, at least not on my part. The people are real, the interviews with them were filmed for TV, and have aired/will air.
And, really, I do actually have far better things to do with my time than concoct stories out of thin-air! Whether, however, the people telling the stories have far better things to do with their time is, even I admit, a very tough thing to conclude without hard evidence of the claimed event having occurred.
Re the British Bigfoot: Yep, surprisingly, people report such things all the time. But the British Bigfoot is clearly not a flesh-and-blood "apeman." The idea that such a thing (never mind a whole colony) could live undetected in Britain is absurd in the extreme. There would have to be massive evidence of feeding, habitat, reproduction etc, but what there actually is, is ZERO physical evidence.
What we DO have is testimony (probably not a good enough requirement for this forum, I know!) that pushes the British Bigfoot down the definitively paranormal path – however one might (or might not!) define that word/term. That's why the sub-title of my "Man-Monkey" book is specifically "In Search of the British Bigfoot." I went searching for what people were calling a British Bigfoot, but came away dismissing any and all possibilities of it being a flesh and blood animal, as I note in the book.
But people ARE seeing something, or are all falling victim to some curious mass hallucination. My view: people ARE seeing large forms that look like apes. But they're clearly something else. What that might be (beyond hoaxing, misidentification etc) is the big question. So, yes, I do conclude there is a British Bigfoot, but it's not what many assume it to be, or what others assume to be nonsense!
|
|
|
1:40 pm
December 23, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Hmmm…a response from the cryptozoologist himself….and who says that this isn't the season of miracles? 
Hello and welcome to the site. I have to admit, when I first saw your name responding to my thread, I thought it was going to be a slug-fest and I really didn't want to do that. Not that I shy away from such things, it's just the timing. Santa looks down on forum wars and I'm already battling to stay off the Naughty List. Anyway, I was impressed that not only did you respond calmly, but I believe that you actually figured out that the post, in general, was written with a rather poor attempt at humor.
However, even written in jest…I still stand by it.
I'm glad that you explained that there is some sort of documentation to the the eye witness accounts. Of course, there was no way for the readers of your articles to know this. I didn't. Eye witness testimony (as you pointed out) doesn't hold much magic for us here at SV. Eye witness testimony without full names of witnesses…the red flag must be raised because at that point it becomes just insanely easy for authors to become…creative…and insanely impossible for anyone else to prove or disprove it. If that Canadian show is bouncing around the net somewhere, if you could provide a link, I think we would love to watch it…
As for your book "Man-Monkey, In Search of the British Bigfoot"…I simply choose it because of the catchy title. It made me smile. The premise of your book sounds interesting. But just personally, I have problems with cryptozoology…
In a few post and threads within this ever-expanding website, I have somewhat defended cryptozoology. I find that collecting older stories, especially cultures that are still centered around an oral history is important. The myths, legends and stories can tell us a great deal about the time and culture. I do find some value in this. And then…I'm reminded of a line in Carl Sagan's book "The Demon-Haunted World." In the chapter "The Dragon In My Garage" it says this: "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever the value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder." Which, of course, pushes me right back to square one. So…I'm torn on what value I give to cryptozoology.
And don't get me wrong…I want there to be a Bigfoot/Yeti/Skunk Ape/Grassman (even one in England… ). I want the Loch Ness Monster, Champ, and whatever else to be real. That would be great. I just don't see any compelling evidence to believe in such things. And…what I find disheartening, is the great interest that it generates. Ask people about Bigfoot or Nessie and people can tell you anything that you want to know. Ask them about the Florida Panther, a REAL endangered animal, and people scrunch up their faces and either mention hockey or the pathetic "That's some sort of panther isn't it?" Great. There's about 80 to 100 Florida Panthers left. If something isn't done and done soon, they will join the Warrah and the Thylacine in a museum somewhere. Of course, Mr Redfern, I'm not blaming you for any of this. I just get somewhat angry that people seem to care more about….animals in which that their actual existence is in question…rather than real, live endangered or critically endangered animals that are literally facing extinction.
Hmmm…I'm ranting, aren't I? Sorry. I can get passionate over animals. Anyway…here's something that you may find interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…..080135.htm
An assistant professor from Kean University wrote his thesis on how Charles Darwin help to change people's perceptions of the werewolves into Bigfoot or large primates due to his work on evolution and the "general" acceptance of it. On the Amazon website, your book's description tells of story from 1879. This would put that story on the backside of the werewolf craze and at the beginning of the Bigfoot craze.
Admittedly, I've been extremely lazy and I haven't followed up on the paper. I do not know how well it was received or if it was published. In any event, you might find it an interesting read if you could get your hands on it. I mean, it seems that you have researched older stories. You might be in an unique position to agree or disagree with the paper.
Alright then…thanks again for responding and happy holidays… 
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
11:58 pm
December 23, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Learjet said:
Revenant, you send me a pm but I am unable to read any pm's at the moment. I think the pm system is broked again.
No worries. It was only the formula for eternal life and happiness. I threw in a way to turn lead to gold and I think I tossed in Santa's exact location in the North Pole. And in a follow-up PM, I included a Youtube video of Grant admitting everything…from the chair at Race Rock to the fishing line on the collar. But…I guess it's no big deal. Never mind…
…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
6:23 am
December 24, 2010
|
Learjet
| | Australia | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1119 |
|
|
Post edited 6:35 am – December 24, 2010 by Learjet
Post edited 6:36 am – December 24, 2010 by Learjet
AARHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In that case I'll end you a pm with my email address in the title so you will be sure to inform me of all of the above lol.
Wait….. I think I've got $h1t for brains. I just had to scroll down the page. I can read them now. Oh the shame. I'm an idiot.
See, this is what happens when I watch too many ghost shows on TV. It kills all brain cells.
|
|
|
|
|
1:09 pm
December 29, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Revenant said:
I just get somewhat angry that people seem to care more about….animals in which that their actual existence is in question…rather than real, live endangered or critically endangered animals that are literally facing extinction.
I would pose this question, though. How does one know that a particular creature may be on the verge of extinction if it is not yet even known to exist and not sought after and dismissed solely as "fantasy" or a cryptid?
A particular example would have been the Mountain Gorilla which could have been considered a type of cryptid prior to it's confirmation as being real in 1902. It was an "ape man" reported in the lore of local peoples for hundreds of years, some of the stories by Europeans sound like classic "Big Foot accounts". Today there are more in existence than there are of the Florida Panther, but still the numbers are only around 700.
Cryptozoology isn't quite black and white, there are varying levels of probability of the existence of some of these animals. Raystowne Ray? That's of the type that is more on the black side…as in giving Cryptozoology a black eye! 
|
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.
|
|
|
1:11 pm
December 29, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Sort of along the lines of Chupacabra and the like:
http://www.wave3.com/story/137…..son-county
|
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.
|
|
|
1:03 pm
December 30, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Nosfer –
Wow…you went Mountain Gorilla on me? Really? Mountain Gorilla? *Smiles, smirks a bit and shakes his head* Ok….alright…let's go Mountain Gorilla…
Yes, I will concede that previous to 1902, there were stories depicting the Mountain Gorilla before it became known to western science. It's the backbone example for cryptozoology (which is why I was so shocked that you went there). My standard reply to this…cryptozoology had NOTHING to do with "discovering" this animal. Back in 1985, "we" won the Super Bowl. Now…I'm pretty sure that I wasn't actually on the Chicago Bears roster that year. "I" had nothing to do with that Super Bowl victory but "we" won. "Cryptozoology" had nothing to do with the Mountain Gorilla but it's the poster child for cryptozoological possibilities.
Speaking of that…you state: "Cryptozoology isn't quite black and white, there are varying levels of probability of the existence of some of these animals." Hmmm…really? I'm a chemistry guy. I like answers. I want results. I'm in love with proof. Varying levels of probability of the existence of something frustrates me. Can you or anyone….point to several "discoveries" made exclusively by cryptozoologists for me please? You know, they research the stories, track the creature down, find it, and it's acknowledged by modern science. Just three examples will be fine. What? Having a bit of trouble? Ok then…only two. Two examples. Hmmm…even one? Anybody? One?
Nosfer, this is what causes my frustration with cryptozoology and also lead me to write what you quoted. I did state that I wanted all these mythical creatures to be real. I don't even mind that people spend their own money and time looking for them. That's fine. Again…just stating that I found it disheartening that many people seem more interested in that than in what is actually real and has pressing needs. I can use your example as well. These stories are becoming more common place. People joke around and throw out the name Chupacabra. Great. But…let's look past the joke. What is with all these animals with some ultra-serious form of mange? I was talking to a friend about this (she's a biologist) and some people in the science community are starting to look at this. We're seeing this on a massive scale with bats and the "White Nose Syndrome." Something is killing these bats and we (like how I throw that "we" around? ) are really struggling with it. Will this weird form of mange begin spreading on that level? We don't know yet. But…instead of coming at the problem with logic and concern…we get a bunch of "Chupacabra" and "I thought it flew and had armor plating." Great. Thanks. That's helpful…
I have limited time and resources. Personally…I'd rather spend them on real things. Things that exist and need help immediately. If cryptozoology ever finds anything…well, great…give me a call. Until then, maybe they should stop taking credit for what legitimate zoologists discover. Mountain Gorilla? Yeah…cryptozoology had as much to do with that as I did with the Chicago Bulls winning six championships in eight years.
Mountain Gorilla….
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
2:25 pm
December 30, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Post edited 2:31 pm – December 30, 2010 by Nosfer
At least I didn't go with the coelacanth
What is more important, though…that the animal of legend and lore was discovered and proven to exist, or who discovered it and what was on his business card/resume? To me, it's the former that counts. If a "legitimate zoologist" were to consider the possibility of Bigfoot, would he then also be a cryptozoologist or just a zoologist looking for Bigfoot? If he were to find it, would it be counted in the zoologist column or would it be counted in the cryptozoologist column by the mere fact that the zoologist was looking for a cryptid? What if he weren't actively looking for or considering it's possibility but just happen to "luck out" and find it? That's why the "title" of the "who" doesn't carry as much weight compared to that the animal was found.
"Again…just stating that I found it disheartening
that many people seem more interested in that than in what is actually
real and has pressing needs."
I agree, but I would also say that it depends on the level of probability that the creature exists Which episode of DT was more likely to yield fruit…the Yeren or the Leprechaun? Yes, the (known) animals that have pressing needs should be at the forefront, but unless the animal is known, how would we know that it has those needs? What if there were occasional reports of a jaguar-like creature in Wyoming? Would it be worth checking into on the outside chance there really was an unknown creature or unknown subspecies akin to the Florida Panther? I'd say yes. If there were occasional stories of a Dwarf with magical skills that occasionally turned people to stone, I'd be much less likely to condone a search for it! lol That's what I mean by probabilities.
I posted a bit more in the DT Circle of Death (forum, not reveiws) regarding myths as a followup to those myths posts (cyclops etc) in the Reviews section. A myth by another name is a cryptid? Too cold here to really do justice to the Bard lol
|
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.
|
|
|
10:54 am
January 6, 2011
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Nosfer said:
If a "legitimate zoologist" were to consider the possibility of Bigfoot, would he then also be a cryptozoologist or just a zoologist looking for Bigfoot? If he were to find it, would it be counted in the zoologist column or would it be counted in the cryptozoologist column by the mere fact that the zoologist was looking for a cryptid?
Hmmm…"counted in the cryptozoologist column…"
In the late '80's, the Chicago Bulls had a bench-player named Ed Nealy. He was big on hustle and hard fouls but perhaps a bit "talent-challenged." If he scored, which was rare, the crowd would go crazy. My favorite qoute from him was when he was asked what was his favorite NBA memory was. He said when he and Michael Jordan teamed up against the Boston Celtics in the play-offs and dropped 65 points on them. Of course, Ed had 2 of those 65 points.
Let's get back to that cryptozoologist column again. If we're keeping score, it's zoologists eight kabillion (more or less) and cryptozoologists…zero. Nada. Nothing. They're working the shut-out. They haven't even scored a bucket like our friend Ed Nealy. Ed Nealy owns cryptozoology with his two points.
Is the discovery of an animal paramount to who discovers it? Of course. That's not even a debate. But…let's not acknowledge or give credit to cryptozoology when they certainly do not deserve it. It's not as if they are only finding 3% of "hidden animals." I would be greatly impressed with that. That would signify results. But when year after year and decade after decade passes and you show me a bunch of nothin'…I have to question the overall worth.
This is apart of my love/hate relationship with cryptozoology. I love the stories. But I hate that they have not found a single thing on their own. Ever. Not one. And when you look at that goose egg in the cryptozoological column…you start wondering…"What's the point of this again?"
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
11:30 am
January 6, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
But cryptozoology is the study of hidden (unknown) animals. One who studies hidden (unknown) animals is a cryptozoologist. It can be even less stringent going by your own tongue-in-cheek description (which allowed me to pad my resume ):
"And before I go, I am going to take one last
parting shot at cryptozoology and it's something that I brought up in
the forums some time ago. Crypotzoologists seem to be very inclusive as
to who may call themselves "cryptozoologists." Yet, there is really no
defining criteria to be met in order to call one's self a
cryptozoologist. Cryptozoology is not viewed as a branch of science.
There are no degrees issued in cryptozoology. You do not need a
license. You do not need a permit. The only commonality that they seem
to have is that they write about issues pertaining to cryptozoology.
So, if that is the case, then that suddenly makes me a cryptozoologist.
And if you post to this article, that will make you a cryptozoologist
as well. You can now add that to your list of fancy-schmancy titles.
And who said that visiting a skeptical website wouldn't get you
anything?"
But, going with the stricter and literal meaning of the words (a rather safe and appropriate thing to do I think), anyone (zoologist, biologist, paleontologist, botanist, guy in plaid shirt) who goes out with the intent to find a hidden (unknown) animal is by definition also a cryptozoologist.
He has presumably studied what is known of the creature (reports, accounts, etc) He is actively looking for it (think of Johnston or Flannery). The person may be a botanist by degree, but he is de facto also a cryptozoologist by his mere actions and course.
The formal degree he may have means nothing. I do not have a degree in hydrology nor numismatics but am certainly a hydrologist and numismatist.
Now, if a botanist were to go out to get a count of sunflower petals in a certain area, with no care or interest in the world for Bigfoot, and ends up getting chased down by one and gathers irrefutable evidence of it's existance…then no, there is no crypto tie other than the cryptid itself.
|
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.
|
|
|
11:35 am
January 6, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
As usual, I think the term itself may be the stumbling block. Perhaps a more appropriate way of looking at it would be:
How many people going out with the intent of finding a cryptid (just a hidden/unknown animal) have been successful. That, to me, is the crux.
|
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.
|
|
|
1:26 pm
January 7, 2011
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Nosfer said:
As usual, I think the term itself may be the stumbling block. Perhaps a more appropriate way of looking at it would be:
How many people going out with the intent of finding a cryptid (just a hidden/unknown animal) have been successful. That, to me, is the crux.
…we do get stuck on that, don't we? You tend to argue the exact definition of a term and I tend to argue the implications of the term. Both our arguments are sound…they just don't mesh. Still…fun though.
And…I would like to amend your description…
How many people going out with the intent of finding a cryptid (just a mega-fauna type species/monsters that books can be written about) have been successful? That, to me, is more accurate. Oh…and the answer is zero.
The "hidden/unknown" aspect drives me up a wall. Case in point…a particular MQ episode comes to mind:
http://www.skepticalviewer.com…..ew-guinea/
The gist of the show was finding some sort of pterosaur in New Guinea. Looking for a creature with a 40 foot wingspan…yeah…um, just look up. Hard to miss something the size of a Cessna. Anyway…what absolutely killed me was being in New Guinea and coming away with nothing. You can't throw a rock in that place and NOT find a new species of something…an insect, a flower, a bird, a monkey, whatever. Those things are "hidden/unknown." But…they aren't big. They aren't scary. And most importantly, they certainly don't sell books.
Cryptozoology…they sell book after book on things that no one can prove exists. Is that a more accurate description than the "study of hidden/unknown animals?" Read the entire thread again for a perfect example of this…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
2:28 pm
January 7, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Post edited 2:29 pm – January 7, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 2:29 pm – January 7, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 2:32 pm – January 7, 2011 by Nosfer
Yes, we do seem to, don't we! Livens up the place lol I don't like hidden, either. That's why I keep adding "unknown" Hidden doesn't have the same meaning now and the idea of "hidden from science" or "obscure" etc doesn't as readily come to mind as it once did.
With the differences in how we look at these terms, that's why I see the actual discovery rather than the who as the more important thing. Once too many conditions get placed on what it takes to be the discoverer and under what umbrella, it's like the Guinness Book of Records, the categories become so narrow that anyone can claim a record these days. Most number of corn cobs thrown at a wall by someone under the age of 10…on a Tuesday…in a town near Bend, OR.
How would you define "mega-fauna type species"? We might have another stumbling-block there lol Which specific "implications of the term" [cryptozoology/ist] are you looking at? Solely the monster/book-selling type? If so, and using the classic cryptids that you've mentioned (Loch Ness, Bigfoot, etc), then no, they haven't been found. But, like ghost hunters (lower case) there are great varieties of "members" Not all carry on like Ghost Hunters (upper case) and thus to paint all "lookers for of hidden creatures" with the same stroke can lead to too sweeping of generalities.
I think restricting "cryptid" to just certain types of animals is a little, well, restrictive, though. Why should it have to weigh more than 100 pounds (that's one definition)? Merriam Webster defines it one way as animals large enough to be seen by the naked eye. If we are going to restrict it (and I don't propose that we do) then something like that is more appropriate than just the "larger" terrestrials.
"Cryptozoology is defined as "the study of hidden animals." Depending upon the cryptozoologist, that definition covers a few categories. The two big ones are animals which are unknown to science and animals thought to be extinct but supposedly aren't." – From "A Look at Cryptozoology"
Yes and Yes (and Yes), I like the unknown to science group, ties nicely with the definition I still wouldn't agree with the "0", though. Flannery could certainly be argued to have been looking for what turned out to be the bondegezou. Johnston as well. And the bondegezou has some of those traits of "man of the forest" or forest spirit, too.
Look at that little guy in Madagascar. Does his discovery go in the cryptozoology category? Does he go in the cryptid category? I would say the latter, at least. The former? Well, those who confirmed it's existence were looking for it. If it does turn out to be part of what the kalanoro legend is based on… Since we have no formal field or definition of cryptozoology/ist… Should the formal field of study the discoverers are in be stricken from the discovery? No. But again, I don't particularly care what degree a person has or what "formal" training he has. I look at the individual.
But at the same time, I take your point, as well…if you look at Cryptozoology the way some of the Bookwriters do, or those who get the most "Press" and restrict it to that portion of the "field" of looking for the household-name cryptids, then no, not too good.
So for me, it again still comes down to the fact that unknown animals are still being discovered and that looking for them has merit (again depending upon the particular case)
In fact, there is a "legitimate' and "recognized" field of science that really concentrates on doing just that…and maybe they'll be successful (haven't been yet). In that literal sense of the definition, they are a type of cryptozoologist, too.
Ten points to the first person to identify this group
Edited: Geez, it didn't look that long when I was writing it!!
|
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.
|
|
|
10:44 am
February 14, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2954 |
|
|
Post edited 10:53 am – February 14, 2011 by Nosfer
Nick Redfern will be on Coast to Coast tonight (14 Feb 2011) talking about some of these things under the title of NASA Conspiracy. Specific topics will include such things as: The Moon Landings (ala FoF), UFO visitations, and astronaut sightings of UFOs in space.
Edited: Added date
|
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.
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
