Post edited 3:08 am – May 4, 2011 by Revenant
Post edited 3:12 am – May 4, 2011 by Revenant
Post edited 3:14 am – May 4, 2011 by Revenant

Nosfer said:

Revenant  said:

…If I say that "all" the known dinosaurs are still roaming around today or they could be….then…that's good enough.  They suddenly become cryptids.  It's as easy and as absurd as that.

I think it takes more than just one person making an "easy (whimsical) and absurd" statement to label an entire class of animals as cryptids.  What basis would you have for making that claim? [that they all could be roaming around]

I understand the intent of the question.  It is asked with honesty and integrity.  If within the hollowed halls of academia, it would be a valid question and one that I would have great difficulty in answering.  Yet…I am not sailing under the flag of honesty and integrity in the sea of academia.  I am the dread pirate Captain Revenant flying the flag of falsehood in the great ocean of Real Life!  Arrrrghhhh!  Let us begin:

What is the common denominator amongst cryptozoologists?  Is it that they do all their own exploration?  No.  Maybe they all have legimate backgrounds in zoology?  Nope.  Hmmm…is the snazzy hats?  Well…yeah, you got me there.  But what I was going for was that most if not all of them are very decent writers.  They tell a good a story.  They spin a good yarn.  And…this is where I would start.

I would use my goodest, greatest, and hawesomest writing abilities (…I'll pause a moment until the coughing and throat-clearing subsides…ok…) and drum up a "dino-riffic" story.  I would throw in recent sightings from villages that no one has heard of.  Mention remote locations.  Talk of cave systems (hoping to draw in some "Journey to the Center of the Earth" action). 

Then pepper the story with the usual; plaster casting of tracks, talk DNA tests (in progress…man, where did I put those results again?),  show some broken tree branches and maybe even some satellite imagery of red blobs roaming around wherever.

Last but not least, I pull out the greatest weapon that cryptozoology has to offer…*ques the choir to hit that angelic note*…Photoshop!  Blur this, darken that and ask the forum if there's a "grainier" button.

So…there we go.  A story with pictures.  That is the genesis.  And now…the real magic happens…I send the story out to every crypto/paranormal website, ezine, magazine, and whatever else.  Not only would some of them carry it…but they would actually begin to "re-word" it to make it their own.  Let's not forget…we've seen this before (check out post #5):

http://www.skepticalviewer.com…..-monsters/

The story will begin to take hold.

And never let it be said that I haven't learned my lessons well from Jason and Grant.  Say something enough times…and it becomes accepted and eventually the truth.  Look at the "fear cage" and the "SFT (Stupid Flashlight Trick)" for fine examples.  Just pump out slightly different versions of the story week and week until it builds into "truth."

Lastly, keep in mind…this is the paranormal that we're talking about here.  It's not like I'm going to have to supply any real proof of anything.  I just have to have the "appearance" of proof.  A semblance of truth.  A hint of truth.  In other words, a bunch of nothin'.

So can one person claim an entire class of animals as cryptids and have it stick?  I think so.  And the scary thing…I don't think it would be all that hard to do…

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate's life for me…

EDIT: Formatting and spelling.

Lucky Lindy (Notso) said: 

 And let us not forget those timeless classics "Residual and Intelligent Haunts"

Yes, there are many great examples.  I mean we now live in a world where a house that settles is haunted, splashing water heard at night is a sea monster and a RC helicopter with sparklers is proof of aliens.  As a skeptic, I want to remain open to various aspects of the paranormal…yet…both investigators and witnesses are making it soooo incredibly hard to remain objective.

And that is the basis of my answer to Nosfer's question.  Cryptozoology isn't a science.  There is no criteria to meet when submitting "reports (stories)."  And not only is there no peer review…your peers will actually add to it…furthering it along. 

(At this point, I was going to list a few "living dinosaur" links but most take a particular religious view…one in which I want to stay as far away as possible.  So…no need to link anything like that here at SV.  Let us just say that there would be many websites that would be more than eager to post my fictitious dino-story.)

Nosfer said:  

Reading this post (which is almost worthy of Walter Mitty, himself), I don't see a real "basis" so much as a cookbook for how to fake A(ie, ONE) cryptid sighting (not an entire class of animals such to indicate that all dinosaur types are still living today, just one cryptid or at the very most a very small population in a localized area)

The "cookbook" post was originally designed for a fake article on many cryptid sightings thus answering your question.  I pulled back a bit because, as I mentioned in post #6, the many links that I could have provided…I just didn't want to post here at SV for a very specific reason.  However, the fake article can easily accommodate many different cryptids and why not…it's fake, I can write anything.

Your original question:

"What basis would you have for making that claim? [that they all could be roaming around]"

To which I countered with how to fake a story that would indeed help to change the perception of an entire group of animals.  You then say that you only see a "cookbook" and not a "basis."  My friend, the faking part IS the basis.  After all, the word basis means "the principle component of something."  So…what is the principle component of cryptozoology?  Quite simply…a bunch of stuff that hasn't been proven to be true.  How does one perpetuate something that isn't true?  Faking does come to mind, doesn't it?

And before we dive back into honesty and integrity and academia for whatever reason…let me give you an example:

http://www.skepticalviewer.com…..a-monster/

Tell me how that's not an attempt to create a cryptid.  Explain how that isn't a blatant attempt to create interest in cryptozoology by exploiting a tragedy.  And if you were actually related to the Schweders, are you really not going to walk up to Mr Coleman and knock him in the head?  Really?  Really?  

Another example?  Let's go Raystown Ray (fun fact…I was still referring to FoF as "Fact or Fiction" instead of "Fact or Faked" at that point):

http://www.skepticalviewer.com…..stown-ray/

That one drove us both crazy.  That is fake to the nth degree.

So again, what is the "basis" for my claim?  That all I need is a better story then the existing one.  And the crazy part…I don't even need facts or proof to substantiate it….which is the utter and complete problem behind cryptozoology.  You are pretty much free to make up whatever you wish…just make it a quasi-believable good story.  I don't see how you can dispute this and Raystown Ray doesn't see how you can dispute this either…we discussed it over tea this morning…

Post edited 2:22 pm – May 5, 2011 by Revenant
Post edited 2:23 pm – May 5, 2011 by Revenant
Post edited 2:24 pm – May 5, 2011 by Revenant
Post edited 2:26 pm – May 5, 2011 by Revenant

Nosfer said:

If you still think it's a bad definition, though, I'll go back to my other original question…what definition of a cryptid would satisfy Revenant the non-faking cryptozoologist?

Beyond that, to answer the question in spirit…

As a cryptozoologist myself, I would take off my snazzy hat, place it on a very small boat, surround that hat with hay and sticks, set it afloat, and then hit it with a flaming arrow.  A tear shall fall from my cheek as the boat and snazzy hat burn and sink to the watery depths and I denounce cryptozoology forever…

Then…I would go back to school, get a couple of degrees with the foremost being zoology, and then go hat-in-hand to the private sector and beg for grants for various research projects on known to exist animals..or in other words…just animals.  And if I find something unusual…or unique…or "hidden"…then fantastic.

The cherry-picking style of cryptozoology has proven not to work.  Cryptozoology doesn't have a low batting average…they are literally batting (.000).  An actual cryptozoologist (someone who claims that he is one, that writes books with cryptozoology on the cover, and has a snazzy hat) has found…nothing.  Zero.  Nada.  How many stories, reports, and personal accounts are there that are told and spun by cryptozoologists?  Let's say 500,000 (an utterly random number).  So…they are 0 for 500,000.  They may try to claim this or that…but a card-carrying, self-promoting, snazzy-hat-wearing cryptozoologist hasn't come through.

Why would I join that?  Why would I need to define "cryptid" in a serious manner?  Wouldn't cryptid then be a simple literary term for an unknown creature that someone can write anything about without the burden of proof?

Cryptozoology isn't a science.  There is no reason to treat it as such.  So there is no reason to define a made-up word in the land of fantasy, fakery, and hog-wash. 

Now one can say that that's a very hardcore line.  Maybe it is.  But as a skeptic…I have limits.  Story after story, year after year, decade after decade…nothing.  There must be reliable hard evidence for a skeptic to consider.  Don't tell me how scary it is.  Don't tell me what some guy saw in 1911.  Give me a body.  Bigfoot?  Body.  Nessie?  Body.  And don't claim someone else's work either.  Cryptozoology wants to be with the big boys…step up and produce.

What does "cryptid" mean?  Apparently…nothing…

EDIT: Man…I should proof-read before I hit send… :)

Post edited 2:45 am – May 11, 2011 by Revenant
Post edited 2:45 am – May 11, 2011 by Revenant

Nosfer said:

I think the moniker of "faker" being applied to all who delve into the hidden creatures is a little strong.  I think a few very prominent hoaxes (Patterson film,  Surgeon's Photograph, etc) have really hurt the field and I think an exuberance to embrace the unknown has caused many to accept grainy, poorly taken (though genuine and without intent to deceive) photos as being Nessie, Bigfoot, or Timor Tim.  I wonder how prevalent the fakers really are, or is it just that there is a higher percentage because it's a "gotcha" field and they seem to get more press?

Much to respond to.  I'll start with this…wow!  The Patterson film is a prominent hoax?  I believe that cryptozoology and the "Bigfoot community" are still torn on that one.  The Surgeon's Photograph I can see.  But kind of shocked that you just declared it a prominent hoax.  Gut feeling or did some evidence on one of the eight kabillions shows sway you (beyond the argument of the existence of Bigfoot in the first place)?  I'm not arguing for it…just curious.

Axel said:

In the case of the paranormal, the lack of a reasonable physical explanation is used as evidence for its existence. While the opposite is true for an animal termed cryptid: A hypothetical that ONLY physical evidence can prove or disprove.

This is not true.  In the first sentence, it seems that you are referring to ghosts.  You are taking the view of the "believer."  A skeptic needs a reasonable physical explanation concerning evidence pertaining to ghosts.  That is the great divide between believer and skeptic.  In your second sentence, you give the criteria that a skeptic would use…but…not necessarily for a believer.  You can not have it both ways.  Either a skeptic demands reasonable physical evidence of BOTH ghosts and cryptids or a believer will buy into pretty much anything without such demands of the evidence concerning ghosts and cryptids.

Stephen said:

There shouldn't be any such separate discipline as cryptozoology– once it's zoology, it's no longer crypto!

  This….is a main part of my argument.  There is no "once it's zoology, it's no longer crypto."  They haven't found anything.  Ever.  Really…not sure what you guys are going on about.  Please give me a few examples of what cryptozoologists have "discovered."  Let me knock a few out of the ballpark to get us started…

Two the favorites that cryptozoology loves to throw out is the Gorilla and the Okapi.  Great.  Except that cryptozoology really took off in the mid-1950's.  The Gorilla was verified in 1847 and the Okapi in 1887.  Let's throw in the Coelacanth for good measure.  Sorry…that's a no-go as well…1938.  What about the batch found off the coast in Indonesia in 1997?  Yeah…a vacationing marine biologist made that call.

THIS…is why it's paranormal, Axel.  Forget the "physical evidence" angle that you're working.  There truly is no difference between the ghost stories and Bigfoot…and Nessie…and Pogo…and Mothman…and whatever else they drone on about.  Both ghosts and cryptozoology involved things that are outside of science's current ability to explain or measure.  Cryptozoology is paranormal all day long, my friend…