Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Have Cryptozoology ever done anything useful?


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

Poll: Have Cryptozoology ever done anything useful? (59 member(s) have cast votes)

Are cryptozoologists relevent?

  1. Yes, very much so! (19 votes [32.20%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.20%

  2. Naaaw, they ain't done sh!t (22 votes [37.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.29%

  3. Without them we'd forget all those cryptids out there! (15 votes [25.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.42%

  4. A crypto-who?? (3 votes [5.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.08%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#46    Insignia

Insignia

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 226 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 October 2012 - 11:48 PM

Who the hell voted "Yes"?

I wont argue that it's interesting to debate whether something existing is plausible or not but saying it's "useful" means that some of it must be OF SOME KIND OF USE.
Apart from conning stupid people out of money I can't see any reason to assume it's "useful".


#47    AshenPhoenix

AshenPhoenix

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2012

Posted 25 October 2012 - 03:42 AM

Ok people back to basics.

Crypto = hidden
Zoology = study of animals

Therefore: Cryptozoology is the study of hidden animals.  Expanded definition includes the possibility of animals who are considered extinct, living outside of their natural habitat and on the more gantastical end... mythic monsters.

So a cryptozoologist is merely one who searches and/or finds a hidden animal.  This is an adjective.  It is used to describe a particular action (finding 'hidden' animals).  One doesn't need to recognize that one is a cryptozoologist any more than a white man needs to acknowledge he's white while he's doing his job.  Infact, if a zoologist found a 'hidden' species and acknowledged himself for the cryptozoologist he was at the point in time, he'd be laughed out of scientific circles because the scientific community focuses on the fantastical aspect of cryptozoology rather than the more realistic aspects of it.

The following crypids had some pretty nonsensical traits that were later disproven as we've been able to study these animals.  They were hidden and shrowded in folklore, but via science they are no longer hidden.  We no longer believe the wild claims of those who had seen these animals prior to their 'official finding'.  They were hidden (crypto), animals (zoology) that were found by those studying their surroundings.  Hence, zoologists finding hidden animals = a cryptozoologist (whether or not they have the balls to call themselves one).  Doesn't get much simpler then that, kids.
Posted Image
Gilled Antelope, believed to have gills on muzzle that could allow water breathing. http://en.wikipedia....Gilled_Antelope


Posted Image
Okapi, believed to be an african unicorn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi


Posted Image
Platypus, confused zoologists for years having lots of wild claims until zoologists were able to study this creature  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus


Posted Image
Giant Squid, supposedly able to take down ships but one large enough hasn't been discovered http://en.wikipedia....iki/Giant_squid


Posted Image
Komodo Dragon, not accepted by the European zoological community until 1910 http://en.wikipedia....i/Komodo_dragon



And that's just to name a few, the list goes on and on and on.


#48    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 25 October 2012 - 04:40 PM

Holy ****, you rock.

Posted Image


#49    Vidgange

Vidgange

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 319 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2005

Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:03 PM

View PostAshenPhoenix, on 25 October 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Ok people back to basics.

Crypto = hidden
Zoology = study of animals

Therefore: Cryptozoology is the study of hidden animals.  Expanded definition includes the possibility of animals who are considered extinct, living outside of their natural habitat and on the more gantastical end... mythic monsters.

So a cryptozoologist is merely one who searches and/or finds a hidden animal.  This is an adjective.  It is used to describe a particular action (finding 'hidden' animals).  One doesn't need to recognize that one is a cryptozoologist any more than a white man needs to acknowledge he's white while he's doing his job.  Infact, if a zoologist found a 'hidden' species and acknowledged himself for the cryptozoologist he was at the point in time, he'd be laughed out of scientific circles because the scientific community focuses on the fantastical aspect of cryptozoology rather than the more realistic aspects of it.

The following crypids had some pretty nonsensical traits that were later disproven as we've been able to study these animals.  They were hidden and shrowded in folklore, but via science they are no longer hidden.  We no longer believe the wild claims of those who had seen these animals prior to their 'official finding'.  They were hidden (crypto), animals (zoology) that were found by those studying their surroundings.  Hence, zoologists finding hidden animals = a cryptozoologist (whether or not they have the balls to call themselves one).  Doesn't get much simpler then that, kids.


That's a pretty solid post man!! Welcome to the site :D

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

#50    AshenPhoenix

AshenPhoenix

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2012

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:29 PM

View PostVidgange, on 30 October 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

That's a pretty solid post man!! Welcome to the site :D
To me it's not a contest of 'how many people can I sway to believe what I believe'.  I'm a seeker of universal truth.  To those willing to listen I will tell the truth as I perceive it.  Whether or not they decide to perceive it as well is up to them.  :)

And thank you for the welcome.  It's appreciated.


#51    Vidgange

Vidgange

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 319 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2005

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:01 PM

View PostAshenPhoenix, on 30 October 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

To me it's not a contest of 'how many people can I sway to believe what I believe'.  I'm a seeker of universal truth.  To those willing to listen I will tell the truth as I perceive it.  Whether or not they decide to perceive it as well is up to them.  :)

And thank you for the welcome.  It's appreciated.

Nor should it be a contest, but having a discussion/argument can be really fulfilling :D I thought your post had some good points, but perhaps I should have worded my thesis better; "Have a self proclaimed cryptozoologist ever done anything for science?" I highly doubt that a zoologist, or marine zoologist would call themselves for a cryptozoologist if they happened to stubble upon a new species...

But I'm quite interested in your view you the truth; what's that?

any one person who's new here and makes an insightful post deserves to be welcomed!!

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

#52    Crow T. Sharkbot

Crow T. Sharkbot

    I'm not a Mutant.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Address Unknown

Posted 31 October 2012 - 03:18 PM

I don't think "Cryptozoologists" would care if they found a new species of tiny lizard or something, they'd just squish it with their tripod to setup a night vision camera for their bigfoots and other giant wolf monsters.

MEANWHILE.... OUT THERE IN THE REAL FORESTS SOMEWHERE...

Zoologists discover frogs, insects and mundane creatures, pretty much useless for a horror movie buff who wants to be a monster hunter

Edited by Space_Jockey, 31 October 2012 - 03:21 PM.


#53    AshenPhoenix

AshenPhoenix

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2012

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:07 PM

View PostSpace_Jockey, on 31 October 2012 - 03:18 PM, said:

I don't think "Cryptozoologists" would care if they found a new species of tiny lizard or something, they'd just squish it with their tripod to setup a night vision camera for their bigfoots and other giant wolf monsters.

MEANWHILE.... OUT THERE IN THE REAL FORESTS SOMEWHERE...

Zoologists discover frogs, insects and mundane creatures, pretty much useless for a horror movie buff who wants to be a monster hunter
Seems a little unfair to automatically assume all cryptozoologists behave that way.  You would have to take a sample of the population & survey them before you can claim this as any sort of fact.

You can believe that there is no such thing as Nessie or Sasquatch but scientifically, until you can search every corner of their possible habitat in a manner that sweeps the whole habitat with no 'holes' and find nothing, then as improbable as it may be, it is possible.


#54    Harlequin Dreamer

Harlequin Dreamer

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Anywhere & Everywhere

  • Dear Optimist,Pessimist,and Realist, While you guys are busy arguing about a glass of water, I drank it. Sincerely the Opportunist.

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:15 PM

Yes as we are all here discussing cryptozoology subjects. :st


#55    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:31 PM

View PostAshenPhoenix, on 31 October 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Seems a little unfair to automatically assume all cryptozoologists behave that way.  You would have to take a sample of the population & survey them before you can claim this as any sort of fact.

... or you can simply look at exactly which new species have been found by folk who specifically identify with the cryptozoologist label (ie monster hunters rather than the scientists and naturalists who actually do find and catalogue new species but do not identify themselves as being cryptozoologists) - ie. nothing.

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#56    Nathan DiYorio

Nathan DiYorio

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • Bitter words with sweet flavor are poison just the same.

Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:04 AM

View PostNight Walker, on 31 October 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

... or you can simply look at exactly which new species have been found by folk who specifically identify with the cryptozoologist label (ie monster hunters rather than the scientists and naturalists who actually do find and catalogue new species but do not identify themselves as being cryptozoologists) - ie. nothing.

By taking an uncontrolled data-set, you're committing the same crimes of science as the individuals you so readily raise flame against.

Posted Image


#57    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,760 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:58 AM

View PostAshenPhoenix, on 25 October 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

Ok people back to basics.

Crypto = hidden
Zoology = study of animals

Therefore: Cryptozoology is the study of hidden animals.  Expanded definition includes the possibility of animals who are considered extinct, living outside of their natural habitat and on the more gantastical end... mythic monsters.

Unfortunately the basics are no help when defining cryptozoology, or cryptozoologists. The basic and expanded definitions are as vague and murky as the pseudoscience itself. It seems anything thing can be a cryptid, and anyone (whether they like it or not) can be or be labeled a cryptozoologist.

For example; the study of hidden animals. What exactly does "hidden" imply? And I am stressing the word "imply" here. Real scientific and medical ologies are very specific in their definitions. As far as ologies go I would rank cryptozoology very low on the scale...maybe just slightly above scientology. After all both of them talk a lot of crap they cant backup, and both were just made up by guys trying to sell books.

Cryptozoologists love to redefine already well defined and existing terms such as "species unknown to science", "extinct species", "introduced species", "invasive species", or "escaped exotic species" and turn them into cryptids so that they justify the existence of the "mythical species"...which is the real implied definition of "hidden/crypto" in cryptozoology. It's the mythological beasts that are cryptozoologies real bread and butter.

Perhaps a more accurate nomenclature for cryptozoology would be "impossibiliszoology". The study of animals "not able to be possible".

View PostAshenPhoenix, on 25 October 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

So a cryptozoologist is merely one who searches and/or finds a hidden animal.  This is an adjective.  It is used to describe a particular action (finding 'hidden' animals).  One doesn't need to recognize that one is a cryptozoologist any more than a white man needs to acknowledge he's white while he's doing his job.  Infact, if a zoologist found a 'hidden' species and acknowledged himself for the cryptozoologist he was at the point in time, he'd be laughed out of scientific circles because the scientific community focuses on the fantastical aspect of cryptozoology rather than the more realistic aspects of it.

I may be wrong but I don't think the word "cryptozoologist" is an adjective.

Why would someone who spent years studying, in a university to get a degree in zoology want to be called something as nonsensical as cryptozoologist? That degree and the knowledge that it comes with it is what separates real science from cryptozoology. If I cut a sliver out of my toe does that make me an orthopedic surgeon at that point in time?

Funny you should mention a white man and cryptozoology in the same sentence. I have argued that cryptozoology is a western white mans concept. One that conventionally (like in the examples below) overlooks the fact that the native peoples (in almost every example you provided) not only knew about these animals, but provided the people you have labled "cryptozoologist" their first specimens. The rules change if the animal is the mythical type of cryptid such as bigfoot, or nessy, then cryptozoologist will use any and all ancient native lore and twist it into evidence to support their existence.

View PostAshenPhoenix, on 25 October 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

The following crypids had some pretty nonsensical traits that were later disproven as we've been able to study these animals.  They were hidden and shrowded in folklore, but via science they are no longer hidden.  We no longer believe the wild claims of those who had seen these animals prior to their 'official finding'.  They were hidden (crypto), animals (zoology) that were found by those studying their surroundings.  Hence, zoologists finding hidden animals = a cryptozoologist (whether or not they have the balls to call themselves one).  Doesn't get much simpler then that, kids.

Simple? Yes. True? No.

Edited by evancj, 01 November 2012 - 02:39 AM.


#58    Crow T. Sharkbot

Crow T. Sharkbot

    I'm not a Mutant.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,273 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Address Unknown

Posted 01 November 2012 - 05:27 AM

View PostAshenPhoenix, on 31 October 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Seems a little unfair to automatically assume all cryptozoologists behave that way.  You would have to take a sample of the population & survey them before you can claim this as any sort of fact.

You can believe that there is no such thing as Nessie or Sasquatch but scientifically, until you can search every corner of their possible habitat in a manner that sweeps the whole habitat with no 'holes' and find nothing, then as improbable as it may be, it is possible.

And I'll continue to assume that way until the so called cryptozoologists ever do something of worth. It's no use defending useless folk, just because you want to be nice and fair. Again, since nobody can provide any useful contributions by them.

I see you got the meaning of cryptozoology right, but a 'cryptozoologist' is different, it isn't what you're thinking.  No Zoologist would ever just call himself a 'Cryptozoologist' if he finds a new species. Where did you get that now?

There's a difference between a Zoologist and a horror movie buff who wants to be monster hunters.


#59    Night Walker

Night Walker

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 988 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where women glow and men plunder

  • We're all storytellers. We all live in a network of stories. There isn't a stronger connection between people than storytelling.

    J.M. Smith

Posted 01 November 2012 - 08:18 AM

View PostXetan, on 01 November 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

By taking an uncontrolled data-set, you're committing the same crimes of science as the individuals you so readily raise flame against.

Zero is not an uncontrolled data set.

Posted Image Yes! Canada's most fearsome predator. The Kodiak Marmoset – it's the world's largest smallest primate. "My God! He's killing us..."

The Yowie-ocalypse is upon us...

#60    Idano

Idano

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 225 posts
  • Joined:24 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Illinois, USA

  • If life gives you lemons, you should make lemonade... And try to find somebody whose life has given them vodka, and have a party.
    Ron White

Posted 01 November 2012 - 09:05 AM

Anyone who questions what is "Known" is necessary

What could possibly go wrong?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users