Night Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:
Defining "cryptozoology" is certainly problematic. The science definition being "the scientific investigation of animals whose existence or identity has yet to be confirmed by science" largely excludes the monster hunting side of Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster yet the popular definition - "the study of hidden animals" - Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster are the big ticket definers of what is cryptozoology. The broader definition, with it's tawdry association with showmen, cranks, and fakers, hinders the appeal of "cryptozoology" to science while the science definition excludes much of what cryptozoology actually is at ground level.
I think that much of the definition problem stems from the actual beginnings of "cryptozoology" and it's two key founders: Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan Sanderson.
Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with scientific rigor, but with an open-minded, interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric sources regarding such creatures, arguing that while often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding undiscovered organisms.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Cryptozoology
Whereas Sanderson paid special attention to the
evidence for lake monsters, sea serpents, Mokèlé-mbèmbé, giant penguins, Yeti, and Sasquatch.
http://en.wikipedia....an_T._Sanderson
From it's very beginnings, "cryptozoology" was divided and inadequately defined.
I could not agree more, and yet I still do not understand the difference between a hidden animal, and an animal not yet catalogued by science after all these years and debates. The so called "hidden animals" according to all reports are not hidden, and in fact rely totally on hearsay, suggesting a sighting, and the number as we know for Bigfoot alone is claimed to be about 400 a year. Again, the definition contradicts itself even though I am using a very popular sample, this was where the Loch Ness Monster resided a few short decades ago. Now, I think one would be hard pressed to find a true Nessie believer today.
Hidden from science? Hidden from common sense perhaps?
I think Cryptozoology could be defined as an emotion even. People put a lot of passions into defending and describing Cryptozoology when they seem to be talking zoology.
Night Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:
The late 60s and 70s experienced the rise of sensational cryptozoology via the big ticket items - Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster. This newfound interest was then met by an attempt to legitimise "cryptozoology" via the establishment of the International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC) which published it journal Cryptozoology from 1982-1996. Monster claims declined significantly in this era. However, by 1998 the ISC was defunct and social communication via the internet was exploding as were monster claims. This time, the monster hunters became organised largely facilitated by the new horizons offered by the internet and groups like the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) have sprung up wherever monster claims were coming from (everywhere!).
They had to do something with things like the Minnesota Iceman making the rounds. Easy enough to fool people, heck, Piltdown Man fooled some of the best. As did the Cottingley Fairies. Aliens on earth seem to be the current thing to believe in. I suspect with NASA's great achievements many like to think they are being "intellectual" in their pursuit of nonsense. LOL. But that will be the next step. Earth is only so big, and eventually it will be debated out of the picture eventually. I think Bigfoot saw this coming and has hoped on the Alien Bus in time for a good seat. I really think Bigfoot is on borrowed time, as Nessie was. Loch Ness while big took quite some time to rationalise, with Bigfoot being purported as global it will take longer, but I suspect the end result will be forthcoming. I feel it will diminish into a fringe whacky group, like the flat earthers or similar.
Eventually.
I like to think these snake oil salesmen have shot themselves in the foot, to an extent at least by using the Internet. While they baffle people with BS those very people have solid sources of information at their fingertips. I like to optimistically hope that a number of these people utilise that resource and challenge the unsupported extraordinary claims as well as listening to them. Interesting results are sure to ensure.
Yes, the ISC although officially defunct continued with a web presence up until about the time I joined this board. Loren is carrying the torch though. He has kept groups like the BFRO in business, and I am sure history will recognise that. Funny these guys see themselves as some sort of hero, treading where angels fear, however years and years of extraordinary claims have resulted in zip. One has to ask the people like Coleman and Dr Meldrum, would
you pay someone decade after decade to provide no more than promises that remain unfulfilled? They need fresh meat, because you can only spin a story for so long before someone will ask them demonstrate a claim. Enter the Internet and the angsty teen with an attitude that "knows" these claimants are "onto something". Meh. How long
can that last and maintain credibility?
Night Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:
The popular appeal for the monster hunting type of "cryptozoology" has once again conflated enough to warrant the publication of a new science publication - The Journal of Cryptozoology. I have the first issue on order but have yet to receive it. Will monster claims once again go on the decline with the intervention of science "cryptozoology" or does the popular appeal of monster hunting "cryptozoology" ensure the monsters will live on? Perhaps we are about to be witness to the clash of the "cryptozoologies" - Science v Monster Hunting. The line dividing the two sides is not so clear cut within "cryptozoology" (see Meldrum's upcoming version of Finding Bigfoot) so any stoush would inevitably get messy. Or will "cryptozoology" evolve into something else entirely?
You might have a point, whilst there is some decline in the area of interest, Nat Geo has sold out and produced such nonsense as
Is It Real, which is not at all objective, but speculative. Unsupported at that. We could be witnessing an evolution indeed. I'd like to hope that easy access to academic information will curb this, but it will continue for some time. Cryptozoology os not out for the count yet. I watched a Nat Geo on Atlantis the other day. I was very sad to see such a great resource decline so badly. More nonsense than I could stand. I could not finish watching the entire episode.
Night Walker, on 28 November 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:
Interesting times we live in...
To say the least........
Who is going to be the next Gilroy?
Edited by psyche101, 29 November 2012 - 02:23 AM.
3
and everyone knows I have tried...repeatedly.
