101 replies to this topic

[Nathan DiYorio]

Night Walker, on 03 November 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

I also question the validity of the above "FACT" as well: The examples quoted were never "legendary animals". They are real animals about which legends, myths, and tales have been told. it is a subtle yet important distinction. The Gilled Antelope, Okapi, Platypus, Giant Squid, and Komodo Dragon, therefore, are no more "legendary animals" than the countless dogs, horses, cats, crows, mice, cows, monkeys, wolves, kangaroos, etc that have had similar legends/myths/tales that have been told (and continue to be told) about them.

"Legendary animals" (like Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster) exist solely within our legends/myths/stories and within the fringe of human experience. This does not lessen their impact and importance upon the groups which relate such stories - it strengthens it thereby strengthening the bonds within the group. We shouldn't forget that we humans are a complicated lot - our legends/myths/tales have meaning and significance far beyond their strictly literal interpretations...

You're thinking wrong again. Before they were cataloged, they were legendary. Now that they're cataloged, they're just animals that happen to have legends.

If a Bigfoot were to be discovered and cataloged, it'd be the same thing.

[Night Walker]

Xetan, on 03 November 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

You're thinking wrong again. Before they were cataloged, they were legendary. Now that they're cataloged, they're just animals that happen to have legends.

If a Bigfoot were to be discovered and cataloged, it'd be the same thing.

No, they were uncatalogued animals that had legends/myths/tales told about them and now they are catalogued animals.

Will Bigfoot be catalogued? It has already been discovered by cryptozoologists...

I encourage you to venture forth into the woods with your local group of cryptozoologists/monster hunters to see for yourself. It is easy to pontificate from behind a desk about what something is or isn't. In order to get a better understanding of cryptozoology one really needs see that what they claim is significantly different to what actually goes on. The search for Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and Mkele Mbembe are prime examples of cryptozoology in action. Many claims are exaggerated, confabulated, or simply made up. There are already multiple examples of chicanery within cryptozoological circles this year alone.

The results of cryptozoology - fakes and misidentifications - speak for themselves. History repeats itself over and over again. I find it interesting how so few ever ask why? It's not rocket science - its cryptozoology...

Would anyone be interested in conducting a case study on UM examining cryptozoology for this year (2012) on UM? We could do so in this thread as it is applicable to the topic. Everyone would be welcome to contribute. It'll be fun...

Edited by Night Walker, 03 November 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[Nathan DiYorio]

Again, you think wrong.

[orangepeaceful79]

Xetan, on 04 November 2012 - 12:30 AM, said:

Again, you think wrong.

Just because he doesn't think like you, doesn't mean he thinks wrong, Xetan.

[QuiteContrary]

Night Walker, on 03 November 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

No, they were uncatalogued animals that had legends/myths/tales told about them and now they are catalogued animals.

Will Bigfoot be catalogued? It has already been discovered by cryptozoologists...

I encourage you to venture forth into the woods with your local group of cryptozoologists/monster hunters to see for yourself. It is easy to pontificate from behind a desk about what something is or isn't. In order to get a better understanding of cryptozoology one really needs see that what they claim is significantly different to what actually goes on. The search for Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and Mkele Mbembe are prime examples of cryptozoology in action. Many claims are exaggerated, confabulated, or simply made up. There are already multiple examples of chicanery within cryptozoological circles this year alone.

The results of cryptozoology - fakes and misidentifications - speak for themselves. History repeats itself over and over again. I find it interesting how so few ever ask why? It's not rocket science - its cryptozoology...

Would anyone be interested in conducting a case study on UM examining cryptozoology for this year (2012) on UM? We could do so in this thread as it is applicable to the topic. Everyone would be welcome to contribute. It'll be fun...

Could you explain this a little more, NW? Thanks

[AshenPhoenix]

Night Walker, on 03 November 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

I also question the validity of the above "FACT" as well: The examples quoted were never "legendary animals". They are real animals about which legends, myths, and tales have been told. it is a subtle yet important distinction. The Gilled Antelope, Okapi, Platypus, Giant Squid, and Komodo Dragon, therefore, are no more "legendary animals" than the countless dogs, horses, cats, crows, mice, cows, monkeys, wolves, kangaroos, etc that have had similar legends/myths/tales that have been told (and continue to be told) about them.

"Legendary animals" (like Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster) exist solely within our legends/myths/stories and within the fringe of human experience. This does not lessen their impact and importance upon the groups which relate such stories - it strengthens it thereby strengthening the bonds within the group. We shouldn't forget that we humans are a complicated lot - our legends/myths/tales have meaning and significance far beyond their strictly literal interpretations...

Sasquatch & Loch Ness are either a.) Legendary animals that haven't been discovered yet & their legendary abilities have not yet been disproven by science (such as the examples I gave earlier) or b.) they simply do not exist.

They were legendary until they were 1.) Proved to actually exist and 2.) Studied to show their legendary abilities did not exist.

I don't see how bf or nessie would be any different if they do exist and if they are discovered & studied.

[Sundew]

Cryptozoology as I understand it is the search for "hidden" animals. In this respect people have discovered animals that were once only rumored to exist. Already mentioned were the  Gorillas, (Lowland & Mountain), Giant Panda, but also things like the King Cheetah (a color variant as it turns out), giant 6' long earthworms, the Okapi and so forth. All these animals were known by local peoples but not by modern science.

Note that some of these animals were relatively rare like the Panda, very shy like the Okapi or in remote or seldom traveled locations like the Mountain Gorilla.

I don't know if "Cryptozoologists" have contributed anything to science. Most are driven by belief in animals that, if they exist at all, may be so rare that discovery will be nothing short of the shaking of the foundations of science. But remember, someone went to look for the Panda and the Gorilla and in the end, they found them. This does not mean we will find Sasquatch, because it may not exist. Or the Thylacine, because it may be gone. My only point is, if you don't look you may never find. But you can't prove a universal negative, and therefore you may never convince the Criptid hunters that they are only chasing smoke.

Let them have their fun, it's not costing us anything and who knows, one day they may have the last laugh, and wouldn't that be fantastic?

[Nathan DiYorio]

orangepeaceful79, on 04 November 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Just because he doesn't think like you, doesn't mean he thinks wrong, Xetan.

He doesn't have to think like me. He just has to not think wrongly.

Very large difference.

By thinking of cryptozoology as the "study of nonexisting things", which he has demonstrated he does on many occassions, he is thinking wrongly. Since his entire argument is based on that wrong understanding of cryptozoology, his thinking is wrong.

He's simply wrong. As wrong as the spelling errors in the past sentence.

Edited by Xetan, 04 November 2012 - 02:35 AM.

[orangepeaceful79]

Xetan, on 04 November 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

He doesn't have to think like me. He just has to not think wrongly.

Very large difference.

By thinking of cryptozoology as the "study of nonexisting things", which he has demonstrated he does on many occassions, he is thinking wrongly. Since his entire argument is based on that wrong understanding of cryptozoology, his thinking is wrong.

He's simply wrong. As wrong as the spelling errors in the past sentence.

Hmmm.  Here's my take - and feel free to tell me how wrong my thinking is too. Cryptozoology is spurious and sort of melifluous by nature.   Its undefined in my book because by its very nature it is the study of things that haven't been proven by the standards of reality.  I think that leaves some wiggle room in what is actually the definition of it.  Sure sure sure, you can define it etymologically, by breaking the word in to its roots and all that, and you'd be right, in a sense.  However I think that Cryptozoology and Demonology and Ghost Hunting and all these kinds of things are by their very nature like trying to nail jello to a wall.  The definition of these pursuits varies as much as the practitioner.

That is to say I think that you, and NW - and anyone else with an opinion is technically correct - when it comes to these things.

What is really the point of trying so hard to define Cryptozoology?  This thread has just become a pissing contest about who is thinking correctly anyway.

You are both right - call me wrong if it makes you feel better - then we can shut up and move on.

Edited by orangepeaceful79, 04 November 2012 - 03:01 AM.

[Night Walker]

Xetan, on 04 November 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

He doesn't have to think like me. He just has to not think wrongly.

Very large difference.

By thinking of cryptozoology as the "study of nonexisting things", which he has demonstrated he does on many occassions, he is thinking wrongly. Since his entire argument is based on that wrong understanding of cryptozoology, his thinking is wrong.

I would like to point out that I actually said: "Things that don't exist are still things and that is kinda the whole point of cryptozoology" and "I think the former definition is far more accurate than the latter" when presented with the dichotomy "The Study of Things That Don't Exist" v "The Study of Hidden Things."

To regard the approach of cryptozoologists/monster hunters as being scientifically valid is like proclaiming the Mafia to be a bunch of honourary men who are just looking out for family because, well, that's what they say they are. However, if cryptozoology really is about the search for hidden animals then it raises some questions:

1) What exactly are "hidden animals"?
2) Why are "hidden animals" associated with those from legends, myths, and tales when such creatures are part of cultural folklore which is freely spoken about (not hidden at all)?
3) Who exactly is hiding these animals?

Storytelling and fakery have long traditions and the cryptozoologists' own evidence (fakes and misidentifications) clearly suggest that they are part of the those traditions rather than that of science and naturalism. I suggest that cryptozoologists themselves, consciously or otherwise, create the creatures (and often even the evidence) they seek and then seek to obscure the trail of fakery and nonsense which inevitably leads back to them, their friends and family. Cryptozoology is a social thing, after all...

Again, I ask: Why hasn't Bigfoot been documented? It has already been discovered by cryptozoologists. Some can claim dozens of sightings, others claim hundreds of encounters, while others still claim to have entire families/clans of Bigfoots living behind their properties. Are they fair dinkum or not? If not, then what is going on? Pretty simple questions, really, but hard to answer when there is so much shenanigans going on. Such shenanigans coming from within cryptozoological circles are not aberations to otherwise open and accountable research work - it is representative of what cryptozoology actually is...

QuiteContrary, on 04 November 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Could you explain this a little more, NW? Thanks

Sure. To determine whether cryptozoology has contributed anything useful then it stands to reason that we should then examine the claims and contributions of cryptozoology in 2012. If cryptozoology actually is what it says it is then the results should be there for all to see. That isn't unreasonable, is it?

What, then, is "useful"? Providing education about the world around us is useful but so is providing enchantment/entertainment (just for very different reasons). I suggest that if we do examine the results of cryptozoology the results will be disproportionally weighted towards enchantment/entertainment.

Edited by Night Walker, 04 November 2012 - 04:47 AM.

[Night Walker]

orangepeaceful79, on 04 November 2012 - 02:59 AM, said:

What is really the point of trying so hard to define Cryptozoology?  This thread has just become a pissing contest about who is thinking correctly anyway.

Defining exactly what cryptozoology is (and what it is not) is important in determining its relative successes and failures - ie whether or not cryptozoology has ever done anything useful (as per the topic).

If the discovery and documentation of all "new" species is really the result of cryptozoology then why is cryptozoology considered by academia to be a pseudoscience? Surely, its results are there for all to see as new species are discovered and documented all the time. Why is it the scientists and naturalists who do actually discover and document new species reject any association with cryptozoology (and even consider it to be a slur) if that is what they actually do? Something is clearly not right with this definition...

If cryptozoology is not really about the discovery and documentation of new species then what is going on - what is it about? I contend that you can't define cryptozoology without defining what is actually going on within cryptozoological circles. Cryptozoology is as cryptozoologists do and the steady stream of sensational claims,fakes, and misidentifications speaks for itself. The problem is how to define it...

Edited by Night Walker, 04 November 2012 - 05:23 AM.

[Night Walker]

Perhaps there is a solution to the definition problem. I was thinking about some of the positives of Cryptozoology in 2012 and The Journal of Cryptozoology came to mind. See here for further details - http://www.cryptomun...o-news/j-of-cz/ - and it seems to me like a good approach by a solid group. This would be a positive for Cryptozoology. Anyone disagree?

The editor is Dr Karl P.N. Shuker (http://karlshuker.blogspot.com.au/) defines (big "C") Cryptozoology as: “The scientific investigation of animals whose existence or identity has yet to be confirmed by science.” I am happy enough to use this definition of Cryptozoology – is everyone else?

This definition excludes much of the sensationalism and fakery coming from (little “c”) cryptozoology community (ie the Monster Hunters: Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Mokele Mbembe, etc) precisely because they are very far from scientific in their outlook and methodology (ie more akin with Ghost Hunting). It is this tradition/culture of storytelling and fakery that I readily criticise.

It also cuts out the haziness of such terms as “hidden animals” and “legendary creatures”. That means that animals like the giant squid, platypus, etc are relevant to Cryptozoology not because of any legends/myths/tales but because of the manner in which they were found and documented.

Is everyone ok with applying this definition of cryptozoology to the discussion?

Edited by Night Walker, 04 November 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[Night Walker]

AshenPhoenix, on 04 November 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

I don't see how bf or nessie would be any different if they do exist and if they are discovered & studied.

Sure, but what it Bigfoot and Nessie don't exist? What is actually going on then? Why do people claim to see them?

If people can encounter things that don't exist then it raises some very fundamental questions about both human nature and cryptozoology itself, does it not?

[Myles]

Night Walker, on 04 November 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

Perhaps there is a solution to the definition problem. I was thinking about some of the positives of Cryptozoology in 2012 and The Journal of Cryptozoology came to mind. See here for further details - http://www.cryptomun...o-news/j-of-cz/ - and it seems to me like a good approach by a solid group. This would be a positive for Cryptozoology. Anyone disagree?

The editor is Dr Karl P.N. Shuker (http://karlshuker.blogspot.com.au/) defines (big "C") Cryptozoology as: “The scientific investigation of animals whose existence or identity has yet to be confirmed by science.” I am happy enough to use this definition of Cryptozoology – is everyone else?

This definition excludes much of the sensationalism and fakery coming from (little “c”) cryptozoology community (ie the Monster Hunters: Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, Mokele Mbembe, etc) precisely because they are very far from scientific in their outlook and methodology (ie more akin with Ghost Hunting). It is this tradition/culture of storytelling and fakery that I readily criticise.

It also cuts out the haziness of such terms as “hidden animals” and “legendary creatures”. That means that animals like the giant squid, platypus, etc are relevant to Cryptozoology not because of any legends/myths/tales but because of the manner in which they were found and documented.

Is everyone ok with applying this definition of cryptozoology to the discussion?

I'm with you on this, but does this mean that a scientist looking for and finding a new snail has been practicing cryptozoology?  Most scientists will not like that.

Edited by Myles, 05 November 2012 - 05:47 PM.

[Purplos]

What use are ghost hunters? What use are celebrity chasers? What use are band groupies? What use are sports franchises? What use are movie critics? What use are DJs? What  use is most television?

Entertainment.

Of course cryptozoologists are relevant in today's world. They're people doing what they enjoy and get paid for it, sometimes, by producing books, websites, movies, whatever.