Loren Coleman

[Night Walker]

Any time you'd like to back up your recollections with references would be appreciated, ken. It would be interesting to see how much of the drama was media created...

I have no idea what you're talking about here.......when did I suggest off topic discussion? This is a natural extension of the original subject into the scientific method, and Coleman would be at the fore-front of such a discussion.

I was referring to any moderators and casual readers - it's not all about you, ken. I apologise for any ambiguity.

We would be on-topic if we were discussing Coleman's application of the scientific method in relation to his contribution to cryptozoology. Perhaps this floresiensis-case would make a good comparison...

[keninsc]

Ok, I thought you were talking to me, my bad.

....and, sorry, I've learned the hard way that running around and find references for others is usually a wasted effort. However, the reference in your own reference didn't make an eyebrow go up? ......not even a little?

And there in lies my reason for not wasting time and energy to provide such things. If you're curious, then check it out for yourself. I've found it's often the best way to learn.

[keninsc]

Hobbits were real?! Lord of the Rings really did happen!

...I'm joking of course.

Anyways, I remember reading a book written by Loren Coleman (I think?) some years ago. It was called A to Z Cryptozoology or something like that. I thought it was a good book filled with interesting things. He seems to take a more grounded, logical approach to cryptids than most other people. I'd like to read more books by him, but the paranormal section in my library is rather small.

Oh yes, Coleman is pretty grounded in his opinions on such things. I'm surprised they carry much at all really. Sadly many libraries have had to edit for content due to the demands of parents afraid their children will check out a book not in keeping with their own religious beliefs and convictions. Back in the day, I was reading "Catcher in the Rye" and had it confiscated from me because I was deemed to be too young to read such a book. I was fifteen at the time I think, so I had to buy the book in order to finish it. Shortly after that the book was quietly removed from the library because a number of local ministers petitioned the principal to remove them and he did.

Descent is not always welcomed with open arms.

[keninsc]

Since we have been discussing this, I just saw this and thought it would add to the discussion.

http://news.yahoo.com/river-monster-discovered-brazil-204321231.html

There is some interesting discussion within the article on new and cryptid species. Seemed appropriate to me.

[Night Walker]

.....and the 2005 reference to rejection and banning to the research site wasn't a little .....odd? The Indonesian official know nothing of this sort of thing, but rejected access to the site. Wonder who they were listening to?

However, the reference in your own reference didn't make an eyebrow go up? ......not even a little?

Of course it did - but is science at fault or politics?

And there in lies my reason for not wasting time and energy to provide such things. If you're curious, then check it out for yourself. I've found it's often the best way to learn.

The point of providing references as back-up is that it allows you to check if your own recollections are accurate - it is self-educating. Your way has an in-built assumption that the way that you recollect something is exactly how it is\was and that you couldn't give a toss about its accuracy. This current example demonstrates your recollection of events to be overly simplified and inaccurate but as long as it serves to illustrate your wayward point it is not your problem...

[keninsc]

If you believe science is purely scientific then you're living in a dream world. Politics abound in it same as everywhere else.

As far as my recollection goes, I was watching all that go down like it was a college football game. I may not have all the details right but that was a nasty exchange back and forth in the press over the "hobbit" being real or not. Your own post even eludes to it because it's what has come to be known as the "cleaned up" version. I think they stopped just short of suggesting that they each had unnaturally close relationships with their mothers, but only just. Then when they went back.....after they bribed the government to let them do so, they discovered more remains. Once these were verified by some arduous process then they all kissed and made up.

You think science is some Utopian safe haven where everyone accepts something new? Please my dear fellow, they are just as consumed with their own BS, dogma, and things they can't endorse because they get money for research from some money bag who doesn't want something told. Sort of like the cigarette companies paying doctors to say there's nothing wrong with smoking like they used to do. The doctor knew better but the money was too good to turn down.

[Night Walker]

You think science is some Utopian safe haven where everyone accepts something new?

No - I do not. See what I mean about "overly simplified and inaccurate but as long as it serves to illustrate your wayward point it is not your problem"?

Speaking of which:

Then when they went back.....after they bribed the government to let them do so, they discovered more remains.

That's a massive claim. Care to back that up? Oops, sorry - forgot who I was talking to...

[sinewave]

If you believe science is purely scientific then you're living in a dream world. Politics abound in it same as everywhere else.

As far as my recollection goes, I was watching all that go down like it was a college football game. I may not have all the details right but that was a nasty exchange back and forth in the press over the "hobbit" being real or not. Your own post even eludes to it because it's what has come to be known as the "cleaned up" version. I think they stopped just short of suggesting that they each had unnaturally close relationships with their mothers, but only just. Then when they went back.....after they bribed the government to let them do so, they discovered more remains. Once these were verified by some arduous process then they all kissed and made up.

You think science is some Utopian safe haven where everyone accepts something new? Please my dear fellow, they are just as consumed with their own BS, dogma, and things they can't endorse because they get money for research from some money bag who doesn't want something told. Sort of like the cigarette companies paying doctors to say there's nothing wrong with smoking like they used to do. The doctor knew better but the money was too good to turn down.

Yes, politics definitely play a role. There is no question that good research has been slowed or stopped by politics. Of course another enemy of science are the zealots who operate more from belief than fact. Assertions based solely on belief tend to be ignored. Of course ignoring a zealot could be interpreted as political blocking when it is really scientific method at work. No evidence, no credibility. Someone on these boards has a great signature that reads something like "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." That is one of the single best statements ever made on UM.

Edited October 19, 2013 by sinewave

[AliceWonder]

It seems that believers in cryptozoology have a problem with acknowledging their old stand by crypto poster children were very well known by indigenous peoples long before this absurd western centric pseudoscience was ever invented. In most cases it was the natives whom led the westerners to these supposed "hidden animals".

In the case of the giant squid; it has been described and well documented by westerners for thousands of years, yet people still use it as an honest to god cryptid.

Some of these believers will even go so far as assigning the title of "cryptozoologists" to actual university degree holding scientists (who would never call themselves such a thing) that discover new species. I guess since no self proclaimed "cryptozoologists" has ever discovered a damn thing, they figure that if they call a real scientist by such a degrading nomenclature it will somehow legitimize their make believe science.

It is a cryptid when there is doubt about its current existance by the scientific community.

As far as I'm concerned, magical animals are NOT cryptids - such as werewolves or the like.

Many of the the examples given ARE valid because the scientific community rejected their existance and believed them to be hoaxes or legend or real but believed to be extinct.

Cryptozoology is a search for real animals that elude the scientific community. Many sightings are likely mis-identifications or hoaxes, but that does not take away from the fact that science has confirmed several species that the scientific community formerly denied existed.

[AliceWonder]

I, personally, have never come across where the word "cryptid" is used by mainstream science, even historically speaking, to refer to a "rumored" animal.

Imo, science doesn't shy away from the amazing and unusual, they do shy away from the ridiculous and magical and hoaxed. Which for me personally is where cryptids reside, and therefore a cryptid will never ever be found.

Have you heard of the phrase `confirmation bias' ???

[keninsc]

That's a massive claim. Care to back that up? Oops, sorry - forgot who I was talking to...

My dear fellow, I spent some serious time in that part of the world and I can assure you that nothing gets done without the proper people getting paid off. Please, don't tell me you're a babe in the woods?

[keninsc]

Yes, politics definitely play a role. There is no question that good research has been slowed or stopped by politics. Of course another enemy of science are the zealots who operate more from belief than fact. Assertions based solely on belief tend to be ignored. Of course ignoring a zealot could be interpreted as political blocking when it is really scientific method at work. No evidence, no credibility. Someone on these boards has a great signature that reads something like "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." That is one of the single best statements ever made on UM.

True, problem is many of the older scientist in positions of power have their own dogma and will not have it trod upon. What's worse is they wield power and influence and can cut your professional career short in a New York minute. The good news is they are dying out and newer minds are moving to fill those positions.......but they carry their own issues with them.

[Night Walker]

My dear fellow, I spent some serious time in that part of the world and I can assure you that nothing gets done without the proper people getting paid off. Please, don't tell me you're a babe in the woods?

So - let's be clear about this - when you flippantly accuse a specific group of scientists (Morwell et al) and high-ranking Indonesian ministers of partaking in official corruption in 2007 you offer nothing to substantiate it other than your own unverifiable corrupt experiences in that part of the world?

I would be honoured to be considered a mere "babe in the woods" so long as it is the exact opposite of whatever it is you may be. Good day, sir.

[keninsc]

Beliefs do far hard sometimes.

Sadly, another one bites the dust.

[Night Walker]

I said "Good day"!

[Q-C]

Have you heard of the phrase `confirmation bias' ???

Yes, and the mainstream scientific community seems to confirm my bias, as far as I am concerned. I am content with that.

And for anyone who defines cryptid differently than I do, they can find cryptozoology references that confirm their bias as well.

Read my first post: #41 "So it is a matter of what definition of cryptid one subscribes to."

Edited October 20, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[evancj]

It is a cryptid when there is doubt about its current existance by the scientific community.

As far as I'm concerned, magical animals are NOT cryptids - such as werewolves or the like.

Many of the the examples given ARE valid because the scientific community rejected their existance and believed them to be hoaxes or legend or real but believed to be extinct.

I keep hearing this but no one has ever been able name these scientists or connect them to the specific animals they supposedly denied existed. Do you have any examples of the scientific community denying across the board the existence of any of the cryptid poster children?

Cryptozoology is a search for real animals that elude the scientific community. Many sightings are likely mis-identifications or hoaxes, but that does not take away from the fact that science has confirmed several species that the scientific community formerly denied existed.

Your statement comes right off of the cyrpto sites. I guess that's the beauty of defining cyrptozoology isn't it? You can pretty much make up anything to suite your needs at the time. Very flexible that cyrptozoology just like those magical animals it claims to study.

[keninsc]

I said "Good day"!

I got that, you've gone, as is your prerogative. However, if you are indeed going then go and be gone. Your staying or leaving is not an edict for what I will do. Whatever you do, do it because it is what you wish to do.

[+DieChecker]

It is a cryptid when there is doubt about its current existance by the scientific community.

As far as I'm concerned, magical animals are NOT cryptids - such as werewolves or the like.

That depends on if someone is claiming to have seen one. If someone says they saw a werewolf, that is a cryptid encounter. Whether it is a werewolf, or some weird dog, or some dude in a mask, is up to an investigation to determine, till something is determined, that is a cryptid encounter.

As for the definition. The wiki definition is what I generally think of....

a cryptid (from the Greek κρύπτω, krypto, meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is not recognized by scientific consensus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptid

[sinewave]

It is a cryptid when there is doubt about its current existance by the scientific community.

As far as I'm concerned, magical animals are NOT cryptids - such as werewolves or the like.

Many of the the examples given ARE valid because the scientific community rejected their existance and believed them to be hoaxes or legend or real but believed to be extinct.

Cryptozoology is a search for real animals that elude the scientific community. Many sightings are likely mis-identifications or hoaxes, but that does not take away from the fact that science has confirmed several species that the scientific community formerly denied existed.

Name the current top cryptids currently sought by science.

Which animals were rejected by science?

Edited October 20, 2013 by sinewave

[+DieChecker]

What makes you think that only small pieces of giant squid where washing up on shore until recent times? You don't think that people found whole bodies on the beach back then, like we do today?

How do account for the below descriptions clearly describing large squid with large measurements included?

The point is not whether giant squid washed up hundreds of years ago, but if the medieval reports are worth trusting. As I said these same bestiary "experts" put encounters with dragons and unicorns in their books too. The fact that we can locate some modern analysis to show giant squids are real should not mean that in the past, hundreds of years before that, that the authors HAVE to be trusted.

If bigfoot is found in ten years from now, and a population of 20 is tracked successfully, then does all previous knowledge and stories, including native American traditions and frontier trapper lore suddenly become legitimate? Does bigfoot all of a sudden go from a cryptid, to... "Well, we know it is real, and that it was known from a very ancient time." That is the same arguement with the pygmys and the okapi, is it not?

[+DieChecker]

Cause he say's so? I guess?

Exactly. An "expert" has said it is so and so we must believe him.

@ Everyone:

What was that definition on wiki again.... "a cryptid (from the Greek κρύπτω, krypto, meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but is not recognized by scientific consensus."

So, the okapi was a creature that local pygmy lore said was real, but it was not recognized by western science yet... So it WAS a cryptid.

FYI the term Cryptid did not exist before 1983... Yes.... 1983. And so mythic creatures before that were not labeled as such, because the term did not yet exist.

[+DieChecker]

By some standards, it would appear all animals were once cryptids.

That is very close to true.

[sinewave]

The point is not whether giant squid washed up hundreds of years ago, but if the medieval reports are worth trusting. As I said these same bestiary "experts" put encounters with dragons and unicorns in their books too. The fact that we can locate some modern analysis to show giant squids are real should not mean that in the past, hundreds of years before that, that the authors HAVE to be trusted.

If bigfoot is found in ten years from now, and a population of 20 is tracked successfully, then does all previous knowledge and stories, including native American traditions and frontier trapper lore suddenly become legitimate? Does bigfoot all of a sudden go from a cryptid, to... "Well, we know it is real, and that it was known from a very ancient time." That is the same arguement with the pygmys and the okapi, is it not?

No, it is not the same argument. The pygmies showed the zoologists where the Okapi were. To the best of my knowledge, American indians have not provided the same service. The fact is Bigfoot sightings range from Florida to Maine and across to the Pacific northwest with all points between. Basically they have been reported where ever there are people. How could they possibly be in all of those places and not be formally discovered? How can anyone take the reports seriously?

[+DieChecker]

The Okapi lives in a rainforest in the Congo. The people who live there, mainly pygmies, hunted them for food long before zoologists arrived. How could the species possibly be considered to be a cryptid? They were found right where the locals said they would be.

Doesn't matter. What matters is when the creature was first heard about (By the scientific west) and when physical evidence was first confirmed. In that time between is when it was a cryptid. Which it was not called at the time, because the word was not coined till much later.

The animal was brought to prominent European attention by speculation on its existence found in popular press reports covering Henry Morton Stanley's journeys in 1887. Remains of a carcass were later sent to London by the English adventurer and colonial administrator Harry Johnston and became a media event in 1901.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi

So, it was reported in a explorers journal (Nothing ever made up in those, right?), in 1887, and then 16 years later physical proof was dragged in. Do you suppose in that time that few if anyone called the whole thing a hoax? Were they wrong to consider it a hoax? After all there were no physical remains brought in yet.

European zoologists could not believe the platypus was real and there was probably some scoffing. Would that have made the platypus a cryptid?

Yes. Between the time it was observed/reported and when physical remains showed up in Europe, it was a rumor, a myth, a cryptid.

Edited October 20, 2013 by DieChecker