Is cryptozoology a legitimate science?

[Carnoferox]

On 9/22/2019 at 8:55 AM, Ultimatium said:

Well, the platypus is widely recognized as one of the few cryptids that turned out to be real. Im not sure how popular cryptozoology was back in those days, but it goes to show that science isnt always right.

Cryptozoology wasn't even a field of study when the platypus was scientifically described in 1799. Note that not all scientists thought it was a fake, namely George Shaw who first described and named it.

[Resume]

On 9/22/2019 at 8:55 AM, Ultimatium said:

Well, the platypus is widely recognized as one of the few cryptids that turned out to be real. Im not sure how popular cryptozoology was back in those days, but it goes to show that science isnt always right.

 

 

[Dradan]

On 9/22/2019 at 5:47 PM, stereologist said:

The BF recording are not actually BF recordings are they. They are sounds that people claim are BF but can't actually show that to be the case. The tracks are also unlikely to be real. There are casts with 3 toes, 4 toes, and 5 toes. Mammals are even toed or odd toed. Primates are all odd toed so what is it with the weird toes? All we are really left with are stories.

All of the other animals that crytozoologists point to in their literature were animals that were known by biological materials. The okapi, gorilla, and giant squids were known by pieces of their bodies. The coelecanth is mentioned and was not being searched for. It was found and added to the list of animals that are alive today.

People claim to have shot BF. They produce a piece of bear. They claim to have hit them with their cars. Yet, no hair or blood or skin is given. People claim to have obtained BF DNA yet it turns out to opossum.

What I think is interesting is that people think they see a hairy man like beast when they can't really make out what it is. Why do our brains go there? I believe this is all about some process in our thinking rather than an actual creature.

Well, i personally think that the vast majory of films are fake, but whatever is left should be taken seriously. As for the tracks, its really hard to tell. I think it would be fairly easy to fake a set of footprints. Some of them may be genuine though, such as the cripplefoot tracks. I would also say that the okapi is one of the most important cryptozoological findings, probably up there with the platypus.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Ultimatium

[stereologist]

38 minutes ago, Ultimatium said:

Well, i personally think that the vast majory of films are fake, but whatever is left should be taken seriously. As for the tracks, its really hard to tell. I think it would be fairly easy to fake a set of footprints. Some of them may be genuine though, such as the cripplefoot tracks. I would also say that the okapi is one of the most important cryptozoological findings, probably up there with the platypus.

Why do you think that the okapi is a crypto? It seems like a normal animal people were seeking.

 

[_Only]

On 8/21/2019 at 7:42 AM, Carnoferox said:

Cryptozoology is not inherently a pseudoscience as some people would claim, but unfortunately it often is in practice. There are some researchers who apply legitimate scientific methods to analyze cryptozoological subjects like Darren Naish and Charles Paxton. However, they are by far in the minority.

That's what I was thinking in my head and wanted to type but couldn't put together the words together that well - thanks.

[_Only]

On 9/22/2019 at 6:55 AM, Ultimatium said:

Well, the platypus is widely recognized as one of the few cryptids that turned out to be real. Im not sure how popular cryptozoology was back in those days, but it goes to show that science isnt always right.

How did the platypus show that science isn't right, though?

I'm more the artsy type myself, but to defend the evil scientists just a bit, the whole concept behind science is learning through observing and experimenting, and finding out the results. I don't see how discovery of a new species goes against that in any way. It's not fair, because how can a scientist learn and experiment with something that they can't observe?

And on the other hand, if we move to say, a Bigfoot, though, there are some enthusiast believer scientists that do go out and try to find evidence to study, but unfortunately they just haven't been able to find enough together to confirm their hypothesis that this creature exists. So in this case, science isn't saying Bigfoot doesn't exist, it's trying (through these scientists going out and finding Bigfoot evidence) to show that it does.

Overall, though, science is just a process. You know, more a science than an art.

[Horta]

On 8/21/2019 at 2:01 PM, Ultimatium said:

So is cryptozoology a real science, or a pseudoscience?

It's rarely even a pseudo science. It's generally folklore in action. Cryptozoology itself is far more fascinating than cryptids.

[Carnoferox]

17 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

Well, i personally think that the vast majory of films are fake, but whatever is left should be taken seriously. As for the tracks, its really hard to tell. I think it would be fairly easy to fake a set of footprints. Some of them may be genuine though, such as the cripplefoot tracks. I would also say that the okapi is one of the most important cryptozoological findings, probably up there with the platypus.

The cripplefoot tracks are likely fake as well; the man behind their "discovery" (=creation) was Ivan Marx, a notorious hoaxer.

[Dradan]

2 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

The cripplefoot tracks are likely fake as well; the man behind their "discovery" (=creation) was Ivan Marx, a notorious hoaxer.

I see. Its a bit of an elaborate hoax, if its a hoax, since it was able to fool a few professional anthropologists.

19 hours ago, stereologist said:

Why do you think that the okapi is a crypto? It seems like a normal animal people were seeking.

Well, if you ask me, a cryptid is an animal claimed to exist, that most scientists rule out as a legend, a myth or a fairy tale, until its been caught. So the okapi and the platypus fits well in the modern description of a cryptid, or as a former cryptid, even if cryptozoology wasnt a thing back in those days.

[Carnoferox]

17 minutes ago, Ultimatium said:

I see. Its a bit of an elaborate hoax, if its a hoax, since it was able to fool a few professional anthropologists.

Well, if you ask me, a cryptid is an animal claimed to exist, that most scientists rule out as a legend, a myth or a fairy tale, until its been caught. So the okapi and the platypus fits well in the modern description of a cryptid, or as a former cryptid, even if cryptozoology wasnt a thing back in those days.

Those professional anthropologists were Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum, who both have a bad habit of overlooking signs of hoaxing to support their personal biases.

Platypuses and okapis don't fit into the description of a cryptid at all. Both were known from physical specimens before scientific description, and very few scientists believed that they were only hoaxes/legends. Cryptids are the other way around - none of them are known from physical specimens and most scientists believe they are only hoaxes/legends.

[stereologist]

1 hour ago, Ultimatium said:

I see. Its a bit of an elaborate hoax, if its a hoax, since it was able to fool a few professional anthropologists.

Well, if you ask me, a cryptid is an animal claimed to exist, that most scientists rule out as a legend, a myth or a fairy tale, until its been caught. So the okapi and the platypus fits well in the modern description of a cryptid, or as a former cryptid, even if cryptozoology wasnt a thing back in those days.

Carnoferox has beat me to the punch.

As I pointed out the okapi was known from a hide and the search was for the animal that fit the hide.

http://diglib1.amnh.org/articles/okapi/okapi.pdf

It seems that it was reported by the explorer Livingston and in just over a decade a specimen was collected. Unlike cryptids there was a reason to search and the search produced specimens in a reasonable time period.

[Carnoferox]

39 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Carnoferox has beat me to the punch.

As I pointed out the okapi was known from a hide and the search was for the animal that fit the hide.

http://diglib1.amnh.org/articles/okapi/okapi.pdf

It seems that it was reported by the explorer Livingston and in just over a decade a specimen was collected. Unlike cryptids there was a reason to search and the search produced specimens in a reasonable time period.

It’s even more impressive given the remoteness of the area and limitations of technology at the time. It really puts into perspective how much of a failure the modern searches for cryptids are.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Carnoferox

[Horta]

Has there ever been any cryptids/species discovered by cryprozoologists? As far as I can tell, they have made 0 discoveries and added 0 species to our list.

[Carnoferox]

3 hours ago, Horta said:

Has there ever been any cryptids/species discovered by cryprozoologists? As far as I can tell, they have made 0 discoveries and added 0 species to our list.

No, a self-proclaimed cryptozoologist has never been responsible for the discovery of a new species.

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Horta said:

Has there ever been any cryptids/species discovered by cryprozoologists? As far as I can tell, they have made 0 discoveries and added 0 species to our list.

The closest would be the Hoan Kiem Turtle. Although discovered by a local, not a cryptozoologist, it was considered a myth from the 15th century, and was classified as cryptozoological before being verified as a new species of soft shell turtle. 

[Robotic Jew]

[Dradan]

16 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Those professional anthropologists were Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum, who both have a bad habit of overlooking signs of hoaxing to support their personal biases.

Yes, i guess they were a bit biased because they both believe in sasquatch, but they were still well respected amongst former colleagues.

[the13bats]

30 minutes ago, Ultimatium said:

Yes, i guess they were a bit biased because they both believe in sasquatch, but they were still well respected amongst former colleagues.

im not sure how far "well respected" travels with those two when the subject if respect is "bigfoot", both are overly ego driven and biased, both supported things well dismissed by real unbiased scientists like the whole bigfoot is Gigantopithecus tripe, both fell for countless hoaxes, krantz seems more relaxed when he was duped, where meldrum for example beat his fist snowwalker was real, and it wasnt and its size didnt fit meldrums claims, then when shown to be a hoax hes not humble about being wrong, an interesting side note, meldrum claimed snowwalker was akin to the patterson creature, saying neither according to his expertise could be men in a suit, but gee, he was proven wrong about snowwalker, he makes up seeing stuff in the pgf that just isnt there, making up stuff isnt good science.

so just because someone has letters before their name or a title "professional anthropologist" doesnt make them unbiased and unfailable.

[the13bats]

6 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

why does that guy and look make me think not bf hunter but a guy worried someone ate all his hot wings.

[the13bats]

20 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

The cripplefoot tracks are likely fake as well; the man behind their "discovery" (=creation) was Ivan Marx, a notorious hoaxer.

 

17 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

I see. Its a bit of an elaborate hoax, if its a hoax, since it was able to fool a few professional anthropologists.

marx work wasnt elabortate it was laughable, his costumes were not as good as my 39.99 gorrilla suit from the halloween store,

hit youtube and search images online, look at marx alleged bigfoot, if you think its real, okay.

the cripplefoot cast could be a known hoaxer marx getting lucky and getting a print from a real unknown handicapped bigfoot or hes sloppy bad at faking prints,

krantz claimed that only an expert in foot anatomy could have made it because he drew in where they bones would be and they fit perfectly,

not so fast, since we have zero prints proven 100% from a creature by showing the foot that made the track and no one has studied a reall bigfoot foot and its bones and functions its ego flexing not science for krantz to say he can reconstruct a healtly bigfoot foot much less a crippled one,  

its akin to me saying i can draw a unicorn horn.

 

 

[stereologist]

Here is what  think of scientific studies for BF.

https://cryptosightings.com/tag/dr-jeff-meldrum

Quote

There has been a very disappointing inability to successfully extract and sequence DNA from hair samples believed to be from the elusive cryptid. But the search for bigfoot is ready to take another step forward by incorporating the use of environmental DNA (eDNA). A recent report has shown the discovery of DNA of the enigmatic Denisovan hominins using environmental DNA (eDNA) survey methods, despite the lack of any physical or trace evidence of Denisovans occupying the cave. The application of these eDNA survey methods into the search for Sasquatch could yield key evidence that proves the creature existence.

That's a good idea. But where does it lead. Note this is from 2017.

https://cliffbarackman.com/sasquatch-nest-edna-study/

Quote

Recently, Dr. Jeff Meldrum was taken to the nest site area and shown a number of the nest structures.  He took core samples from a number of the nests and will now attempt to get an environmental DNA analysis, or eDNA study, done on them.

The date on that is 2013.

Where are the results? Money was collected as shown at this link.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sasquatch-nests-edna-study#/

 

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Here is what  think of scientific studies for BF.

https://cryptosightings.com/tag/dr-jeff-meldrum

That's a good idea. But where does it lead. Note this is from 2017.

https://cliffbarackman.com/sasquatch-nest-edna-study/

The date on that is 2013.

Where are the results? Money was collected as shown at this link.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sasquatch-nests-edna-study#/

 

not saying its the case but recall meldrums ridiculous monsterquest saquatch attack camping episode?

filled with embellishments they got alleged samples and DNA from a board screw trap, boasting it was unknown so likely bf, but would release results in about a year, that was over a decade ago, as far as i know zip.

meldrum is about flash and attention....

[stereologist]

20 minutes ago, the13bats said:

not saying its the case but recall meldrums ridiculous monsterquest saquatch attack camping episode?

filled with embellishments they got alleged samples and DNA from a board screw trap, boasting it was unknown so likely bf, but would release results in about a year, that was over a decade ago, as far as i know zip.

meldrum is about flash and attention....

I missed that or forgot about it (most likely case is the latter).

There is something called publication bias in which only positive results are published. An example of this is China's testing of acupuncture is 100% positive. That's not statistically possible. Failures are not reported.

It seems that the lack of reports here could be an example of publication bias in which the lack of reports shows nothing. Physics often reports failures such as could not detect or could not replicate. So why not in crypto. It doesn't mean that something is nonexistent it simple tells what was found. Such reporting would be helpful in any search as it points out things checked that did not work out.

[Carnoferox]

3 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

Yes, i guess they were a bit biased because they both believe in sasquatch, but they were still well respected amongst former colleagues.

Hardly, both Krantz and Meldrum are considered pariahs in the anthropological community.

[ChrLzs]

4 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

Yes, i guess they were a bit biased because they both believe in sasquatch, but they were still well respected amongst former colleagues.

Like others, I have serious problems with that claim.  Would you please elaborate, and cite these former colleagues and the actual nature of their respect/endorsement?

If you mean 'colleagues' who also believed - and stood to make a few bucks from pushing this baloney - then fair enough....