Sasquatch Coffee

Is It Time for a Cryptozoology TED?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 15th, 2012

Is it time for a Cryptozoology TED?

Should we gather the brain trust of cryptozoology for an international meeting?

We, as cryptozoologists, need to produce talks, intellectual in nature, to counter ones such as this “FRED talk,” filled with many mistakes and misunderstandings.

Who would you like to see do a TED talk on Cryptozoology?

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


27 Responses to “Is It Time for a Cryptozoology TED?”

  1. Daniel Finnman via Facebook responds:

    Yes :)

  2. naus responds:

    David hatcher childress I think would be fun to watch on Ted. he’s not going to be overly scientific with his talking in other words boring. he has more life when he talks about things.

  3. Kenneth Joholske via Facebook responds:

    It is interesting Cryptozology is going through the growing pains now that many other fields of study have had to go through in the past. What is the ontology of Cryptozology? What are it’s knowledge categories? What is an expert? Who defines what a cryptozologist is? A symposium would be welcomed

  4. DWA responds:

    Baby steps.

    It would be nice for such a gathering to have a focus. A nice focus would be:

    Why has the scientific mainstream ignored the evidence for the sasquatch, and what can we do about that?

    That’s the cryptid for which the most, and the most consistent, evidence exists. By far. Scientists in fields critical to the evaluation of the evidence have all but pronounced it real (one makes a compelling case, which I agree with, although it’s conceivable I’m wrong, as unlikely as that seems, that it’s been discovered).

    Yet the crypto-fringe treads all over the evidence with you’re wrong! no, you are! it’s human! it’s an emissary from other worlds! it’s multidimensional! it takes game cameras apart and reassembles them! Nuh uh, IT’S HUMAN…! And instead of taking command of the discussion from the pseudo-skeptics who propound a thesis backed by no evidence, they let the skeptic fringe dictate the terms.

    And the scientific mainstream gets away with assumptions that would be laughed down were the topic anything else in zoology (e.g., there are no fossils bones or corpses in our hands, so none exist; all of this very consistent evidence comes from all sorts of random sources; this animal that no one spends full time looking for would be the Holy Grail of Zoology so that’s proof it ain’t real; we would HAVE TO have proof by now of an animal that no one believes you if you saw one; the fakes are relevant).

    What is the crypto community going to do about this?

    If the crypto community can’t get together on that – a major reason, if not the main reason, why the sasquatch remains unconfirmed – then the theme of this conference should be:

    What The Heck Can Cryptozoology Agree Upon?

    ‘Coz now, it ain’t much.

  5. watn6789 responds:

    ‘Crytpozoological Apologetics’ seems to fit inline with many University studies…

  6. Cryptoraptor responds:

    Even though I find the existence of bigfoot unlikely, I have a problem with Fran Agnone, the speaker in the accompanying embedded video.

    Her self-hating white comments at 3:25 are very disturbing.

    It’s is good to shine a spotlight on hate speech. Fran Agnone should be held accountable.

  7. maslo63 responds:

    If cryptozoology is a legitimate enough field than the video presentation offered up above shouldn’t be any kind of threat but though the lady in the video makes a lot of mistakes she also makes a lot of good points.
    I still maintain that no one will take cryptozoology seriously until it takes itself seriously and I actually agree with a lot of points DWA makes if I’m reading him correctly. There are a few cryptids worthy of further study, British big cats and even sasquatch among them. If those were the focus instead of cryptids such as mermaids, the Jersey Devil and the Mothman than maybe mainstream zoology would listen but as long as cryptozoologists are willing to dwell in the realm of the supernatural and paranormal than science will not listen and I don’t particularly blame them.
    I have a question that often enters my mind on cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is supposed to be the search for “hidden animals” which I take to mean “new species” so why does crytozoology concern itself with myths and monsters rather than actual animals? Where are the cryptozoologists looking for new species of frogs, monkeys, fish or whatever is out there that actually exists in the realm of possibility? No, instead cryptozoologists would rather entertain notions of trans-dimensional and telepathic beings. Who is going to take that seriously? I mean…seriously? For the few cryptids that might exist I dare say the worst thing to happen to them is to have been lumped in with all the non-sense that is cryptozoology.
    If cryptozoologists want to tackle the fields of the paranormal and supernatural that is fine but don’t expect to be taken seriously on these matters by mainstream science. If you want to bring attention to the few believable cryptids out there than separate them from the rest of the bull sh*t.
    To put it simply; I would listen to a TED talk with Jeff Meldrum, because he is an anthropologist, not because he is a cryptozoologist (has he ever even identified himself as one?).

  8. watn6789 responds:

    @Maslo63

    Although there is a large amount of information readily available on many animals, history translates even more importantance to hearing and conversing on rare ones. It’s an unfortunate history that people have idolized things, yet understanding that can be important. The history of exploration and discovery is cool too. One of the coolest ‘discoveries’ I read about on Cryptomundo is the confirmation of giant manta ray’s.

  9. watn6789 responds:

    *I didnt mean more importance than other animals, just a special importance…

  10. PhotoExpert responds:

    Wow! What ignorance! I do not know what college she attended or studied anthropology, but the profs at that college must be cringing when they see this video. I do not think this girl talking in this video is even worthy of a reply. So NO, not reply necessary. I could debate her and make her even look more idiotic. So NO!

    Seriously, she sounded like a 13 year old valley girl. Or should I say, “like, she really, like sounded like a 13 year old valley girl. Given her limited vocabulary and diction, I would not take credence in anything she said or had to say. Like seriously! LOL She is not only ignorant about cryptozoology, she is ignorant of the spoken English language.

    Another case in point, I though it was an Okapi and not an “Opaki” as she stated. But given common colloquialisms, I will give her a pass on that one until someone else here posts that she was wrong about that.

    I guess by her standards, Jeff Meldrum is not scientific. I guess Dr. Ketchum is not scientific either. I guess Loren Coleman is not scientific. Brother! I am cringing now! I believe their credentials out-rank any credentials she has. So for her to say that no scientists are involved or connected with cryptozology, shows her blatant ignorance. She is not even familiar with current cryptozoological happenings. How ignorant and sad. If you are going to take on a subject or try to give another side, you should at least know your facts and be up on current events.

    I could not watch the whole video. I was lost in her ignorance about two minutes into the video. I had to stop watching or I might have become ill.

    So my answer is like, like NO reply to this moronic monoloque.

  11. watn6789 responds:

    Anyone else out there find the jersey devil more plausible as a historic flying reptile than bigfoot as an elusive forest giant?

  12. maslo63 responds:

    @ Watn: No.

  13. flame821 responds:

    @ Maslo63

    One of the reasons people research outrageous cryptozoological ‘monsters’ is because many of our current animals started out as mythic beasts or local legends. Think about Apes, Hippos, Forest Elephants, etc. In MOST cases there is at least a kernel of truth in local stories and that kernel is what we are looking for and need to follow up on.

    @ article

    Yes. I think a TED would be an excellent idea but you would need to agree upon what the topics would be. (or, Loren could simply do a few talks and put them up on YouTube, maybe invite some of his friends to do the same, a Crypto-channel, if you would) And as DWA and others pointed out, where do you draw the line between Cryptozoology, Metaphysical, and other ‘fringe’ research. I know Crypto and UFOs often get lumped together but I think that has more to do with the people involved than it does the subject matters. Many people who are interested in strange and unusual animals are interested in anything strange and unusual such as UFO’s, ghosts, ESP, et al.

    So I guess my first question, and first step to hold a useful TED would be, “What, precisely, falls under the umbrella of Cryptozoology and what does not?” At what point do we decide that Bigfoot is a physical, Earthbound creature and not a psychic projection or alien visitor or whatever other theories people have? And, probably more importantly, how do we go about doing this without offending others in the fringe areas and therefore losing their interest, input and funding? And don’t kid yourselves, we all know how important funding is, especially if you want to have meetings year after year.

  14. corrick responds:

    I actually listened to it all. And yes there are a number of factual errors. But none of them seem intentional.

    What’s really inexcusable are the “Karl Sagan” quotes flashed on the classroom screen, since Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” is obviously the major inspiration for her lecture.

    Which is not about cryptozoology at all. She just uses cryptozoology as a softball example about how while natural world science is important, still…people need spiritual, mythological beliefs to be “one.” Or whatever.

  15. thylo responds:

    huh, wow… what ignorance.
    too bad too, i think she is rather cute.

    nevertheless, i have no problem with her or anyone not believing in cryptozoology (i just lump them all in with geocentric creationist nutters), but if they are going to encapsulate/ portray it then they had best use accurate information and not misrepresent it for comic effect.
    Do some research next time Ms. Agnone, and you will have a much longer list of “found” critters validating cryptozoology than the Okapi alone. Not to mention a list of scientists fomer and current that have been involved in the discipline.
    sigh… why is it always the cute ones… lol

  16. thylo responds:

    oh yeah i forgot to mention, after reading this article i still have no friggin clue what TED or FRED are. :(

  17. DWA responds:

    WATN:

    The evidence for the Jersey Devil is the same quality as that we have for Mothman; the centaur; the chupacabras; the unicorn.

    The evidence for the sasquatch is the same quality as that we have for the Chacoan peccary; the coelacanth; the saola; the kipunji. Only lots – lots – more of it.

    (With the little caveat that most scientists ignore it; and have cited not rational reason one for doing so, other than the company it keeps; and for all intents and purposes zero money is being spent following it up, as happened for the others. Which didn’t have the handicap of being Suspected Saucer People.)

    You show me how the first paragraph is wrong – or how that association lends the Jersey Devil legitimacy, which, well, same thing – and we’ll talk about the Jersey Devil.

    Crypto needs to drop the things in that first paragraph, and confirm things like those in the second. In other words: crypto needs to join zoology.

    Flame821:

    “And, probably more importantly, how do we go about doing this without offending others in the fringe areas and therefore losing their interest, input and funding?”

    We offend them, as much as we can, to GET THEM TO LEAVE.

    OK, you know what I mean. Not, like, on purpose. But stop encouraging them to hang around.

    The “interest, input and funding” of people like that is what is holding crypto back. I went to the Texas Bigfoot Conference in 2009 and saw a classic example of this. The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy is…well, compared to it, SETI, to name only one scientific endeavor, is 100% woowoo. (I take that back. SETI is 100% woowoo, period. To say nothing of so grandiosely conceited that I don’t even want to get started.) And yet the TBRC Keep Bedfellows of a Certain Stripe, because, well, better some attention – and oh yeah funding – than none at all. That is, much of it, unfortunately, just the kind of attention that keeps the scientific mainstream at a regrettable distance from the sasquatch evidence.

    In other words…um, right.

    Crypto needs to join zoology.

    Holding a bake sale may not work.

    But assembling the evidence for cryptids – like sasquatch and yeti – for which the evidence more than meets the scientific requirements of frequency, coherence, and testability, and presenting that evidence to a candid world on a united front, well, that would be something to shoot for.

    Better firing shells like that than a shotgun with a pattern of one pellet per square mile. Which is where crypto is now.

  18. flame821 responds:

    @ Thylo
    TED INFO, but basically the initials are for Technology, Entertainment, Design. Although it now covers far more than those topics and there are many sub-TEDs.

    @ DWA
    I do understand your point about ‘if the woo-woo’s give the money the woo-woo’s want to control things more’ so its a bit of a fine line between getting the money needed to get the message out there. (As I firmly believe only the skoftic side of the argument is being heard by 85% of the population) While keeping our core values and insisting on being seen as more of a mainstream science as opposed to a ‘fringe’ science. I’m just not sure how to do that as so many people involved in one discipline find the others interesting as well and may be torn as to which group to give their hard earned dollars too.

    My best bet would be a grass roots campaign, starting with places like YouTube, FB, Tumblr and for those few brave souls like myself, 4Chan (as anons can be a huge help if you tickle their fancy and something like this would, if not for truth than for the sheer trolling potential). To be honest with you, at this point in time I do not see any other way for Cryptozoology to be taken as a serious science short of Sasquatch walking out of forest and crashing a presidential campaign junket. We need to get ‘kids’ involved, tweens and teens who haven’t closed their minds to the possibility of there being more undiscovered animals out there, who aren’t drowning in adult worried of putting food on the table and making the mortgage payment. They have the time and inclination to look at more than one side of a subject, they want to know ‘why’ and most importantly, they are willing to at least listen. So if we can do that, then, much like the Gnu Atheism movement, within 10 years you will see a huge upsurge in people clamoring for mainstream science to TRULY evaluate the evidence we have and if it’s strong enough, start really looking in our own backyards for what may be the find of the century.

  19. DWA responds:

    flame821: Well, as Max Planck said (if indeed it was him first), science advances one funeral at a time.

    My comments henceforth focus on the sasquatch and yeti. If crypto wants to make any headway it is hereby advised by me to drop all other avenues; focus on these; and use them as “gain leaders” for scientists to raise their eyebrows and maybe – just maybe – start looking at the rest.

    I’d agree with you that it’s time to get youngsters’ minds opened on this. (I should say: take advantage of their innate openness of mind.) The inattention by the scientific mainstream has been nothing short of spectacular. There is no way – no, there is absolutely none conceivable – that a scientist exposing herself to the evidence as much as I have – let alone Meldrum, Bindernagel and Krantz – could fail to be moved at the very least to my position: the evidence is compelling and demands the attention of science. Ad sure enough I’m right: I have never heard a scientist pronounce negatively on this question whose pronouncement doesn’t display, loudly, (1) ignorance of the evidence; (2) ignorance of the way science works; or (3) both.

    I’ve gone into that, in detail, way too many times here. I won’t again. (I’ll just say, for those who aren’t acquainted: Read up. If you are surprised by the above paragraph, yes, I’m talking to you.) But YouTube and the social media (in which YouTube should really be included) are outlets of which crypto should start taking copious advantage. Start clean: do away with the goofy music and the portentous stentorian pronouncements, and simply address the evidence. Get it online; get people talking about it. Public television could do an absolutely gripping job on this, as many installments as they want to do, just the way they work now, sticking strictly to the evidence. (Sir David Attenborough considers yeti evidence “convincing.” Bingo.)

    And maybe they should, as you and Max say, just wait out the funerals, and focus on people who aren’t scientists.

    Or on their kids, who aren’t either.

    Yet.

    I’ve got three and I’m working on them.

  20. watn6789 responds:

    DWA

    Thanks for the thoughts

    To address some concerns,

    Unicorn- rhino
    centaur- ?? guy riding a horse
    chupacabra- mangy canines ?
    Unicorns and fiery serpents are in the bible. Marco polo wrote about unicorns and flying reptiles. Names change ie: dragon and dinosaur.

    Jersey devil, We have detailed accounts that match other accounts of flying beasts from around the world and one mythological tale about a lady with lots of kids

    We have lots of fossils (many funerals) for animals that fit jersey devil descriptions, the accounts of jersey devil with live stock characteristics could be like centaur stories and two things as one. Perhaps the most famous account of the jersey devil being seen is by a train and then flying around Philadelphia after going for livestock. Many accounts describe a glow to the jersey devil much like the characteristic ropen glow. This could be the fiery serpent.

    Some quick rough math => 100 miles long 5 miles wide atlantic side, 50 miles long 10 miles wide delaware bay side, 1000 square miles contigous wetland/shallow estuary
    27 countries with less land than that? If you havent ever been, its beautiful, and has some extensive dense avian populations with many rare species. That area borders the vast pine barrens. (just to note, not to make it sound bigger than British Colombia)

    NOT to make people mad… (not saying shouldnt investigate)
    Bigfoot has a video made by hollywood hopefuls after a worldwide frenzy on yeti expeditions and gorilla discoveries. It is claimed to be a giant that lives in temperate forests, perhaps the most well known forest habitat, and there is no fossil record to match. (No funeral)

    By your own definitions, a pterosaur skeleton makes the jersey devil more plausible than bigfoot who does not have a fossil match.

  21. DWA responds:

    watn6789:

    As I have said here many times:

    There is no comparison – none – between the volume and persuasive nature of the evidence for the sasquatch and that for any other cryptid. In fact, other than the animals already known to the ancients, no animal – no phenomenon, period – has compiled more and more convincing evidence than the sasquatch has before being accepted as real.

    Show me one scientist who vouches for the Jersey Devil based on the evidence. Then show me that evidence.

    (Show me what a Jersey Devil looks like. EVERYONE knows what a bigfoot looks like.)

    The film you mention as the sole evidence for the sasquatch could be proven a hoax tomorrow – hint: it isn’t one – and the evidence for the sasquatch would not diminish in quality one iota.

    Cryptozoology needs to put its bets on bigfoot. Period. We may want to talk about all this other stuff after that’s proven, which it should have been decades ago.

    Until crypto realizes this, it ain’t a science.

  22. flame821 responds:

    While I’ll agree with you that Sasquatch and Yeti are our best (most evidence and popular) bets, I think it is foolish to put all the eggs in one basket. I would think the inclusion of a water species (NOT Nessie, that lake is too difficult to study due to geography and water quality) and perhaps the Orang Pendak (sp?) or giant sloth might be a good starting line up. – feel free to add more candidates.

    The water cryptids are, at least statistically, the most likely to be found as our exploration of both marine and fresh water bodies increase. Although I wonder if it is best to have a ‘roster’ for an International Crypto line up or would it be better to have various National rosters so that each nation can have their own local cryptids spotlighted which would bring more attention and hopefully more eyes to their own backyards to look for these animals. More eyes tend to means evidence and all we need is a few ‘proven’ to get mainstream attention.

    Does anyone know how many ‘international cryptids’ there are? Such as Sasquatch/Yeti/Yeren/Yowie. Similar creatures that are seen in multiple countries or across the globe?

    @ DWA
    Just curious, how would you go about discouraging ‘woo-woo’ from the field in general and/or from any sort of conferences without alienating too many people. (And, yes, I do know that there are some people you fully want to alienate but I’m not talking about them.) And how much ‘woo’ is tolerable? Is believing Sasquatch and UFO cycles are related okay but believing Sasquatch itself is an alien is a no-go. What about Sasquatch sightings as related to moon cycles? I’m curious as to where you would draw that line in the sand and what your reasoning might be.

    Personally if it’s extraterrestrial then it falls outside Cryptozoology for me as I would consider that outside of our ‘natural’ world. However if someone could prove that there is a correlation between moon phases or reports of UFO’s and crypto sightings I would be willing to hear them out as long as the evidence is sound.

  23. flame821 responds:

    @ WATN

    Maybe it’s because I live in Pa and have visited the Pine Barrens and Salt Marshes but I have a hard time accepting the Jersey Devil as written. In some cases it is reptilian, in others it seems more mammalian, in others I am pretty danged sure it was nothing more than an overly large owl.

    As for flying serpents/reptiles in general, I wouldn’t rule them out completely as anomalies such as winged snakes have been found from time to time although these are usually the result of either birth defects or consuming too large a meal and having their stomachs rupture. Lizards are a bit more iffy as several of them do have various appendages, frills and throat sacks that could easily be mistaken for wings and in a few cases can actually be used for gliding short distances.

    Now a larger sized flying reptile, a la medieval tales of dragons attacking villages, is stretching the imagination as many of these animals were traditionally placed in geographies that now hold huge human populations and, as with any animal, a breeding population must be maintained in order for the species to continue. I think any reptile inhabiting Europe that is larger than 3 feet (much less flies or glides) and remains unnoticed is just too far out there. How recent are the reports you’re seeing? Anything from the last 50 years or so that can be reasonably followed up on?

  24. DWA responds:

    flame821:

    It is ESSENTIAL to put all the eggs in as few baskets as possible. I say two. Period.

    Here is what crypto needs to do:

    1) assemble evidence to show frequency and coherence;
    2) marshal resources to gain scientific attention.

    Not to “prove.” No resources; no time. Nothing more obvious than that. We trust the proof to the forces of mainstream science. The proponents should be getting their attention. They have to prove. Society says so. If George Schaller had shot the P/G film, the sasquatch would have sailed to confirmation within months. If not weeks or days.

    We see how effective crypto has been in dealing with evidence. Crypto can’t keep its yap shut. Science just chuckles and turns away from the latest misadventure. And turns to what it’s best at: quietly assembling the case then BANG in your face and you are blown away. Another mystery solved. How do they DO IT?

    Answer: they don’t go all over the place with silly theories. Not in front of the public, they don’t. If they weren’t performing such monumental feats of ignorance in some areas, flat contradicting everything they say they believe, it would be tempting to call them godlike.

    (nnnaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.)

    And we all know that fans of various cryptids aren’t going to drop their pets. If they aren’t convinced by the lack of evidence, what would convince them? Clearly the mainstream isn’t convinced. They characterize crypto as a bunch of people holding an irrational desire to believe stuff. Largely because that’s true.

    Crypto is hobbled by its inability to channel resources and discussion down one channel: the evidence. It’s so open-minded its brains constantly fall out.

    Sciences are driven by science.

    Crypto isn’t. Plain and simple. All one needs to do is look at the evidence.

  25. DWA responds:

    And as to this good question (it’s actually a few of them):

    “Just curious, how would you go about discouraging ‘woo-woo’ from the field in general and/or from any sort of conferences without alienating too many people. (And, yes, I do know that there are some people you fully want to alienate but I’m not talking about them.) And how much ‘woo’ is tolerable? Is believing Sasquatch and UFO cycles are related okay but believing Sasquatch itself is an alien is a no-go. What about Sasquatch sightings as related to moon cycles? I’m curious as to where you would draw that line in the sand and what your reasoning might be.”

    My take:

    I draw the line at the evidence. Which means ‘woo’ isn’t tolerable; and the woo-wooers need to be wooed away from woo-woo and put on the scientific path.

    Sasquatch/UFOs: no connection. (We don’t even know – the name says so – what UFOs are. And until they stop in for unleaded and tell us, we won’t.)

    Moon cycles: no connection.

    (OK. There may be a few – and I mean few – “high strangeness” accounts in which stuff seems to coincide.)

    (I mean FEW.)

    (I think one chapter of Loren’s “Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America” covered every single one. But in no way could one read those reports in a way that would lead one to posit a UFO/Bigfoot connection. It’s like saying that if you saw a UFO, you’re an alien.)

    Just sayin’. I read reports; there may be few if any who have read more. And I think about them, and read what scientists say about them, and make connections in my mind…that seem to happen to just coincide, coincidence? I think not! with what the scientists are thinking too. No UFOs, no moon cycles, no little green men. Just an animal that was exhibiting behaviors reported in the 19th century that were exactly like those that scientists started reporting in the great apes we know about when field research on those got started a century later.

    In other words, people who knew nothing about apes were reporting great-ape behaviors a century before scientists “confirmed” those behaviors in other animals.

    (I read Bindernagel’s books and throughout them thought to myself: it’s like I wrote these. That’s what evidence will do. He looks at it, too.)

    Myths don’t predict reality. Logic says so. But the sasquatch “predicted” the known great apes.

    This is just an animal that has been seen, heard and smelled just about every way from just about every angle in just about every kind of situation that an animal can be (a key indicator that the evidence is solid). There is nothing I have read about the sasquatch – and I could write the encyclopedia article now – that I haven’t read many times in many reports. It’s as consistent as 500 people describing a robin. Or a geranium. Or anything else. Real stuff is like that. Myths aren’t.

    The tracks alone are so compelling that Krantz said: “Even if none of the hundreds of sightings had ever occurred, we would still be forced to conclude that a giant bipedal primate does indeed inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest.” He is only talking about a fragment of a fragment of the evidence!

    Here ya go: http://www.texasbigfoot.com/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot

    There may be no better single thing to read than that about a critical component of the evidence.

    If you can do a anatomical treatise on a critter’s foot, ’tain’t no Jersey Devil.

    And I could tell you that if no tracks had ever been found and no film had ever been shot, the sighting reports – alone – are equally compelling. I’ve READ them.

    No supernatural no paranormal. Just the facts sir madam, just the facts. They’re out there. I don’t see them for the Jersey Devil and the chupacabras. Point me to them, somebody, if they exist. Something odd (hallucinogens?) is going on at Loch Ness but reports are so all over the place one cannot tell what.

    You discourage woo-woo by asking the wooers how far woo-woo has gotten them. You explain to them that if crypto doesn’t start using scientific protocols to investigate large bodies of consistent evidence we’ll still be here typing these words a century from now. (If there is any wild left.)

    Crypto, if it’s gonna get together and talk, should get together and talk about the kouprey; the saola; the Chacoan peccary; the kipunji; the coelacanth; the snub nose monkey. [s].

    Crypto didn’t discover those.

    Zoology did.

    Time to do zoology.

    I don’t like sounding impatient but you know what they say.

    Insanity = doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

    Time to do zoology.

    For a change.

  26. flame821 responds:

    Crypto is hobbled by its inability to channel resources and discussion down one channel: the evidence. It’s so open-minded its brains constantly fall out.

    That’s usually where a hierarchy comes in. Either a person or a small group in charge of things who steers the researchers and funnels the funds. A sort of “I know you want to work on ‘X’, however right now our best information tells us ‘Y’ is more probable and if you wants the funds to carry out any research at all that is where you need to concentrate your efforts.” sort of thing.

    But how do we come to an agreement as to whom is in charge and under what authority? From what you’re saying we need a central command (either person or small group) who can direct and concentrate the efforts of all the various researcher, while keeping the more outrageous ‘loose cannons’ either sidelined or at the very least diminish the damage they can do to the ‘respectability’ of Cryptozoology.

    I know they say organizing atheists is like herding cats, but I have the feeling organizing all the varying groups and people who refer to themselves as Crypto would be an even bigger undertaking. As you state we (as a group) are just all over the place and who can say, with any authority ,who should be allowed and who shouldn’t?

  27. watn6789 responds:

    I do not believe people should put all of their efforts into bigfoot and am not interested in talking much more about it.

    On the topic of New Jersey and ‘cryptids’ in general;
    A wandering albatross was spotted over the Garden State Parkway and later radio collared…

    A large flyer could end up anywhere, its nice to have the habitat when they get there. The ropen reports in Papua match older Jersey devil reports.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Champ Camp Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.