Top Cryptozoology Books of 2013
Posted by: Lyle Blackburn on December 30th, 2013
Happy Holidays everyone! Cryptozoo News / Loren Coleman has posted his list of Top Ten Cryptozoology Books of the Year. I’m honored to have landed the #1 spot with my new book Lizard Man. I must thank Anomalist Books for their commitment to publish excellent cryptozoology titles, including Karl Shuker’s Mirabilis which was chosen as #4. Congratulations to my other colleagues and fellow Cryptomundo contributors that also made the list. 2013 was a year of great books, all deserving of praise. Here’s a few of the highlights…
Lizard Man chosen as the Best Cryptozoology Book of the Year
Ken Gerhard’s new book Flying Humanoids was chosen as best cover of the year, as well as #5 out of the top ten.
Karl Shuker’s new book Mirabilis was chosen as #4 out of the top ten.
Nick Redfern’s book Monster Files made the list as noteworthy in 2013.
To see the entire list, visit: Cryptozoo News Top Ten
Last year, Beast of Boggy Creek was chosen as the Best Cryptozoology Book of the Year for 2012!
About Lyle Blackburn
Lyle Blackburn’s research and writing on the subject of legendary creatures and unexplained phenomenon has been widely recognized as some of the best in the field of cryptozoology. His previous books, including The Beast of Boggy Creek and Momo: The Strange Case of the Missouri Monster, offer a balanced view of the subjects while delivering gripping accounts of real-life mysteries.
Lyle is a frequent guest on radio programs such as Coast To Coast AM, and has appeared on television shows such as Monsters and Mysteries in America, Finding Bigfoot, and Strange Evidence. Lyle has also been featured in several award-winning documentary films, including Boggy Creek Monster and The Mothman of Point Pleasant.
For more information, visit Lyle's website at: www.lyleblackburn.com
I gave Lyle’s book a good review, enjoyed it a lot.
But, seriously folks, the best crypto book of 2013 was BAR NONE Abominable Science. The scholarship was outstanding. Sorry that believers didn’t like what it said but it was a piece that took years of work and is so chock full of references and new evidence. This is a standard text of cryptozoology overall and it was ridiculous of Loren to ignore this because it’s written by those damn “Bigfoot skeptics”.
This is truly disappointing that the community has ignored an excellent volume just because it does not suit the agenda. Sad.
I will say over on Loren’s site what I say here:
Jeff Meldrum’s Sasquatch Field Guide should be on this list, if not #1. It may not be a “book” per se, but nobody’s giving an award for “best field guide” or “best pamphlet,” and this is the most serious – and deservedly so – endeavor, in my opinion, in the history of cryptozoology, if one takes as the criterion “significant effort to educate the public in the actual evidence.”
Do yourself a favor. Kindle, or however. Get it.
Sharon, Lyle was just noting highlights from Loren’s list. I would include Abominable Science and Cryptozoologicon on a list I would put together. Are you planning to compile a list? I’ll be happy to post it on Cryptomundo.
DWA, thanks for the tip on the field guide, I’ve just made it my first purchase for my Kindle. That said you know where I stand on this subject and this does not really change that. I find it contradictory that we have a range map for the sasquatch (which is said to be similar to that of a black bear) and yet in the discussion on skeletal evidence the excuse for why we don’t have any is due to the habitat sasquatch lives in. I wonder…is there any large North American animal (aside from bigfoot) for which we have no skeletal material but we otherwise know exists? Perhaps sasquatch bury their dead, I’ll take that as a better excuse for the lack of remains over the notion that they just decompose or are dispersed quickly. Many animals live in the same habitats as sasquatch allegedly does and still leave remains to be found, including bears.
I also agree with Shill that it is shameful that “Abominable Science” is not on this list. Regardless if you are a believer or a skeptic this is a book worthy of attention to anyone interested in the subject. But no, I guess books about flying humanoids and lizard men are what is considered among the best this year has to offer around here.
As for “Cryptozoologicon”, I still need to get a copy of that one. Anyone here read it yet? Any thoughts?
It is a misconception that Abominable Science did not make Loren’s list of the best cryptozoology books of 2013.
The post here on Cryptomundo was merely Lyle Blackburn’s highlights from Loren’s list.
He noted the books that made the list that were contributors to Cryptomundo.
Loren listed Abominable Science as #10 on his list, noting:
(10) Excellent, scholarly, skeptical books in cryptozoology are rare, but 2013 saw one good title in this realm. No matter its shortcomings in limited case selection and value-ladden rhetoric, the following book is a worthy addition to any cryptozoological library.
Thank you for the clarification on that. I should have viewed the complete list first. I admit I glanced over the list posted here and didn’t notice it was a shortened version.
maslo63:
Well, a field guide to something one doesn’t think real won’t – and really shouldn’t – change one’s opinion, unless it offers something not already on the table, which this one doesn’t. Nor could that have been its purpose, unless Meldrum were to reveal something he’d been hiding, which, well, nope.
The problem here is that the general denial on this topic, something I hold quite apart from one simply not being utterly convinced by what one has seen so far, doesn’t allow very well for the admission of inconclusive evidence for discussion, let alone fully funded searches for proof. Practically every possible shade and nuance of encounter – with both animals and remains – is reported for sasquatch, but of course nothing has run the gauntlet of custody to scientific confirmation. Those of us moving over to the proponent position simply have a pair of dueling unlikelihoods on our hands. And we’re not aware of anything with this level – volume and consistency, to say nothing of the entire spectrum of interactions possible – of evidence that hasn’t already been proven by science. Other than this.
My biggest remaining problem is how the denial got started. Search me. My theory – that the European Wildman tradition, commonly recognized by all as myth, got us stuck on the idea that bipeds anything like us didn’t exist – still leaves me wondering why we’d come to a new continent expecting nothing completely different. But there you are. The comprehensive false positive just seems to me even more staggering: either an incredible, biologically-correct and consistent Babel of lies hoaxes and hallucinations or America’s most amazing, longest-running family business (or professional faker guild, whichever).
I am extremely chary of excuses here. There are reports of bones being found, with not-that-farfetched reasons they didn’t get brought to mainstream attention. There must be one heck of a doorstop on a prospector’s cabin somewhere, at least, and very possibly some very intriguing stuff in the darkest dustiest corners of museum collections. To say nothing of a whole lot of “cow” or “you didn’t find those, not if you don’t want the Feds or somebody to pull my construction permit and your job you didn’t” discarded stuff. Extreme acidity yadayada may be keeping us from a complete faunal assemblage, but to just say “that’s why we don’t have bones” presumes there are absolutely none, anywhere, which is just hard for me to buy.
Like I said: it’s down for me to betting either an extreme improbability or a virtual impossibility. I just vote for the one that looks more likely to be correct.
DWA, I didn’t think the pamphlet would convert me or anything like that, I figured it was just like an entry on any other particular animal like you would find in an actual field guide.
I agree fully that regardless of where you stand on this debate, both prospects present an interesting problem. I just stand on the opposite end of the debate from you but the questions that either outcome raise are intriguing enough to keep me interested even if I’m not a believer.