What Happened to Cryptozoology?

page: 5
36
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


{I am just an observer her since I know little about this topic}


So can you provide some sources to backup your argument? I mean I am watching this thread you know...

I always do when I challenge someone.

EDIT to add: On a further note I do not think this is off topic as this thread is about Crypto as a whole, I really do not know much but am interested to learn.

[edit on 6/3/2009 by jkrog08]




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
LOL, could you speak English? I did not understand 70% of what you just said?

She doesn't either.


Originally posted by jkrog08
Yes I agree it is a very shady line between aquatic dinosaurs and land ones.

Well, the "shady line" between "aquatic dinosaurs" and terrestrial dinosaurs is not at all shady to paleontologists... The only true Dinosaurs known to Science were terrestrial animals. Oh, but now I'm arguing again, which means I have to leave.

— Doc Velocity




[edit on 6/3/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Could you please elaborate???


Let us not bicker here, this is a place for FACTS and MATURE DEBATE.


I do not know as much about this topic so I am asking for anyone's opinion or knowledge. I have seen this forum just recently become a respectable forum again, I would like to see it stay like that.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
So can you provide some sources to backup your argument?


Well, at the risk of further ruffling the OP's feathers (or scales), mine is not an "argument" whatsoever; the distinction between dinosaurs and reptiles is well-established and accepted in the field of Paleontology.

However, sure, I can provide a couple of vague sources:

British Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian Institute Dept of Paleobiology

I know these institutions and their researchers don't begin to measure up to the profundity of an all-knowing ATS poster, but I think I'll stick with the institutions of higher learning.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 



I know these institutions and their researchers don't begin to measure up to the profundity of an all-knowing ATS poster, but I think I'll stick with the institutions of higher learning.

— Doc Velocity



While I applaude you providing nice sources, I do not condone the somewhat childish remark I quoted. I think you probably could have left that out.


I will check these sources out, as I am sure they are factual,lol. So thanks again for the links.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
No I mean really, this thread is kind of destroyed.

It's fine. I mean, you all can keep arguing. I'm just kind of done with it, it has nothing to do with my OP, and I uh, you know, don't really care all that much.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm providing information, too. But if you want to just troll my threads I will kindly step aside and do something more productive and enjoyable with my time.

I'm not a dinosaur expert. They don't really interest me. I don't pretend to be one. So I kind of don't see the point of blatantly insulting my intelligence when I know that I'm not a paleontologist and that my research is more limited to modern species.

But seriously there are much nicer ways of telling me that I'm wrong.

ATS Hiatus Time.

[edit on 6/3/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

The question I'm asking is thus: within the field of cryptozoology, what happened to the cryptids? The real cryptids.



Well in an attempt to not be considered a "thread destroyer" I guess I will answer this question.


What happened to the real cryptids? That is simple IMO, they aren't considered "cryptids" anymore, really the only things that are considered in this field are (likely erroneously) dinosaurs, Bigfoot, Nessie, Killer Trees (man eating), Sea Serpents, etc... WHY?


Because that is what peaks peoples interest (again I have limited knowledge of this field but this is just a common observation IMHO), unknown frogs, insects, passive planets, fish, snakes, etc do not really get attention. As far as the mass public is concerned, well they aren't to be honest. In my opinion "real" Crypto is worse of than Ufology in the interest area because it really is not "Cryptozoology". Yes I know what the word means (The study of previously unknown or undiscovered animals) but it has been greatly twisted by the masses to mean Bigfoot, Giant T-Rex in Africa, 200 foot long Sea Serpent that destroys ships, etc. When in reality Zoology should be blended with Cryptozoology because in principle and action they both are one in the same. They both represent mankinds efforts to catalogue every single animal species- rather it be Vampire, living Velociraptor, or some small insect or plant. Neither one knows all their is to know about Zoology and really the term Cryptozoology is erroneous anyways and was likely put forth to separate the closed minded Zoologist of old who did not want to be in the same "category" as Zoologist who actually did believe in "speculative animals". In my opinion Cryptozoology has thus become an amature field with no actual degrees offered from Universities due to likely both the redundant nature of it in relation to Zoology and the paradigm of modern Academia.

So in my opinion the answer to your question Raven is this; Nothing happened to "real Cryptozoology", it never existed in the first place. It is just a catchy mainstream term for "monster hunters", as wrong as that is, but it is what it is. So really it is up to either Professional Crytozoologist (Accredited Zoologist) or amature Zoologiat (non accredited Zoologist) to take a stance themselves to blend these two things that really are one. In the end all this shows is the lack of general human understanding and evolution in willing to accept things that might not be as they seem. Until that time comes when the populace as a whole can do that I feel that this question will continue to come up and be unanswered. Anyways that is my take on the subject, sorry if you felt I derailed your thread, that was not my intent.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Well, that sort of went off the deep end in a hurry. Look, Raven, I only posted an observation of correction regarding dinosaurs, whereupon you told me in no uncertain terms to get lost.

I did not attempt to derail or "troll" your thread. When I see an interesting thread, I like to step in as an observer and contribute what I can, particularly when the subject is something so close to my own interests.

I tell you now in all sincerity, I am sorry for disrupting your thread. I apologize for offending your sensibilities. I will know better than to interject in the future, and I hope the moderator will delete my interference here, allowing the thread to proceed unfettered.


— Doc Velocity




[edit on 6/3/2009 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
While I applaude you providing nice sources, I do not condone the somewhat childish remark I quoted. I think you probably could have left that out.


Quite right, it was a snide remark and I regret it.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Exactly. It isn't all about the huge monster.

I saw a strange bug in South Carolina that resembled a Walking Stick. Only it was about the size of small hairs connected. Never could find out what that was. If someone finds out let me know.

My dad claims to have seen a small flock of Carolina Parakeets in the 1970's at his mom's house way out in the middle of the forest. Supposedly they went extinct 1904.

Reports all over the southeast of a "Black Panther/Jaguar or large black cat" type that has never been officially confirmed. In the early 1980's while riding my bicycle to a friend's house I heard the bushes rustling. I stopped my bike and a large black cat walked out of the bushes and turned to me and made a deep growl and walked to the other side of the road into the bushes. I was terrified because judging from the size to cats in a zoo it was roughly about the size of Tiger only not quite as bulky. To me it looked similar to a Black Jaguar only the ears were somewhat pointy like a common house cat.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I'm quite surprised at how this thread turned out...

I'll try not to point any fingers, but hopefully the right folks will pick up what I'm trying to say.

In the last page or two, we picked up - again - the same thing I talked about in my first response. The idea that "I am better than you". And this is Loren Coleman's biggest problem as well. He is without a doubt the "go-to guy" when it comes to Cryptozoology. And with good reason. He has a humongous amount of knowledge and experience when it comes to Cryptozoology and animals in general. But his ego has grown to such a size that it overshadows his actual knowledge. The moment someone criticize him he goes on and on in a sort of hissy-fit of anger. We've seen it with the recent Georgia bigfoot hoax where it turned to such a poo-slinging fest that they nearly forgot about the actual issue at hand. He did it the other day again after a blogger insulted him on some random newspaper's page. If you want to experience the wrong side of Loren Coleman, all you have to do is contradict him...

And this is what we've seen in this thread as well. A simple mistake was pointed out, and it was taken as criticism which resulted into a serious comparison of brain-pans.

What I'm saying is - if you want to be a leader in the field of Cryptozoology (or any field for that matter) you have to listen to other folks and what they have to say. You cannot always be right. It's OK to be wrong, and it's OK to admit you're wrong.

Saying things like "shut up or go away" (yes, I know those weren't the exact words) in response to something that was in the flow of the discussion isn't something that should be coming from a "scientific person" (or rather someone who wants to take a subject seriously).

Another thing - which I also tried to say in my initial post - is that someone who wants to "further" the field of cryptozoology shouldn't say things like "I don't care" or "I'm not really interested"...

Wanting to be an amateur cryptozoologist doesn't mean you have to be an archaeologist, or a Biologist, or whatever. It does however require you to have a good knowledge of topics that fits into the Cryptozoology spectrum. Such as insects or fish or dinosaurs and so on... They are very much part of the field of cryptozoology and if you want your voice to count in the field of study, you need to have the basic knowledge.

You also need to know all about mythical beasts. You need to know what qualifies an animal as a "mythical beast". What differentiates a mythical beast of a crypto beast? Opinion? Some folks would define Nessie or Bigfoot as mythical creatures...

Has anyone who is interested in the field of cryptozoology read the work of Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans? Or do we simply read what's written on Cryptomundo and AboveTopSecret?

The reason for my rambling is this: There has been a lot of talk of "Subject Matter Expert"... And the staff is always on the lookout for a bright start that shows in-depth knowledge in a particular forum and very importantly leadership skills. It's very exciting to see a group of people willing to lift the Crypto forum up to something that is worth visiting and reading. But do the people that have the enthusiasm to lead, or in other words, respect other people's opinions and be civilized when opinions differ?

I hope I got my point across. It isn't as much a reprimanding, as it is a friendly (and I really mean friendly) word of advice...



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Thank you for broaching this topic ravenshadow13. I believe this is something that isnt discussed nearly enough among the Crypto circles I've been in. Lets see if I cant also get my rant on.



I've always had a huge problem with the fact that the mere mention I'm interested in Cryptozoology I get the ole' "So your, like, into Bigfoot and the Chupa-thingy?"(after I explain what the word means, of course). Then I waste 20 minutes trying to explain that the field isnt all Yetis and Lake Monsters and that some real, serious scientific studies have done by Cryptozoologists. And in the end, they dont really hear a word I say and just keep assuming I get a big hard on whenever I see a fuzzy photo of some possible unknown Hominid.

It's really a shame that the public at large only really sees these "poster children" for unknown animals. They jump to these conclusions that it's all just a bunch of kooks trudging through their backyards taking shakey cam movies of deer swimming across a river, when much of the real serious research, especially recently, has gone into animals with vast amounts of solid data pointing toward their existence.

Wasnt it Cryptozoologists who were the biggest proponents of the theory that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was in fact not extinct?

Weren't Cryptozoologist the one's most likely to take reports of Beaked Whales seriously?

Arent they now taking the survival of the Cougar outside of small scattered groups in the north east/west much more seriously then most biologists?



I could go one, but I think I make myself clear when I say that this field deserves worlds more respect then it is currently receiving just because the stars of the Crypto world tend to have histories heavy with hoaxes and misidentifications.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
People like Bigfoot because they feel better than a hairy-ape-man. If they could, they would capture him and study him.


Heh not for me, ive always liked Bigfoot, as a cryptid he was my first interest and will always be my favorite I dont think im better than his species, just different. However that said I understand where your coming from.

In Cryptozoology the more recognised ones do tend to get all the limelight but its really the case. The primary problem is that people dont quite understand just what constitutes a cryptid. A cryptid to my mind is basically any animal or creature misplaced in location or time, or if failing that some form of animal life that just doesnt fit into conventional scientific thought or understanding.

Unfortunately as this forum proved over the last few months there are idiots in society that seem to class paranormal subjects as Cryptozoological ones... namely Vampires and Zombies... for crying out loud they are paranormal topics NOT cryptids, chalk and bleeding cheese. Id also class Chuppagarbra as a non cryptid and put them in the UFO circle, but they can cross the boundary because the descriptions of them not only run the alien but also cryptid spectrum.

Its the main reason I basically stopped browsing this subject forum. Seems to have stopped though finally.

Cryptozoology still does the 'mundane' task of identifying strange but ultimately mis-identified or forgotten animals in the world. Its thankfully got the big hitters still going for it in the public eye otherwise the entire science would be almost forgotten by the main stream, id say the field should be thankful they have something like Bigfoot and Nessie to keep it in the spotlights of the public.

Yes bring on the less known Cryptids there are some interesting ones, Oh and as for winged cats, i think they suffer from that birth defect where a twin is fussed inside them (you often see it with Cows) and the limbs stick out, or at least thats what id explain it as at first glance. Although the only time ive seen winged cats was in the Foretean circles and they are hardly reliable
although entertaining.

To me the best Cryptids are the ones that have some sort of at least ledgend about em, I mean would you get more interest out of a creature that has been occasionally seen over 50 years with little evidence apart from possible bones or a photo or a newly discovered bird with a weird beak... considering the bird is due to its sudden discovery no longer a mystery or unknown its immediately lost that Cryptid bang to it.

One lesser known cryptid Id like to see worked on is the New Guinea Dragon. I mean they actually have film footage of a juvenile from the early 80's but from reports and sightings an adult makes the Komodo Dragon look like a skink in comparison. Unfortunately the place it lives in is basically impossible to get to for most.

By the way I wouldnt dismiss mermaids however, there was some rather interesting film of something odd caught about 13 years ago (i think it was on Arthur C Clarkes second series) that showed a rather neat fish like tail coming out of the water then back in again in an area that is said to have local mermaid sightings. Sure nothing came of it and it had to be chalked up as a '?' but it was rather compelling. (And no i dont believe mermaids are women with fish tales)

Damn Ive forgotten the name of a show I watched a few weeks ago that went hunting for a river monster in Africa, not sure of how valid they all were but they got some interesting footage of something knocking their floating camera and they latter went looking for a local cryptid that looks like a hairy dwarf ape and also got some interesting footage of something and temperature readings, show had American hosts (can never tell if such shows fake stuff but it was pretty neat). Cant even remember the creatures names... damn.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I think that it is extremely possible that many cryptids are actually zooforms



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


Maybe the show was "Monsterquest?" I don't know. It sounds like an interesting episode!

I certainly think that the primate cryptids are interesting. And I think they are possibly the most complex, just because they seem to have a very advanced culture and have evaded us for so long. I also think that going back a few thousand years, we probably hunted many primates to near-extinction, and some splinter species survived.

@robokey- I always thought it was interesting when ornithologists debated the continued existence of the ivory billed. Many scientists are wary of species that they do not see on a regular basis. It should be the other way around, I think they should be more interested in the ones that have adapted to survive in such small populations.

@mjl- I think it is possible, as well. It would explain why we can't find them easily, how they can just "appear" in an area, and can survive for so long without much notice from us. I don't know much about how zooforms work, but I have a general idea. I'd like to learn more, especially about the applications with lake cryptids.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mjl_says
 


What exactly are "Zooforms"? I googled it and wasnt able to find very much except that it adds a more paranormal element to Crypto studies. Can you (or anyone) extrapolate?



[edit on 10-6-2009 by RoboKy]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoboKy
What exactly are "Zooforms"? I googled it and wasnt able to find very much except that it adds a more paranormal element to Crypto studies. Can you (or anyone) extrapolate?



[edit on 10-6-2009 by RoboKy]


Zooforms aren't a very "common" term. I think the person that covered the topic the most was Neil Arnold author of Monster! The A-Z of Zooform Phenomena.

If you're not up for reading the entire book, here are a view extracts from an interview with him:



...
The Zooforms are those cryptozoological puzzles that at first glance appear to be flesh-and-blood animals; but that on closer examination seem to be far stranger indeed.
...
The book covers forms – not necessarily creatures though – but things like apparitions that seem to take on an animal form, or a semi-animal-form, and that have existed in folklore down the centuries and all across the world. But they have never really been categorized in one complete book before; and they don’t fit into cryptozoology as simple, undiscovered creatures.
...
NR: Do you feel that we are on the right path towards understanding the true nature of what Zooforms actually are?

NA: Well, science likes to try and explain things. But the Zooforms are similar to things like the Old Hag attacks. Science likes to say the cause of the Old Hag encounters can be anything from tiredness to stress; but it still doesn’t explain why most people who have the experience very specifically see a hag-like figure. So that’s the thing with zooforms: like the Old Hag, they take on specific forms: black-dogs; lake-monsters; the Mothman. And that’s what science can’t explain: why they appear as these specific forms. It seems that this does become a kind of social thing. A lot of these things are cultural fears, so maybe it’s to do with the human psyche as to how they appear in certain places and countries when we see them. I’ve discussed with people before the idea that if someone’s not there to see it, does it still appear? And it seems very likely to me that these things actually need to be seen.
...
Source with more


In other words it's more a paranormal approach to Cryptozoology than a biological/scientific approach.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RoboKy
 


Gemwolf nailed it. Supposedly they are more likely to be able to "disappear" or become invisible, go onto other planes, things like that, too. Which is why it kind of makes sense that if some cryptids are zooforms, they haven't been found.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


I've read that some believe Bigfoot to be some kind of alien or interdimentional being.

That kind of disappoints me. In my opinion, discussing stuff like that and relating it to Cryptozoology really cheapens the field and makes it as laughable as UFO research in the eyes of the public.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by fooffstarr
 


I've read it, too. I don't personally believe it, but I can see how other people can. There is no evidence that it isn't happening that way. I don't really believe much in paranormal or alien things in terms of humans even, but if I did I might be more likely to believe that is what is happening in cryptozoology.

I can see where people come from with that, and it hasn't been disproven. It hasn't been proven either, however. I like to stick to cryptzoology as a direct offshoot of zoology. But it doesn't need to be that way.





new topics
top topics
 
36
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join