One of the more laughable forums on the web is at Cryptozoology.Com which appears to be inhabited by kiddies who regard every mange-ridden fox as an out-of-place hyena or a mutant long-tailed bobcat or hitherto unknown species of cat. The contributors confidently identify silhouettes as black pumas (the fact that pumas have never exhibited melanism goes whoosh! over their collective heads) and half-seen large animals as lion-jaguar or puma-leopard hybrids even though they've never seen either big cat outside of an I-Spy book. Scientific rigour and scepticism is in short supply on those forums. The identifications are posted by eejits wouldn't be able to identify a hyena if they fell over one.
The worst of the amateur cryptozoologists and Alien Big Cat hunters refuse to accept when they are wrong. There's a guy in the West Country who collects photos of sheep supposedly killed by a big cat. The photos actually show the work of rogue dogs, but in spite of analysis by real big cat experts (the sort with years of in-the-field experience) he is unwilling to accept reality. On one forum, a person posted a photo of a shelduck and contributors claimed it was a mallard-muscovy hybrid! How's that for ignorance and the inability to do even the most basic search in a bird-spotters book?
In the last several years, cryptozoology has gone from being a fringe pseudo-science on a par with paranormal investigators to a respectable discipline of following up reports of animals that have defied identification. Unfortunately, there are too many gullible, self-delusional unscientists bringing the whole study of new species into disrepute. If cryptozoology is be a credible discipline it needs to rid itself of the hangers-on who wouldn't be able to identify a "panther" (that's either a puma, leopard or jaguar, depending on which country you live in) if it ambled out of a hedge and they tripped over it.
Note: The complaints in the comments box assume I am anti-cryptozoology. In their evident haste to complain, they've entirely missed the point. If cryptozoology can rid itself of people who wouldn't recognise a cow if they saw one (thanks Anonymous for that all-too-accurate comment!) , but who consider themselves qualified to confidently (mis)identify a fuzzy photo then it is a worthwhile pursuit. That means it is time to RECOGNISE it as a branch of science with qualifications available (a grounding in genetics wouldn't go amiss); this would distance the genuine researchers from the fringe and stop unqualified persons from masquerading as experts in the field.
Note 2: To answer queries; I'm a biologist by training, with a special interest in genetics, although I now work in industry as it pays better. No I'm not sniping at a subject I have no interest in. As someone who continues to study genetics, it's a branch of zoology I have great interest in, hence my dismay at the gullibility and lack of rigour.
36 comments:
I answer this blog here:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/cz-hangers-on/
With a due respect,
Loren Coleman,
October 15th, 2007
You are entitled to your own opinions, but until cryptozoology stops regarding every TOm Dick and Sally as a cryptozoologist-in-training it is destined to remain a pseudoscience.
And what a pity you only allow your own Wordpress hangers on to comment on your blog.
They can't identify a shelduck that is included in plenty of wildfowl books? As for puma-leopard hybrids roaming Britain, the alien big cat lovers evidently haven't a clue what that hybrid really looks like. There's a stuffed one in a museum in Tring. Any tiny trick of light, perspective, angle or just a head-on view makes them squeal that they've seen a chupacabra or mystery big cat. Trouble is, they WANT those things to exist so they don't apply Occam's Razor. People without chemistry or physics or zoology qualifications can't legitimately call themselves chemists, physicists or zoologists, but any credulous fool able to get a fuzzy long-distance photo of a domestic animal seems to call themselves a cryptozoologist and claim they've seen the Surrey puma. Science involves rigour. Something those sites don't apply. They just jump on the "I've seen chupacabra" bandwagon. Yes, the hangers on give science a bad name.
Maybe Cryptozoology.com and Cryptomundo should go on an equivalent of quack-watch alongside conspiracy theorists. It isn't teething pains as the Coleman claims. After all, what were those 19th Century specimen hunters if not cryptozoologists and cryptobotanists in everything but name? It's only the name that is recent, not the concept. Museum storerooms are full of their specimens.
If it ever wants to be taken seriously it should distance itself from its current bandwagonload of credulous teens and X Files fans. It needs to get away from the jackalopes and cabbits image (its equivalent of the Cottingley Fairies). The caliber of posting on the forums suggest they are inhabited by 15 year-olds destined for McJobs, not science degrees. "Amateur" means a person who does something for love not money, but the "amateurs" on those forums give the word the negative connotation of "clueless". Most have no concept of investigative rigour. Anyone who tries to inject common sense or informed skepticism gets shouted down.
Personally I don't mind the honest "What animal is this" post on a forum, it's when they claim fuzzy photos show a hyena (dog with dermatitis) or sea otters identified as plesiosaurs that bug me, along with the confident claims that a creature that is clearly a known canid is a cryptid. Maybe it's the problem of so many people growing up in towns and cities and never properly seeing animals except on TV. Never mind not being able to identify a hyena or puma, I've met people who would have problems identifying a cow! Most of them don't seem to have read a biology or zoology book between them and they wonder why it isn't considered a credible branch of science.
You'd also think that after all the debunked hoaxes they'd be more cautious, but no, the forums exhibit a fanatical, almost religious, belief in the most indistinct image being an animal unknown to science even when that belief flies in the face of facts. If they'd exercise some common sense and exorcise the lunatic fringe element they'd be taken seriously by the scientific community and cryptozoology would get itself on the firm footing it deserves.
Heuvelmans deserves better than to have his torch taken up by people who shouldn't be allowed near matches.
My,my, you do paint your opinion with a broad brush.You seem to base that opinion on unsupported generalisations about all amatuer researchers.
Granted, there are gullible people out there who will believe anything, but they are far outnumbered by keen, passionate and critical researchers who keep a reasoned scepticism, who do crypotozoology no diservice at all by their efforts. I think that most people can tell the difference.
However, your generalised rhetoric just seems to mirror the credulity of those few "kiddies" on the extreme end of research.
There are countless examples of the times when accepted science has been turned on its head by the endeavours of the untrained but passionate researcher.
Each and every science started with untrained people with a passion, they were called heretics and charlatans, necromancers and alchemists, but their amatuer endeavours gave us physics and chemistry,astronomy and biology. Where would we be without the Ptolomy's, the Galileos, the Da Vinci's if they had knuckled under to opinions, more extreme, but in line with yours.
xxghostdogxx - cryptozoology has been around in all but name since the 1800s and probably a lot longer. It's only the name that's recent. I have not criticised the methodical researchers, but it's high time they distanced themselves from the clueless kiddies and cabbit-hunters that infest the forums. Or maybe you don't bother reading the forums you are apparently defending? They're the ones holding you back, not my critique.
Thank you! for saying what needed to be said even though you'll get loads of hate mail about it. I read one of the forums mentioned. I really despair when I read good educated information shot down by 13 y.o.s who think they know it all because they've watched Napolean Dynamite. Those people way outnumber the good reasoned contributors to the forums which means there's just no point in qualified biologists, zoologists or geneticists contributing real information to the forums. People believe what they want to believe never mind the inconvenient facts. If you try to inject some reality into a discussion you just get shouted down so I don't even bother. If you post a picture of a real animal people say it's photoshop, but if you post a picture of a mangy coyote people will believe it is absolutely anything except a mangy coyote. That sort of thing really holds back proper studies. My favorite was someone saying "it looks like a regular dox to me". A dox is a dog/fox hybrid and they are genetically not possible, but the forum posters just took it for granted they existed. My other favorite is the pied zebra-hybrid that people insisted was photoshop just because they didn't understand horse genetics. It doesn't matter how much you try to tell them correct information they just don't want to know because they've already made up their mind. They are supposed to be open minded about unknown animals but instead they are some of the most closed minded people I've found which undermines the whole idea I think. No wonder other scientists don't take it seriously. If it was a recognized field it could be regulated and we could shake off the people who want to believe in things that are already disproven and whose credulousness makes laughing stocks of the serious researchers. But thank you for speaking out against the people who undermine serious study.
While I agree with what you've written overall, I feel I must take some issue with your general criticism of cryptozoology.com. It is true that the "kiddies" are a huge bane to cryptozoology, which is abundantly evident at cz.com, but we must realize that cryptozoology is always going to be a magnet for young people who tend to allow their beliefs to be controlled by imagination more than reason. Those who follow reason should naturally realize that and simply ignore the "kiddies". Cz.com also has its share of rational thinkers, which is why I continue to visit the site despite no longer posting there. One of the more rational thinkers linked to this blog, else I would likely never have read it. It cannot be too laughable a site if one of its members (though I'm quite sure there are more) agrees with you enough to show you off.
It's sad that cryptozoology is so thickly infested with irrationality, but I see no reason for that to stand in the way of it ever becoming a respected science. Mainstream science simply needs to inject rationality while brushing aside the obvious nonsense. Perhaps they are doing so now, but obscurely, so as not to be disturbed by the "kiddies" and "eejits", though I recall spelling it "idgits".
FYI you got their attention. cryptozoology 1 one of the kiddies has thrown his toys out the pram, but he doesn't like Cryptomundo either as they're too rational for him ROFL.
cryptozoology 2 reasonable rather than kneejerk comments, mentions the religious zeal that holds back reasoned research and debate.
Pity they can't get your gender right - it's not like that photo is so fuzzy they can misidentify a gal.
Love the blog BTW.
Sadly you have a point. It's a point lots of people on those forums don't like admitting cos they don't like admitting they aren't experts. *snorts* at dox/shelduck/Napolean Dynamite comments - so true.
Gotta add the Tyrenga enthusiasts who insist there are lion-tiger-puma-leopard-jaguar hybrids in England. Typical case of they don't have enough experience to identify something so it has to be a hybrid and they make up a name for it. Sad.
Llewtrah, there is a lot of truth in your blog, but I have to wonder if you have truly spent much time on Cryptozoology.Com. As a moderator there, I can attest to the fact that the posters you deride are all too real, and much too prevalent. Indeed, we seem at times to be inundated with mangy coyote/chupas.
But if you've truly read those posts, you'll realize that the vast majority of our members are quite quick to dismiss them. Indeed, there is often some discussion about this very issue, as some feel that we skeptics are a bit harsh on these posters you describe so well.
Also, we DO have scientists who visit, and contribute, to the site. Some of the more well known cryptozoologists also can be found there.
In summation, while I agree with the tenor of your blog, I must still defend Cryptozoology.com as one of the better sites on the web, and I would ask that you spend some time there, observe what really goes on, and then, if your views haven't changed, so be it.
Gerry Bacon
Anon (Napoleon Dynamite post) - yes, I have lurked at cryptozoology.com forums often. I'm sure many people can't be bothered to post because too many posters are so desperate to see a chupacabra or out-of-place hyena or mutant-hybrid black creature that they reject the more mundane explanations. Some of the posts bring to mind the saying "there's none so blind as those who refuse to see".
Karl Rose - thank you for dropping in - sadly the signal-to-noise ratio is too often skewed in favour of the irrational posts to the detriment of the serious comments. Eejits is the spelling we use here, but the subspecies is the same.
Anon (2) - thanks for the links. I am aware of those posters (being a lurker on the forums) and I agree with you that one throws his toys out of the pram whenever someone disagrees - hardly a good way to promote ones case!
Fragon (1 & 2) - that was my complaint, there are too many self-styled experts who shout down the views of people with solid information and scientific background. This deters people from posting and leaves the forum as a playground for cranks and crackpots. Or, as I mentioned to Billy last night, the place is far too full of people who are "away with the Cottingley Fairies" and who only see what they want to see.
Gerry Bacon - thank you for dropping in. I have lurked often on your forums. What I've seen there is what deters me from taking it as seriously as it is obviously intended. Sometimes I find it too much like The Onion or The Spoof and that is to the detriment of the study of unknown animals.
In summary - Yes, Heuvelmans deserves better than to have his torch taken up by people who shouldn't be allowed near matches. There's nothing wrong with "what is this animal?" posts, but an awful lot wrong when people insist it is something it isn't.
As an interested amateur with no professional qualifications in zoology, I have been fascinated by cryptozoology since seeing David Attenborough's 'Fabulous Aminals' series back in the mid 1970s.
I do purchase most of the available literature and regularly trawl the various websites out there.
I do agree that the people who equate the crypto staples, bigfoot and Nessie with UFOs and ghosts need to be cast off to ever give cryptozoology the recognition it deserves in the hunt for the REAL unknown animals out there.
I would value the Saola as a much more potent symbol of the discipline than a chupacabra!
Aaah Attenborough - a living national treasure.
Years back I used to read the Fortean Times, primarily for the cryptids and genetic anomalies. Then it got hijacked by the X-Files faction. Far from showcasing cryptozoology, it got associated with conspiracy theorists, crop circles and alien abductions (ABC sightings tying in with UFO sightings etc). Unfortunately cryptozoology still hasn't managed to shake off that image. The alt newsgroup on cryptozoology dragged it further into a mire of nutjobs, becoming no more than a slanging match between posters. That's why it's disappointing to see attempts at sensible research/enquiry derailed by fantasists or by those promoting their personal hobbyhorses.
Hello llewtrah,
I invite you to comment on my work in "examining the evidence" for rare fauna at my website, www.wherelightmeetsdark.com (see the menu of the same name there).
I promise to be most appreciative of constructive criticism!
My goal with my original critiques of alleged evidence for thylacines in particular, is exactly to address the concern you have raised - to attempt to demonstrate that it *should* be reasonably possible to be objective and constructive in evaluating claims for cryptids.
For practical field work in searching for an out-of-place cryptid, please see the www.mainlanddevils.com website.
I believe there are many in the Australian cryptozoology community at least who are using level headed approaches to investigate claims of cryptids.
Cheers,
Chris.
Looks like no-one there has sussed out what ur name is really about, Llewtrah, or that the otter-stuff is just coincidence!
Love ur websites too.
I can agree that there are many out there calling themselves "cryptozoologists" whose qualifications are, at best, questionable and have had to deal with them frequently. Most recently while on a video taping session here in Florida this past weekend. These gentleman "crashed" a shooting site and persisting in broadcasting, of all things, bull elephant calls here in the American southeast until 2:00 in the morning to the point of frightening away any wildlife within 5 miles of the location. I've also had "curator" members of one large and well-known "cryptozoology" orgainzation show up at a college practicum (again uninvited) where state permist were involved and then, when told they could not remain, choose to pitch camp a couple of hundred yards away from base camp and proceed to get so plastered that neighboring ranchers called the game wardens who subsequently sent them on their way.
Add to this crackpots who plagerize work, harass professionals who are gainfully employed in the field, snipe at those who DO know what they are doing, infiltrate clubs and organizations pursuing the cryptozoology agenda and others who think taking one class in forensics makes them a pro -- and you get the picture.
That said, I have a problem your comment about cryptozoology.com. While there ARE posters there who exhibit juvenile tendencies and even older folks who just like to argue, it is a public forum. Some young people DO want to learn and ask questions -- sometimes repetitively and without searching the threads first for their answers.
However, this issue is ALSO TRUE of the other cryptozoology forums of a similar ilk.
As far as mis-identifying animals is concerned, even professionals make that mistake. I recall that a professional zoologist mis-identified the skeletal remains of a Bili Ape (Bondo Ape), pronouncing it as a lowland gorilla, only to have it re-classified as a subspecies of pan troglodyte by DNA analysis recently.
That faux pas doesn't hold a candle to the antics of one "professional" cryptozoologist who says he holds an MBA from a Southeastern University in America who sees Bigfoot in every blob shadow he photographs and fantasizes a Sasquatch connection to space aliens.
Perhaps you should choose your "pet peaves" more carefully?
Youcantryreachingme - the mainland Devils is certainly interesting. It is possible that the devil is the right size to hang on and evade detection, though evading detection for that long would be pretty impressive (especially as roadkill carrion seems to attract them to places they would be seen). Deliberate introduction by persons unknown remains a possibility though. It would be interesting to do a detailed comparison of their DNA. One thing that strikes me is whether a relict population would it be distinct enough that the facial tumour cells would be recognised and attacked by their immune system. Interesting to read views on Thylacine cloning project. Lately there have been reports that the Thylacine was already on the wane and would have become extinct anyway (sounds to me like a sop to ease human guilt). Possibly during the next 100 years we will become adept enough at reading DNA and understanding how genes operate to put together a "recipe" for a thylacine.
Scott Marlowe - the problem with skeletal remains is that they can be mounted wrongly (we are still seeing this in revisionso dinosaur and moa skeletons and reconstructions) and it's made worse if the bones are juvenile, diseased or aberrant. In those cases, DNA becomes important because the anatomical differences in the skeleton are insufficient for positive identification. The close relationship of the great apes has always caused confusion (pity the poor bonobos that used to end up in enclosures with the more aggressive chimps because the difference hadn't been recognised). It's not the repetitive asking of questions that I griped about, it is the "I've watched a TV show, look I'm an expert!" incorrect answers to those questions. The misinformed end up misinforming people with even less knowledge, perpetuating and compounding the muck-ups. There are worse forums, but those that use the term "monster" in their descriptions are easily avoided.
What you point may be true, but then it is not all there is. I refer to Gerry's post.
Anyway, the extent of my indifference can only be compared to the inmensity of the Ocean, or otherwise said, I couldn't care less. I will keep on posting on CZ, by far the best site in the web, regardeless of subject.
Having spoken my mind, I stay, Madam, yours faithfully.
llewtrah -- the skeletal remains issue is preaching to the choir. I'm not talking about articulated displays.
You're right that DNA is a more precise means of species determination today than it was 100 years ago.
However, I stand by the intent of my statement -- ALL humans are prone to make mistakes -- regardless of their credentials.
Cheers!
SM
I might add that, to some degree, I have pause and wonder if the initial controversy here has more to do with Google rankings (at present, cryptozoology.com attracts more visitors than cryptomundo.com) than it does content value.
As I stated previously, the issues relating to posts by immature, inexperienced, or other reasons beginning with the letter "i" are uniformly applied across the board (or forum as it were) to all public website venues.
SM
Okay for all those who don't believe in UFOs, Ghosts, Cryptozoology. All I can say is stop drinking 500 pounds of coffee, get your head out of a book, stop counting your money, and actually do some research that these investigators are doing. Im a member of Cryptozoology.com and Cryptomundo all I can say to you skeptics reading this right now that have a more open mind! If you don't believe in Bigfoot, Ghosts, UFO's, Aliens, Nessie go where these incidents are happening talk to the people and actually INVESTIGATE and stop acting like the cool kid on the block!!!!!!!
Scott - I have absolutely no interest in Google rankings. This site doesn't advertise anything so page rankings, or lack thereof, are immaterial. Web 2.0 is about "networking" not search-engines. I chose to state an opinion on the credulousness of those whose desire for a creature to exist overcomes any common sense and who ignore evidence that doesn't fit their claims.
On my websites I state in the FAQ stating that I have no interest in page rankings, don't aadvertise and don't add reciprocal links aimed at improving rankings. In a couple of cases I have asked page rank engines to remove my listing as it attracted spam from advertisers. Page rankings is a bit like all those MySpace kiddies collecting "friends" rather than having anything to do with quality of content.
Cryptid Hunt - so I assume you're one of those willing to believe absolutely anything - plane lights are UFOs, stray dogs are big cats - and then claim "oh no, it couldn't have been a plane/sea otter/dog I saw, it was something different"
Are you really a cryptomundo spy?
fragon - no. Why should I be? As with many topics on here, I stated an opinion. I lurk on topics of interest, but it's hard to find nuggets of gold in amongst the clutter.
Dear Hartwell
True, many posters may be nearly as bad at cryptozoology as you are at authoring a somewhat coherent blog. However, your condecension is truely amazing. Hopefully you will one day be in a mosh pit at some $hit metal concert (which you seem to love) and be struck in the head by a rogue crowd surfer's shoe and be forced to spend a month in a hospital, with a 9/11 conspiracy nuts who bombards your every waking moment with tales of poppings windows that surely signal explosions while simultaneouly blogging constantly about the aenemas that they have to do for you.
Saint - moshing? Not likely - leave that to the youngsters and I'll stick to seats in the circle. As for coherence, this blog doesn't have a theme or agenda so your statement is nonsensical. The enemas sound good though. Some people pay good money for that sort of thing.
"Nuggets of Gold Amongst the Clutter"
Llewtrah, you might want to rethink your analogy there. The reason that gold -- or diamonds -- or ANY precious metal or gem has value is that it is rare.
One MUST sift through a considerable amount of rubble to find a diamond suitable for cutting into a brilliant gemstone. Yet there is also value to diamonds which are not suitable for jewelry stones.
Still, the vast majority of the material mined is simply gravel.
SM
Hi llewtrah,
yes, the devils are interesting. Although I have corresponded with a scientist who has conducted DNA testing on some of the Tasmanian devils which were discovered in Victoria (as roadkill - as you note they should likely turn up) - I have not read the paper first hand.
However, others have informed me that it concludes that genetically the Victorian devils are indistinct from Tasmanian specimens.
As such, they would be unlikely to combat DFTD as much as I would have liked to hope they could.
That said, perhaps the DNA paper is worth a re-read as an article has just been published documenting *why* all Tasmanain devils are likely to be susceptible to DFTD; perhaps there is now something specific that we could review in the Victorian research in light of the new Tasmanian results?
See the website, Newswatch column for links to papers.
Additionally, I have had a small number of professionals indicate to me that research tends to prefer the idea that any Victorian devils would have been recent exports from Tasmania, not survivors from the mainland.
Still - we hope to get a photograph of one, which might put us in a position to get a hair sample and then conduct some DNA testing. *Any* wild population on the mainland would be important for conservation.
(By the way, I don't think I have published my views on thylacine cloning anywhere, although I believe Debbie has).
Thanks for replying :)
Chris.
www.mainlanddevils.com
So Saint has nothing constructive to argue and resorts to insults? That doesn't say much for the "believers" if the best you get is ad hominems. Dunno why he thinks a blog needs a theme. Magazine-style mixes are fine.
youcantryreachingme - are the Tasmanian Devils stowing away on ships or is deliberate human intervention more likely? I know there is a red fox scare in the opposite direction with claims of foxes stowing away on ferries or even being deliberately taken to Tasmania (my sister sees similar issues on the Isle of Wight which is a red squirrel refuge, any greys that arrive as stowaways must be reported and destroyed).
One way (I can think of) to see if the Victorian population has any protective genetic differences would be using cell cultures and seing if DFTD thrives on a Victorian cell line. That would mean getting some DNA though.
Have you tried Unexplained Mysteries - often amusing.
For people who claim to be insulted, you sure like using my photos a lot!
Happa Dog
How in the world is cz.com like the onion? You are entitled to your opinion, even if it sucks. The kiddies need to be led by example, so let them look at the site and try to be a part of it.
Post a Comment