Cryptozoology

steddyeddy

does it have a use, is it a real science or should cryptozoolgy be included as a relevant part of zoology?

EDIT: for those unaware of cryptozoology this is a good description

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology

Dave!

What's the difference between zoology and cryptozoology? I would have thought that lower standards of evidence would be one distinguishing feature? Do cryptozoologists look for new species in different areas to 'common or garden' zoologists?

Phlebas_D

The primary use of crypotzoology (as I see it at least) is to sell books, TV shows and other consumables to a body of the public which does not have a full understanding of the scientific method of investigation.

The evidence as I have seen it for many of the cryptozoological monsters/creatures of the world amounts to little more than eye witness accounts (which although apparently reliable are open to bias and human fallibility) and blurry/faked photographs and super-8 film reels which seem to be on constant rotation in TV shows on documentary orientated TV networks.

I say this as a scientific sceptic, not a cynic, I think the exsistance of any of the creatures such as Big Foot, Nessie, Ogopogo or, my personal favorite, Mothman would be awesome but there simply isn't enough evidence to substantiate many of the claims (to my knowledge).

Its all about making money.

Its packaged and labeled , it sells magazines books DVD's ....

Same as paranormal, all money making .

The Skeptic community doesn't do this , Oh wait , it does :P

Dave!

Deleted User wrote: »

Its all about making money.

Its packaged and labeled , it sells magazines books DVD's ....

Same as paranormal, all money making .

The Skeptic community doesn't do this , Oh wait , it does :P

Skeptical stuff is hardly as big a money spinner as paranormal in fairness... Boring, sober, mundane, materialist, banal 'real life' is not quite as sexy as ghosts, aliens, hauntings, exorisms, etc. Try as they may (see: Skeptologists TV show that many big-name skeptics are trying in vain to get picked up), getting any kind of hardcore skeptical content into mainstream media is quite difficult. Most skeptical organisations rely on donations from members and sale of merchandise to keep afloat, and profits from events and the likes often go towards funding educational programs about critical thinking and so on. Skeptic magazine is the only one that comes to mind that I suspect is making a decent profit (although I'm just speculating tbh).

GodlessM

Phlebas_D wrote: »

I say this as a scientific sceptic, not a cynic, I think the exsistance of any of the creatures such as Big Foot, Nessie, Ogopogo or, my personal favorite, Mothman would be awesome but there simply isn't enough evidence to substantiate many of the claims (to my knowledge).

You do know Mothman is a disaster omen and not a cryptid right?

Phlebas_D

GodlessM wrote: »

You do know Mothman is a disaster omen and not a cryptid right?

Depends which of the books/web sites or TV shows you see/read. Is reported to have been seen in Virginia in 1966 and 67. After the 2nd 'sighting' the bridge it 'appeared' over collapsed nearly a year later, if it was a disaster omen it was a little early

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

What's the difference between zoology and cryptozoology? I would have thought that lower standards of evidence would be one distinguishing feature? Do cryptozoologists look for new species in different areas to 'common or garden' zoologists?

Right apologies for the delay, I like to put more thought into my posts involving things like this. Your quite right dave the lower standard of evidence is indeed the hallmark of cryptozoology. There are areas of cryptozoology that are exceptions and have a lot of evidence while some areas wouldnt to say the least. Anyone who can call themselves a cryptozoologist but there are several high profile (at least in science circles) scientists that I would respect more.

Were cryptozoology finds its merit is taking up the slack that mainstream zoology creates in not investigating possible new species and it has done many times. Zoology often fails to investigate eye witness accounts of uncatelouged species, eye witness reports are extremely unreliable but once a certain amount of trace evidence is recorded these potential new species should be investigated and not dismissed out of hand. I would rather cryptozoology didnt exist and zoology took potential species more seriously. the worst that can happen is the purported creature is proven as hoax/misidentification/real.

steddyeddy

Phlebas_D wrote: »

The primary use of crypotzoology (as I see it at least) is to sell books, TV shows and other consumables to a body of the public which does not have a full understanding of the scientific method of investigation.

The evidence as I have seen it for many of the cryptozoological monsters/creatures of the world amounts to little more than eye witness accounts (which although apparently reliable are open to bias and human fallibility) and blurry/faked photographs and super-8 film reels which seem to be on constant rotation in TV shows on documentary orientated TV networks.

I say this as a scientific sceptic, not a cynic, I think the exsistance of any of the creatures such as Big Foot, Nessie, Ogopogo or, my personal favorite, Mothman would be awesome but there simply isn't enough evidence to substantiate many of the claims (to my knowledge).

Actually many papers which are published on cryptozoological creatures make no money and are available freely online and published by established academics for the purpose of bringing more attention to potential new species eg http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf.

The evidence for such creatures is often limited to eye witness accounts but these never the less should still be investigated yet it is often figures in cryptozoology who discover these animals that are not investigated by mainstream zoology.

Cryptozoologist is often given as a label to mainstream scientists who express an interest in animals that are unproven, people like david attenborough and jane goodal for instance who gave creedence to the possibility of an extant yeti and sasqautch respectivly. So the issue is a complex one to say the least although there are indeed people who get into it to sell books however few they might be.

steddyeddy

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/news041025-2.html

Only recently have the more academic cryptozoologists been taken seriously following the discovery of several creatures once thought to be mythical. The above article is from the prodigious nature magazine.

maccored

http://tapsfamilyradio.radiocrackle.com/index.php?id=19 - nice interview with cryptozoologist Loren Coleman. Interestingly, he admits he doesn't actually 'believe' in cryptozoology - his thoughts are that people who too readily believe are just as dangerous as closed minded cynics (he's right too).

steddyeddy

maccored wrote: »

http://tapsfamilyradio.radiocrackle.com/index.php?id=19 - nice interview with cryptozoologist Loren Coleman. Interestingly, he admits he doesn't actually 'believe' in cryptozoology - his thoughts are that people who too readily believe are just as dangerous as closed minded cynics (he's right too).

yes both are indeed dangerous, thanks for the link the only problem i have is that i wouldnt consider undiscovered animals paranormal which the radio station seems to maintain

maccored

i'd agree - though if they are undiscovered then there's always a paranormal possibility. The radio station wouldnt say that btw (its my station) - but the show hosts might

steddyeddy

maccored wrote: »

i'd agree - though if they are undiscovered then there's always a paranormal possibility. The radio station wouldnt say that btw (its my station) - but the show hosts might

very good show man, good interview. Whats your personally view on cryptozoology

steddyeddy

Guys im disapointed I expect skeptics to counter my arguements!

GodlessM

Thing is, cryptozoology covers all unknown species so doesn't deviate from science per se (the main reason skeptics are so about say ghosts).

Phlebas_D

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually many papers which are published on cryptozoological creatures make no money and are available freely online and published by established academics for the purpose of bringing more attention to potential new species eg http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/meldrum2007_ichnotaxonomy_of_giant_hominoid_tracks_in_north_america.pdf.

Sorry for late reply, did a bit of digging on Dr. Meldrum and he is due to appear at Indiana University to give a presentation regarding 'possible' footprint evidence of big foot, he will and I quote:

'During the seminar Dr. Meldrum will also be signing copies of his book “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.” The seminar will be taking place January 27th at 12:20 p.m. in the Life Science Building, room 235.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Scientific Evidence of Bigfoot at IUS Seminar - Tulsa Cryptozoology | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/cryptozoology-in-tulsa/scientific-evidence-of-bigfoot-at-ius-seminar#ixzz1CAwgB0mn

Not making money eh? He may have published a 'scientific paper' but I think the book he has published on the subject after becoming a prominent figure in bigfoot believer circles most likely made him plenty of cash.

I am currently having a read of his 2007 paper, will read it all before I comment on it however just to be fair.

steddyeddy

GodlessM wrote: »

Thing is, cryptozoology covers all unknown species so doesn't deviate from science per se (the main reason skeptics are so about say ghosts).

yes I agree man anything that goes against the laws in physics in cryptozoology i disagree with.

steddyeddy

Sorry for late reply, did a bit of digging on Dr. Meldrum and he is due to appear at Indiana University to give a presentation regarding 'possible' footprint evidence of big foot, he will and I quote:

'During the seminar Dr. Meldrum will also be signing copies of his book “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.” The seminar will be taking place January 27th at 12:20 p.m. in the Life Science Building, room 235.

Its not a well kept secret that he has a book out digging is not really required, hes giving a seminar and writing a book can you think of any other zoologists that have done that? Was the sole purpose of say dianne fossey to make money? Like fossey a lot of the revenue taken in by meldrum is funneled back into research. Also what he has done is risk himself loosing money changing his career direction from human evolution to one less substanstiated. Like the late grover kranzt before him who focused on the same subject this has affected his academic career.

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Scientific Evidence of Bigfoot at IUS Seminar - Tulsa Cryptozoology | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/cryptozoology-in-tulsa/scientific-evidence-of-bigfoot-at-ius-seminar#ixzz1CAwgB0mn

Want a few links to richard dawkins seminars or books? Is he in it simply for the money? or if you prefer jane goodal, stephen hawkins ect

Not making money eh? He may have published a 'scientific paper' but I think the book he has published on the subject after becoming a prominent figure in bigfoot believer circles most likely made him plenty of cash.

I said many papers in cryptozoology are free, you said the sole point of cryptozoology is to make money. I countered with that point considering you have to pay for many mainstream zoological papers its a valid point.

As regards the fact that he makes money, he is and was one of the leading experts in biped evolution and published papers on evolution and a book called from biped to strider: a overview of biped evolution is primate evolution simply a money making tool. Physics, chemistry, maths experts all publish books on their chosen feild does that invalidate the science they advocate?

Your statement would be true if he didnt base his observations on science. Read his book before you pass judgement on it and look at the scientists who endorsed it you'll be surprised by some of the names there.

I am currently having a read of his 2007 paper, will read it all before I comment on it however just to be fair.

Fair doesnt come into it, it would be unscietific to read it before making comment on it.

steddyeddy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157965/Yeti-evidence-convincing-says-wildlife-expert-Sir-David-Attenborough.html

David attenborough is now a cryptozoologist aparantly, this is an example of a scientist expressing interest like this and advocationg the evidence. Its certainly not soley a money making scheme.

Dave!

I'm not gonna get into another big debate on Bigfoot, but :

eddy, have the footprints in the Himalayas been verified as 'legit' by Meldrum's top secret hoax-detection algorithm, or do we just have the photo/s to go by? Do you not think it's possible that it was also a hoax/joke/prank? I wouldn't suggest that someone would climb to 19k feet in order to do it -- that would be one determined hoaxer -- but perhaps a climber was up there and decided to leave a mark, have a laugh, stir some sh*t. Do you suppose that's possible?

And also, is it your contention in relation to bigfoot that it lives in the Himalayas and other snowy mountainous regions in Asia? Or does it live in various locations in North America? Or both? Are they the same creature/species, or different (but maybe related) ones? Would it have evolved in each location independently, or moved from one to the other?

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

I'm not gonna get into another big debate on Bigfoot, but :

eddy, have the footprints in the Himalayas been verified as 'legit' by Meldrum's top secret hoax-detection algorithm, or do we just have the photo/s to go by? Do you not think it's possible that it was also a hoax/joke/prank? I wouldn't suggest that someone would climb to 19k feet in order to do it -- that would be one determined hoaxer -- but perhaps a climber was up there and decided to leave a mark, have a laugh, stir some sh*t. Do you suppose that's possible?

And also, is it your contention in relation to bigfoot that it lives in the Himalayas and other snowy mountainous regions in Asia? Or does it live in various locations in North America? Or both? Are they the same creature/species, or different (but maybe related) ones? Would it have evolved in each location independently, or moved from one to the other?

dave as much as i enjoyed ( i did genuinly enjoy it btw) the bf debate I dont think i have the energy for another in depth bf debate .

but saying that melddrum dismissed a lot of the yeti tracks as melted snow tracks from a known animal. the most famous track he declared is most likely bear. There is very little eye witness reports for the yeti from the western people. I dont give much creedence to the the case presented for the yeti but I dont discount it out of hand either.

That being said it would be unlikely someone would go to such a remote altitude sickness area to commit a hoax but as meldrum stated all the "yeti" tracks are different its more likely melted tracks becoming bigger in the sun. Meldrum is not a big prponent of the yeti and neither am i. Its ichnotaxonomy meldrum in part uses to eliminate hoaxing to the highest possible degree.

Every track should have a simular morphology and degree of animation evident eg flexed toes one track the next track extendend toes. the track should be indicative of a hominid track and the ankle should be set far enough forward to match the depth of such a track (to provide leverage sufficient enough to move coresponding weight).

anyway to reply to your point meldrum dismissed the yeti tracks as inconclusive im disapointed with david attenborough for saying the evidence is compelling.

the few eywitness acounts say the yeti is more gorilla like and drops to its knuckles to walk

Dave!

steddyeddy wrote: »

anyway to reply to your point meldrum dismissed the yeti tracks as inconclusive im disapointed with david attenborough for saying the evidence is compelling

Alright I took you up incorrectly then -- I thought you were putting the yeti tracks forward as being legitimate, using David Attenborough's endorsement as support for this.

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

Alright I took you up incorrectly then -- I thought you were putting the yeti tracks forward as being legitimate, using David Attenborough's endorsement as support for this.

no i should have stated my intentions i was highlighting the fact that cryptozoology is more than just a money making exercise. to me it is simply a consideration or weighing up of evidence (or lack off) in a paticular case. im saying it has its place as a sub discipline of zoology.

Phlebas_D

Sorry for length of post, am working away and bored!



its not a well kept secret that he has a book out digging is not really required, hes giving a seminar and writing a book can you think of any other zoologists that have done that? Was the sole purpose of say dianne fossey to make money?

I never claimed it was a secret and yes other zoologists have published books, so what? Just because other people publish books on legitimate subjects and make money from it is doesn’t invalidate my point.

Also in my original post I said that it was the primary purpose of cryptozoology to sell books etc, not the only purpose. It is most likely that the doctor believes what he is claiming and thinks he is making a valuable contribution to zoological knowledge, that doesn’t make it so.

Like fossey a lot of the revenue taken in by meldrum is funneled back into research.

Probably true though you are making an assumption there, also the fact a person funnels money back into more research doesn’t prove the validity of the research regardless of what they are researching.

Also what he has done is risk himself loosing money changing his career direction from human evolution to one less substanstiated. Like the late grover kranzt before him who focused on the same subject this has affected his academic career.

I believed the word you are looking for is unsubstantiated, solid evidence is not there, this does not rule out the possibility of bigfoot’s exsistance but it remains outside of science.

Want a few links to richard dawkins seminars or books? Is he in it simply for the money? or if you prefer jane goodal, stephen hawkins ect
Again, I am not claiming that people in other areas are not making money from books etc, this does not invalidate my point. I’m quite alright for links by the way, though thank you or the kind offer.
I said many papers in cryptozoology are free, you said the sole point of cryptozoology is to make money. I countered with that point considering you have to pay for many mainstream zoological papers its a valid point.
Again, I said Primary not only, also the fact some periodicals are free doesn’t validate their contents.
As regards the fact that he makes money, he is and was one of the leading experts in biped evolution and published papers on evolution and a book called from biped to strider: a overview of biped evolution
So? Just because he used to publish good work on another subject doesn’t mean his recent work is any good. Other people from his earlier fields of studies have pointed out marked differences in the level of vigour with which he approaches his current subject of choice. See the link here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy
is primate evolution simply a money making tool. Physics, chemistry, maths experts all publish books on their chosen feild does that invalidate the science they advocate?
No, all of the things you just mentioned are accepted fields of science which exercise strict peer review processes and are based on verifiable evidence (be it physical or theoretical in nature) as opposed to a collection of easily fakeable plaster casts and a blurry reel of film from the 1960’s of a person in a monkey suit. I actually feel bad that such a formerly reputable figure has been fooled by this guff.

Your statement would be true if he didnt base his observations on science. Read his book before you pass judgement on it and look at the scientists who endorsed it you'll be surprised by some of the names there.
Yes his observations are based on science, bad science. The names don’t impress me, you are making an argument from authority and as such is of no value. Name dropping in a book doesn’t mean a great deal.
Fair doesnt come into it, it would be unscietific to read it before making comment on it.
Pardon me for being honest and polite, will try to avoid it in the future. I did read the article and it is full of fluff, he comes to no valid conclusion.
His final question in the article is that if scientists accept the existence of a giant ape based on fossil evidence why is serious consideration of the footprint evidence for bigfoot slow in coming?
Answer? The evidence provided has not stood up to the scrutiny of other scientists.

Dave!

steddyeddy wrote: »

no i should have stated my intentions i was highlighting the fact that cryptozoology is more than just a money making exercise. to me it is simply a consideration or weighing up of evidence (or lack off) in a paticular case. im saying it has its place as a sub discipline of zoology.

hmmmm, seeing as they are in essence the exact same discipline, with I suppose threshold of evidence being the main differentiating factor, establishing it as a sub-discipline of 'common or garden' zoology suggests that crypto- is in some way subordinate to zoology, does it not?

If you think that investigating bigfoot and the likes is a legitimate and worthwhile endeavour, then shouldn't you be more interested in expanding the existing field of zoology to include these pursuits?

Is establishing it as a different discipline not a bit of a concession that it is 'less' than zoology; essentially saying that it is a side show that shouldn't distract from 'legitimate' zoology? If it were on par with zoology, then it should be encompassed in it.

No need to answer each question individually of course, I'm just interested in your general thoughts.

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

hmmmm, seeing as they are in essence the exact same discipline, with I suppose threshold of evidence being the main differentiating factor, establishing it as a sub-discipline of 'common or garden' zoology suggests that crypto- is in some way subordinate to zoology, does it not?

If you think that investigating bigfoot and the likes is a legitimate and worthwhile endeavour, then shouldn't you be more interested in expanding the existing field of zoology to include these pursuits?

Is establishing it as a different discipline not a bit of a concession that it is 'less' than zoology; essentially saying that it is a side show that shouldn't distract from 'legitimate' zoology? If it were on par with zoology, then it should be encompassed in it.

No need to answer each question individually of course, I'm just interested in your general thoughts.

your exactly right, thats to the letter how I ideally would place cryptozoology. I think regular zoology should be expanded to include these topics however the standard of evidence should not be lowered they should just first address these issuses like nessie ect even if they dismiss them i would be happy. The way meldrum dissmissed the yeti for instance is what I would like to see more off, he was the first to propose the tracks were caused by meltout. The chupacabra has been indentified as a known animal because of investigation.

Sometimes zoology doesnt do this, it just dismisses out hand were it would be so much better to dismiss after investigation or confirm.

GodlessM

steddyeddy wrote: »

yes I agree man anything that goes against the laws in physics in cryptozoology i disagree with.

Such as? I've yet to see claims in the field of any creatures that defy gravity etc.

steddyeddy

GodlessM wrote: »

Such as? I've yet to see claims in the field of any creatures that defy gravity etc.

Ah well their few and far between but there are a few who talk about animals coming from another dimension ect. Then theres animals who dont fit a zoological taxon, im not saying their breaking the laws of physics but its more difficult the possibilty of an animal standing alone in morphology ect a good example would be the mermaid or any creature that lives soley on blood for example say like the chupacabra which is probaly a sighting of a wolf coyote hybrid.

http://www.kens5.com/news/in-depth/chasing-el-chupacabra/UC-Davis-team-says-chupacabra-is-likely-coyote-wolf-mix-85788362.html

steddyeddy

I never claimed it was a secret and yes other zoologists have published books, so what? Just because other people publish books on legitimate subjects and make money from it is doesn’t invalidate my point.

em zoology is a legitimate subject, the whole point of my thread on cryptozoology is that it has a place in zoology. There is nothing illegitamite about trying to come to a logoical explanation for unstubstabstiated creatures purported to exist.

Also in my original post I said that it was the primary purpose of cryptozoology to sell books etc, not the only purpose. It is most likely that the doctor believes what he is claiming and thinks he is making a valuable contribution to zoological knowledge, that doesn’t make it so.

So let me get this straight the primary purpose of people labeled cryptozoologists ( a lot prefer to be called zoologists a the rightfully say zoology involves the search for new animals) who advocated the gorilla, giant squid, okapi, komodo dragon ect ect prior discovery were just in it for the money. Not a chance I accept its the primary purpose.

Probably true though you are making an assumption there, also the fact a person funnels money back into more research doesn’t prove the validity of the research regardless of what they are researching.

No it doesnt but as i said before zoology and cryptozoology is a legitimate research. Which has previously turned up the goods. For arguement sake lets say there was an animal sighted every now and again called the south american sneezing monkey would you as you are doing now dismiss it and anyone who researchs it out of hand or would you think that it would be a worthy pursuit to try and validate the animals existence or fraudulence?

I believed the word you are looking for is unsubstantiated, solid evidence is not there, this does not rule out the possibility of bigfoot’s exsistance but it remains outside of science.

Yes well i said less substantiated. Just so you know most pursuits in zoology and any discipline were you have to actually go out and find specimens start of unsubstantiated. Prior to the discovery of the bonobo say was the thesis put forward to explain the sighting that a new animal may be found in the jungle and the subsequent search for it bad science? The existence of a new animal in no way remains outside the realms of science, not a chance.

Outside the realm of science has been used for ghosts mediums ect and yet you apply it to a scientist using known scientific techniques such as ichnotaxonomy, funtional morphology and statistical analysis. Even if you dont agree with the conclusions saying his aproach is bad science is misguided at best and offending a lot of scientists in various disciplines.

Again, I am not claiming that people in other areas are not making money from books etc, this does not invalidate my point. I’m quite alright for links by the way, though thank you or the kind offer.

Your point is the primary purpose of cryptozoology is selling books, people labeled as cryptozoologists have wrote books and discovered new animals. Which ist the most important to them do you think selling the books or substanstiating their contents?

Again, I said Primary not only, also the fact some periodicals are free doesn’t validate their contents.

Who said it did, I take every science paper on a case by case basis.

So? Just because he used to publish good work on another subject doesn’t mean his recent work is any good. Other people from his earlier fields of studies have pointed out marked differences in the level of vigour with which he approaches his current subject of choice. See the link here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

No it doesnt but it shows he is a good scientist who applies scientific rigour to his work. You established you dont agree with the meldrums conclusions but you havent tackled the established scietific methods he uses. You told me your not impressed with name dropping yet you expect me to change my view based on frankly less highly regarded people inthe world of science. Look at the inside cover of meldrums book, many people have something like the following "This is the most objective and scietific analysis to date" david begun. Recognise the name? He apears in the article you posted and is one of the biggest skeptics of sasquatch. Not even the skeptics maintain that his methods are "bad science". He puts together a much needed scientific analysis of this creature explains away yeti tracks and yet because you disagree with his conclusions its bad science?

No, all of the things you just mentioned are accepted fields of science which exercise strict peer review processes and are based on verifiable evidence (be it physical or theoretical in nature) as opposed to a collection of easily fakeable plaster casts and a blurry reel of film from the 1960’s of a person in a monkey suit. I actually feel bad that such a formerly reputable figure has been fooled by this guff.

Wow, strict peer review? meldrums paper was revied by five academic peers as oppossed to the usual three. He was initially a skeptic looked at the evidence and was convinced by it he was not fooled.
Your statement would be true if he didnt base his observations on science. Read his book before you pass judgement on it and look at the scientists who endorsed it you'll be surprised by some of the names there.

Yes his observations are based on science, bad science. The names don’t impress me, you are making an argument from authority and as such is of no value. Name dropping in a book doesn’t mean a great deal.

But putting up a link to his critics is supposed to impress me?

Pardon me for being honest and polite, will try to avoid it in the future. I did read the article and it is full of fluff, he comes to no valid conclusion.
His final question in the article is that if scientists accept the existence of a giant ape based on fossil evidence why is serious consideration of the footprint evidence for bigfoot slow in coming?
Answer? The evidence provided has not stood up to the scrutiny of other scientists.

Could you actually put up a arguement against the arguement he uses to scientifically label the tracks? Look up daris schwibndler and how meldrums work convinvced him that " an upright descendent of gigantopiticus blacki is walking around america of that im sure". He wrote the grays anatomy of apes not only has it stood up to scrutiniy but has convinced people of sasquatch's existence.

steddyeddy

In essence repeating bad science is jumping on the skeptic bandwagon and showing little understanding of science and a lot of oppisistion.

steddyeddy

"Jeff Meldrum's book 'Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science' brings a much needed level of scientific analysis to the Sasquatch - or Bigfoot - debate. Does Sasquatch exist? There are countless people - especially indigenous people - in different parts of America who claim to have seen such a creature. And in many parts of the world I meet those who, in a matter-of-fact way, tell me of their encounters with large, bipedal, tail-less hominids. I think I have read every article and every book about these creatures, and while most scientists are not satisfied with existing evidence, I have an open mind."
--Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE UN Messenger of Peace & Founder - the Jane Goodall Institute

"Jeff Meldrum is a scientist, an expert in human locomotor adaptations. In Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science he examines all evidence critically, not to force a conclusion, but to establish a baseline of facts upon which further research can depend. His science is not submerged by opinion and dogmatic assumption. With objectivity and insight he analyzes evidence from tracks, skin ridges on the soles of feet, film footage, and DNA, and he compares it to that on primates and various other species. He disentangles fact from anecdote, supposition, and wishful thinking, and concludes that the search for yeti and sasquatch is a valid scientific endeavor. By offering a critical scrutiny, Sasquatch does more for this field of investigation than all the past arguments and polemics of contesting experts." --Dr. George Schaller, Vice-President of the Wildlife Conservation

As promised the editorial reviews. Pimary a money making exercise is not skeptisim its quite dogmatic.

mcmoustache

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20110323/tod-official-yeti-probe-planned-after-re-045b8e8.html

I came across this in the CT forum. There is some compelling evidence in Siberia that a Yeti-type creature might exist there. David Attenborough has even weighed in on it.

steddyeddy

mcmoustache wrote: »

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20110323/tod-official-yeti-probe-planned-after-re-045b8e8.html

I came across this in the CT forum. There is some compelling evidence in Siberia that a Yeti-type creature might exist there. David Attenborough has even weighed in on it.

I saw that thanks, the russian government always took these reports seriously as it was many of their own military that reported them! The name given throughout the region is actually the "almasty" look up their history as far as eyewitnesses go there are some pretty notable people who claimed to have seen them. I heard david attenborough talking about these creatures years ago, even richard dawkins ahd to count them on the more probable side of likely!

Dave!

I thought David Attenborough just made a passing comment on the footprint? Has he written about this too?

Can't say I know anything about the yeti, but I'd find it more plausible than bigfoot (in North America) anyway

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

I thought David Attenborough just made a passing comment on the footprint? Has he written about this too?

Can't say I know anything about the yeti, but I'd find it more plausible than bigfoot (in North America) anyway

One of David attenborugh's first published books was a book called fabulous animals which was on the subject of cryptozoology. He has commented on sasquatch, the yeti and in this case the almasty in a positive light. He doesnt think theres a loch ness monster but he gives creedence existence to the unknown man apes of the world and to things like sea serpents.

What the russian government are looking for here isnt anything like the alleged yeti creature which is described as moving on all fours its a creature called the almasty which has a lot more eye witness reports going for it than the yeti ect.

As regards the reality of such creatures existing I have no problem with any intelligent hominid (as the creatures seem to be) existing in any country with a large amount of wilderness and remaining realtivily undetected. A good example of this was the discovery of 100,000 gorillas found undiscovered in the congo. http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-05/world/congo.gorillas_1_gorillas-researchers-congolese?_s=PM:WORLD

As regards plauability from a biological point of view the saquatch's alleged territory would be far more likely from a nutritional point of view to be able to support a great ape than thundra regions like tibet.

There are other creatures like the orang pendek of asia that have been witnessed by national geographic employees and the subsequent search has been funded by the national geographic, this to me seems likely to exist.

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

does it have a use, is it a real science or should cryptozoolgy be included as a relevant part of zoology?

EDIT: for those unaware of cryptozoology this is a good description

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology

didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if this point has been made already.

Science is a process of studying natural phenomena. By definition cryptozoolgy doesn't do this since it hasn't discovered the animal it is supposing might exist.

There is nothing wrong with supposing an animal might exist, evolutionary biologists do this all the time, but you can't actually do any of the science until you actually have something to study.

meryem

In plain words I feel it should be included in some zoology branch or some historical research sort of science branch for they can still be reality. If we find some good proofs of their existence by some serious research in ancient documents we can find a all new world creatures.