What is your opinion of Cryptidzoology.
Not just Bigfoot and Nessie but the whole "Science" in general
Remember that some animals thought to be Cryptids have been found to exist such as Coelacanth
Is it a viable area to research?
What Cryptids do you think exist?
What do you think about the people who report these sightings? Crazy, attention seekers, mistaken ID etc
I know I quoted wiki and I apologize
Although he may have experimented with a Caesar shift in childhood, I highly doubt he could elaborate on the security of a single-use full length key. I do, however, believe that Alan Turing would have loved the above hat.
not 100% sure what the top two are
The top one looks like a coelocanth, which is the very example you used to try to imbue cryptozoology with legitimacy. It was discovered quite by accident.
The fact that we often turn up previously unknown species--sometimes even on the basis of rumors from people who live in the area--does not make any search for a specific rumored species, however shoddy its methodology, somehow "scientific."
Saw this today on the yeti. Geneticist Unravels Yeti's DNA
Wouldn't it be great if there were living examples of the short-faced bear in the Himalayas? Unfortunately, it would take a LOT of food to feed a short-faced bear, so it's very unlikely they'd go undiscovered.
It seems very unlikely that many large animals would go undiscovered for so long... until we finally find them. The Himalayas are huge and there aren't a lot of people living there. I think it's possible there could be a hybrid bear species living there. Not everything related to "monsters" is a hoax. There is real evidence from time to time that allows us to better understand what is really going on like the two "chupacabras" that have been seen in the past year or so.
I think it's a valid field of scientific investigation - but such investigations shouldn't be wasting their time with wild claims and blurry photos. Setting up motion triggered cameras in the jungles of Borneo has yielded some very interesting results - but I highly doubt we're ever going to see Sasquatch.
Don't you mean "cryptozoology"? The online dictionaries all say something like "Don't you mean 'cryptozoology?'"
Basically, there's no need for cryptozoology as long as there's zoology, is there? Just like there's no need for ufology as long as there's actual science. Zoology's quite capable of discovering and verifying the existence of new species.
Well, whereas zoology studies and categorizes species, cryptozoology specializes in going out and finding as yet undiscovered species.
I still don't see the need for it. Was Darwin consciously a cryptozoologist or was he just a zoologist? What can a cryptozoologist do that a zoologist can't?
Well, when he started I'm not even sure he had a clear idea of what constituted a species. Anyway, he became a bit of both. Not only did he study and categorize species, he actually predicted the existence of undiscovered species, like the moth that pollinates the following flower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angraecum_sesquipedale
Crytozoology is a subset of zoology, much as archaeology is a branch of anthropology.
If cryptozoology is a subset of zoology, then astrology is a subset of astronomy.