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 

Views: 798

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Brendan, rhere is a lot of hoaxes about this area there has never been any real proof presented but it makes good stories the same as alien abductions etc.see you later joko.


Some creatures probably should be given up on. Most of the them more than likely do not exist. Of course, without those that search for cryptids the ones that do exist may never be discovered. The people that do choose to devote their time to finding one, while not my cup of tea, are welcome to try as it is their choice to do so. I'm sure many of them are aware their quests of discovery could just as likely be fools' errands, so I say they accept the consequences of their own choices. The more well-known cryptids, I think, don't exist. Maybe some of the litany of others I'm sure there are could exist. On the people that report sightings, I think you've answered it already. If they didn't really see a cryptid, the reasons probably run the gamut.

I would hate to think there would ever come a time when every weird and unexplained phenomena was debunked or proven untrue. So much entertainment has come from them that I think it would be a shame if they were all exposed.

I Want To Believe! - The X-Files.

not 100% sure what the top two are but the bottom 2 where originally both cryptids, since then they have been found to be real the silverback was also originally a cryptid.

The crackpot pseudoscience is a distraction that goes in with sightings of aliens.  I do see a valid field of research in trying to extrapolate the unknown based on what we do know and possibly considering 'strange sightings' that stand up to at least some scrutiny.

Predicting the sorts of fossils we might expect to find, given gaps in the fossil record, might also fall into this category - but I'm primarily interested in the potential marine biology that is still so poorly probed.

All animals zoological science has documented were cryptids beforehand, were they not? So I don't get why a separate "science" or "subscience" needs a name. It seems to me zoology can do the job on its own without an internal or external specialty full of guys specializing in chasing new or legendary or rumored species.

If cryptozoology makes sense then astronomers looking for new stars are cryptoastronomers, right? We'd have cryptogeologists, cryptosociologists, cryptocosmetologists, etc.

But cryptozoologists could wear cool hats!

Like this one

Was Crocodile Dundee a cryptologist?

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."


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service