cryptzoology...bull or not all bull?

Question

Just wondering if you think all those stories of nessy and chupa are bull.

Wow you guys really know your stuff =D

Answer 1

Cryptozoology is pure bullplop. Period. It's no different from "studying" pixies or ghosts. Itls a psuedoscience endorsed only by crackpots.

We'd better define our terms first. From the Skeptic's Dictionary:

Cryptozoology is, literally, the study of hidden animals. It is the study of such creatures as the Australian bunyips, Bigfoot, the chupacabra, and the Loch Ness monster. It is not a recognized branch of the science of zoology.

You can get a glimpse into this if you visit the website of Loren Coleman, a self-proclaimed cryptozoologist, giving advice on entering the field:

But I'm sorry to say that there are very few classes ever given in cryptozoology (I taught one in 1990) and no formal cryptozoology degree programs available anywhere. So my advice would be to pick whatever subject you are most passionate about (primates? felids? giant squids? fossil men?) and then match it up with the field of study that matches that subject (anthropology, zoology, linguistics, etc.). Pursue that subject, pick the college that is good in that arena, and you can develop your niche in cryptozoology and not go wrong. (I studied anthropology/zoology, and then moved on to more psychological graduate studies to understand the human factor.)

That pretty much sums it up. These folks do not get grants specifically to look for mythical beasts. The scientific grant review process is arduous and extremely critical, and any legitimate scientist would immediately reject searches for yetis, etc., as total nonsense. However, if you write a research proposal saying something like, "The Mgwango tribe of equatorial Africa believes that a large, brontosaurus-like beast called mokele-mbembe lives in their forest, and I wish to go to Africa to investigate this tribe," you might actually get a grant for it--not because the grantors believe you're going to discover a brontosaurus, but because you're promising to find out why the Mgwango tribe believes there's such a beast in their forest, which is an interesting bit of anthropology. If that qualifies as "goofy," then the entire anthropological profession would qualify, I suppose.

In other words, the anthropological side of this research is legitimate. But once someone starts calling themselves a cryptozoologist instead of an anthropologist, they've departed the realm of science. Don't get me wrong. Only a fraction of the world's species have been described in the scientific literature, and new critters are being discovered all the time, mostly tiny ones--bugs and worms and such. Finding more is a serious scientific project. But to go after legendary megafauna chiefly because they're legendary, without any real evidence that they exist--I'm sorry, this is the work of crackpots.

Answer 2

I don't think its total BS, there's some plausibility to it. Doesn't mean I believe all the stories are real, like the many faked photos.

I just subscribe to the theory that we'll never know everything about our planet, therefore we'll keep on discovering new things.

For instance, gorillas were only discovered in the late 1800's, before that there was only a legend of their existence to scientists. Also it wasn't that many years ago that giant squids were finally discovered.

Those lakes are generally very deep and very long, with underwater channels and caves that could connect to the ocean (I'm not sure if its known if this is the case or not). It would be hard to find something like Nessy and chupa.

Answer 3

cryptozoology is the study of the lore concerning legendary animals in order to evaluate the possibility of their existance. cryptos means hidden, zoology is the study of animals (hidden animals). an animal studied in the feild is called a cryptid. cryptozoology has never completley been accepted as a science, but there are cryptozoologists. you cant exactly call all of these creatures a myth because of the events that spawned them, like the ledgend of the cupacabra cant be considered a myth because of all the attacks on livestock, bigfoot cant be considered a myth because of that picture. as long as those mysteries arent solved, those animals will be considered criptids and not mythological or real. the aim of a cryptozoologist is to solve these mysteries. therefore, cryptozoology has a purpose and is not bull.

Answer 4

Yeah, stories of Nessy are bull. There isn't enough food to sustain a creature of that size.

Answer 5

Cryptozoology is the study of animals that are rumored or suspected to exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing; the term also includes the study of animals generally considered extinct, but which are still occasionally reported. Those who study or search for such animals are called cryptozoologists, while the hypothetical creatures involved are referred to by some as "cryptids", a term coined by John Wall in 1983.

Answer 6

Nessy is likely nonexistent due to lack of rsources and credible spottings/footage. As is "Champ" in Lake Champlain in Vermont, considering the lake freezes over in winter.

Answer 7

No bull whatsoever. Just look at the Coelacanth, it was thought to be extinct for millions of years untill one day a fisherman caught.

Answer 8

I provide out in person-friendly words some stars because I in person-friendly words provide stars to those questions I truly have sturdy thoughts about or they are area of my existence indirectly... they should be significant to me, so if my acquaintances stick with my action picture star to that question, they are going to see why I starred it... So truly it merely must be significant adequate to share with others...

Answer 9

Believe on CRYPT-IDS is like a believe and faith on GOD. We should proud on our imagination..