• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Future Of Cryptozoology

Another issue is any cryptids in the United States are running out of places to not be found. Even in remote areas of the lower 48 states, there are normally roads within a few miles, so it gets harder and harder to say there's something out there without having to resort to a cryptid having a supernatural/paranormal ability.
 
Another issue is any cryptids in the United States are running out of places to not be found. Even in remote areas of the lower 48 states, there are normally roads within a few miles, so it gets harder and harder to say there's something out there without having to resort to a cryptid having a supernatural/paranormal ability.
Yet, people still insist that places like the Pacific Northwest and "Area X" in Oklahoma are remote enough for Sasquatch. The rest of the cryptids typically appear in areas where people travel so the claim that they are remote is invalid, yet they leave no discernible traces. The slip into a supernatural explanation is what I call "Supernatural creep" - people wish to hold onto their beliefs so badly that they must reach further for an explanation. One that can't be falsified is handy to have. With the increasing popularity of cryptids, the supernatural/paranormal explanations are also just as popular. You just can't have a literal Mothman or Dogman that is a legit part of zoology. Either the science or the story has to give.

Edit - I do agree, though, that no place in the US is really very remote.
 
The tedium of recent "fortean' studies is that people who publish, have a podcast, tv show are suddenly experts is boring the hell out of me because all they do is argue with each other.

The nature of the game is to examine and wonder.

We are all getting like the UFO lot in America which killed their field.

We are not like that. We are Fortean people. We really enjoy everything.
 
Last edited:
I find a WHOLE LOT to disagree with here. Redfern is in a particular neighborhood of cryptozoology. That side of town has gone to the dogs (more like dogmen, because that subject and paranormal themes DOMINATE cryptozoological meetups here in the US). Redfern has deliberately ignored, unless forced to acknowledge, the more scholarly side of cryptozoology which is, in fact, flourishing. Researchers and writers in this scene don't push out several volumes of witness stories and speculation on the monster of the day, but take years to put out original research and thoughtful commentary. They focus on the zoology and folklore aspects. I've focused on how science is invoked (typically by amateurs) like those on TV shows and in Bigfoot hunting groups, but others have actually provided excellent explanations for cryptid tales. Here are some examples:
  • Abominable Science - Loxton and Prothero
  • Lake Monster Mysteries - Nickell and Radford
  • Searching for Sasquatch - Brian Regal
  • Hunting Monsters - Darren Naish
  • Tracking the Chupacabra - Ben Radford
  • The Secret History of the Jersey Devil - Regal and Esposito
  • Bigfoot, Yeti and The Last Neanderthal - Bryan Sykes (title may be different in the UK)
Those are just pretty recent ones. And there are even published papers by Sykes, Regal, Naish, Paxton, and others. I believe more are to come. But Redfern doesn't like these. They don't promote mystery. They are complicated. (The Jersey Devil isn't even an animal!) Well, cultural items have very complicated origins, and often not the obvious ones, either. So, my questions has been to self-styled cryptozoologists* - what is your goal? Are you looking for the best answers to explain what people say they see? Or are you trying to indulge your belief in monsters and myths and to be a "monsterologist"?

*none of the authors listed would call themselves that, I suspect.

Daniel Loxton called it the "post-cryptid" cryptozoology phase that we are in now. TV monster shows are fictionalized. The solid research to get done right now is pretty difficult.

Syke's book is probably the best written on relic hominins, There is allot to like in Naish and Regal too.
 
I think the problem here is one that is common to many fields, Fortean and otherwise.

The term "cryptozoology" has widened in scope until it has become almost meaningless.

At one end of the spectrum are serious researchers who are seeking physical evidence to confirm or refute essentially credible witness evidence of unknown but plausible creatures.

At the other end, there are people who are excited by big scary monsters and will come up with pseudoscientific rationales for so called "cryptids" that would defy the laws of normal science. (Example: something roughly human sized and with wings sprouting out of its back could not generate enough lift to fly, so perhaps it is an inter-dimensional being.)

Between these extremes are various positions with varying degrees of credibility.

The problem is then that the people at the "rationalising" end of the spectrum use the word "cryptozoology" to add a spurious scientific respectability to their own area of interest and, in so doing, they cause an equal and opposite reaction in the general public. Someone with a genuine scientific interest in a plausible area of cryptozoology may find that his or her work is popularly lumped together with that of all the people who believe in werewolves and mothmen and the like.

In a similar way, anyone who tries to present a serious case for Loch Ness containing an "unknown species" will not get as far as describing a 6 foot eel or a subspecies of sturgeon before the journalist is already reaching for his or stock images of plesiosaurs towering over terrified highlanders.

Cryptozoology seems to encompass a wide range of disciplines and areas of interest including, but not limited to:
  1. Inquiries into credible reports of unknown species that would plausibly exist in the environment they are said to inhabit: an unknown species of ape in a large area of sparsely populated jungle, for example.
  2. Inquiries into credible reports of known species in alien environments. Big cats on Dartmoor, for example.
  3. Inquiries into widespread reports of creatures that are not necessarily impossible, but seem unlikely to have remained undiscovered for so long. Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, for example.
  4. Inquiries into the possibility that a known species assumed to be extinct may exist as a small surviving population in a remote area.
  5. Inquiries into credible reports of extreme examples of known species: an individual python or crocodile substantially larger than any previously killed, photographed, or captured.
  6. Interest in a possible factual basis for creatures described in myth or legend: species or individual animals that may have existed even if the stories have subsequently grown in the telling.
  7. Interest in strange and unknown creatures described in myth or legend, but with the clear understanding that this is a study of myth rather than of real things.
  8. Interest in creatures described in modern folk tales and news reports, but from a sociological perspective. This is the sensible position that "I know that Slenderman is a recently invented fictional entity, but it is fascinating to study how people have come to regard him as a real phenomenon."
  9. An apparent belief in weird and impossible creatures described in folk tales and news reports. Such a belief can always be rationalised by the believer. Inconsistencies in descriptions may be attributed to shape shifting ability. Breaches of the known laws of physics are attributed to some poorly-defined but convenient inter-dimensional origin. These are the people who may try to borrow credibility from those at the top of this list and, in so doing, discredit their serious scientific work.
Some people would lump all these together as cryptozoology. A purist might only admit the top 1, 2, or 3 on the list. The trouble is, it is not possible to stop someone else using a word to describe their particular field of interest. Maybe the purists need to come up with a more specific and less "nickable" word for their endeavours.

Meanwhile, I can't help feeling that if someone was searching the Amazon rain forest for a species of small dragonfly widely believed to be extinct, they would be an entomologist or naturalist, rather than a cryptozoologist. If they were looking for a species 5 foot tall ape known to the locals as "the old man of the forest" they would probably be called cryptozoologists. Strange.

I'm interested in the first 6 on this list. Its well thought out. 7 would be pure folklore and 8 and 9 more 'paranormal' for want of a better word.
 
I'm interested in the first 6 on this list. Its well thought out. 7 would be pure folklore and 8 and 9 more 'paranormal' for want of a better word.

I would raw a similar distinction to yours. However, the point is that the term "cryptozoology" has unfortunately spread to encompass 7, 8 and 9 in many people's minds — with the sad effect of appearing, by association, to discredit those who do sincere and thorough research and study into 1–6.

It is of course possible for an individual to recognise the distinction and yet still be interested in all 9 on my list (or at least 1–8) — just as it is possible to enjoy both sailing and power boating, or both bicycling and motorcycling, or both classical and pop music.
 
I wonder whether cryptozoology is really any worse now than in the past, was it ever plausible? Is dogman or slenderman, whatever the hell they are, really that much easier to trace to a pop culture origin than bigfoot, or nessie? Are bigfoot's anatomical discrepancies really that much more forgivable than mothman's. Is the PG film, as much as we love it, any less glaringly fake than finding bigfoot? Was Sanderson trustworthy, Heuvelmans the full shilling? I'd say no. I'd say it's glaringly obvious that the reason the word cryptozoology exists separately from zoology at all is that it's defined by the subjects it studies, which are in most cases fundementally based on such a degree of subjectivity that it'd be totally unjustified to study it as anything other than a hobby. And I believe it has always been that way.

Again only fair to add there are exceptions in both cryptozooligists and cryptids as mentioned on page 1.
 
I wonder whether cryptozoology is really any worse now than in the past, was it ever plausible? Is dogman or slenderman, whatever the hell they are, really that much easier to trace to a pop culture origin than bigfoot, or nessie? Are bigfoot's anatomical discrepancies really that much more forgivable than mothman's. Is the PG film, as much as we love it, any less glaringly fake than finding bigfoot? Was Sanderson trustworthy, Heuvelmans the full shilling? I'd say no. I'd say it's glaringly obvious that the reason the word cryptozoology exists separately from zoology at all is that it's defined by the subjects it studies, which are in most cases fundementally based on such a degree of subjectivity that it'd be totally unjustified to study it as anything other than a hobby. And I believe it has always been that way.

Again only fair to add there are exceptions in both cryptozooligists and cryptids as mentioned on page 1.

Worse? Probably not. It's just different - changed with the times and the internal factors of the field. Television and all facets of the Internet (websites, forums, YouTube, podcasts) changed a lot of subjects including cryptozoology. The Internet is now a repository for old folklore (cryptid tales) and a place to promote claims and evidence of new cryptids. And, people can make more money off it now.

Interestingly, Meldrum and Bindernagle wrote an article for Meldrum's online journal noting that it's not a good thing for Bigfoot to be called a "cryptid" because of the negative connotation (Sasquatch, obviously, being real).
 
Worse? Probably not. It's just different - changed with the times and the internal factors of the field. Television and all facets of the Internet (websites, forums, YouTube, podcasts) changed a lot of subjects including cryptozoology. The Internet is now a repository for old folklore (cryptid tales) and a place to promote claims and evidence of new cryptids. And, people can make more money off it now.

Interestingly, Meldrum and Bindernagle wrote an article for Meldrum's online journal noting that it's not a good thing for Bigfoot to be called a "cryptid" because of the negative connotation (Sasquatch, obviously, being real).

I think the internet has allowed more user generated content which is less rigourasly selected than previous decades' published content. So consequently much of it is perhaps less imaginative than Sanderson or Heuvelmans, but no more or less inane. Dogman vs 15' penguins marauding round the Floridian coast. So yes I'd agree with you.
 
Dogman vs 15' penguins marauding round the Floridian coast. A new film on the SciFi Channel.
 
I wonder whether cryptozoology is really any worse now than in the past, was it ever plausible? Is dogman or slenderman, whatever the hell they are, really that much easier to trace to a pop culture origin than bigfoot, or nessie? Are bigfoot's anatomical discrepancies really that much more forgivable than mothman's. Is the PG film, as much as we love it, any less glaringly fake than finding bigfoot? Was Sanderson trustworthy, Heuvelmans the full shilling? I'd say no. I'd say it's glaringly obvious that the reason the word cryptozoology exists separately from zoology at all is that it's defined by the subjects it studies, which are in most cases fundementally based on such a degree of subjectivity that it'd be totally unjustified to study it as anything other than a hobby. And I believe it has always been that way.

Again only fair to add there are exceptions in both cryptozooligists and cryptids as mentioned on page 1.

As someone who has worked very closly with all the known apes i'd say the PG film is not a 'glaring fake' unless you can find a very big guy with a very sloping , hominid forehead and weirdly proportioned arms.
 
As someone who has worked very closly with all the known apes i'd say the PG film is not a 'glaring fake' unless you can find a very big guy with a very sloping , hominid forehead and weirdly proportioned arms.
I'm still looking at it, and I'm still on the fence.
 
Ever wondered what those online courses that provide a formal-sounding qualification in cryptozoology are like?

Informative and entertaining article here:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/93b...o-become-a-certified-cryptozoologist-so-i-did

crypto.JPG
 
The thought struck me last night that why don't cryptozoological expeditions make greater use of motion-activated trail cameras?
These inexpensive devices (from around £50 on Amazon) have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, with adjustable sensitivity, automatic night-vision modes and an autonomy of up to 8 weeks with batteries or some are solar powered.
So, instead of mounting expensive and potentially dangerous expeditions involving a team hacking its laborious way through Papua New Guinea's rain forests, why not invest in a dozen trail cams and hire a helicopter for a day or so to position them at likely locations, then retire to a nice hotel in Port Moresby for G & Ts and to monitor the results on laptops and smartphones?

It may not be as much fun as role-playing the intrepid white hunter, but surely a high-tech approach is more likely to determine the existence or otherwise of a mokele m'bembe, migo, or devil pig?

61ERPoybGoS._AC_.jpg
 
The thought struck me last night that why don't cryptozoological expeditions make greater use of motion-activated trail cameras?
These inexpensive devices (from around £50 on Amazon) have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, with adjustable sensitivity, automatic night-vision modes and an autonomy of up to 8 weeks with batteries or some are solar powered.
So, instead of mounting expensive and potentially dangerous expeditions involving a team hacking its laborious way through Papua New Guinea's rain forests, why not invest in a dozen trail cams and hire a helicopter for a day or so to position them at likely locations, then retire to a nice hotel in Port Moresby for G & Ts and to monitor the results on laptops and smartphones?

It may not be as much fun as role-playing the intrepid white hunter, but surely a high-tech approach is more likely to determine the existence or otherwise of a mokele m'bembe, migo, or devil pig?

View attachment 49115

In fact, I reckon it could be largely crowd-funded.
There must be several thousand would-be cryptozoologists around the world, who would happily pay say £20 each to be virtually part of the expedition. They could get a certificate and a badge and exclusive rights to view the live cam footage and thereby participate in the search, with a cash prize and much kudos to anyone who spots a possible cryptid.

I reckon £50,000 should suffice to get the show on the road.

Let's see: return fares for a couple of us from UK to PNG: £3,000.
2 weeks stay at the Port Moresby Hilton: £2,000.
2 months visas (x2) to PNG: £204
Hardware purchase (20 x decent quality trail cams with rechargeable batteries and solar panels, laptop, android tablet): £5,000.
Helicopter hire with pilot & navigator 4 x 8 hour sessions: £4,000
Hire of local guides: £1,000.
Travel and equipment insurance: £1,000
Catering expenses: £1,500
Promotional advertisements in the Fortean Times, Viz and maybe Guardian: £12,000
Cash prize for first participant to provide photo/video of a creature determined to be a cryptid: £10,000.

Still plenty of money left over for G&Ts and other miscellaneous expenses and imagine if we did spot something, the media would cough up a fair old fortune for our story!

Who's in?
 
The thought struck me last night that why don't cryptozoological expeditions make greater use of motion-activated trail cameras?
These inexpensive devices (from around £50 on Amazon) have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, with adjustable sensitivity, automatic night-vision modes and an autonomy of up to 8 weeks with batteries or some are solar powered.
So, instead of mounting expensive and potentially dangerous expeditions involving a team hacking its laborious way through Papua New Guinea's rain forests, why not invest in a dozen trail cams and hire a helicopter for a day or so to position them at likely locations, then retire to a nice hotel in Port Moresby for G & Ts and to monitor the results on laptops and smartphones?

It may not be as much fun as role-playing the intrepid white hunter, but surely a high-tech approach is more likely to determine the existence or otherwise of a mokele m'bembe, migo, or devil pig?

View attachment 49115
Many do, ask Lord Mongrove about his expeditions

If you Google 'bigfoot + trail cam " you get an awful lot pf blurry blobsquatch images

Also, there are other cameras out there:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/24/was-bigfoot-caught-on-washington-highway-camera/

The Twitter account for the agency shared a traffic camera’s photograph that showed what appeared to be, well, something walking on a hill above a highway.

Problem is we already have clear footage of bigfoot:

https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries...-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf

Or do we...?

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bigfoot-finally-proved-false-300262926.html

What we need is a body. Case closed. But then maybe bigfoot is an inter dimensional manifestation...?

You see the problem...?
 
In fact, I reckon it could be largely crowd-funded.
There must be several thousand would-be cryptozoologists around the world, who would happily pay say £20 each to be virtually part of the expedition. They could get a certificate and a badge and exclusive rights to view the live cam footage and thereby participate in the search, with a cash prize and much kudos to anyone who spots a possible cryptid.

I reckon £50,000 should suffice to get the show on the road.

Let's see: return fares for a couple of us from UK to PNG: £3,000.
2 weeks stay at the Port Moresby Hilton: £2,000.
2 months visas (x2) to PNG: £204
Hardware purchase (20 x decent quality trail cams with rechargeable batteries and solar panels, laptop, android tablet): £5,000.
Helicopter hire with pilot & navigator 4 x 8 hour sessions: £4,000
Hire of local guides: £1,000.
Travel and equipment insurance: £1,000
Catering expenses: £1,500
Promotional advertisements in the Fortean Times, Viz and maybe Guardian: £12,000
Cash prize for first participant to provide photo/video of a creature determined to be a cryptid: £10,000.

Still plenty of money left over for G&Ts and other miscellaneous expenses and imagine if we did spot something, the media would cough up a fair old fortune for our story!

Who's in?
Seriously, if lordmongrove wanted to crowdfund an expedition to wherever he can make a good case for having the best chance of finding a cryptid, I'd find £50 for it. Perhaps even a little more. He's made several expeditions and never come back with potentially fraudulent evidence or images, and I think he's committed to proving the existence of cryptids the right way. I'm not sure I'd part with a penny for just anyone who says, 'Crowdfund me an expedition, I'm going to look for...' such-and-such. I don't really believe in the existence of any cryptids, but I believe in the value of the work itself. Science isn't always progressed because people know what they're going to find.
 
Seriously, if lordmongrove wanted to crowdfund an expedition to wherever he can make a good case for having the best chance of finding a cryptid, I'd find £50 for it. Perhaps even a little more. He's made several expeditions and never come back with potentially fraudulent evidence or images, and I think he's committed to proving the existence of cryptids the right way. I'm not sure I'd part with a penny for just anyone who says, 'Crowdfund me an expedition, I'm going to look for...' such-and-such. I don't really believe in the existence of any cryptids, but I believe in the value of the work itself. Science isn't always progressed because people know what they're going to find.
I've always thought the new generation of airships would be ideal for his task:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/future...hip-could-blimps-be-the-future-of-air-travel/

Basically float across the Pacific North West with an array of cameras and sensors and then send drones down to check out any findings. If bigfoot is indeed flesh and blood then an airship might catch one out in the open or provide compelling infrared footage etc.
 
I've always thought the new generation of airships would be ideal for his task:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/future...hip-could-blimps-be-the-future-of-air-travel/
basically float across the Pacific North West with an array of cameras and sensors and then send drones down to check out any findings. If bigfoot is indeed flesh and blood then an airship might catch one out in the open or provide compelling infrared footage etc.
I'm only willing to fund that if they're steampunk airships and they all dress as pirates.
 
I only thought about this as, in an idle moment, I'd been checking available live cams. There's most major cities and natural features like Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon. There's even one on the ISS but, apart from Loch Ness, places of cryptozoological interest don't seem to feature at all. I couldn't even find one such cam on PNG which does seem to be the epicentre for most things cryptozoological.

I do quite like the idea of a zeppelin floating slowly and majestically over places of cryptid interest, but wouldn't it frighten all the Ropens away?
 
I think battery life might be an issue for cameras in remote places. There are such cameras used to film rare creatures, such as snow leopards. Cryptids so far seem to have managed to avoid walking past them however.
 
I only thought about this as, in an idle moment, I'd been checking available live cams. There's most major cities and natural features like Niagara Falls and the Grand Canyon. There's even one on the ISS but, apart from Loch Ness, places of cryptozoological interest don't seem to feature at all. I couldn't even find one such cam on PNG which does seem to be the epicentre for most things cryptozoological.

I do quite like the idea of a zeppelin floating slowly and majestically over places of cryptid interest, but wouldn't it frighten all the Ropens away?
I was wondering the same about drones. They are all over the place around here, and most of the ones I've seen make quite a racket, buzzing about with the sound changing with speed and maneuvers. I've just had a mental image of a bigfoot hearing one, turning to locate the source of the noise, and taking it out with a stone.
 
Jeff Meldrum was on board to fund such a device to find Bigfoot. See Falcon Project from 2015
https://www.idahostatejournal.com/m...cle_9123b55e-a47f-11e4-bc8b-5746d2cac692.html

Not sure what happened to the plan.

In the US, you will so commonly come across game cameras. They are ubiquitous. It's quite telling that no cryptids have been documented although there have been plenty of hoaxes. You might wish to check YouTube to see some. Since game cams have successfully documented rare and endangered animals, they certainly work. But they are often vandalized. Of course, the excuse from Bigfoot hunters is that the creature can see infrared and detect the cameras. And so avoids them. All of the million of them out there.
 
Who does this?

l would guess:

a) The kind of pond life who’d vandalise anything.

b) Anti-hunters.

c) Rival hunters.

d) Poachers/trespassers fearing that their image might have been captured.

d) General, not necessarily game-related, crims concerned that their faces/car number plates might have been recorded, e.g. fly tippers.

maximus otter
 
Back
Top