• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 13th October 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Necrolog (Deaths Of Folks Who Had Impact On The Fortean World)

lordmongrove said:
I don't think any of the above creatures are real apart from the Mongolian deathworm and The Loch Ness Monster if it's a huge fish. Yes some people dabble in it for esoteric reasons or because they think it's about fairy tail type, impossible beasts. Lots of people dabble in all areas of forteana. But there are many up and coming young cryptozoologists who take this seriously. Dr Max Blake for one, Florent Berrere, Karac St. Laurent, Carl Marshall, Saskia England, Nate Brislin the list goes on. I think many of these will be doing field research for years to come.
Click to expand...
Hmm. We'll see. Often the young people (those who have yet to get to university) give it up after a while. It could be that the culture is different in the UK but in the US, as I said, the field is overwhelmed with either paranormal/demonic cryptids or the fantasy/magic aesthetic. It's not taken seriously at all - it's backslid into a modern version of romantic (fantastic) zoology (sometimes literally). I honestly don't think it can return from that; any semblance of scientific cryptozoology is dead.

(Sorry for hijacking the thread.)
 
There's always been the forked strands of Cryptozoology: on the one hand the serious, quiet field researchers putting in the hours and following scientific method as closely as possible, and on the other the Scooby Doo element. As with ghost hunting before it the decade-long fad for crypto-based TV shows brought self-proclaimed, utterly clueless investigative groups out of the woodwork, all lowlight and shouting, skewing the whole field's image along with it.

Interesting point about the transatlantic difference though: there is far more emphasis on the fantasy and especially demonic Stateside. Again, on the ghost hunting front very few UK hauntings (and we have lots of that) have such an emotive label attached to them, except the most virulent polt cases and even then it's tentative. We tend to regard such entities as more neutral, albeit of an unclear nature whereas in the US they're far more likely to be assigned a motive or malevolent origin. Tempting to speculate the more secular UK society is less likely to frame everything on a moral spectrum
 
stu neville said:
Interesting point about the transatlantic difference though: there is far more emphasis on the fantasy and especially demonic Stateside. Again, on the ghost hunting front very few UK hauntings (and we have lots of that) have such an emotive label attached to them, except the most virulent polt cases and even then it's tentative. We tend to regard such entities as more neutral, albeit of an unclear nature whereas in the US they're far more likely to be assigned a motive or malevolent origin. Tempting to speculate the more secular UK society is less likely to frame everything on a moral spectrum
Click to expand...

"Puritanism: Poisoning Minds & Sowing Discord For Almost Five Hundred Years!™"
 
Sharon Hill said:
Hmm. We'll see. Often the young people (those who have yet to get to university) give it up after a while. It could be that the culture is different in the UK but in the US, as I said, the field is overwhelmed with either paranormal/demonic cryptids or the fantasy/magic aesthetic. It's not taken seriously at all - it's backslid into a modern version of romantic (fantastic) zoology (sometimes literally). I honestly don't think it can return from that; any semblance of scientific cryptozoology is dead.

(Sorry for hijacking the thread.)
Click to expand...
A number of young folk on that list are from the US. Scientific cryptozoology is the only real cryptozoology. The occult stuff is not zoology, crypto or otherwise. It's closer to parapsychology. Folklore does have a roll to play and there is a crossover area between folklore and zoology.
 
stu neville said:
There's always been the forked strands of Cryptozoology: on the one hand the serious, quiet field researchers putting in the hours and following scientific method as closely as possible, and on the other the Scooby Doo element. As with ghost hunting before it the decade-long fad for crypto-based TV shows brought self-proclaimed, utterly clueless investigative groups out of the woodwork, all lowlight and shouting, skewing the whole field's image along with it.

Interesting point about the transatlantic difference though: there is far more emphasis on the fantasy and especially demonic Stateside. Again, on the ghost hunting front very few UK hauntings (and we have lots of that) have such an emotive label attached to them, except the most virulent polt cases and even then it's tentative. We tend to regard such entities as more neutral, albeit of an unclear nature whereas in the US they're far more likely to be assigned a motive or malevolent origin. Tempting to speculate the more secular UK society is less likely to frame everything on a moral spectrum
Click to expand...

I think you are right about the secular aspect of the UK.
 
Mythopoeika said:
I would really like the Mongolian deathworm one to be true, although I strongly suspect its attributes have been somewhat embroidered.
I think it must be found eventually.
Click to expand...
From the word go i've said this and on my 2005 expedition the locals said that the electrical blasts were folkloric. They did, however think it could spit venom and were deeply afraid of it. Personally i think its a worm lizard or a sand boa of unknown species and apart from having a nasty nip is essentialy harmless.
 
lordmongrove said:
A number of young folk on that list are from the US. Scientific cryptozoology is the only real cryptozoology. The occult stuff is not zoology, crypto or otherwise. It's closer to parapsychology. Folklore does have a roll to play and there is a crossover area between folklore and zoology.
Click to expand...

"real cryptozoology"?
That definition is a highly debatable subject for another thread, maybe.
As was the point of the initial post I made about the demise of many notable people in the field, the landscape is very different these days and has morphed into something far more sociological and relevant to pop culture. I do not think it will return to the initial ideals established decades ago.
 
Mythopoeika said:
I would really like the Mongolian deathworm one to be true, although I strongly suspect its attributes have been somewhat embroidered.
I think it must be found eventually.
Click to expand...
From the word go i've said this and on my 2005 expedition the locals said that the electrical blasts were folkloric. They did, however think it could spit venom and were deeply afraid of it. Personally i think its a worm lizard or a sand boa of unknown species and apart from having a nasty nip is essentialy harmless.
Sharon Hill said:
"real cryptozoology"?
That definition is a highly debatable subject for another thread, maybe.
As was the point of the initial post I made about the demise of many notable people in the field, the landscape is very different these days and has morphed into something far more sociological and relevant to pop culture. I do not think it will return to the initial ideals established decades ago.
Click to expand...
Real cryptozoology in my opinion would be searching for that was a biological possibility, orang-pendek, thylacine, giant anaconda, not chupacabra or mothman. The earlier days of cryptozoology was mainly rich people or people with financial backing . Not many people can do that these day. My own trips are about one a year and restricted in time. Allot of stuff takes place in line now, which is not a good thing.
 
lordmongrove said:
From the word go i've said this and on my 2005 expedition the locals said that the electrical blasts were folkloric. They did, however think it could spit venom and were deeply afraid of it. Personally i think its a worm lizard or a sand boa of unknown species and apart from having a nasty nip is essentialy harmless.

Real cryptozoology in my opinion would be searching for that was a biological possibility, orang-pendek, thylacine, giant anaconda, not chupacabra or mothman. The earlier days of cryptozoology was mainly rich people or people with financial backing . Not many people can do that these day. My own trips are about one a year and restricted in time. Allot of stuff takes place in line now, which is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

I agree with Lord Mongrove.

If such a distinction isn't already implicitly recognised, it should be.

If you're going to call yourself a cryptozoologist and talk of 'your' research and findings, actual field work must constitute a significant part of your work; if it does not, you are simply a person who is interested in cryptozoology.

The analysis of photographs and footage, the review of literature and reports, and the publicising of the subject are important work, but they are essentially parasitic practices that absolutely require the core material generated from the first-person observation of evidence and habitats, witness interviews, and the scientific study of specimens that 'full-blooded' cryptozoologists conduct—a few proper publications can't do any harm either.

It's akin to the difference between reviewing novels and actually writing novels. The reviewers do good work, and their meta-analyses and cross-comparisons often help to contextualise and guide the reception of new literature, but, to continue the metaphor, most 'virtual' cryptozoologists are merely reading novels and talking about them with their friends. It's in no way unhealthy—in the same way battle re-enactors conceivably help generate the interest that helps bring students into departments and form a readership for historians—but it's still a second-order activity that relies on the leg/spade-work already conducted by generations of academics and a sprinkling of driven private researchers.
 
Yithian said:
I agree with Lord Mongrove.

If such a distinction isn't already implicitly recognised, it should be.

If you're going to call yourself a cryptozoologist and talk of 'your' research and findings, actual field work must constitute a significant part of your work; if it does not, you are simply a person who is interested in cryptozoology.

The analysis of photographs and footage, the review of literature and reports, and the publicising of the subject are important work, but they are essentially parasitic practices that absolutely require the core material generated from the first-person observation of evidence and habitats, witness interviews and the scientific study of specimens that 'full-blooded' cryptozoologists conduct—a few proper publications can't do any harm either.

It's akin to the difference between reviewing novels and actually writing novels. The reviewers do good work and their meta-analyses and cross-comparisons often help to contextualise and guide the reception of new literature, but, to continue the metaphor, most 'virtual' cryptozoologists are merely reading novels and talking about them with their friends. It's in no way unhealthy—in the same way battle re-enactors conceivably help generate the interest that helps bring students into departments and for a readership for historians—but it's still a second-order activity that relies on the leg/spade-work already conducted by generations of academics and a sprinkling of driven private researchers.
Click to expand...
I love the writing and reviewing novels analogy. It works very well.
 
Yithian said:
I agree with Lord Mongrove.

If such a distinction isn't already implicitly recognised, it should be.

If you're going to call yourself a cryptozoologist and talk of 'your' research and findings, actual field work must constitute a significant part of your work; if it does not, you are simply a person who is interested in cryptozoology.

The analysis of photographs and footage, the review of literature and reports, and the publicising of the subject are important work, but they are essentially parasitic practices that absolutely require the core material generated from the first-person observation of evidence and habitats, witness interviews, and the scientific study of specimens that 'full-blooded' cryptozoologists conduct—a few proper publications can't do any harm either.

It's akin to the difference between reviewing novels and actually writing novels. The reviewers do good work, and their meta-analyses and cross-comparisons often help to contextualise and guide the reception of new literature, but, to continue the metaphor, most 'virtual' cryptozoologists are merely reading novels and talking about them with their friends. It's in no way unhealthy—in the same way battle re-enactors conceivably help generate the interest that helps bring students into departments and form a readership for historians—but it's still a second-order activity that relies on the leg/spade-work already conducted by generations of academics and a sprinkling of driven private researchers.
Click to expand...
Again, this entirely depends on the definition/scope of cryptozoology. We've been around this block a lot. Richard sees it differently than I do. I see us as in the "post cryptid" phase of cryptozoology (at term coined by D. Loxton) where it no longer makes sense to look for an actual animal that matches the witness descriptions (for many and various reasons) but value still lies in WHY people report these experiences. Part of the "why" can be an unusual animal but not necessarily one that is "unknown to science".

There is a long and rich history of "monster" tales. I believe studying them is important. But it is not reasonable to physically seek out Nessie, sea serpents, or Bigfoot, etc. on expeditions when it's clear that there is not one mystery animal at the core of the phenomenon after all these decades of looking. Cryptids are way more complicated a phenomenon than being a single "hidden" animal.

Therefore, the focus on the social and historical aspects of the subject, to me, far outweigh the zoological. But I am well aware that many who call themselves cryptozoologists disagree. (And they have told me so, in no uncertain terms.) I hold the position that cryptozoology is not and can never be again the Heuvelmans/Sanderson version of a "new science". We have plenty of evidence to show that path was unsuccessful and any factors that may have been important to distinguish real cryptozoology from zoology were not useful in practice. Finally, I just want to be clear, I love this subject; those who research the literature seem to accomplish quite a bit of useful work - see Regal on the Jersey Devil or Radford on the Chupacabra or many others who have published on lake/sea creatures.
 
Leo Sprinkle died on Nov 15.

Obit: http://www.montgomerystryker.com/r-leo-sprinkle/
He taught self-hypnosis techniques in classes and through his self-help videotape, Trance Forming Yourself. He studied reincarnation and past life regression, and published a book, Soul Samples, in 1999. A UFO researcher of international fame, he published over fifty articles, wrote forewords for other researchers’ books, and was interviewed on national TV programs including ABC’s That’s Incredible and NBC’s Tomorrow Show. He was instrumental in the success of the UFO Conferences held in Laramie for over twenty years.
 
Fortean author Linda Godfrey, who wrote The Beast of Bray Road, American Monsters, and others, has passed away due to Parkinsons.

She was an amazing and down to Earth woman and I'm delighted to have met her and read her books.
 
Last edited:
MercuryCrest said:
Linda Godfrey, author of The Beast of Bray Road, American Monsters, and others has passed away due to Parkinsons.

She was an amazing and down to Earth woman and I'm delighted to have met her and read her books.
Click to expand...
I've seen her in a few documentaries and she's always come over as a nice person. RIP
 
She was a very sweet lady, but she did go beyond reporting the stories to opining about them. Her ideas were not well developed. She once presented that certain dogs had evolved to be bipedal which could be an explanation for dogman sightings. She also did a lot to promote the paranormal view of cryptids, and particularly, a Christian view. Many dogman tales have an occult color.
 
Sharon Hill said:
She was a very sweet lady, but she did go beyond reporting the stories to opining about them. Her ideas were not well developed. She once presented that certain dogs had evolved to be bipedal which could be an explanation for dogman sightings. She also did a lot to promote the paranormal view of cryptids, and particularly, a Christian view. Many dogman tales have an occult color.
Click to expand...
There is no evolutionary precendent i can think of for making dogs bipedal aside from Dr Moreau having a hand in it! I think the early Bray Road reports, like the creature dragging a dead deer of a truck was a black bear with mange. They do look really weird without hair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top