The Energon Pub

Cryptozoologists do not get enough respect. People say we're crazy. People say we don't deserve recognition as scientists. People say it is a waste to fund us. people call us "wanna be scientists."
Why don't we get respect?
You thought we were crazy for believing in the giant squid and look how that turned out.
You thought we were crazy for believing in the gorilla but look at how that turned out.
I can go on. Can anyone explain to me why Cryptozoologists get no respect or recognition in spite of being right a significant amount of the time?

Is that as believing and searching "mystical" animals?
If so I do believe you guys.

Well it's just different from what people believe in and everything different is considered a thread ore well silly.

Because it's a pseudoscience. You're attempting to prove mythological creatures.

So they found a giant squid and named it a Krakken. Found anything else?

Don't be so quick to judge. The Panda was thought to have been a mythological creature as well. Simple fact is, a lot of mythological creatures are stemmed from real live creatures.

What about Yetis, Bigfoot, Sea serpents (dont say they are giant squid, because some discriptions totally dont match up)and Thunderbirds(no, not the puppets) to name a few. Sea Serpents for example could probally be explained with a case of mistaken identily, such an Oarfish or somesuch. As can lots of other creatures, the Beast of Bodmin Moor for example has lots of sightings, and photos, most of which turn out to be domestic cats; people see what they want to see.

Most cryptids have no realistic evidence to back them up, be it actual specimens, good photos, or evidence in the fossil record. Not to mention the fact that people go on all sorts of hunts for these things, I mean, how many times have they pingged Loch Ness looking for Nessie? Did they find any indication of one? Nope. Thats probally why people dont think of it as a real science.

New deep sea speices are being discovered on nearly every deepsea dive, so perhaps they will discover something new which could be attributed to some sightings. Some people think Megalodon may still be alive. But until something on this scale happens, I dont think people are ever going to take it seriously.

Also, who didnt belive in gorillas?? Was this in the 1700s?

Shadowman wrote:Because it's a pseudoscience. You're attempting to prove mythological creatures.

So they found a giant squid and named it a Krakken. Found anything else?

Ceolacanth, megamouth shark, basking shark...

It's the study of as-of-yet-undiscovered animals. And to be fair, it's got a lot more physical evidence than things like quantum physics or that crazy Steven Hawkings style astronomy. Dark matter is the stuff of intellectual debate, but people scorn the search for new life on earth? Are you serious? I can see a basking shark. I know it's there. People though the ceolacanth was extinct - and then we went and found it again. I don't see how you can call that a pseudoscience and make posts about "ZOMG! EMPTY SPACE IN TEH UNIVERSE!!11!!TWELVE!!".
[/rant]

Addendum - the platypus was for years considered a hoax.

Tangent wrote:What about Yetis, Bigfoot, Sea serpents (dont say they are giant squid, because some discriptions totally dont match up)and Thunderbirds(no, not the puppets) to name a few. Sea Serpents for example could probally be explained with a case of mistaken identily, such an Oarfish or somesuch. As can lots of other creatures, the Beast of Bodmin Moor for example has lots of sightings, and photos, most of which turn out to be domestic cats; people see what they want to see.

Most cryptids have no realistic evidence to back them up, be it actual specimens, good photos, or evidence in the fossil record. Not to mention the fact that people go on all sorts of hunts for these things, I mean, how many times have they pingged Loch Ness looking for Nessie? Did they find any indication of one? Nope. Thats probally why people dont think of it as a real science.

New deep sea speices are being discovered on nearly every deepsea dive, so perhaps they will discover something new which could be attributed to some sightings. Some people think Megalodon may still be alive. But until something on this scale happens, I dont think people are ever going to take it seriously.

Also, who didnt belive in gorillas?? Was this in the 1700s?

Nope, up to the 1990's mate!

becuase if you where serious about it you would be a biologist, zoologist or an ecologist. cryptozoologist don't bother with the slog and go straight for sensationalism, how many cryptozoologist spend their lives catalogueing new species or ants, beetles, or bacteria?

cryptozoologist assert many hypothesis with little proof, and hardly ever test the hypotheses

Dead Metal wrote:

Tangent wrote:What about Yetis, Bigfoot, Sea serpents (dont say they are giant squid, because some discriptions totally dont match up)and Thunderbirds(no, not the puppets) to name a few. Sea Serpents for example could probally be explained with a case of mistaken identily, such an Oarfish or somesuch. As can lots of other creatures, the Beast of Bodmin Moor for example has lots of sightings, and photos, most of which turn out to be domestic cats; people see what they want to see.

Most cryptids have no realistic evidence to back them up, be it actual specimens, good photos, or evidence in the fossil record. Not to mention the fact that people go on all sorts of hunts for these things, I mean, how many times have they pingged Loch Ness looking for Nessie? Did they find any indication of one? Nope. Thats probally why people dont think of it as a real science.

New deep sea speices are being discovered on nearly every deepsea dive, so perhaps they will discover something new which could be attributed to some sightings. Some people think Megalodon may still be alive. But until something on this scale happens, I dont think people are ever going to take it seriously.

Also, who didnt belive in gorillas?? Was this in the 1700s?

Nope, up to the 1990's mate!

You jest!.....was it you?

[quote="Tammuz"]becuase if you where serious about it you would be a biologist, zoologist or an ecologist./quote]

That's like saying that if a kazoo player was serious, he'd be a musician.

Jesus Prime wrote:

Tammuz wrote:becuase if you where serious about it you would be a biologist, zoologist or an ecologist./quote]

That's like saying that if a kazoo player was serious, he'd be a musician.

yes it is. and i stand by it. if they wanted to be taken seiriously as a musician they'd practice everynight, become a bigwig in the kazoo world, learn how write kazoo music, make a few really good kazoo masterpieces. they wouldn't do it down the pub on an occiasional tuesday night.

it's the difference between time team, and indiana jones. they don't rigourously apply scientific method

it's like that chupacabra thing we had in the GD a few days back

they need more Slogging!

Tammuz wrote:becuase if you where serious about it you would be a biologist, zoologist or an ecologist. cryptozoologist don't bother with the slog and go straight for sensationalism, how many cryptozoologist spend their lives catalogueing new species or ants, beetles, or bacteria?

cryptozoologist assert many hypothesis with little proof, and hardly ever test the hypotheses

You could not be more wrong my friend. Cryptozoologists are very serious, but not so without evidence. They do not go straight for sensationalism.
Here's an example of how it works.
A bunch of people see a strange creature. They describe it as being a small mammal with a beaver tail and a duck bill. Cryptozoologists study the claims and find that the descriptions all seem to be of the same animal. They investigate. They find nothing. They get laughed at by mainstream scientists. They try several more times while getting laughed at. Eventially they manage to trap one and give it to those stupid laughing scientists. Even when the cryptozoologists are able to produce the intact body of the creature, the mainstream scientists still laugh. "A practical joke by a taxidermy" they call it. Do you get that? EVEN WHEN WE PRESENT THE BODY OF THE BLOODY THING THEY STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT! Then the scientists steal it from us and present it to the world and take the credit for our discovery. Then they turn around and start laughing at us again for believing in such silly things.
That is how it works. We do the work, and the "real scientists" get the credit.

And if you recall, it was the media that called it a Chupacabra. Not the cryptozoologists. Don't dump media hysteria on us.

The Chaos Bringer wrote:

Tammuz wrote:becuase if you where serious about it you would be a biologist, zoologist or an ecologist. cryptozoologist don't bother with the slog and go straight for sensationalism, how many cryptozoologist spend their lives catalogueing new species or ants, beetles, or bacteria?

cryptozoologist assert many hypothesis with little proof, and hardly ever test the hypotheses

You could not be more wrong my friend. Cryptozoologists are very serious, but not so without evidence. They do not go straight for sensationalism.
Here's an example of how it works.
A bunch of people see a strange creature. They describe it as being a small mammal with a beaver tail and a duck bill. Cryptozoologists study the claims and find that the descriptions all seem to be of the same animal. They investigate. They find nothing. They get laughed at by mainstream scientists. They try several more times while getting laughed at. Eventially they manage to trap one and give it to those stupid laughing scientists. Even when the cryptozoologists are able to produce the intact body of the creature, the mainstream scientists still laugh. "A practical joke by a taxidermy" they call it. Do you get that? EVEN WHEN WE PRESENT THE BODY OF THE BLOODY THING THEY STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT! Then the scientists steal it from us and present it to the world and take the credit for our discovery. Then they turn around and start laughing at us again for believing in such silly things.
That is how it works. We do the work, and the "real scientists" get the credit.

if you're that damn interested in discovering new species you'd be a microbiologist. or an etymologist, thousands of little buggers to be found

the problem is you start off with a hypotheis, not a phenomena. and then hardly ever accept your findings unless they support your hypothesis, and never modify your hypothesis to fit your findings

get a journal, get a paper, get peer reviewed, otherwise you'll always be stuck in the same niche as homeopathy, or UFOlogy

get something published in american naturalist or the journal of zoology, if they dont' like ask why not, what the problems where and then go sort them out.

Tammuz wrote:

Jesus Prime wrote:

Tammuz wrote:becuase if you where serious about it you would be a biologist, zoologist or an ecologist./quote]

That's like saying that if a kazoo player was serious, he'd be a musician.

yes it is. and i stand by it. if they wanted to be taken seiriously as a musician they'd practice everynight, become a bigwig in the kazoo world, learn how write kazoo music, make a few really good kazoo masterpieces. they wouldn't do it down the pub on an occiasional tuesday night.

it's the difference between time team, and indiana jones. they don't rigourously apply scientific method

it's like that chupacabra thing we had in the GD a few days back

they need more Slogging!

A kazzoist should be able to express their art in anyway
they desire. Not all musicians are musicians for the fame,
they do because it is a part of who they are. They
aren't kazooing for you, they do it for themselves, much like
the cryptozoologist do it because of desire.
Cryptozooguys get plenty of respect.

DISCHARGE wrote:

Tammuz wrote:

Jesus Prime wrote:

Tammuz wrote:becuase if you where serious about it you would be a biologist, zoologist or an ecologist./quote]

That's like saying that if a kazoo player was serious, he'd be a musician.

yes it is. and i stand by it. if they wanted to be taken seiriously as a musician they'd practice everynight, become a bigwig in the kazoo world, learn how write kazoo music, make a few really good kazoo masterpieces. they wouldn't do it down the pub on an occiasional tuesday night.

it's the difference between time team, and indiana jones. they don't rigourously apply scientific method

it's like that chupacabra thing we had in the GD a few days back

they need more Slogging!

A kazzoist should be able to express their art in anyway
they desire. Not all musicians are musicians for the fame,
they do because it is a part of who they are. They
aren't kazooing for you, they do it for themselves, much like
the cryptozoologist do it because of desire.
Cryptozooguys get plenty of respect.

why are we even having the discussion iof crptozooguys get plenty of respect?

Cryptozoologists do not get respect. Even when we produced the body of the platypus people still laughed. Even when we do have hard evidence people still tell us that there is no such thing.
And Tammuz, where do you get your information? Let me explain this to you, slowly. Cryptozoologists did not invent "chupacabra." A significant number of people claimed that their livestock were killed by something they had never seen before. Reports of the creature spread like wildfire. Cryptozoologists investigated the area, spoke with witnesses, and investigated the carcasses of the dead livestock. The reason cryptozoologists were interested is because there was consistency with the reports and because the witnesses claimed to have evidence for us. WE DID NOT COME UP WITH THE STORIES. WE DID NOT START WITH THE THEORY THAT THE CREATURE EXISTED. WE SIMPLY TRIED TO CONFIRM OR DISMISS THE CLAIMS, BASED ON EVIDENCE GATHERED. THAT'S SCIENCE!

Have you ever heard of the Mythbusters? If you have, then let me ask you this. Do they come up with the myths? And does the fact that they test the myths neccessarily mean that they believe them? The answer to both is no. They investigate claims, and they prove whether the myth is possible or not. That is exactly what cryptozoologists try to do. Why don't we get the same respect?

I think they must have been laughing at the platypus itself
and not the crytozooey guys.
When don't they get respect? I've never heard of anyone laughing at a cryptozoologist before. You keep saying we, so I take it you are a degree holder in that field of science or
do you just consider yourself a cryptozoologist because you
believe in Bigfoot or something else and go on nature hikes trying to find some three-legged tree eating monster bug.

Like Tammuz said:
why are we even having the discussion iof crptozooguys get plenty of respect?

People laugh at cryptozoologists all the time. I have been laughed at myself.
And I consider myself a cryptozoologist because:
a) I collect sighting reports and read them very thoroughly
b) I try to match descriptions with known animals, including relatively unknown ones
c) examine film footage frame by frame and look for any signs of editing
d) I am part of a group of cryptozoologists including famous ones who have written some very good books

There you go. And don't get the wrong idea, this isn't just a small internet group of "mock scientists." We actually do stuff. In fact, we have a team in the Congo right now! We get updates every week or so. Among our team is a very famous expert and author whose name shall not be revealed here as we try to keep our names secret. We do get laughed at after all, so we make sure our critics don't know us by name.

Tangent wrote:
You jest!.....was it you?

Yes it was!

The Chaos Bringer wrote:People laugh at cryptozoologists all the time. I have been laughed at myself.
And I consider myself a cryptozoologist because:
a) I collect sighting reports and read them very thoroughly
b) I try to match descriptions with known animals, including relatively unknown ones
c) examine film footage frame by frame and look for any signs of editing
d) I am part of a group of cryptozoologists including famous ones who have written some very good books

There you go. And don't get the wrong idea, this isn't just a small internet group of "mock scientists." We actually do stuff. In fact, we have a team in the Congo right now! We get updates every week or so. Among our team is a very famous expert and author whose name shall not be revealed here as we try to keep our names secret. We do get laughed at after all, so we make sure our critics don't know us by name.

Well you may be getting laughed at because some of your comments are ridiculous. You don't wanna get laughed at so you don't reveal your names. What the hell is that about.
You can't be serious, what are you, like 10. Grow some balls.
And if your a girl, sorry about that last bit, but jeezus,
Can we have some links to these books?
What have you discovered and why would someone laugh at you
because you showed the world there is more out there?
I mean you make it sound like a secret society like the Illuminati where nobody can know who you are.

What are your 'guys' searching for in the Congo?
You're just being too vague to be taken seriously.

DISCHARGE wrote:[you don't reveal your names. What the hell is that about. You can't be serious, what are you, like 10. Grow some balls.

Tell me more, "DISCHARGE".

The Chaos Bringer wrote:Then the scientists steal it from us and present it to the world and take the credit for our discovery.

DISCHARGE wrote:You don't wanna get laughed at so you don't reveal your names.

I think these quotes might be related somehow.

Jesus Prime wrote:

DISCHARGE wrote:[you don't reveal your names. What the hell is that about. You can't be serious, what are you, like 10. Grow some balls.

Tell me more, "DISCHARGE".

The only thing I found to support the comment that cryptozoologists are a sham is in the Wiki.
Hey I don't discount the fact that there are things out there to be discovered but this dude is coming out and
whining that he doesn't get respect for the field of study he is in. It's natural for people to be skeptical.
Should we all believe the sky is falling just because
a couple people say so. Until there is evidence why should anyone take it seriously.
Every cryptid site I go to throws names around like
a little league game played by the blind. But I am left to
believe that his group is so secret and covert he can't divulge the names of his cohorts and peers.

Shadowman wrote:

The Chaos Bringer wrote:Then the scientists steal it from us and present it to the world and take the credit for our discovery.

DISCHARGE wrote:You don't wanna get laughed at so you don't reveal your names.

I think these quotes might be related somehow.

Why should they get credit if they don't want people to know who they are.

DISCHARGE wrote:

Jesus Prime wrote:

DISCHARGE wrote:[you don't reveal your names. What the hell is that about. You can't be serious, what are you, like 10. Grow some balls.

Tell me more, "DISCHARGE".

The only thing I found to support the comment that cryptozoologists are a sham is in the Wiki.
Hey I don't discount the fact that there are things out there to be discovered but this dude is coming out and
whining that he doesn't get respect for the field of study he is in. It's natural for people to be skeptical.
Should we all believe the sky is falling just because
a couple people say so. Until there is evidence why should anyone take it seriously.
Every cryptid site I go to throws names around like
a little league game played by the blind. But I am left to
believe that his group is so secret and covert he can't divulge the names of his cohorts and peers.

No, no, no. You're ragging on his desire for anonymity whilst hiding behind a screen-name.
As for evidence, go visit a zoo or musuem.