hitchhikingfrog

Howdy, the first half-dozen or so of my posts act as mirrors for Reddit posts and adhere largely to that style, just modifying the contents of these posts slightly, I will eventually come back and amend these when I decide on a cohesive format for my posting. This post combines two different, informal pieces I wrote in one accessible place for convenience. Loxton and Prothero’s 2013 book Abominable Science! is often dismissed by cryptozoological enthusiasts because of its “overbearing” skepticism (to quote an acquaintance), a perspective not necessarily without merit considering Loxton apparently approached his contributions as a “debunking project” and Prothero has equated cryptozoologists and Holocaust deniers previously, among other things. I do, however, feel as though a significant portion of this rejection is kneejerk, not necessarily because rejecting sections of the book is the incorrect course of action, but because the reasons for rejection are ill-informed. Ske...

Howdy, the first half-dozen or so of my posts act as mirrors for Reddit posts and adhere largely to that style, just modifying the contents of these posts slightly, I will eventually come back and amend these when I decide on a cohesive format for my posting. This post combines two different, informal pieces I wrote in one accessible place for convenience.  In my opinion, cryptozoological discourse has become increasingly redundant and paltry over the last decade. There are a variety of factors at play, however one of the least-acknowledged but most crucial is cryptozoology’s general refusal to concede - we preserve our monsters at the cost of progression. The constant discussions on the possibility of Bigfoot and Nessie are the clearest example. I am not the first to point this out, but I’ve seen very few in this sub speak about it. Cryptozoology needs critical discussions of this sort if it ever wants to obtain academic legitimacy, so let’s have ...

Howdy, the first half-dozen or so of my posts act as mirrors for Reddit posts and adhere largely to that style, just modifying the contents of these posts slightly, I will eventually come back and amend these when I decide on a cohesive format for my posting. This post combines two different, informal pieces I wrote in one accessible place for convenience.  As per Wikipedia, some general-audience books on science, the occasional academic interviewed for a bigfoot news story, and many people in this sub, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. But is it really? What does this label mean, what does it imply, is it accurate? I don’t think so, I think the label is applied without adequate nuance. I’ve written this post to share some scattered thoughts (this is not a complete, cohesive argument) in the hopes of starting some discourse. I believe that cryptozoology is not an inherent pseudoscience, but is instead a practiced one. There are pseudoscientific individua...

Within the last few weeks, some collaborators and I have made an attempt to digitize and upload our personal cryptozoological literature collections, as well as a significant effort to seek out hard-to-find articles, reviews, and books. Cryptozoology as a subject suffers immensely from inaccessibility - the key pieces are often decades out of print and outrageously expensive, or available only to restricted markets. The lack of a dedicated academic forum has led cryptozoology enthusiasts to become insular - those with similar perspectives congregate in Discord servers, email chains, or private forums and don't share their work with others. r/cryptozoology remains the most accessible mixing ground, with regular contributions by a wonderful assortment of individuals I've had the pleasure of associating with over the last five years, but even then the quality of content shared has fallen significantly in recent memory - this is a byproduct of insularity, everyone is on such differ...

Howdy, the first half-dozen or so of my posts act as mirrors for Reddit posts and adhere largely to that style, just modifying the contents of these posts slightly, I will eventually come back and amend these when I decide on a cohesive format for my posting. I’ve decided to compile and combine the key points and quotes from each of Bernard Heuvelmans’ ISC papers in one single post for ease of access - the goal of this post is to demonstrate what Bernard Heuvelmans viewed as cryptozoology. Having this information compiled in one place is key for any discussion regarding what cryptozoology is or is not. I’ve only included ISC remarks here, so this is not a complete review of his stances, which grew and changed over the course of his life. I hope to compile, translate, and share remarks from his other books and articles in the near future, which is difficult as I am not well versed in French, but to quote Bernard “No serious researcher ever overlooks a work because it is pub...