hitchhikingfrog

The majority of academic cryptozoologists or skeptical enthusiasts will state that Mokele-mbembe, the alleged “living dinosaur” of the Congo, is a Western colonial invention, popularized and profitized by Young Earth Creationists. This narrative stems from Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero’s book “Abominable Science!” (Loxton & Prothero, 2013), specifically the sixth chapter written primarily by Prothero. The goal of this article is to dispute or recontextualize some of the assertions made in Abominable Science!, as it makes serious factual errors and omissions. For what was apparently “one of the most meticulously researched and checked” books on cryptozoology (Naish, 2014), this is disappointing, especially since its claims are often uncritically regurgitated online. The Mokele-mbembe chapter makes five key claims, to be addressed in numerical order. They are: 1. Mokele-mbembe was “invented” by science writer Willy Ley, whose sources are not accessible for inspection 2. Mokele-mb...

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...

The Cryptozoological Digitization Project (CDP) is a personal effort by a group of friends and I to compile, digitize, and freely share cryptozoological literature of all sorts. Cryptozoology as a subject suffers immensely from inaccessibility - the key pieces are often decades out of print, 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 different levels of understanding and appreciation. Our digitization...