[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: There be dragons
>In a message dated 95-10-27 17:52:39 EDT, you write:
>>Cryptozoology is full of speculation, and so is dinosaurology. When you
>>and Bob Bakker drew Dienonychus with feathers, that was complete
>>speculation. And when I propose the idea that dinosaurs could have
>>survived to this day, a theory which has more backup evidence than
>>feathered-dienonychus, you just scoff.
>In dinosaurology, at least we have fossils! In cryptozoology we have no
>specimens or solid remains whatever (otherwise it wouldn't be CRYPTOzoology),
>so speculation has much freer rein.
Can fossils tell you if a dienonychus had feathers or not(barring skin
imprints, which are rare, and haven't turned up for dienonychus yet)? No.
Can fossils tell if certain sauropods had trunks on thier heads(as Bakker
has invisioned). No.
Besides, cryptozoology has eyewitness acocounts, which can tell us how an
animal looks, it's morphology etc. Sure, not all accounts are true and
some are vague, and that's why cryptozoologists(many with scientific
credentials) weed out these reports. They will only take those reports
which are the best, and will settle for nothing less. When there is any
doubt a good cryptozoologist immediatly discards the report. Thus, we're
left with believable and verafiable reports, which can give us clues
towards the creatures identity. Where paleontologists use fossils,
cryptozoologists use reliable eyewitness accounts.
And they also have footprints, hair samples, feces and various other types
of _physical_ evidence.
Read _On the Track of Unknown Animals_ by Bernard Heuvelmans or _Searching
for Hidden Animals_ by Roy Mackal and _then_ make your assumptions. I know
my paleontology, do you know your cryptozoology. You should if you want to
disagree with my statements. I respect people for thier opinions, biut
only if they are not ignorant of the subject.