[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

cryptozoology?



List,

        This is a nice quote from Bernard Heuvelmans:
"The task of cryptozoology consists of demythifying the content of
information in an attempt to make the inventory of the planet's fauna as
complete as possible." ------ Bernard Heuvelmans

        Regardless of how you personally feel towards cryptozoology, whether
that be "it's pseudoscience" or "a subset of zoology" isn't really the
issue. What is the issue is to be open minded.
        There is always going to be debate. And no one person will be
definitively proven right or wrong, until physical evidence is available for
study. Until then logic must be used to determine behavior and
characteristics.
        As for new species, these are becoming spring boards for
cryptozoology, right or wrong. Personally, I feel it is correct and proper
for two reasons:
1) Shows that we still do not know all the inhabitants of this planet
2) The planet is not as explored as we like to think it is

Lets look at a few animals know to exist now:
King Cheetah    -    Known to natives as nsui-fisi. Was not known to
"science" until 1926. Some still look at these cats as abnormal (freaks)
others as evolution in progress.
 Giant Panda    -    Known as bei-shung to locals. Discovered by "science"
in 1868. Chinese paintings showed these animals, but "science" took them for
polar bears.
Komodo Dragon    -    Named boeaja darat by visitors to the island (hunters,
convicts, etc). Described as a giant land crocodile the rumors continued and
"science" found the dragons in 1910.

        Is it fair to say that lake creatures ("monsters") don't exist in
any lake? In that are we saying once more that because it is not proven, it
is not there? Does Sasquatch exist? We've analyzed tracks and hairs, done
scientific studies, but that isn't enough. What about the animals deemed
extinct in modern history by science, only to be rediscovered 50 years
latter. Is that not puzzling, especially since some were still being
reported by the locals! Science is forever changing, and for that it is one
of the greatest benefits to mankind. But, it must keep itself open-minded,
at least a little bit.

        By striking out with sarcasm, is there any knowledge gained?

Regards,

Craig Heinselman