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

A New Venue for Cryptozoological discussion was ...Re: cryptozoology?

While the discussions of cryptozoology are, in fact, quite interesting,
there are other places/lists that are, perhaps, more appropriate than
the dinosaur list. Regardless of keeping an open mind, the direct
connection between "lake animals" and classic dinosaurs is tentative at
best and would really only be useful if such an animal actually

As I recall Garrison Hilliard (sp?) is involved in/runs such a list, and
perhaps he will supply the subscription information.

In addition, The Fortean Times (a swell magazine) has a website at
www.forteantimes.com, and, as I recall, information on their own list. 
There are also newsgroups devoted to this subject.

I guess until we all see it with out own eyes, it all remains in the
realm of speculation which, unlike the constant re-examination and
expansion of the fossil record, has precious little data other than our
imaginations and emotions.

Craig Heinselman wrote:
> 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

AOL IM Pager - DinoEditor
ichat PAGER - dinogazette

When you think of dinosaurs, think of DIG!
The Dinosaur Interplanetary Gazette - 245 Million Years of News at
Dinosaur Central
Recommended by The National Education Association,Encyclopedia
Britannica Internet Guide, Yahoo Editor's Choice, Member of The Paleo

Teefr - An extraordinary tale of adventure by Edward Summer 
Book Three of the Teddy Quartet, Member of The Author Ring.

Laser Publishing Group, Planetarium Station, Box 502-DIG, NY, NY