Q: "What can be done to improve cryptozoology's
reputation so that it is taken seriously as a true
discipline of science?"
A: This is a truly difficult question. It would be
impossible to express the opinions of everyone simply
by giving the answer to the question myself, so
instead I sent this question to a wide variety of
cryptozoologists and enthusiasts alike. Here are their
opinions.
Jan-Ove Sundberg, Global Underwater Search
Team
"By better education of the so called
cryptozoologists, they must also come forward with
their names, places, occupations, etc. and take
responsibility for their hypothesis, speculations and
general views and they must learn how to co-operate,
not only domestically but also internationally and
above all they need a scientific mentor and
connection, someone established and not necessessarily
famous, who�s open enough to this subject that seems
so hard to deal with, and who has patience enough to
educate laymans about what is possible and what
isn�t."
Aly Julian, writer/enthusiast
"By approaching the science with the same degree of
scientific measure as astrophysics or psychology is
approached. Full documentation, use of the scientific
method, and maintenance of a logical, level mind are
all necessary. We cannot jump to conclusions without
proper research; everything must be presented as a
theory until proven. It took time and persistence to
prove that the universe is not geocentric, or that the
Earth is not flat. Cryptozoologists need that same
determination."
Loren Coleman, author and cryptozoologist
"Stick to the facts, use the scientific method, and
stay clear of personalities that tend to diminish the
credibility of cryptozoology. Cryptozoology is already
a subdiscipline of zoology, and is more appropriately
associated with the life sciences, NOT the
paranormal."
Dave Pool, enthusiast
"Firstly, it would be so great if we could prove we
are right about something. Some guy nabs a Bigfoot,
that [will] help us out. Second, we need to somehow
figure out how we can become dissassociated ... with
people with extremely far-out theories. We need to
stop people from lumping us together with nuts...
[and] we need to get people within the field who are
more professional. These subjects are so fantastic
that people think they can turn the cryptid into the
animal they want it to be. They will only hear what
they want to hear, when questioning witnessess, they
will twist the testimony to fit their liking. I have
heard people describe the chupacabra as anything from
"Space Panthers to Flying Raptors" ... This may be
hypocrisy, perhaps I am as guilty of this as anyone
else, but that does not mean this is not a valid
problem, I believe it results in misinformation and
muddled facts. Android bigfoot, anyone?
Craig Heinselman, editor/publisher of
CRYPTO
"Cryptozoology as a whole must utilize a high level of
both common sense and filtration services. It must be
able to screen and filter the information gathered in
such a manner that it is logical as well as thorough.
It must also go beyond relying on the utilization of
reported facts and seek out the actual people and
persons behind a given situation. In all we all need
to practice some good old fashion horse-sense and keep
our
noses to the stone to collect and share information.
In this way then zoology can document perhaps one day
the actuality of a living-breathing cryptid."
Jim Harnock, writer/enthusiast
"I think the biggest step that could be taken to move
cryptozoology out of it's percieved position of being
the X-Files of science would be to put a leash on
those people who insist on publishing and promote
their half-baked theories. Let's face it, a lot of the
so-called theories put forward these days are nothing
more than wild guesses based on someone's opinion of
what little real evidence there is. Take this
Sasquatch/giganotopithecus thing that Grover Krantz is
always talking about. How on Earth he can claim that
this is the only plausible theory is beyond me -- a
bunch of fossilized teeth and a fossilized jaw-bone
found in China is an explanation for a creature living
in North America? And for all we know, the
gigantopithecus could have been the size of a chimp,
with a really big jaw. The fact is, just like Krantz,
too many people involved in cryptozoology (be they
real scientists or just cryptogeeks like me) make such
leaps in logic to explain cryptids, I'm tempted to
call the IOC and suggest they make it a new sport at
the summer games."
In conclusion, I found that people surprisingly seem
to agree on this one. The main suggestions were to
better educate cryptozoology researchers, to not jump
to conclusions (as in the Gigantopithecus theory), to
clear the field of untrustworthy researchers, and to
take cryptozoological research with stamina and
determination.
Special thanks to Loren Coleman, Jim Harnock, Craig
Heinselman, Jan-Ove Sundberg, and Dave Pool.
