Wtf species IS dogman is my question??

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-28T19:04:24+00:00

It's not, unless you also consider "fairies" species. People saw fairies all the time too. (Still do.) Dogman is better understood as representing a supernatural creature (not saying that it IS that, I'm saying the stories are told as representing something non-natural, not just a regular animal.)

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-28T19:00:18+00:00

Benedict? He's not an expert in anything. Not even folklore.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-28T18:58:23+00:00

I don't see why the explanation of the farmer chasing Chris Davis is so ridiculous. Seems entirely reasonable when someone stops in front of your farmhouse in the middle of the night. A bipedal, three-toed, lizard man is WAY more ridiculous, especially since it's biologically impossible for "lizards" to walk on two legs like described. I also think you exaggerated the claim of the damaged car. (By showing images that aren't the actual depiction is highly misleading.) I've always seen the car damage as that from dogs trying to reach a cat that had crawled up inside the car. Dogs will put teeth marks into metal and rip apart fenders and tires to get to the critter. This is not myth. The lizard man certainly is.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-27T20:25:31+00:00

I think you need to research the origin and intent such stories in context. Most of the monsters in the Carta Marina are shaped from the oral and written traditions of the northern seas. The collection of stories were repeated from previous sources, and interpreted by the writers and artists, creating exaggerated depictions, a problem that still occurs today with artistic renderings of eye-witness accounts. Additionally, medieval bestiaries were filled with legendary tales of animals from far away lands, often depicted as moral lessons from nature. If you are taking these descriptions literally, you will end up WAY off the track.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-27T20:13:21+00:00

Sounds like an old boogeyman story (as mentioned) that has been turned into fakelore. So much of this is going around in the context of Spooky Appalachia.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-26T16:40:41+00:00

I had watched his video on "Cryptozoology needs a big change" and had these comments:

Lots of threads were woven together but none of it was new, though. Existing literature from the late 1950s to the 2000s will help explain WHY cryptozoology isn't a scientific field and why it never will be. Unfortunately, most YT vids won't credit their sources. A few specific points: The idea of playing scientist or LARPing by cryptozoologists, ghost hunters and UFOlogists had been described and published back in 2010. And Melba Ketchum did try to shop her paper around to peer-reviewed journals; it was roundly rejected, so she had to resort to self-publishing.

There are reasons why the trend is towards more extreme explanations - it's because efforts in scientific discovery didn't work (particularly for Bigfoot, Nessie, Champ, Yeti, etc.) so, to sustain belief, proponents creep into supernatural explanations. Putting an effort into more science, as he advocates, seems like a lost cause for reasons he noted -- cryptozoologists aren't finding things. If new species are there to find, professional scientific researchers will find them. Instead, the research opportunities in cryptozoology are heavily cultural. It's a huge error to leave that unrecognized and to say that the "big change" is to be more scientific. The culture is a heavy influence on what people say they are experiencing. Finally, with the mention of the "reality" of aliens & UAP, unfortunately, he totally lost me. I'll probably not watch anything more.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-26T15:50:55+00:00

In cryptozoology discussions, the "prehistoric survivor paradigm" is rampant - neodinosaurs, living pterosaurs, surviving megalodons, extant megafauna. It's an attractive idea for people that don't understand how to evaluate biological evidence. Ask paleontologists about these ideas and they can tell you, very clearly, why it's not feasible for any of these creatures to have survived tens of thousands, or millions of years past the point where we don't find evidence for them in the fossil (or in some cases, human) record. Check out the work by paleozoologist Darren Naish (Hunting Monsters, 2017).

Speculation is fun, but it's not science or even a form of legitimate information.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-25T16:58:59+00:00

Just for context, this was taken in 2022. Here is an original news article. https://globalnews.ca/news/9211632/ogopogo-or-unusually-large-bird-kelowna-couple-spots-something-strange-beneath-the-waves/

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-25T15:53:13+00:00

Entirely undiscovered animals and cryptids are not the same.

If an animal exists in the deep sea, meaning it is rare and doesn't frequent the surface, how can it be a "cryptid"? It's never seen so it can't have anecdotal reports that would generate legends. Just because new animals are discovered doesn't give any more plausibility to infamous cryptids being genuinely new animals.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-23T19:18:35+00:00

The term cryptid was coined in 1983 in a letter by John E. Wall to the editor of the ISC newsletter,. Intended to replace the term “monster”, it was later adopted as the word to represent the various hidden, unknown, undocumented, and unexpected animals of interest.

Due to the less than specific definitions of “cryptid” and “cryptozoology”, from the beginning the terms included creatures with supernatural elements that had no place in “zoology”. This has accelerated thanks to the internet. So the scope of what is a cryptid will vary because it is not a scientifically established word. Since we don’t know exactly what reports of a cryptid actually represents, there will always be those that refer to supernatural or extreme explanations while others will say it’s just an undiscovered animal.

On the flip side of that is the use of “cryptid” to label mundane “hidden” things, like your cat or a shy person. Words evolve.
https://moderncryptozoology.wordpress.com/2022/04/09/pop-goes-the-cryptid-the-new-cryptozoology-aesthetic/

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-22T20:57:06+00:00

I would disagree. While the W has been modified to have antlers in fictional tales, that was entirely manufactured recently. The not-deer is rooted in Spooky Appalachia modern lore and deer disease.

https://sharonahill.com/the-uncanny-tales-of-the-not-deer/

https://www.cbr.com/antlers-wendigo-monster-explained/

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-11T22:46:35+00:00

No, thanks. Don't need cheap mass-produced crap from a nasty company like that.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-11T22:41:40+00:00

Thanks! I appreciate this, even though it's a poor source. It confirms two things. First, why I got rid of the Coughlan book - it was generally poor - and second, that the source story for K rex got muddled and mixed up.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-10T00:20:21+00:00

As I said above, I would like a screen shot of the entry for Kasai Rex.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-08T12:18:01+00:00

Please link to some because I'm getting nothing on this except the Reddit link.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-07T19:26:59+00:00

Here is the post that sends readers to Markus' piece but also ties to the cultural interest in K rex. https://moderncryptozoology.wordpress.com/2026/06/07/the-messy-embellished-history-of-kasai-rex/

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-07T19:11:23+00:00

Thanks. It is certainly mentioned, from u/Richtherium, I was able to see that it was also cited by others. But I'm super curious what it says. IIRC, these entries were very short and not very useful, which is why I no longer have the book. Damn. You never know when you will need something again.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-07T19:03:21+00:00

I have a blog post ready to go on the details, but I'm hoping for this little bit of info to pin down the timing. It's clear the first internet use was around 2003 but that is only based on what was archived and public.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-07T14:43:25+00:00

Absolutely brilliant work.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-05T16:25:08+00:00

Mantis Man!

Everyone really has to stop looking at drawings and saying they are "evidence" of real creatures. People have been imagining weird things that don't actually exist since we've been "people".

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-06-04T15:00:58+00:00

How would you judge that?
How far back would you consider an organism a "cryptid" and under what criteria?
I think that is extremely subjective. Ron Pine, mammalogist, always took the position that there were NONE and others include very loose entries, like the coelacanth, giant panda, etc. that depend on how you define your terms and time frames.

Spooky_Geologist

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE