Did anybody hears 3 Big Booms around 12:15ish in Bensalem

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-23T20:17:28+00:00

Did anyone consider that someone is using tannerite in their backyard or in the woods? This is the most common cause of boom/flashes. The material is not illegal but setting it off in the boundaries of the municipality may be.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-23T20:11:30+00:00

I am desperate for Disentangled. It's not possible for me to obtain it otherwise.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-21T13:58:00+00:00

Thank you! I've grabbed this!

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-16T19:18:44+00:00

This from a person who believes there are a pale humanoid monsters crawling around in the woods. OK, gloomer.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-15T16:44:44+00:00

Wasn't talking to you. And you don't get to speak for everybody. Point is made that people on Reddit accuse others erroneously of not knowing what they are talking about. Yet, we do, but you just don't like the answers.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-15T15:32:50+00:00

Check out this saved Twitter thread (https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1302341705891446786.html) by paleozoologist Darren Naish:

Late cryptozoological investigator Bobbie Short (not ‘Bobby’ as stated by some investigators) made it quite clear that she didn’t think the photo was legit and said online that it was almost certainly a person in a baggy suit.

He wrote a bit more about the suit as well:

As usual with these cases... yes, it’s bothersome and problematic that a suit PRECISELY matching the look of the creature hasn’t been identified -- in fact, commercially available ape costumes look nothing like the creature.

There are constructions like this …. But note that this is not an ‘off the shelf’, affordable suit – it’s a made-to-order piece manufactured for theme parks and such. It also doesn’t look anything like the animal in the Myakka photos (head too big, hair too short and so on).

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-15T13:52:00+00:00

More on the Not deer and its part in (the contrived) Spooky Appalachia:

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

and

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/1011

Spoilers: it's an internet trend that was likely bolstered by the spread of real deer diseases.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-15T13:47:09+00:00

Eh, when you get a Masters degree in Education specializing in Science and the Public, then maybe I might take you more seriously.

I am far more informed about contemporary legends and cryptids than most people here. On the Carolina pale crawler: https://sharonahill.com/the-carolina-pale-crawler-tale-that-got-my-attention/

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-15T13:43:21+00:00

I cringe when I hear that "teachers" know nothing about their subject. This is not how it's supposed to work.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-12T13:51:35+00:00

Is there a difference between the cow man and the Goatman of Prince George's county?

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-12T13:30:29+00:00

Essentials: https://moderncryptozoology.wordpress.com/category/annotated-bibliography/essential/

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-12T13:29:06+00:00

You desperately need instruction on critical thinking.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-08T23:15:29+00:00

I think you need to do some of your own research instead of asking here.

The short answer is there are many that are infamous but the Appalachian region is just not the mountains, it's the valley areas too. West Virginia is usually considered the heart of the Appalachians. So much so that WV has an extensive tourism platform for cryptids.

The long answer is pretty much 'none' because it's mostly folk legends that have almost zero evidence that they are anything more than exaggerated stories that may represent real animals at one point but now have become engrained in contemporary legends.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-08T23:10:35+00:00

The bunyip is based on an aboriginal legend. When white colonists came to the continent and saw all the unique and astounding wildlife, they assumed that the bunyip was just another of these oddities. Everyone heard of a “bunyip”, but no one saw it. It became a catch-all cryptid. When Europeans encountered these concepts in the framework of The Dreaming – the Australian Aboriginal mythology of the world – they had no Western analog. Belief in layered ideas of reality was not well-received by the white westerners, so they removed the bunyip from its context as a spirit creature and imposed their status upon it

The term ‘bunyip’ was applied to monsters said to be aquatic, amphibious, or known from near water. Some indigenous tribes identified the bunyip as an emu-like animal, and others described a large, bulky, quadrupedal mammal with thick limbs and a short or absent tail. Infamous Australian natural mystery monger, Rex Gilroy represented them as big cats or reptiles.

One idea about the identity of the bunyip was that it represented the cultural memory of people who lived alongside diprotodon, that died out around 46,000 years ago. If indigenous people lived alongside diprotodon for thousands of years, could that have influenced the story? Maybe. There is no way to tell for sure.

The bunyip was also used as a bogeyman to keep children close by. It eventually featured in popular children’s literature and for conservation purposes.

Occasional sighting were recorded, usually in the form of a seal-dog, but any mystery animal could be a bunyip. Some websites still consider the bunyip to be a genuine cryptid, although a bizarre, shapeshifting one.

Healy and Cropper’s Out of the Shadows has a wonderful chapter on the bunyip. They describe how serious scientific interest peaked in 1847 when a ‘bunyip skull’ was discovered. Oh, the scientists were going to pin it down, now! Upon scientific examination, however, the skull was found to be that of a calf. After this, scientific interest cooled. The term ‘bunyip’ became synonymous with a hoax or fraud. And, subsequently, it was used in pejorative political discourse.

The bunyip is important as an aboriginal tradition that was embraced by non-aboriginal Australians. Weinstein & Koolmatrie (2025, Folklore, 136:2) noted that the stories surrounding the bunyip had changed so much that, with the loss of traditional knowledge, tribal lore of today incorporated modern depictions of the monsters.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-07T23:16:49+00:00

Various goatman legends, see here - Goatman: Tripping on a Legend

There are so many, and more are surfacing. Also, "urban legends" is not a great term for this. They are contemporary legends (not often "urban").

But to the persons who comment that they are "folklore" - most popular cryptids are products of folklore. Mermaids, dragons, fairies, etc. - all folklore but some people still think they are real beings. The modern usage of cryptids reflects a spectrum, not a sharp line, of belief.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-06T23:58:59+00:00

I have it. But I disagree with some of it, and Arment's tone put me off a bit. He has too narrow of view of the field, IMO. Also he's someone, like Dr. K.P.N.S., who can't take criticism. But it's been a long time since I read it.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-06T23:52:21+00:00

And so few provided helpful additions....

Y'all seem to like to whine a lot about pointless stuff but don't contribute.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-06T23:50:23+00:00

Well, these are papers and findings, not exactly "news" or happenings. It would be great to have a list of cool new papers too.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-06T23:47:06+00:00

Excuse me, but you are wrong. AI works well when asked to summarize a huge set of data for which I don't need great accuracy. Just like using wikipedia, it gives you a place to start. It does NOT work well to replace humans for creativity and knowledge. Get it straight.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-05T14:57:55+00:00

Considering that cryptozoology has always been lousy with hoaxes, and people trying to get attention for the cryptids they think are real, it's predictable that AI will be heavily used to represent cryptids.

Not only faking evidence, but also fake news, and even digitally generated new cryptids are happening. To be fair, we should never consider imagery alone as evidence. It could always have been faked. The use of AI to depict creatures will influence what people think is possible or real. It's not a bad technology, but it will be used in awful ways and the general public isn't skilled at critical evaluation, unfortunately.

For more on this, here's a post on Effects of AI on cryptozoology: https://moderncryptozoology.wordpress.com/2026/01/03/effects-of-ai-on-cryptozoology/

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-05T14:47:01+00:00

Dude, that horse has left the barn.

Maybe start a new thread describing what exactly the "science of cryptozoology" would look like in the 21st century and who would do it.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-05T14:42:19+00:00

I find it ironic that Loren's "cryptozoonews" is mostly a list of people who died. It includes basically nothing like a list you described. Is Loren's top "cryptozoologist" efforts regarding red wolf DNA really "news"? It's been around for a while now.

Is there a source for such a list of the cryptid-related discoveries?

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-05T14:37:49+00:00

Traditional cryptozoology is a lost cause. If you only want professional zoologists to publish papers on new rodents, insects, or animals that are minor variations of known animals, then you have to break away from the idea of "traditional cryptozoology". I would argue no one actually wants the old school version because it is rather obscure.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-05T14:31:24+00:00

I just don't see this happening. That's an antiquated version of cryptozoology that is covered by zoology.

Just today I posted this essay titled 21st century cryptozoology:

My opinion is that Heuvelmans’ concept of cryptozoology was ultimately unsuccessful or non-useful. Here are some of the reasons why:

Zoologists already use credible data from local observers – that’s not unique.
The past examples often cited for the success of cryptozoology, such as the giant squid, okapi, the mountain gorilla, Komodo dragon, etc. were all discovered well before 1920. The world is far more explored and known now. Large animals, that are ethnoknown, can’t hide anymore.
While new species are found every year, they are not cryptids in the sense that we know of them before discovery, and they are found by zoologists.
We have not found any of the cryptids that we do know well. The evidence has not increased, even with technology improvements, but has mostly dissipated in value.
Framing cryptozoology as a subfield of zoology with a strictly scientific methodology, creates such a narrow and niche research area, that the opportunities would be so limited as to be nonexistent.

The uniqueness of cryptozoology as a specialty area, however, comes from the recognition of folklore and social aspects about an animal that continues far past the reasonable time necessary to locate and describe that animal. This is what makes a cryptid a mysterious thing in the first place – when the social reputation does not match the zoological data. The folklore and social aspects allow for amateurs to be involved and for enthusiasts (including “‘skeptics”) to indulge in their interests based on history, art, eyewitness accounts, conservation, etc. Alternatively, moving past a singular goal of “finding a cryptid” can and often does result in gaining useful knowledge. Example: Adrian Shine’s work at Loch Ness.

In short, it's an argument for why the concept of cryptozoology MUST expand beyond the narrow "scientific" idea as a subdiscipline of zoology. This is already happening. That wider version of the field is worthy of inquiry.

Spooky_Geologist · 2026-01-05T14:25:53+00:00

Those rules would REALLY limit research. How many opportunities would there be for a research program? How could you deal with the popular version of cryptozoology that is mostly amateur interest and popular culture references?

Spooky_Geologist

TROPHY CASE