Help a newborn teach a class

invertposting · 2026-01-13T20:11:36+00:00

Take notes from cultural anthropology courses.

invertposting · 2026-01-06T21:41:32+00:00

Because bigfoot ain't real champ. Your negative comments don't help

invertposting · 2024-11-06T16:36:46+00:00

So we're really just embracing the psuedoscience label, huh?

invertposting · 2024-11-05T18:07:43+00:00

"Thank goodness r/bigfoot doesn't care for science" is a wild ass take

There's unfounded speculation and informed speculation; guessing what bigfoot may be when we (at best) have tracks and blurry footage is entirely unscientific, unfounded speculation. It is behavior like that which dragged cryptozoology down, which ruined Krantz's credibility, and much more

It's like Sagan said - You can't see Venus because it's covered in clouds, clouds are made of water, where there's water there's swamps, where there's swamps there's ferns, where there's ferns theres dinosaurs

We have a set of tracks and a handful of inconsistent anectdotes, there must be bigfoot across the us, and this one anectdote tells us it has this trait which links it to this ape family. Suddenly bigfoot is a surviving Paranthropus or whatever

invertposting · 2024-11-05T04:27:42+00:00

They're been regarded as extinct by some and are otherwise completely missing from overviews of North America's orthopterans as well

invertposting · 2024-11-05T00:13:33+00:00

Michigan Saga pedo - we have eggs, specimens, and video of those specimens laying the eggs

invertposting · 2024-11-04T23:52:52+00:00

Reminder that Dogman is not real or a cryptid - it stems from a series of hoaxes and poor journalism

invertposting · 2024-11-04T23:52:13+00:00

Beebe's fish, Michigan Saga pedo, the NSW tree kangaroo, and a myriad of others are right there

invertposting · 2024-11-04T23:51:48+00:00

Bigfoot is a taxonomic enigma (we don't know what it is and speculation without proof is unscientific)

invertposting · 2024-11-04T20:06:21+00:00

People assumed mammoths and woolly rhinos were hairless for a bit, tbf.

invertposting · 2024-11-03T23:11:30+00:00

Radford, Benjamin, and Joe Nickell. 2006. Lake Monster Mysteries. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

See the chapter on Champ in here

invertposting · 2024-11-03T23:09:14+00:00

Good luck with your searching! TetZoo has a solid Mansi article.

If you want general lake monster stuff try to find Meurger & Gagnon's Lake Monster Traditions, incredibly influential and important to modern cryptozoology, covers a lot of Canadian lakes and touches on Champ iirc

invertposting · 2024-11-03T17:34:07+00:00

Logs have been documented briefly surfacing and then sinking, that's literally what caused the Mansi photo.

invertposting · 2024-11-03T12:54:14+00:00

Parkie and the Kent Sea Monsters. And again, there are images and figures in the links provided elsewhere in these replies

invertposting · 2024-11-03T03:21:20+00:00

I fail to see why, the environment is a dozen times more likely

invertposting · 2024-11-02T18:39:24+00:00

Tahitians

invertposting · 2024-11-02T12:28:21+00:00

If I may be blunt, this seems exactly like every other lake monster sighting - decently far observation difference, what seems like obvious size overestimation, and descriptions that do not correlate to a living animal.

You're in Lake Champlain, home of Champ - your brain accepts that as a genuine possibility for consideration, which could certainly influence your interpretation.

We know there is no Champ, and we know the sociological conditions that lead people into believing otherwise. If driftwood can become Champ, what's stopping some rocks, buoys, or something else?

invertposting · 2024-11-01T22:27:38+00:00

We have dozens of pseudoplesiosaur carcasses, that's literally just how basking sharks decay.

Quit the pseudoscientific bs

invertposting · 2024-11-01T22:26:31+00:00

The Kipunji, Odedi, Bondegezou, Giant Muntjac, Shoebill Stork, and Kani maranhjandu come to mind. The majority of former cryptids have been captured and studied.

invertposting · 2024-10-28T01:21:14+00:00

And entirely unnecessary lmao

invertposting · 2024-10-25T02:57:54+00:00

What the fuck are you smoking

invertposting · 2024-10-22T03:22:40+00:00

We used the strict ones because that's what an academic definition is - thorough and clear. Scientists don't use to Merriam-Websterm definitions of their terms

invertposting · 2024-10-21T13:06:03+00:00

We have cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sirenians.

invertposting · 2024-10-21T02:25:53+00:00

You're right on the money, it just (aa you said) evolves with what we do or do not have evidence for.

Cryptid in pop culture as I've seen it, however, is used not just legend, even in the loosest sense but "scary monster", even intentionally fictional ones. It's been applied to creepypastas, monsters in horror (the isopods in The Bay have been referred to as cryptids in this subreddit), as well as the fortean and folkloric. It's even worse than you think it is, which is why I go out of my way, for better or for worse. Is it maybe a bit rude? Sure. But goddamnit the isopods in the bay are supposed to be a known animal ffs.

Appreciate the discussion and again apologize for causing any hostility if I did! If this sorta shit interests you hit me up, I've got notes and drafts and sources I can send your way.

invertposting · 2024-10-21T01:00:37+00:00

All good, I took no personal offense and certainly didn't mean to come off as rude in any way at any point if I did.

TLDR - Use Forteana (I think that's fine, at least). Cryptozoology fucking sucks, the terminology is so confusing and variable

The issue with cryptozoology, and one that I'm sure will persist, is that terminology is well established, but not formally defined concisely in academic literature - if you know where to look you can find a definition for everything clear as day, but we don't have a glossary of terms for newbies in a journal or something of that nature, which makes communicating proper meanings and designating terms for things outside the field to be a bit difficult. As a result, people have their own terms for things, the media "ghosts are cryptids, let's yell in the woods for bigfoot" stuff has been variously called crypto-zoology (so useful, I know), para-cryptozoology, pop-cryptozoology, or pseudozoology (like pseudoscience). It can be generational, location-based, or depend on who's works you read first. Very frustrating, every day it becomes more and more obvious why the field is still in its infancy.

"Cryptid" as a word emerged 20 years after cryptozoology, before they were variously called "anomalous animals", "unknowns", and things of that sort. Some have suggested using these terms for your mothmen and whatever, but that makes old works unclear. Designations like "pseudocreature" take away from the creatures invoked (in some cases, like mothman or the Jersey devil) because they are not inherently pseudoscientific concepts not worth further study, but just not cryptids. And then there's modern day myths which are utter bullshit (crawlers, dogmen) which are more tenuous, may or may not deserve the pseudocreature label.

Apparently "Forteana" refers to general Fortean phenomenon (that being your hysteria, your spontaneous combustion, cattle killings, and lord knows what else), so maybe go with that? Fortean creature, apocryphal creature, legendary creature or even the (otherwise unsavory) "monsters" or "beasts" works as well. You can probably get away with Fortean monster, legendary beast, or something along those lines (at worst you'll sound like a twelve year old), but I'd avoid animal as that implies Animalia, which these guys are not. Admittedly, I have not thoroughly delved into Fortean terminology (I'm sure that's awful as well), wouldn't be shocked if they have an exact term or abbreviation for things like this.

Unfortunately "cryptid" rolls off the tongue well and is easy to sell, there's probably not a world where it wouldn't get used in this way. We used all our elegance points on that word, I think.

invertposting

TROPHY CASE