Actually, I have no problem with anyone believing in the paranormal. But please, lump it into the spiritual and supernatural, not into the natural sciences.

Nick Redfern has certainly been clear about his zooform frame of reference, and parapsychological sense of almost every “cryptid” he’s ever investigated. There does not seem to be a parapsychology theory that Redfern has encountered that he doesn’t like. That’s fine.

What he fails to see, however, is that all of the writers he usually cites to support his thesis (e.g. Gordon, later writings of Dinsdale & Holiday, Downes, Harpur, and parts of Healey/Cropper), all share his same bias.

He actually interprets the data in a parapsychology fashion by using the writings of people already sharing his tent. But he does not reveal that this “chosen” data are only a small minority of the creature, monster, and cryptid cases.

I too have a bias, and am honest about it. I look at the cryptozoology world via zoology and anthropology, but do not exclude the psychology of the eyewitnesses and the researchers. In this matter, I feel Matt Bille raises a valid point. There is an entire field from which Redfern can study the reports he cherrypicks, and it is called “parapsychology.”

I see no one discouraging him from doing that, but I think this view of his that “we should modify what cryptozoology is” entirely smells too much of colonialism. Cryptozoologists can study the data from whatever angle they wish, but for those who understand that the history of cryptozoology issues first and foremost from zoology, there is firm grounding.

For those who want to add their insights, from whatever angle they wish, there is no one stopping them. Indeed, most cryptozoologists with a foundation in biology do not demand any kind of rigid channeling of the topic in their direction, as Redfern seems to be stating we all should do in our “ology” – our study of this field through his “zooform” and nonzoological screening.

Frankly, I am certainly tired of anyone saying it’s “my way or the highway” in cryptozoology. I’m interested in the zoology in cryptozoology, without excluding an understanding of the psychology too. I don’t think there’s a thing wrong with that.

Ivan T. Sanderson said once that there is no real science in explaining one unknown with another unknown. If Nick Redfern wants to do that, that’s okay with me. I would rather continue studying cryptids and doing my cryptozoology more scientifically by basing my examination of these possible new species by looking at the database through zoology/biology/anthropology, thank you.

Quantum physics/parapsychology? Maybe closer than you think, bro.

I mean: bunch of guys who can’t match a pair of socks and can’t remember where they put their keys, and who actually manufacture their eyeglasses out of Coke-bottle bases, telling us all this crap about stuff no one but they can see, and no one but they can check them on. Talk about a racket! At least regular people actually report seeing sasquatch.