Could you (or anyone else who is familiar with the matter) please provide more information about the disagreement between Meurger and Gagnon, or a reference to where it is discussed in more detail?

I was completely unaware of any rift between the two men until I read this post, although I did find it odd that the lake monsters book cover reads “by Michel Meurger with Claude Gagnon”, with the latter’s name underneath the former’s, and in smaller type.

Thanks.

People have always enjoyed spinning a yarn and there is ample evidence going back at least hundreds of years that this is the case in many historical accounts now widely perceived to be possibly cryptozoological in nature. In the modern setting this trend has continued and even expanded within the new methods of communication (note the number of fakes surfacing year after year on the internet). Furthermore, the majority of alleged cryptid reports come from the realms of amateur researchers and their associated social circles each with their own often intersecting versions of folklore. Fakery, particularly within this amateur research movement, seems to be an integral, yet often overlooked, part of the phenomenon. Indeed, the largest single contributor to cropster’s latest book on the Yowie (2006) falsified claims and evidence in 2009 – including casting and presenting the distorted impression of his own foot as that of a Yowie! Often, the appearance of sincerity among those claiming cryptid encounters is just that – the APPEARANCE of sincerity. Once a person can successfully fake that they have it made. It is all part and parcel of the performance of storytelling among a sub-culture of people brought up with a fascination for the “unknown” and a distinct love of embellishment and self-aggrandisement. Is that not folklore-in-action? How many other cryptid claims are of a similar nature? My own investigations into cryptozoology (particularly the Yowie) indicate that it is quite widespread than most popular authors would care to admit.

Cryptozoology seems to be much more of a human phenomenon rather than a biological one. The study of folklore, while obviously not able to explain all cases, has the potential to provide some tremendous insights into why people do what they do and believe what they believe. Given the lack of objective supporting evidence (outside of misidentifications and fakes), isn’t that the essence of the mystery?

Water monsters are often more folkloric, but look at the huge differences in descriptions which varies by area and culture. Old Meg, Kappa, serpents, dragons, relic dinos, nymphs, extraordinarily large fish, mermaids, kelpies. THESE sorts of things would lead me to believe folklore as a basis to explain drownings and people gone missing as so often happens near large bodies of water. (before I get hammered I am not claiming ALL water monsters are myths or folklore, but quite a few have NO evidence to support a physical entity at all)

However when we start talking about the ‘bigfoot’ things get a bit more odd. All the bipedal ‘myths’ are basically the same description of the same animal (or so it seems) with precious few variations. The names the indigenous give the animal is different from spot to spot but the eyewitness accounts are remarkably similar.

It is interesting to see the change in perspective and even more amazing to be able to practically pinpoint the year in which Fortean and Cryptozoology went from one mindset to a wholly different mindset. Book of the Damned was a completely different tone from what we read now. Makes you wonder what the fields would be like if this shift in thinking hadn’t occurred. I mostly remember Yuppies, Greed is good, and New Wave/Hair Band Music from this period of time.