Comments on: How Big is the Cryptozoology Community?

By: John A. Lutz

John A. Lutz — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:14:24 +0000

Loren:

I too, remember Ivan T. Sanderson and have never forgotten his insight into the mystery world of grey, meaning all is NOT just white & black.

I met Ivan in Spring 1967 at SITU Head-quarters in Columbia, New Jersey. Although we only planned to stay a few hours, we ended up staying for 22 hours leaving Sunday Noon.

We were sent there by Lou Corbin, News Director of Baltmore’ Md’s WFBR Radio. Lou was right, Ivan was #1 in the top 10 who played major roles of inspiring my young life. Although Lou Corbin played a leading role in my UFO interest, Ivan made me a Bigfoot believer by showing me the “iceman” & other wheel of knowledge mysteries.(I still have a copy of his wheel of knowledge).

My life is much richer today because of the teachings of Ivan T. Sanderson, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dr. James McDonald, Lou Corbin, Dr. Ted Roth, Rene Dahinden, George W. Maugans, Charles Robertson, Dr. R. Pennington Smith & Bruce S. Wright.

Each of the above were of the ole school & involved in various branches of sciences . May they all rest in peace!

By: Terry W. Colvin

Terry W. Colvin — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:34:54 +0000

Loren’s review of rising cryptid awareness among the general population is right on the mark. Carol’s comment that lurkers outnumber posters is so true.

We may get a warm fuzzy on the numbers of people who are active, semi-active, or casual and many more show an interest.

Lists tend to fragment interest as off-topic posts proliferate. In some ways the old snail mail days were better in focusing research.

My guesstimate/SWAG would be tens of thousands are interested. We know the English speaking world seems to dominate in discussions of fortean phenomena. I just wonder how much we are “missing” in the non-English speaking world.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:13:25 +0000

Matt, reminds me of Clarke’s First Law (from Arthur C. Clarke): “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:10:09 +0000

Combinations of memberships, lists, and sales, unfortunately, does not take into account that the re-counting of the same individual would naturally occur.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:05:47 +0000

The reference to George Gaylord Simpson is one of my favorite moments in cryptozoological history. His scathing “Mammals and Cryptozoology” insisted that only a “few small and unimportant mammals” remained to be found. Rarely in cryptozoology has so eminent an authority been proven so wrong.

If I may elaborate a bit on the original question, has anyone ever tried to track the size of the active cryptozoological community (that is, the people who do research or actively seek out information) by combined membership of clubs and newsgroups, sales of crypto-related books and newsletters, etc.?

Thanks

By: Carol Maltby

Carol Maltby — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:15:56 +0000

FWIW, checking Google newsgroups for “cryptid” takes us back to 1993-4, where a half dozen mentions of a jazz group, The Cryptids (a “Mythical Jazz Trio” ), are the only use of the word. You could probably count the succeeding usages and find it fanning outward each year.

My rule of thumb for online forums is for each active poster there are about 10 lurkers. Always something that is good to remember. A lot of people post like they think the dialogue is just between the people speaking, but the silent readers are just as much a part of it.

By: Shadow Ink

Shadow Ink — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:24:22 +0000

Most or roughly 60% of the people I know think Bigfoot exists in some form. As this area has had several reported sightings, you might think that figure should be higher. I think a lot of the others “wouldn’t be surprised” if one were caught. My vote for most likely found, alive, is the Tasmanian tiger. What would you call an animal that had most of the features of a red fox, except its neck was much slimmer and longer as were its legs. The hind legs being noticeably longer than the front. The muzzle and the ears were a bit shorter than your typical red fox and its tail far less brushy but tipped in white? I ask because I saw one, up close, for at lest 30 seconds. Just curious.

By: jerrywayne

jerrywayne — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:31:16 +0000

I don’t know how many professional scientists are interested in cyptozoology. I thought Heuvelman was the most credible of the professionals (until he got mixed up with the “Iceman”), while Sanderson was a favorite of mine until he went off the deep end and began writing chapters on such things as “telepathic ants.” I do remember the great evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson penning an unfavorable critique of cryptozoology before he died.

As a kid I became interested in crypto ideas after reading “Stranger Than Science” by Edwards and “the Maybe Monsters” by Gould. Later, I would trek down to an old bookstore downtown and look for old “True” magazines in search of Sanderson’s Bigfoot stories. I ordered Whyte’s book on Nessie from a British publsher and spent months and months waiting for it to arrive. (And later, the same process for Dinsdale’s book).

Through the years I could find no one, friend or family, who had any interest in crypto items.Most folks were simply not interested and thought the whole thing was a waste of time. Others thought there might be something to Loch Ness or Bigfoot, but just weren’t interested enough to pursue such topics. It was lonely being the only one knowledgable of such things. If Loren is correct, though, more and more laypersons today ARE interested!

I pose this question: Which cryptid do people posting here believe will eventually be discovered?

My pick: King Cheetah.

By: Tengu

Tengu — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:04:25 +0000

Not knocking your biggy contribution, Loren, but I think we need Sanderson and Heuvelmans back.

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:18:05 +0000

Cool article, Loren, thanks. I’m currently reading Sanderson’s “Things”, a very interesting book. I’m sure he’d be proud of you.