Posted by: Loren Coleman on August 3rd, 2009
People hang on his every word….He can speak zoology,…in cryptozoology….He doesn’t always drink root beer, but when he does, he prefers Capt’n Eli….He is the most interesting cryptozoologist – - – in the world.
Stay curious, my friends.
Well, you get the idea. Life is a stage and we all are actors, in a way. Some just have different costumes than others.
Are you the most interesting person in your neighborhood? I imagine you are by the mere fact you read Cryptomundo!
If you recall, in the initial discussion, “Cryptozoologist Dress Code?,” it appeared some headway was made in putting the cap on premature conclusions and opening our eyes to the fashion statements about the evolving standards of dress in our business. (Some people even took my pondering seriously.)
Therefore, now, let us look further to seek a few simple truths, as we change points of view to discovery other crowning wonders.
Shall we start with an example of someone who appears to live in two worlds? Or so we are to believe?
This is newspaper columnist known as “That Guy” (above) ~ i.e. Leigh Hart, the New Zealand comedian who hoaxed the Ohio Bigfoot conference by presenting himself as a genuine documentary filmmaker. Instead, he appeared to be trying to be cryptozoology’s Borat or Bruno. Reviews are mixed as to whether he succeed.
He was dressing the part to go undercover (see below).
It is apparent what programs Hart has been watching to come up with his undercover outfit. Here Extreme Expeditions’ Adam Davies is shown during his documentary film trip seeking Almas in Mongolia. The right clothing to wear is pretty obvious.
Staying in that half of the world, what can we learn from Australia?
Above is Chris Rehberg who conducted the search for the Thylacine on that new “MonsterQuest” episode “Isle of the Lost Tiger.” He’s wearing a hat and a bird.
How about coauthors? Have a gander at this archival snapshot of Patrick Huyghe, my writing partner on a couple cryptozoology field guides, and the editor-in-chief of Anomalist Books. This is Patrick in 1976, with a hat and another kind of bird.
There are all kinds of fedoras to wear. As Patrick demonstrates, not all of them are of the Indiana Jones variety.
Basically, there is an underlying theme here. Besides the utility of the hat for fieldwork in wild areas, the fedora versus the bare head speaks to an era when this kind of hat projected an investigative “detective” image.
Forget the pith helmet and the cigarette. The fedora is the hat of choice for cryptozoology.
Subtly, what we are talking about is how do cryptozoologists approach their investigations, as symbolically seen in their hats. Some shall know an existence by its frogs; others can best realize the world via its hats, or the lack thereof. Even Darren Naish, unconsciously, was giving visual life to this in 2007, especially as noted here regarding the hatless nature of the skeptic shown to the right, below.
Examine this picture, and view the messages being given:
Here is the text that Darren Naish wrote to go with this image: “I would say that a zoologist can indulge in cryptozoological work, a folklorist can indulge in cryptozoological work, but a dedicated cryptozoologist combines work on both zoology and folklore. The term ‘cryptozoologist’ is actually used, therefore, for three quite distinct types of researchers: this is something that hasn’t really been acknowledged and I feel that it explains why different areas of cryptozoology have different levels of credibility. The zoology-based cryptozoologist looks at the mystery animals being investigated by the folklore-based cryptozoologist, and thinks that they are highly unlikely to exist as real animals. The folklore-based cryptozoologist looks at the often rather mundane animals being investigated by the zoology-based cryptozoologist and thinks that the creatures concerned are so ordinary that they’re probably nothing to do with cryptozoology. A dedicated cryptozoologist – who combines investigation of both of these fields – is interested in both areas, and finds both real animals, and entities that exist only in folklore, of equal research interest.”
Of course, I want to make it clear. Not all men that go hatless and have alopecia are skeptics, debunkers or hoaxers.
Sometimes a few may be infamous for other things.