At least that would explain why he is hiding!

The sites pompous, elitist and filled with readers and writers that love nothing more than to rip on anyone who isn’t like them or doesn’t agree with them. It’s a gawker website, they are all pretty much locked into that ecosystem as it’s what seems to keep them trendy hip and above reproach. They need to pander to established thought in order to seem relevant and make money, not the grandest of ideals but they’re a business and a subsidiary, can’t really expect class or integrity from them.

When one is searching for possibly extinct animals, the search is for an animal whose existence is accepted; whose sign is known, and accepted; and for which the researchers are actually diligently searching for evidence.

For cryptids: no one knows what their sign looks like; no one believes anyone who says they saw one. And other than amateurs with real lives and surreal jobs, who can devote the occasional weekend at best (again, I note, with two historical exceptions of which I am aware), NO ONE IS EVEN LOOKING.

And the ones who are looking – with notable exceptions – don’t even know what they are looking for.

sigh…as has been said, it’s easy to make general statements when you don’t know what you’re talking about…other than that, eh? She’s not going to set the crypto world on fire with that one…

In summery it is that in a specific location, if after about six attempts by qualified scientists fail to find that animal, it most probably isn’t there. While that study isn’t good news for any lake monster buff, it really doesn’t do much to dampen hopes for those interested in possibly unknown animals.

Here’s why. Vagrants. This is the zoological term used for animals found well outside their “known” specific geographic range. Only in the last 50 years has the idea of vagrants been accepted and perhaps only in the past 25 years widely so by mainstream zoologists. That most “extinct” animals recently rediscovered have been found at the fringes or even outside their previously “known” territories.

Guess what it all means is that if your cryptid of choice can fly, walk, crawl or lives in saltwater then this study offers nothing to dampen your “evidence” hopes or dreams of any possible cryptid.

Except for those alleged cryptids in small contained areas. Like lake monsters.

And here it is:

“But what about species that haven’t been discovered at all? What about the ones that exist only in legend? How long before we give up? Apparently, after about eleven searches. One or two concentrated efforts don’t have much of a chance of finding an animal even if it is out there. The chances of finding the species increase steadily up until about six searches have been made. After that, the odds don’t increase. Get to about eleven searches, and you’ve got a true indication that no one will ever find what you’re looking for. It isn’t there. How many episodes of Finding Bigfoot have there been?”

Silly Hyphen!

Dismissing FB as what we know it is – a TV program for ratings and exposure, not a search for anything – how many Bigfoot expeditions have there been, in history?

Two. Grand total time, two months approximately.

That isn’t even ONE search, much less eleven. And both of those expeditions, had they had mainstream-accredited scientists on board, would have come back saying: NOW we search until we confirm it. Because it appears to be out there.

Stick to what you know, Hyphen.

Thanks, red_pill. How refreshing it is to occasionally do what people like Ms. Hyphen are doing here: dismissing something without looking at it.

I may read it for entertainment. But you are seeing my opinion of it before I even do: it’s a pile of poppycock.

Care to contest me, Ms. Hyphen?

Consider evidence, for a change. Then I might consider you.

The grist of cryptozoology is the grist of zoology, says here. Which rules out FB, men in ape suits, silly videos, and other things like that.

Ms. Hyphen: please try to spend your spare – it must be! – time more profitably than by writing things knowledgeable people can dismiss without reading them.

But all kidding aside: Darmouth Physics Department to lame SF blogger? Wow, I’d call that a serious academic tailspin.

Esther the crux of this piece to me’s your observation “what about species that haven’t been discovered at all? What about the ones that exist only in legend? How long before we give up?” because there’s two possible interpretations of your meaning.

On the one hand you’re merely reporting a possible inference of Fisher and Blomberg’s analysis applied to cryptids (though I’d argue if the likes of Bigfoot or Yeti exist you’re dealing with something closer to a persecuted minority or wanted criminals actively seeking to stay off the radar rather than a ‘dumb’ animal and therefore Fisher and Blomberg isn’t applicable).

On the other you’re trying something similar to Richard Wiseman calling for a guillotine to be declared whereby psi phenomena has to be proved to him and his cohorts’ satisfaction by the time they’re having their Saturday evening baked beans in front of the latest Simon Cowell extravaganza otherwise we must all agree to stop researching the subject anymore and accept it doesn’t exist.

If the latter then I’ll say to you what I usually say whenever I encounter a comment on a paranormal website to the effect “Is it only on your deathbeds you losers’re finally go’n'o realise there ARE no ghosts flying saucers Bigfoot or Nessies and you’re wasting your lives?”

Is it only on YOUR deathbed people like YOU are finally go’n'o realise YOU’RE wasting YOUR lives try’n'o put a stop to other people pursuing their legitimate interests simply because it irritates you?

Hopefully though you’re not so closed minded as that and you understand the moment something like say a Bigfoot or a Nessie’s finally discovered’s the moment when the claim of a complete lack of evidence instantly evaporates because suddenly some of those blurry photos and odd anecdotes turn out to be invaluable natural history data of the creature’s activities (as opposed to ‘photoshop jobs’ and ‘meaningless ramblings of the deranged and confused’).

I note though that not a few cryptozoologists have decided you ARE that type whereas I’m more suprised you haven’t received a battering from the Batman community for your sneaky but clever insertion of the meme of the moment BANE into your headline!

[I agree with rpj though I love her Little House on the Prarie style name and I imagine her responding to Nick's tirade with the words "Is it 'cause I is Inglis?"].

After all, the most important part of her post is, “A species is classified as extinct when no one has seen it for fifty years or after an exhaustive, extensive search has yielded nothing.” Regardless of whether or not Bigfoot is a new biological species, it has certainly not been 50 years since the last sighting; also an “exhaustive” search not only has never been made, it is really impossible to exhaustively search even, say, the state of Washington.

A more telling criticism of shows like Finding Bigfoot is not that they claim failure, but that they invariably claim some manner of success regardless of how poor their evidence is.