“Cryptozoologists don’t claim what they do is in the realm of the “paranormal”. Also, anything that deals with our world is most assuredly within the purview of scientific inquiry. If it exists in or affects our world, it can be tested and measured and falls under the realm of science. If it doesn’t exist in or affect our world, it doesn’t matter whether it exists or not. Consequently, most any “paranormal” claim and all cryptozoological claims fall under the purview of the scientific method”.

The scientific method generates theories based on reproducible results. Natural phenomenon can consistently be reproduced in the laboratory or in the field. While lake monsters may well be flesh and blood components of the natural world, for them to fall within the purview of mainstream scientific inquiry would require an ability to reproduce eyewitness sightings and photographic evidence. The problem for would-be cryptozoologists is that their quarry is remarkably elusive, so far yielding only inconclusive photographic and anecdotal evidence. Encounters with cryptids generally seem to be happenstance and attempts to re-create them have not been terribly effective. If someone reports an encounter with a lake monster, it’s at best an intriguing story as far as science is concerned. In order to generate a theory, scientists would need to be able to go to the same location and be able to reliably obtain the same results.

“What tools exist that are in the sole possession of mainstream science and are denied to cryptozoologists?”

Well, money for one. Thoroughly searching a large body of water for a mobile target is a difficult and expensive task for navies to perform. The sort of field expedition required to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, for example, would require large-scale institutional funding. In the absence of a carcass, that will never come.

I am completely open to the possibility of finding new creatures, but statistically the chances are tiny. If I found something unusual in my own neck of the woods I would be liasing with my zoologist and photographic friends and collaborating on a paper for a peer reviewed journal.

I have rarely found a tv production company with more than $200 to spare. I hope these fishermen got a bit more.

That’s because 100% of the time the photo/video/other evidence either turns out to be fake or blurry/questionable enough that it won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already believe. That’s why there’s still a “crypto” in cryptozoology. It would be disappointing if the “experts” here ignored all that’s come before and treated a new claim as if it was a near certainty or at worst a 50/50 chance of being true. Statistically speaking, it’s far more likely to not be smoking gun evidence, and all that’s available to go on before seeing the footage are past results. It would be no different if I told a physicist I’d discovered the secret to free energy or a mathematician that I’d proved Fermat’s Last Theorem with algebra. Thousands have claimed to do each, but all have failed the appropriate tests, so shouldn’t an expert, self-appointed or otherwise, be skeptical of any new claim?

“I also note that all who think this should be handled scientifically overestimate science. What scientist concerned about his reputation is going to show up to examine evidence of a “seamonster”/ History shows that this number is close to zero!”

The answer is not zero, but near 100%. Scientists would love to find a sea monster. But they’re not going to believe in the existence of sea monsters without conclusive evidence of sea monsters. Scientists have examined many strange washed-up carcasses in the past, and have determined them to be the decayed remains of known creatures, so history does not support your close to zero claim. Science is not the villain because it doesn’t have “faith” in something that has yet to be proven. That’s what protects us from believing in untrue things.

“Note:The ancient Romans and the American Moundbuilders were familiar with a caddy-like creature.”

The ancient Romans were also familiar with centaurs, unicorns and cyclops, but that’s not evidence of their existence.

@praetorian: “If John Kirk says this is legitimate, it’s legitimate.” My mantra is, “If James Randi says this is legitimate, it sure as heck is legitimate and he’s a million dollars poorer.” I’m more inclined to take the word of those who have something to lose rather than something to gain, if I have to take the word of anyone at all.

“That is because paranormal subjects lie beyond the purview of scientific inquiry. ”

Cryptozoologists don’t claim what they do is in the realm of the “paranormal”. Also, anything that deals with our world is most assuredly within the purview of scientific inquiry. If it exists in or affects our world, it can be tested and measured and falls under the realm of science. If it doesn’t exist in or affect our world, it doesn’t matter whether it exists or not. Consequently, most any “paranormal” claim and all cryptozoological claims fall under the purview of the scientific method.

“It’s unfair for to disparage cryptozoologists for failing to employ proper scientific methodologies since mainstream science denies them the tools required to conduct rigorous scientific research.”

What tools exist that are in the sole possession of mainstream science and are denied to cryptozoologists? I can think of one dissident astronomer who was denied telescope time in America forcing a move to Europe, but cryptozoology needs neither telescopes nor particle smashers to conduct their research, probably the only scientific tools large and expensive enough to be rare and under the control of “mainstream science”. Not having access to a tool also has nothing to do with employing the scientific method or not.

“Cryptozoological inquiry will be messy and imperfect as long as this situation persists and researchers will of course turn to the media for funding and publicity. The resources simply aren’t coming from anywhere else.”

We get into a chicken-and-egg problem at this point with the possibility of arguing that there isn’t enough hard evidence to warrant funding. I know this subject has been debated before, but it seems that all the creatures cryptozoologists are seeking have evidence stacked against them for existing in the first place (many have evidence to indicate they are extinct or long extinct, many have no evidence or relatives in the fossil record, etc.) Cryptozoology, in my opinion, can never be integrated with mainstream science because seemingly all the creatures it seeks are believed to be dead or never having existed by mainstream science, and finding any would overturn many established theories. It’s “fringe” by definition. Mainstream science would need more than the normal amount of evidence in these cases to fund expeditions than, say, looking for a new subspecies of lizard.

This leaves the work of finding cryptids to amateurs who, one hopes, try to employ scientific reasoning even though their investigations technically fall within the realm of pseudo-science.

It’s unfair for to disparage cryptozoologists for failing to employ proper scientific methodologies since mainstream science denies them the tools required to conduct rigorous scientific research. Cryptozoological inquiry will be messy and imperfect as long as this situation persists and researchers will of course turn to the media for funding and publicity. The resources simply aren’t coming from anywhere else.

Thanks for the continued updates, John! And don’t let the naysayers get to you.

If John Kirk says this is legitimate, it’s legitimate.

Any photo or media is instantly derided as fake by “experts” here no matter the source and now the same verbal assault occurs before the footage is even viewed.

And just how does a Reality show sink so far below “real shows” like Destination Truth–which is a “scientific” show? Classic!

I also note that all who think this should be handled scientifically overestimate science. What scientist concerned about his reputation is going to show up to examine evidence of a “seamonster”/ History shows that this number is close to zero!

Note:The ancient Romans and the American Moundbuilders were familiar with a caddy-like creature.