As with all fringe topics, cryptozoology was boosted by the Internet with websites and podcasts taking advantage of the media and commercial interest in monster talk. Cryptozoological-themed books, once almost exclusively collections of stories from witnesses and speculative supposition about mysterious creatures, expanded to include scholarly contributions that considered the folklore and sociological aspects of the topic. Books by more skeptical scholars such as Prothero and Loxton, Radford, and Naish were deliberately shunned by the cryptozoological community, eliciting angry tirades and hostilities against the authors.4
Your Average Cryptozoologist
The average cryptozoologist in the U.S. is focused on Bigfoot. According to an informal survey by Regal (2011), the mostly male Bigfoot seekers are typically working class, white, between 30 and 40 years old. They frequently identify as naturalists or wildlife enthusiasts. Many are hunters and a few have some biology or wildlife education. Some groups expand to consider other cryptids but Bigfoot is the big prize. Individual researchers specialize in various local cryptids and write books collecting the local lore dug up from newspaper accounts or by interviewing residents. Regal notes (p. 174) that what amateur cryptozoologists lack in education, they make up in enthusiasm, having a strong sense of identity and mission. The amateurs are considered “experts,” the “embattled minority” against the “closed-minded” scientists in their “Ivory Tower” (p. 123).
With the decentralization of the UFO/ARIGs and the strongly local ties of ghost/ARIGs, Bigfoot seekers perhaps come the closest these days of all the ARIGs to having any semblance of a unified organization of research. The largest group in the U.S. is the Bigfoot Field Research Organization (BFRO). They maintain a database of sightings, but it has not been systematically studied or published. The BFRO has not so far made an organized effort at analyzing their data set to guide their future research. The head of the BFRO, Matt Moneymaker, is on the Finding Bigfoot show. The BFRO labels themselves as “scientific” but Moneymaker himself is not a scientist.5 While there are rifts between personalities and groups, particularly regarding association with those notables who are accused of hoaxing, most researchers seem to generally get along. At least they are not quite as outwardly antagonistic as the ghost groups are to each other and they sometimes even cooperate and share experiences and data.
Witness accounts are the life blood of cryptozoology; they are the core of the field and the reason for its existence. Cryptids need to be “witnessed into existence” by someone or some group (Loxton & Prothero 2013) which sparks investigators to begin looking for evidence. You will find crypto/ARIGs interviewing witnesses, investigating sighting reports, camping overnight, setting up remote cameras, installing hair or blood traps, making sounds by howling or wood knocking (striking trees with sticks or bats), and listening for replies, preserving casts of what they believe are foot or hand prints, documenting disturbed vegetation or objects, and collecting feces for analysis. Bigfoot-focused ARIGs are driven by a diverse range of ideas. Most consider Bigfoot to be a real flesh and blood animal that leaves traces, has DNA, and could be captured, eventually. Popular candidates suggested for a biological Bigfoot include relict hominins (other human-like beings) from the fossil record. Anthropologists Grover Krantz and Carleton Coon suggested that Gigantopithecus (the largest primate so far documented) did not go extinct and may account for Bigfoot/Sasquatch sightings even though what is known about this animal does not match with modern Bigfoot reports. There is no recent evidence that supports the claim that Gigantopithecus continued to exist in hidden places.
Bigfooters encounter further difficulty in explaining why the creature is often said to be spotted near human habitation, spying on campsites, and physically harassing the intruders, yet leaves no remains or reliable photo documentation after more than 50 years of searching. Claims by Bigfoot-ARIGs that the creature buries its dead contradict archaeological and paleontological understanding that prompt burial is more likely to enhance preservation. Proposing that a new, large animal is out there yet to be found but not infrequently seen is extremely problematic and unlikely. The need for a genetically diverse population of large animals, and the extensive range required to sustain them, provides ample reason for wildlife biologists to be doubtful of their existence. The record of evidence for Bigfoot and cryptids is plagued with poor scholarship even with a number of scientists involved. The field has not produced scientifically rigorous results.
On the opposite end of the rational spectrum is the paranormal explanation. While psychic powers and UFOs have been associated with Bigfoot for a long while, the growing popularity of out-of-this-world explanations results in a “supernatural creep” away from flesh and blood explanations. Non-natural excuses are proposed in an attempt to explain the extraordinary details in anecdotes such as sudden disappearances of the creatures, their inability to be captured or harmed by gunfire, or connection to UFOs (Gordon 2010). The “Supernatural Bigfoot” idea was promoted heavily by the late Jon-Erik Beckjord who was shunned by “serious” cryptozoologists but was a favorite for outrageous interviews (Buhs 2009; Regal 2011). One ARIG planned to capture a specimen or reputable evidence of what they call the North American wood ape.6 On the opposite extreme are those who assume Bigfoot and other mystery monsters are inter-dimensional or have psychic- or super-powers found in no other lifeforms and, thus, can elude human detection. People with no stake in acceptance by an academic or government establishment are more likely to take this paranormalist approach. Some revel in an unconventional persona, blurring boundaries between the cryptozoological and occult communities (Bader et al. 2010). As with the UFO and ghost communities there are Bigfoot “contactees” that claim to have a deep personal, even telepathic, connection to local populations of Bigfoots they claim live nearby. Others compare such claimed experiences to a religious state (Sykes 2016; Buhs 2009).
Bigfoot captures most cryptozoological attention but ARIGs also investigate reports of lake monsters, out-of-place big cats such as pumas or black panthers, the Jersey Devil, chupacabras (a variant of which are called “Texas blue dogs”—popularized by an episode of Monster Quest7), and other unusual animal sightings. In some lucky cases, a body (albeit a strange one) has been discovered and photographed with the resulting story making a media splash. Witnesses and cryptid enthusiasts will invariably speculate it could be a new species but scientific investigation identified these cases as individuals of known species. Media stylized “mystery creatures” turn out to be an unfortunate native animal with a disease or uncommon genetic condition, or an imported out-of-place species. Carcasses of domestic or native animals can look “weird” and may not be not immediately identifiable due to effects from decomposition or environmental exposure that the average person is unfamiliar with. Such mysteries are quickly labeled “monsters.”
Professional Cryptozoology
In 1982, a group of scientists interested in the search for rumored animals formed the International Society of Cryptozoology, producing their own journal and newsletter. Their goal was to provide a unified effort to pursue the field and to provide goals and a system for sharing information. Many scientists from around the world joined the ISC (Regal 2011). Cryptozoology was on the path to respectability. Those who subscribed to fringe explanations for cryptids (aliens, alien pets, interdimensional beings, spirits, thoughtforms, etc.) were relegated to the fringes. However, most Bigfoot hunters didn’t like the ISC which floundered and eventually disappeared due to mismanagement in 1998 leaving the field without an official society, no overall guidance, outlook, or publication.
Loren Coleman, an author with a background in social work, considers himself a full-time cryptozoologist. Coleman founded and maintains the International Cryptozoology Museum in Maine and has resurrected an official organization, called the International Cryptozoology Society (ICS). Zoologist Dr. Karl Shuker also began publishing the Journal of Cryptozoology in 2012, but most of today’s cryptozoology media runs amok on t
he Internet and television in an insidious blend of fact and fiction without discernment. The subject of monsters, real or legendary, appears to be growing in popularity, most notably online. As with other paranormal investigations, credentialed scientists are rarely in the mix (Loxton & Prothero 2013). Within academic anthropology, the pattern has been to have one Bigfoot-friendly professor at a time. For much of the later twentieth century, this was Dr. Grover Krantz (Regal 2011). Today, the current pro–Bigfoot scientist is Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an anatomy and anthropology professor at Idaho State University and regular headliner of cryptozoology-themed TV shows, podcasts, and conferences. Geneticists, such as Dr. Todd Disotell of New York University, have stepped up to assess supposed DNA evidence claimed to be from man-like apes. Professor Emeritus from Oxford University, Dr. Bryan Sykes, analyzed DNA samples from around the world hoping to find a unique signature. His work did not locate the enigmatic Bigfoot or a Yeti as hoped but his book revealed that an academic reputation, connections, and funding provided access to tools and experts ARIGs wouldn’t have. For example, he noted that evidence carefully collected by Bigfoot researchers was treated shabbily by labs because of the assumption that it was nonsense or that they would not get paid (Sykes 2016). The Olympic Project was another attempt at an organized approach to Bigfoot research described as an “association of dedicated researchers, investigators, biologists and trackers committed to documenting the existence of Sasquatch through science and education.”8 So far, no such project or test result has provided the goods to state Bigfoot is real.
There is no academic course of study in cryptozoology or no university degree program that will bestow the title of “cryptozoologist.” Some skeptical-minded researchers are steering the field more towards scholarship in folklore, history and social sciences, and away from capturing a flesh and blood “cryptid” that some enthusiasts hope will overturn scientific knowledge. After decades of intensive search, we still have no Bigfoot or lake monster to show for such efforts. One common argument made by cryptozoologists is that indigenous people have special knowledge of local animals, including cryptids. Or, those who hunt or fish regularly can more readily recognize animals in the wild. Cryptozoologists frequently tout the findings of European explorers who brought strange animals known to locals into the scientific domain. The era that brought us the discovery of the giant panda, mountain gorilla, and okapi largely came to end with the last stages of European colonialism and these animals are now well-known from museum specimens and zoos. The giant squid served as an example to cryptozoologists that legendary monsters may indeed be alive in the sea. While we now have bodies and several verified and recorded live sightings of the giant squid, wariness of ambiguous testimony as evidence dates from the very early days of science (Lyons 2009). There is good reason for that doubtfulness. Eyewitnesses, no matter how experienced, are prone to perceptual distortion in poor conditions and bias to see what they think they should be seeing. Ideally, anecdotes can be useful in that they should lead to confirmation of the observations and better evidence. This does not happen with modern cryptids. Modern new species are either visually similar to known species or a complete surprise unrelated to mystery reports of strange animals. Many new species are found in museum drawers, collected decades ago and never fully examined.
In a unique twist, Biblical Creationists, who deny the process of evolution and the geologic evidence for a multi-billion-year-old earth, comprise a subset of cryptozoology advocates. They are well-funded and able to conduct expeditions with a goal of finding a living dinosaur that they think would invalidate evolution. It wouldn’t. Yet seekers of living dinosaurs and other cryptids are motivated by the Biblical literalist view of a divine creation and to show that conventional science is wrong (Loxton & Prothero 2013).9
Bigfoot has become synonymous with “hoax” (Buhs 2009). This association, which also tarnishes the investigation of ghosts and UFOs to a lesser degree, creates an embarrassing situation for serious-minded seekers. Several Bigfooters carry a reputation as known scammers, the most notable being Rick Dyer who attempted to capitalize on several concocted shams starting with the Georgia Bigfoot body of 2008 (Loxton & Prothero 2013). This sensational story was brought directly to the public via press conference. Once images of the dead “Bigfoot” were circulated, it was quickly exposed as a costume with animal innards added for effect. Dyer’s scam followed a tradition of Bigfoot hoaxing that included the Minnesota Iceman that fooled Heuvelmans and Sanderson. But Dyer wasn’t done jerking the chain of Bigfoot believers. After the Bigfoot-in-a-freezer plan failed, he constructed a model named “Hank,” concocted a story that he shot it, and took it on a pay-per-view tour. He failed to make significant money off these gaffes, but drew many hopeful Bigfoot hunters in to his side-show. Other individuals with highly questionable activities include Tom Biscardi who runs the full-time Bigfoot-searching company called Searching for Bigfoot, Inc. Biscardi is most famous for being the spokesperson who promoted the finding of Dyer’s Georgia Bigfoot as a real animal carcass, and conducting the press conference that was covered by CNN. He later stated he’d been hoaxed himself, fooled by a costume and animal entrails. Todd Standing of the Sylvanic project that began in 2005, presented close-up photos of Bigfoot faces framed by tree branches in 2011. While charming and cute, the faces looked like puppets and did not resemble living creatures.10 Finding Bigfoot cast member Cliff Barackman was not at all impressed during an episode featuring the Sylvanic site.11 Standing had also gained attention by appearing on the popular show Survivorman: Bigfoot. This parade of rejected evidence framed cryptozoology as bunkum, taking your money and giving you an ultimately disappointing reveal.12
A few other Bigfoot projects were funded by private sources and crowd-sourced donations such as those by veterinarian Melba Ketchum to test alleged Bigfoot DNA samples (Ketchum et al. 2013), the Erickson project to capture photos of creatures in their habitat, and the Falcon project to fund a blimp to search for heat signatures from large animals in the woods. None of these projects have produced compelling evidence for cryptids. Ketchum collaborated with the Erickson project to produce a 2013 paper which was ridiculed for unscientific and absurd claims (Hill 2013). Poor scholarship from those who claim to be professional has left the field in disrepute.
Crypto-ARIGs assume there are mystery animals out there to identify and find. Many are passionate and sincere in their belief that the mystery animal exists. (See Sykes 2016.) As such, they give deference to every report of a sighting, often without critical questioning. As with the ghost seekers, cryptozoologists are convinced they will be the ones to solve the mystery and make history. With the lure of mystery and money undermining diligent and ethical research, the field of cryptozoology has serious credibility problems.
5
UFO Spotters
Flying Saucers
Millennia of historical records exist of strange things people reported seeing in the sky. These reports are reflective of the cultural beliefs of the time, including the “mystery airships” at the end of the 19th century. Only recently, at the dawn of the Space Age, has the phenomena become associated with extraterrestrial beings. Saucers began flying in earnest in 1947 and within weeks 90 percent of Americans were familiar with the term (Thurs 2007). The sightings integrated into a new mythology that included prophets, mystics, seekers, and hoaxers (Moseley & Pflock 2002). A darker ufology (study of unidentified flying objects, UFOs) erupted in the second half of the 20th century, when a wild array of speculation arose about government conspiracies, alien technology, abduction of humans, cattle mutilation, hybrid experiments, and ancient alien gods, beginning in the U.S. and spreading abroad (Eghigian 2014). Interest in space visitors is fueled by our fear and fascination with what is beyond earth and beyond human technology and intelligence.
Investigating UFOs
The military, particularly the newly formed U.S. Air Force (USAF), were the first to be interested in UFOs, studying them as a national security risk, per
haps an enemy device (Sheaffer 1986). A scientific approach was desired, with reputable astronomers, astrophysicists, and other scientists involved in the issue.
Scientifical Americans Page 9