Cryptozoology is a legitimate scientific field worthy of the same level of

1
Cryptozoology is a legitimate scientific field worthy of the same level of attention
and respect that any other science is allotted.
By Danny B Stewart
An introduction to Cryptozoology
There are a small number of individuals who commit a considerable amount of their
time, energy, and most cases own money perusing the possibility that strange,
undiscovered and assumed extinct animals are hiding in the presumably great unknown.
Some of these individuals claim to be cryptozoologists, however there is no school that
offers any course, nor is there a degree through which one can obtain the official title of
cryptozoologist. Most of those involved in this “unofficial” science are laypersons,
people with a fascination for the unknown, or fantastic, individuals who spend their
spare-time as self-proclaimed “professionals,” private investigators, who gather every bit
of information on a specific creature, or creatures. Cryptozoology also attracts educated
and open-minded scientists, professionals who delve into the possibilities that
cryptozoology presents approaching it with an opened-minded, yet pragmatic approach.
Cryptozoology is “the science of hidden animals,” animals whose existence known by
the local populations sufficiently well that we indirectly known of their existence and
certain aspects of their behavior and appearance. Perhaps a better term is animals
“undescribed by science.”1 In this paper I will show with example and historical
precedent, through evidence, and the discovery of creatures that at one point were
thought to be extinct, or myths, but were eventually proven to exist. I will attempt to
prove that cryptozoology is a legitimate scientific field worthy of the same level of
attention and respect that any other science is allotted.
There is a misconception that cryptozoology is an arcane or occult “science,”2 that it
is in the business of “hunting monsters”. It is not! It is this misconception that paints a
2
negative portrait of cryptozoology and is what the many naysayers use to discredit it.3
Monsters do not exist; animals we know nothing about (yet) do exist.
The first zoologist to fully devote his professional life exclusively to this field was
Bernard Heuvelmans. Heuvelmans is called “the father of cryptozoology” with this
labeling Heuvelmans was quick to point out that there were several “forefathers.” In the
late 1950s Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001) who had a Ph. D. in “zoological sciences”4
coined the term “cryptozoology” using the Greek roots kryptos (hidden), zoon (animal),
and logos (discourse), which means, “the science of hidden animals.”5 These are animals!
Not monsters! A better description would be “unknowns,”6 a more respectable term for
these “unknowns” is “cryptids.” The word cryptid was coined in 1983 by John E Wall.7
It could be argued that cryptozoology, not in name, but in form, (an indirect practice
of it if you will, through “old-wives-tales” “ancient camp-fire-stories,” etc.) has existed
throughout history in one form or another. There are a plethora of “monster” tales from
the worlds ancient past, Grecian myths, the various wild-men of the world’s forests, and
the Sirrush of Ishtar Gate are good examples.
Introducing the cryptid
When we consider a cryptid what are we talking about or looking for?
1: Extant and known living species which are unrecognized as living in a particular area.
2: Known and living species whose form, color, size, is extraordinary for that species,
giant anacondas, spotted lions.
3: Known species thought to be extinct within historical times.
4: Presumably extinct species, not in fossil form, known only from limited evidence,
feathers, skin, bones, but without a complete specimen.
3
5: New species known by anecdotal evidence while no organic evidence exists.
6: Representatives of fossil forms, presumed extinct during geological times which may
have survived into historical or modern times.
7: New species know only to indigenous or aboriginal peoples, or discovered entirely by
accident.8
Cryptids vary in size, they can be small like the one to two foot long Tzuchinoko of
Japan, a snakelike creature said to resemble a Toblerone chocolate bar with a flat
undersurface and a very prominent dorsal ridge.9 This creature has a pair of small knobs,
or horns just above its eyes, it may be a form of pit viper, Agkistrodon halys, or new
species10.
Tzuchinoko
11
A very distinctive North American cryptid, commonly called a water “monster” and
described as a dinosaur is Florida’s Pinky of the St. Johns River.12 Its descriptions vary,
one of the least likely being a small bipedal dinosaur. On May 10th 1975 an outboard
motorboat transporting five people on the river claimed to have encountered Pinky. A
pink colored head and neck surfaced twenty feet away from their boat.13 It had a head as
large as a humans and a short pair of snail-like knobs on the top of its head, large slanted
eyes, a down-turned mouth, gill like flaps hanging from the side of its head, a serrated
neck, and a ribbed body, and was the “color of broiled shrimp.”14 The lore of this creature
4
is well known to fisherman in the area, although it is not a dinosaur.15 It is likely an as yet
identified species of Giant Hell Bender salamander, as there are several known species of
giant salamander in the world. North American is home to at least one version, so it isn’t
too outlandish to say that Florida is perhaps home to a brightly colored slightly larger
version.16
Hellbender Salamander
17
A brief history of Cryptozoology
From the 15th century up till the late 18th century, there was no need for
cryptozoology.18 “Naturalists” of the time were curious and eager to discover anything
new. They paid close attention to even the vaguest of animal-rumors, practicing an early
form of cryptozoology.19 These naturalists were consumed with the “cryptozoological
spirit,” eager to explore and discover all that was new and wonderful about the world
around them.20
The Renaissance zoologist never hesitated placing any and every animal proven or
otherwise, in their zoological encyclopedias of the 16th and 17th centuries, even the most
fanciful creatures such as the dragon, unicorn, and phoenix. Edward Woton (1492-1555),
Conrad Gessner (1516-65), Guillaume Rondelet (1507-66), Pierre Belon (1517-64), etc.
are a few of the naturalists who participated in this kind of eager and perhaps overly
accepting behavior.21 Unfortunately this mentality created a disadvantage because these
naturalists relied on the descriptions and drawings of lesser-known creatures that were
5
often “transmogrified” meaning, although many of the animals they depicted were based
on actual living specimens, they were often imperfectly described, and misrepresented.22
Since a good number of these creatures were probably fictitious, they began to disappear
from various works over time, some hundred years later naturalists began to take a what
some consider a more level headed approach towards the natural sciences.23
Naturalists like Carl von Leclerc (1717-78) who attempted to systematize nature and
George Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon (1707-88) who looked at the causes of diversity
in nature, are good examples of this change of approach.24 Some unknowns remained in
various literature though, Homo troglodytes, a nocturnal wild hairy man and the
Microcosmus marinus, a large tentacled creature, a creature as large as an island could
still be found in the Systema Naturae of Linnaeus.25 Comte de Buffon wrote that he
believed there were tigers in Africa, as well as a hairy man-like creature known by
natives as the Pongo, an “abominable woodsman” that supposedly kidnapped and raped
native women. We now know this creature as the Gorilla, Gorilla gorilla.26 When
sightings of “monsters”, Sea serpents, Mer-creatures, and the Kraken were reported in the
19th century, naturalists reacted with violent indignation at the “traveler’s tales” and the
American sea serpents were deemed to be little more than nonsense by many.27
In 1812 Baron Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), “the father of Paleontology”28 made what
has come to be known as “Cuvier’s rash dictum”29: “there is little hope of discovering
new species of large quadrupeds.” 30 When it came to the topic of “cryptids” he flatly
stated, I hope nobody will ever seriously look for them in nature; one could easily as well
search for the animals of Daniel or for the beast of the Apocalypse.”31 It was the
beginning of the 19th century and dogmatism, and authoritarianism spread-throughout
6
“science” under the guise of rationalism.32 What was accepted, rejected, or defined by
“science” seemed to have been borrowed from some religious ideology.33
The opened minded individuals of the 19th century didn’t subscribe to the closedminded edicts of the time, they were more than willing to give at least some credit to the
supposed “monster” tales that continued to circulate.34 The sea serpent was appearing in
news papers and in scientific literature such as Benjamin Silliman’s (1776-1859)
American Journal of Science and Arts from (1820-1835), (United States), and England’s
Edward Newman (1801-76) and his Zoologists (1847-1876).35 Newman summarized
what he saw as the proper attitude towards sea serpents,
…the communications and quotations about ‘the sea serpent’ are well worthy
of attentive perusal: it is impossible to suppose all the records bearing this title to
be fabricated for the purpose of deception. A natural phenomenon of some kind
has been witnessed: let us seek a satisfactory solution rather than terminate
enquiry by shafts of ridicule …surely it is not requiring too much to solicit a
suspension of judgment on the question of whether a monster may exist in the sea
which does not adorn our collection.36
The early naturalists remained occupied with many “unknowns,” not just the “sea
serpent.”37 Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), the “father of physical geography” had
doubts about the existence of a rumored large South American ape, but didn’t believe that
that these accounts should be painted as fables:
In treating them with disdain, the traces of discovery may often be lost, in
natural philosophy as well as zoology…travelers who may hereafter visit the
missions of the Orinoco will do well to follow up our researchers on the salvaje or
7
great devil of the woods; and examine whether it be some unknown species of
bear, or some very rare monkey… which may have given rise to such singular
tales.38
Some scientists began to suggest that prehistoric creatures and humans did exist
together at some point in time, thus being the origins for a few, if not all of the tales of
strange creatures.39 Colonel Charles Hamilton Smith (1776-1859) surmised that the
legends of North American Indians suggested they may have witnessed living giant
ground sloths and mastodons, he also supported the theory of existing unicorns and that
they still survived in remote areas of Africa, which ultimately lead to the discovery of the
northern white rhinoceros.40
The individuals with these theories were not interested in still-living-unknownanimals, so much as the survival of animals, which were only known from their remains,
fossils, etc., into periods where they were not believed to have lived, opening the theory
that ancient man may have encountered prehistoric creatures, before they became
completely extinct.41 Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917) “the father of modern
ethnology,” (now known as social anthropology)42, pointed-out that in leading up to
modern-times, popular traditions had perhaps preserved the memories of certain
prehistoric animals leading to stories being passed down through the various generations
and lost chronologically as to blur when these encounters may have actually occurred.43
On this geologist Charles Gould wrote in 1886, in his book Mythical Monsters:
I have…but little hesitation in gravely proposing to submit that many of the socalled mythical animals, which through long ages and in all nations have been the
fertile subjects of fiction and fable, come legitimately within the scope of plain
8
matter-of-fact natural history, and that they may be considered not as the outcome
of exuberant fancy, but as creatures which really once existed, and of which,
unfortunately, only imperfect and inaccurate descriptions have filtered down to
us, probably much refracted, through the mists of time.44
The idea of long dead creatures lingering in memory only, thus the catalyst of these
unknown animal tales and beliefs is a legitimate, and perhaps accurate theory in some
cases, but it in no way explains the current and more recent sightings, the odd sea and
lake creatures, the many “encounters” with hairy-wild-men, etc. that were being, and still
are, reported all around the world, not to mention evidence of their existence.
During the last century only a select few suggested which zoological category still
unknown animals should be placed.45 Some felt that sea serpents were enormous snakes,
but when the first dinosaur fossils were unearthed and reconstructed, some of the
naturalists immediately related the sea serpent with sea dwelling reptiles being
reconstructed, such as the mososaur and plesiosaur, however this was just guesswork,
they relied on the general descriptions of animals that had been sighted when coming to
this theory.46 Reverend John George Wood (1827-1899) concluded that based on
sightings and descriptions of their movement, and other behaviors, that the sea serpent
“belongs to not to the saurians, but to a cetacean animal, which, if not an actual
zeuglodon, has many affinities with that creature.” 47 Zoological unknowns sparked the
curiosity of many individuals. These were individuals willing to venture into a realm
generally frowned upon, by conservative science.
Paleobiologists have long been bewildered by the disappearance of the dinosaurs and
pre-sapiens (hominids), there is still debate on what exactly caused the disappearance of
9
the dinosaurs. There is no consensus among scientist as to why they are gone.48 Why did
reptiles such as lizards, crocodiles, snakes, turtles, manage to survive to present day, yet
dinosaurs that came in all different sizes and were distributed all over the world didn’t?49
This question can be directed towards chimpanzees, orangutans, gibbons, and gorillas
that have survived, but why other primitive hominids did not. The survival of any of
these creatures would solve a problem, we know they existed, but not why they ceased to.
The Sciences and Cryptozoology
Cryptozoology claims to follow established “scientific” principles, and attempts to
confront questions rarely asked in the mainstream zoological community.50 In this vein
there are strong parallels between cryptozoology and paleontology.51 Paleontology
studies and searches for animals lost in a “time dimension,” cryptozoology does the same
for animals lost in a “space dimension.”52 Both disciplines are based on the exception:
paleontology on fossilization, a phenomenon that only occurs under the right
environmental circumstances while cryptozoology focuses on fortunate visual
observations of elusive, or well camouflaged animals.53 Both depend on reconstructions
via interpolation, extrapolation, and conjecture based upon incomplete data: fossil
fragments, or foot prints with paleontology and with cryptozoology, tufts of hair, feces,
blood, photos, etc.54
The reconstructions and hypotheses of cryptozoology, in regards to actual living
animals, closely resemble those that paleontology has based its reconstruction of
prehistoric fauna.55 The chirotherium is an example of how they mirror each other in
various ways. The chirotherium is a fossil genus found in England, France, Italy,
Germany, and the United States and is known only by its tracks.56 It seems a perfectly
10
legitimate action to give a scientific name to a fossil known only by its foot prints, yet at
the same time scientists believe it is preposterous and premature to scientifically describe
the Himalayan Yeti, an unidentifiable creature, known not only by its tracks, but by
eyewitness accounts that relate its morphology and behavior.57
Paleontologists are aware of this situation and some argue against applying traditional
Linnaean nomenclature to animals that are unidentifiable, particularly when dealing with
discreet parts, or life stages unidentifiable in relation to the animal they belong.58 This
can also be attributed to fossilized tracks that rarely can be aligned with the correct
species, even when the full skeleton is present.59 The methods of paleontology have
continued to develop since the beginnings of the science in the early 19th century and do
open some doors when applying these methods to cryptozoology.60
With the creation of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature came the
expulsion of animals not meeting the proper and necessary conditions for description, or
acceptance protocol, creating a logic that a number of scientists follow, that since an
animal cannot be scientifically named, it can not exist. This closed minded idea could be
viewed as ignorance, especially when coming from “specialists” in zoology, though other
scientists choose to remain patient and make no definitive decision in determining if
something exists or not, until the day that a particular cryptid is proven to exist, or
otherwise via a body or other definitive evidence, pro or con.61 Bernard Heuvelmans
considers this mentality a “sterile suspension of activity,” an “excessive and unjust
prudence that should be condemned!”62
In science’s quest for truth, it bases itself entirely on reason.63 It is reason that should
be applied to cryptozoology. Heuvelman believes, and I follow suit, that science can
11
never reach an absolute, objective truth and that it subscribes to the most convenient and
understandable description of the universe at its given time, and that we instead should
seek all of the resources that the world of phenomena presents and treats it in a logical
manner!64
Science is the systemized observation of, and experimentation with phenomena.65 It
should be noted that discovery of truth and the systemizing of knowledge take time and
each discipline uses different methods of discovering the truth, methods that are suited
for their own particular purposes.66 Cryptozoological research utilizes eye-witness
testimony, identification, tracks, footprints, reference files, photographs, surveillance, and
laboratory analysis.67 These methods mirror those used in criminal investigations, this
coincidence comes naturally.68
Science has three different courts of proof:
1: autopical proofs that can be seen, touched, smelled, or tasted
2: circumstantial proofs that depend on the coherence of pieces of evidence that either
compete, complete, or collaborate with one-another
3: testimonial proofs, based on the testimonies of witnesses, descriptions, things or
events.69
The sciences base themselves upon all forms of proof, the physical sciences rarely
requires recourse to autopical proofs, the objects of their research are far beyond our
sensory organs.70 Meaning we can only conceive structures and actions of the universe
that cannot be conceived except through mathematical equations and celestial bodies
through their luminous spectra.71 With the Earth sciences, once we go beyond the Earth’s
crust, the composition and nature of its interior are only known through the study of
12
seismic shocks.72 Only the life sciences depend upon autopical proofs, with its members
needing a specific specimen to ratify its existence.73
New facts and proposed discoveries are generally not fully accepted without at least
some opposition from the scientific community, unless they fall nicely into certain
perimeters, and are not radically new.74 When discoveries are truly novel they may take
upwards to thirty years for acceptance, when a consensus is reached, eventual familiarity
allows them to be reconciled. Evidential proofs play only a secondary role in this
process.75 Only the obstinate accumulation and repetition of the new information and
facts allow for them to bring about conviction. Routine, not reason and logic are often the
determining factors.76
The history of scientific revolution is rich in content. Science like history is full of
accidents and odd-juxtapositions of events.77 For those that wish to change a part of
society or in this case science and the traditions therein, in particular those related to
cryptozoology, must be able to master all aspects of the sciences that have some
connection to the life sciences, or cooperate with various other experts in their own
respective fields, zoology, biology, paleontology, archeology, microbiology; even
mythology and folklore have a place at the table. A complex medium such as
cryptozoology that contains surprises and unforeseen developments demands complex
procedures, science doesn’t just rely on facts and conclusions drawn from facts, but from
ideas, the interpretation of facts, conflicting interpretations, and mistakes.78
Is it possible to create a tradition held together by strict rules that are successful to
some extent, but is it desirable to support such a tradition with the exclusion of
everything else?79 Should we transfer the sole rights of investigation to tradition so that
13
any result acquired from other avenues is immediately ruled out?80 No, for two main
reasons; 1: the world we want to explore is still largely unknown, especially when
dealing with new and unknown animals81 and 2: we must keep our options open and not
restrict ourselves in advance. Epistemological prescriptions may seem to work well when
compared to other epistemological prescriptions, or with general principles, but not with
unforeseen variables.82 Do we really know if these prescriptions are the best format to
discover, not just a few isolated facts, but the deepest secrets of nature?83
The idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding
principles that conducts the business of science meets a substantial difficulty when it is
confronted with the results of historical research. We find that there isn’t a single rule
grounded in epistemology that is not violated at some time.84 The history and philosophy
of science is the realization of events such as Copernican Revolution, the invention of
atomism in antiquity, to the rise of modern atomism. The emergence of wave theory
occurred because someone decided not to be bound by certain methodological rules, or
perhaps because they unwittingly broke them.85 Thus the same should be considered for
zoology and the staunch rules that are supposed to supersede it. All must be bent at times
if not broken, who is one to say that Lazarus taxa (described later in this paper) couldn’t
eventually apply itself towards a dinosaur? Or that relic hominids are not intelligent
enough to continue to evade modern man?
Cryptozoology in Myth
One of the staunchest, most damning and often made arguments against
cryptozoology, and may be one of the unfortunate defining factors of cryptozoology that
ultimately prevents legitimization in the eyes of “traditional” and “respected” science is
14
the “snare of mythification.”86 This is an objection raised by zoologists and folklorist
alike, that these animals that are thought to be hidden are in fact unattainable because
they are all products of the imagination. Granted, many of the reports and sightings of
cryptids are typically full of fantastic and supernatural details, which are incredible and
unbelievable, even to the most open-minded scientist.87
It is important to note that myth, from the Greek word mythos means narrative, story,
or fable, depending on which author you read, and doesn’t come entirely from the
delirium of disordered imagination.88 It has been argued that the definition of myth “must
be both broad and loose, for myth operates universally and diversely.” “Even a loose
definition does not include the current journalistic sense of falsehood.”89 It is because of a
degraded usage that the word, “mythic” has become a synonym for the word
“fictional.”90 In fact originally myth had the opposite meaning of “true story,” or
“veridical narrative,” but this conception has only been the case in societies considered
“primitive.”91 The study of myths show us that myths reflect primordial beliefs that are
slowly developed or revealed, and with subjects ranging from Gods, the birth of the
universe, stars, and people, to traditions that possibly date back to prehistory.92
The philosopher Leon Brunschvicg (1869-1944) stated that “primitives want to explain
everything, whereas the civilized are willing to allow gaps.”93 The distinction between
civilized and primitives or indigenous peoples has since been recognized as artificial, but
whether we want to admit it or not, the unknown terrifies everybody and is the way that
primitives deal with their fear through explanatory myths that seem naïve and extravagant
to the civilized. It can be said that civilized and rational scientists deal with the unknown
through hypothesis, which is in all reality also controversial and questionable.94 In both
15
of these cases it comes down to the elimination of lacunae of knowledge, via the use of
imagination.95 The concept of unknown and hidden animals interpolate easily into a
forced mythification and in what may be the case in many of the more fantastic
descriptions, or miss descriptions of many cryptids may be simply to assimilate each
creature into what Jung called an archetype, the choice of involving whichever mythical
creature a witnessed creature resembles.96
Sometimes witnesses borrow from a mythical creature's attributes or exploits and
apply them to a sighted unknown creature.97 An example of this is the mythologies
involving the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) before its official discovery. It was represented as a
vicious beast that kidnapped and raped women, when in all reality it is a gentle and
reserved creature.98 So once we discover the realities of the world’s unknown creatures,
we will be able to fill the holes in our knowledge of them and be able to know and accept
them for what they are: animals.99 Often we apply myths to animal, however jokingly we
may accept these myths they still prevail. Such as the idea that a cats eyes glow in the
dark and that they can see in the dark. So basically all animals known or otherwise are
mythified to some extent.100
Myth is an important factor, but it is not the only one and the existence of a creature
cannot be put into question based on myth and if someone feels uncertain about accepting
the sighting of an unknown hairy hominid that has mythified by it’s observer as a kind of
demon, they could perhaps move their doubt by digging deeper, analyzing the scenario
and its content to pull apart myth from fact.101
16
Are there still animals left to encounter?
Few zoologists today are willing to assert the unlikelihood of animals remaining to be
documented.102 Still, many scientists view cryptozoology with suspicion because of
cryptozoology’s willingness to consider the possibility of some extraordinary claims103
particularly the claims of odd creatures such as ape-men wondering North America or
those described as prehistoric in nature (dinosaurs) in the various lakes throughout the
world.
The notion of species extinction has obscured the concept of species survival,
according to Heuvelman extinction and species survival are condition sine qua non of
biological evolution.104 Living and dying in nature are proportionately balanced that the
variety of life and the number of species on Earth has gradually been on the increase for
millions of years, not only because of the process of speciation, but also the survival of
old forms.105 So with this in mind Heuvelman asks, “how do we know precisely what is
extinct and what is extant?”106 Charles Darwin (1809-82) stated
No fixed law seems to determine the length of time during which any single
species or any single genus endures,” and “the utter extinction of a whole group
of species has sometimes been a slow process, from the survival of a few
descendents, lingering in protected and isolated situations.107
Russian Paleontologist L.S. Davitashvili has this to say on the topic:
It is always necessary to remember the incompleteness of the geological
record. The first appearance of a given species in the geological record and its
disappearance from the latter can in no way be taken for the dates of its origin and
final extinction. The real life span of species (or a group of species) is usually
much longer than the period determined from the geological record.
Consequently, the dating of the extinction of a form or a group is not as simple a
matter as may appear from the frequent citing in the paleontological literature of
extinction dates from various organisms.108
17
It is a matter of observation and empirical investigation as to whether a species is
extinct or extant.109 If the skeleton of a certain animal is found and we only know the
animal from its skeleton, it is automatically presumed extinct, yet nothing prevents this
animal from popping up somewhere alive and well.110 This is known as the “Lazarus
effect.”111 An example of this is the discovery of a species of rodent from the
Diatomyidae and genus Cuscomys.112 An amazing example is the discovery of the
coelacanth, which I will go into some detail in later on in this paper. The Lazarus effect
has occurred a number of times and there is nothing unusual or unscientific in expecting
further occurrences like this.113
Discovering the new animals
Many sciences have their hidden objects. Astronomers search for hidden objects and
celestial bodies in the vastness of space, many of which cannot be observed optically.114
Geologists search for minerals hidden within the Earth, paleontologist for fossils, and
cryptozoologists search for hidden animals.115 Up to a certain point the exploration of
botany is similar to that of zoology and the discovery of new organisms continues for
both sciences today, with over 2,000 new plant species being discovered every year.116
Metasequoia glyptostroboides was first described by paleobotanists, later to be found
alive.117
In the search for new plants botanists often depend on the testimony of native peoples
who are familiar with their given areas, yet there is no cryptobotany. Why is this?118 It is
because there can be wondrous plants hidden in the jungles of the world, but there are no
plants actually hiding.119 The difference between zoology and all other sciences, with the
slight exception of astronomy, is that they are invested in the search for stationary
18
specimens, while the specimens of zoology actually have the ability to hide, and thus
remain hidden indefinitely.120 Two distinct behavioral strategies seemed to have evolved
to enhance species survival.121 Some species are highly open and visible, some of which
even move in herds, or flocks with naturally high populations.122 Other species are far
less visible, with sufficiently lower population densities who survive via secretive and
adaptive ways.123 An example of this can be seen in the contrast between pigeons, crows,
and sparrows they can be observed by all, and owls, which are more difficult to observe
in the wild.
It is interesting to point out that examples of these behavioral adaptations can be found
in and among related species such as the giraffe-okapi, baboon-orangutan, and crowjay.124 Borrowing Darwin’s phrase, cryptids are “lingering in protected and isolated
situations,” such as thick vegetation, deep waters, or mountainous terrain. They are active
and mobile, cryptids inevitably leave, from time to time the depths of their sanctuaries
and occasionally come into the view of human beings.125 These creatures will eventually
retreat into their prospective areas, thus creating the cryptozoological situation that an
unknown animal is sighted by both natives and visitors in an area, but is absent from the
zoology’s inventory.126
Confirming the existence or non-existence of elusive and rare animal species in a large
geographic area is an ominous and frustrating endeavor.127 Some form of an opinion
statement regarding the presence of a population is needed as part of environmental
assessments or in developing resource management schemes and when a creature is an
endangered one, confirming its presence may be required by law.128 When such a
statement is based on a scientific study, with a stated possibility of error, then it is likely
19
to be viewed as an estimate rather than a subjective opinion.129 A question that I have
personally received time and time again is as follows, “I go out hiking into the
backcountry all the time, why haven’t I ever come across a sasquatch or some other
unknown creature?” Well, to answer that, the following controlled experiment is an
example of the difficulties viewing, encountering, and capturing animals, even known
ones.
The probability of non-detection within a specified population can be “estimated” with
any degree of searching, and if the probability of finding any sign of a species during a
single search is known with the suspected density in the habitat being searched.130 If a
search effort is standardized and say one unit of the effort searches for tracks along a onemile sandy road after a rainstorm, or listens for sounds and vocalizations during a specific
set-time then the number of successful searches (x) for an effort of (n) can be described
via the binomial distribution.131 Estimates are dependent on the distribution, persistence,
distinctiveness, and abundance of conclusive signs and the ability for the observer to
notice them.132 Each factor is influenced by season, habitat, weather, human disturbance,
age, sex numbers in the population and population density.133
Data on the resighting of marked white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus fawns were
used in an experiment to determine and examine the feasibility of binomial distribution
model.134 The area being studied was an 826-ha enclosure on Radford Army Ammunition
plant in Dublin Virginia.135 The habitat was enclosed with a rolling grass-land, isolated
stands of scattered red cedars Juniperus virginianus, and mature hardwoods, about 80-ha
of the area had been planted with shortleaf pine Pinus echinata, few deer used any of
these stands for cover.136 The area was well traversed with an extensive road system, for
20
easy travel and observation throughout the entire enclosure.137 Fawns were caught,
tagged, and then released in the spring of 1969.138 A 30-km route was driven twice a day
with the sightings recorded for each of the individually marked fawns sighted. Searches
ceased after three weeks, at which time the fawns were old enough to begin traveling
with their mothers.139 Detection of a conclusive sign was defined by sighting a fawn
during a 30-km drive; this drive was the search effort.140 Seventy-three of the 81 fawns
were known to have survived the three-week observation period, with the survivors
serving as the subjects of study.141 The route was traversed twenty-four times during the
observation period and with the deer individually tagged there were the equivalent of
1,752 search efforts, a total of seventy-three sightings occurred during the search.142 With
this experiment in mind you can perhaps begin to appreciate the difficulties in searching
for far rarer creatures like Sasquatch or the yeti in non-controlled environments. It is
important and interesting to note that in 1892 a circus elephant named Charlie escaped
and roamed about the town of Bucksport Maine and the surrounding woods.143 It took
two weeks to find and capture the elephant.144
Population biologists are interested in population viability in response to the
increasing threats of extinction for many species.145 The important theoretical conclusion
from this kind of work is that stochastic processes play a critical role in the survival of
small populations, these processes come in three categories; population uncertainty,
environmental uncertainty, and genetic uncertainty. 146 Environmental factors range from
major catastrophes such as earthquakes, fires and disease to mild environmental weather
variations.147 Demographic factors include variations in sex ratio, age of first
reproduction, number of offspring, and the distribution of offspring over a certain
21
lifetime, genetic uncertainty involves inbreeding and loss of variation through genetic
drift.148
A population’s survival is based upon its resilience, which refers to its ability to cope
with normal birth and death events, which are then determined by a species reproductive
potential, social system, generation time, and the severity of unforeseen environmental
events.149 Species populations normally have a considerable capacity to resist threats to
their survival through various responses such as fitness or adaptability. However, very
rare species have a far reduced capacity to resist those kinds of threats because of
increased susceptibility due to low densities.150
Demographers tend to model populations by two different equations, the first being
the exponential growth model.151 Here N is the number of individuals in a population and
r is the instantaneous rate of increase this is a decent estimator when dealing with
populations in an unlimited environment.152 Eventually something puts a stop to
population growth and numbers begin to decline; it is unlikely that this growth model is
applicable to cryptozoological specimens.153 The second model is known as the logistic
equation model where a population grows exponentially till it reaches a certain rate of
growth then begins to decline as resources decline, under this the population will
hopefully eventually stabilize at a point called carrying capacity, where a the number of
individuals present are at the limit that a given area can support.154 The logistic model is
more applicable to cryptozoology, however it is unrealistic because few populations have
been observed to rise to some level, and then remain constant over an extended period of
time, and they instead fluctuate both drastically and stochastically.155
22
Taking this into account how likely is it that certain cryptids exist in viable
populations? In 1972 and 1973, the maximum population density of unknown creatures
in Loch Ness, based upon ecologically defensible principles it was concluded that the
Loch could support 10-20 individual unknown animals of 1000-1500 kg, and about eight
meters in length, larger numbers of smaller unknown animals could be supported, but
even if twenty large creatures lived in the Loch it is unlikely that all of them would be
part of a breeding population, some being either too young, or too old to reproduce.156 A
population of twenty individuals is at a serious risk of extinction with a population size
that small it would be difficult for them to survive any kind of environmental
stochasticity whatsoever.157
There are a few documented cases of small animal populations that have persevered
for thousands of years. One example is the Devils Hole pupfish, Cyprinodon diabolis.
This creature has survived in a small spring in the Nevada desert for 10-20,000 years with
its population size continually fluctuating every season. This situation is due to the
conditions of the spring that had remained constant, up until recently, when it had
become affected by human activity.158 It is important to continue the investigation and
research of cryptozoology, but for this to happen correctly the “cryptozoologist” needs to
follow a strict guideline and show that it isn’t just a field full of uneducated buffoons.
This isn’t happening, thus with cryptozoology the sudo-scientist tends to garner more
attention from the media that the educated scientists that could perhaps shed some
(reliable) light on the topic.
An important pro-argument when dealing with terrestrial cryptids is tracks, however
many zoologists refuse to accept tracks as evidence for unknown animals. Fortunately, as
23
I have shown earlier in this paper, paleontology does.159 In cryptozoology, footprint
evidence plays a large role in the investigating the identity and reality of relic hominids
such as the Sasquatch, Yeti, etc.160 Grover Krantz argues
No matter how incredible it may seem that the Sasquatch exists and has
remained uncaught, it is even more incredible to believe in all the attributes of the
hypothetical human track-maker…Even if none of the hundreds of sightings had
ever occurred, we would still be forced to conclude that a giant bipedal primate
does indeed inhabit the forests of the Pacific Northwest”161
There is no denying that many footprints have been faked, but the question
isn’t if some of the footprints have been faked, but if some of them are authentic,
and if even one of the prints was created by an unknown hominid than it is
necessary to erase the connotation and assumptions associated with myth and
accept the reality.162
There are many differing objections to cryptozoology and the legitimacy of it. It is
argued by some that the Earth today is fully explored and well-known, even in its most
remote areas.163 It is true that the amount of Terra incognitae has receded much over the
centuries, but it is also true that there are areas which are not fully explored, as is shown
with the occasional discovery of a river, waterfall, island, or even mountain.164 A few
examples of this include the 2001 discovery of a 123,500-acre and never before seen
forest in Ecuador. In 2003 satellite surveys revealed 1,000 previously unknown islands in
Indonesia, In 2002 Russian scientists found an underground river beneath the Sahara
Desert, it was deemed a world miracle.165 The two regions who’s exploration are by nomeans finished are Antarctica “the seventh continent” and the vast oceans of the world,
and with the detailed ocean floor maps that are presented via satellite imagery, it doesn’t
signify that we know its entire fauna.166
A second, though dwindling argument against cryptozoology is that there are no new
species of animals left to be discovered.167 This argument couldn’t be farther from the
24
truth, and there are very few today who continue to believe this. Between 1993 and 2008
there were 408 new mammal species alone, without mentioning the enormous number of
reptile, fish, bird, and insect species discovered, which easily reach into the thousands.168
Below is a chart demonstrating the taxonomic composition of new mammal species
(excluding marine species) discovered between 1993 and 2008.
Some orders have more * or fewer ** new species than expected by their species
Order
Families
Genera
New
New species
New species
with
with
Species with
probably at risk of
new
New
Restricted
extinction
species
species
distribution
Afrosoricida
2
2
12
8
2
Artiodactyla
5
9
11**
7
1
Carnivora
1
2
2*
2
2
Macroscelidae
1
1
1
1
1
Chiroptera
8
44
94*
75
6
Cingulata
1
1
1
1
0
Dasyuromorpha
1
4
6*
2
0
Didelphimorphia
2
5
8*
8
0
Diprodontia
2
6
11*
11
0
Erinaceomorpha
1
1
1
1
0
Lagomorpha
2
3
5
3
0
Monotremata
1
1
1
1
0
Paucituberculata
1
1
1*
1
1
Peramelemorphia
1
1
2*
2
0
Pilosa
1
1
1
1
0
Primates
9
16
55*
51
10
Rodentia
16
87
174*
29
4
Soricomorpha
2
9
22**
17
2
TOTAL
57
195
408
221
34
169
Each year brings the discovery of new life forms, a fact that surprises no one. All that
we can do is carry on as in the past and literally harvest blindly.170 It is possible to
improve the tactics and instruments of searches, making them more systematic, holding
them on a broader scale, and a more energetic one as well and this is the aim of
traditional zoology.171 It cannot be expected in those cases to orient the search for certain
animals in the hopes of hastening their discovery, is an essential aim of cryptozoological
work.172
25
It is possible to calculate with a satisfactory degree of approximation the number of
new species we can expect to discover in the coming decades; the number is based on
those already known, but we have no way of knowing the precise number.173 The French
zoologist Lucien Berland (1888-1962) wrote, “On the whole, it does not seem
exaggerated to think that there must exist about 5 million species on the globe, and
perhaps even more, of which 9/10 are insects.” if this is the case than less than a quarter
of all species presently living have been cataloged.174
Cryptozoological endeavors can, in most cases, only be realized through a mix of eyewitness reports, indigenous lore, traditions, tracks, among other sour175 For a cryptids to
be reported, or to bring attention to itself, it is necessary for it to literally; bring attention
to itself and hence be of an appreciable size.176 This is a subjective concept and should
perhaps be supplemented with, by that of an abnormal size with in a certain group, few,
with the exception of professionals would report a bird the size of a sparrow, or a
minnow sized fish, yet all would gaze in wonderment of an ant the size of a
Chihuahua.177
The animals that cryptozoology is concerned with are those that are elusive, woven
with legend, and are characterized by some odd, striking, and unexpected trait, even if
this trait isn’t related to size it is important that a minimum size is essential.178 The
abnormal cryptid, prehistoric survivors, obscure and unknown lake creatures, relic
hominids are not the only candidates for cryptozoology, but the recently thought extinct
creatures, the dodo, carrier pigeon, ivory billed woodpecker, and the thylacine are perfect
examples of this and though they are not quite as exciting as coming upon a dinosaur
26
roaming in a deep dark jungle, the importance of rediscovering a once thought extinct
creature is equally important to cryptozoology as discovering any unknown one.
The distortion and misrepresentation of cryptozoology in the media
Some cryptids are more “popular” than others, thus garner much more publicity, both
positive and negative, which leaves the cryptid and those who investigate it open for
wider scrutiny and skeptical hounding particularly when dealing with the tabloid media.
The tabloid media owns the exclusive rights to cryptozoology and is eager to exploit
people’s fascination with the paranormal and all things “monster”.179 This fascination has
done little more than shape cryptozoology into a “cult of the mysterious” shading it with
pseudoscience and out right tomfoolery.180
The commercialization of cryptozoology with various television shows that report
and investigate it and then hide behind a façade of pragmatic thinking and objectivity, but
the intent is more on sensationalism and selling a product than actually informing the
viewer of scientific possibilities.181
When a journalist writes a story for a newspaper or other similar outlet on an event or
sighting of some strange creature, Nessie (The creature of Loch Ness) for example,
scientific accuracy is almost never a concern.182 What is important to the media outlet is
that the report deal with something newsworthy and the contents of the report contains
information credible to other members of the media community, thus invoking
unfortunate stereotypes like “monster” or “sea serpent.”183 These connotations seem
completely normal and acceptable to the audience. The negative tone “monster” is in
effect a result of the need for routine in the news, especially in print media the tone of
27
cryptozoology related stories is what is called “angle” and is what is “necessary” to give
direction to news stories in every outlet.184
In an example of this “angle” Ron Westrum gave a talk at the Manlike Monsters
Conference at the University of British Columbia in 1978, of his presentation and
discussion the only comments published in a magazine account of the conference were
only semi-accurate and of the “off-the-cuff” comments made after the initial talk, the
substance of which Westrum labored for several days on were completely ignored.185 The
title of the article was Bigfoot Follies.186
To better understand the media's view of cryptozoology, walk into any bookstore and
you will find any book associated with cryptozoology in the metaphysical or occult
section, mixed with titles related to ufology, the Bermuda Triangle, and parapsychology
(ghosts).187 This situation increases the reluctance of scientists to delve into
cryptozoology with any objectivity and look for or even consider the possibility of
cryptids, even the most down to Earth representatives.188 The challenge ahead is moving
the discussion and consideration of existing cryptids out of the realm of the “tabloid
media” and into the field of legitimate science such as zoology, biology, and
paleontology.189 The question stands: how do we legitimize something that is so far on
the fringe? How does cryptozoology earn the respect that it deserves? It has to prove that
one of these creatures exists, today. The discovery of a new deer, shark, or big cat will
not be adequate. It will need to be something awe-inspiring. It will literally have to be
something as groundbreaking as a surviving dinosaur, relic hominid, or something else
that is zoologically revolutionary.
28
Animal/cryptid discoveries
The following are examples of animal discoveries. I want to show that many times our
knowledge of creatures begins with sightings and native lore. Creatures not known to
outsiders, and are common to the indigenous peoples, and have proven to exist even if
they first seem impractical.
The Aardvark
190
Orycteropus afer, the aardvark, the only living member of the order Tubulidentata, is
a creature with non-functional columnar cheek teeth, a long snout and ears, and a pig-like
body.191 Peter Kolbe wrote of his travels in Africa in his book, Caput Bonae Spei i.e. a
complete description of the African Cape of Good Hope (1719) of a strange eight foot
long mammal that was referred to as the aardvark, or erdvark, which translated roughly as
‘earth-pig’. This name supposedly came from its burrowed home, and that it apparently
tasted like pork.192 This creature eluded discovery until Kolbe’s arrival to Cape Town in
1705, due to its subterranean and nocturnal lifestyle.193 The creature’s appearance alone
made it hard to accept as an actual living creature. Count Georges Louis Le Clerc de
Buffon (1725-73), one of the 18th century’s zoological authorities, refused to accept that
the aardvark existed until 1766 when fellow scientists Peter Simon Pallas (1741-1811)
had presented new details regarding the aardvark and presented it with a scientific name.
29
In 1795 it was renamed by Professor E. Geoffroy Saint-hilaire.194 It was dubbed
Orycterpus afer (African digging-foot).195
The Mountain Gorilla
196
The Mountain Gorilla’s existence was established in 1901. It was given the scientific
name Gorilla beringei two years later in honor of the man who brought the first skin back
from the Congo, Captain Oscar von Beringe.197 Before this the only known gorilla
species was the lowland gorilla, Gorilla gorilla198 which was originally recognized in
1847.199 Gorillas have a limited distribution range within equatorial Africa, inhabiting the
dense forests where they are difficult to see and capture, and have never been common, at
least during the last hundred years.200
Before either gorilla was officially recognized they had a mythology similar to that of
other supposed relic-hominids such as Sasquatch, Yeti, Yowie, etc. They were known as
the “abominable men of the woods,”201 but it wasn’t until 1861 that native accounts of a
“monster ape” came to the attention of western scientists though most refused to give any
merit to what were at first considered legends.202 The native called them ngagi and ngila,
but then Ewart Grogan supposedly found the skeleton of a mountain gorilla, but as in
most circumstances in cryptozoology he was unable to remove the evidence out of the
30
mountainous area.203 In 1902 Oscar von Beringe shot and killed two gorillas on the
Virungas’ Mount Sabinio; after they were shot both of the animals fell into a valley. It
was only after great difficulty that Beringe was able to recover one of the bodies to show
the world.204
Recently an intermediate species between the gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) and the
chimpanzee, (Pan troglodytes) has sparked the interests of zoologists, primatologists, and
cryptozoologists alike.205 Stories of a new ape known as the “Bondo” or “Bili” coming
out of the Congo have been circulating for some time now.206 In 1908 a Belgian army
officer returned from the Congo with two skulls from the town of Bili.207 He gave them
to Belgium’s Royal Museum for Central Africa and in 1927 the museums curator
classified them as a new subspecies of gorilla, Gorilla gorilla uellensis.208
Primatologist Shelly Williams of the Jane Goodall Institute had a close encounter with
four of these creatures, they charged at her through the brush from ten meters away
before stopping.209 They have bodies like gorillas and sleep on the ground like a gorilla,
yet they possess the facial characteristics of a chimpanzee and eat a fruit rich diet like a
chimp.210 Because of their elusiveness and large size they have no known predators, thus
the locals call them “lion killers”.211 The new ape also fishes for ants with “tools” that are
several times longer than the ones used by chimps.212
31
The Bili or Bondo
213
214
Still some mystery exists in regard to the gorilla, or if it could have been the culprit
behind the Engot and the Zabairo. The Engot is described as a large and aggressive
primate from Gabon that killed and ate humans.215 The Zabairo, another supposed
unknown primate that is reported in Cote d’Ivoire, West Africa and is said to be a large
nocturnal ape, has even been reported as carrying a torch to light its way.216 The only
known gorilla population is 1500 miles southwest of where the sightings take place, and
researchers are up in arms to give credit to the sightings of the Zabairo, or theorize
whether or not this is mistaken identity and nothing more than an as yet unknown
population of gorillas,217 but there is a solid consensus that the Engot was/is a gorilla.
The Komodo dragon
218
32
It wasn’t until 1912 that the largest known lizard, the Komodo dragon, Varanus
komodoensis was proven to exist.219 It was on the island of Komodo where an airman was
forced to land. The airman returned home with tales of ferocious “dragons” twelve feet in
length that ate goats, pigs, deer, and horses. Also in 1912 Lieutenant Van Steyn van
Hensbroek killed a seven foot dragon and sent the skin and a photo to Major P.A. Owens,
the director of Zoological Museum and Botanical Gardens in Buitenzorg, Java.220 The
Museum sent a Malay animal catcher to Komodo, he returned with four living specimens,
the largest of which was nine feet six inches in length.221
The Okapi
222
For decades there were tales of a strange creature that lurked in the jungles of Africa;
visiting Europeans brushed aside the tales that natives would tell of a strange creature, a
chimera of the giraffe, (Giraffa camelopardalis) and the zebra, (Equus burchell).i223 Sir
Harry Johnston was exploring the Congo for some time, when in 1900 he rescued several
Mbuti pygmies that were kidnapped by a German impresario that wanted to display them
at the 1900 Paris World’s Fair.224 The Mbuti stayed with Johnston while he could secure
their safe return to their homeland. It was during this stay that he gained their trust and
they began to tell him stories of the okapi Okapia johnstoni, although they referred to it
as “o’ api, which was described to him as a mule sized creature with zebra stripes.225
33
On the way to return the Mbuti, Johnston stopped at Fort Mbeni in the Semliki Forest;
he was told there was a pelt somewhere in the camp that had been cut up into bandoliers
and belts for the Soldiers of the Bambuba tribe.226 Johnston, excited by this new
evidence, put an expedition together immediately with a few of the Mbuti as his
guides.227 The shape of the tracks of the okapi were not what Johnston expected; where
horses and zebras have one toe, or hoof, the okapi was cloven hoofed with two toes.228
Unfortunately the expedition had to be abandoned after a few days members of his party
came down with malaria.229 Johnston sent the pieces of skin to Dr. P.L. Slater at the
Zoological Society of London, he examined the strips and found that hair on the sample
was similar to zebra and a giraffe, but different that of an antelope.230 In 1901 Johnston
received two skulls, he made the discovery that it wasn’t related to the zebra, or antelope
at all, but instead due to the size and shape of the skull was a relative of the giraffe,
perhaps a descendent of an ancient giraffid like the Helladontherium that was found in
Asia several million years ago.231 The new animal was dubbed Equus johnstoni on
February 5, 1901.232 It wasn’t till 1918 that the first live okapi was brought out of the
Congo to Europe.233
34
Giant Panda
234
The French missionary Father Armand David crossed through eastern Asia from 1865
to 1869, and on March 11, 1869, David was having tea with an acquaintance.235 David
noticed hung on the wall of his host’s house an odd fur that he recognized as a strange
black and white bear he had heard rumor of.236 The first known mention of this creature
is found in a manuscript that dates back to 621 A.D. during the reign of the first Tang
emperors.237 David commissioned Chinese hunters to retrieve a specimen for him, and on
March 23rd they returned with a cub that they had to kill to carry home. The fur of this
creature was white all over its body with the exception of its shoulders, chest, ears, the tip
of its nose, legs, and around its eyes.238
On April 1st the hunters brought David the skeleton and fur of an adult, after this the
creature disappeared and between the years 1869-1929 it wouldn’t be seen or heard from
again for approximately sixty years.239 In 1929 when it was thought that the creature
would never be heard from again, Colonel Theodore Roosevelt and his brother Kermit
found one while hunting, it was dozing in a hollow pine tree, they shot it and it was then
placed in the Field Museum in Chicago.240 Further slaughter followed in 1931, 1934,
1935, and 1936, but in 1937 Ruth Harkness found a single cub “crying” in a tree, she
35
brought it back to the United States but it soon died, she had better luck the second time
around with the Giant Panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca.241
Vu Quang ox, or the Saola
242
In 1992 the zoological and cryptozoological communities were surprised to learn of
the discovery of the Vu Quang ox, later known as the Saola, Pseudoryx nghetinhensis.
The animal was believed to be a species of goat, but the examination of three different
skins showed that it was a living bovid, and the largest land mammal to be discovered
since the Kouprey, (Bos sauveli).243 The Saola was part of the area’s hunting lore and
thus carries importance for cryptozoology, it was an animal familiar to natives of the
Mekong River area of Cambodia-Laos.244 The Saola differs from all other described
genera in DNA, appearance, morphology, cranial, and dental features.245 It is important to
note that it was not until 1994 that scientists had come upon a living specimen.246
36
The Coelacanth
247
On December 22, 1938 Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, director of the East London
Museum, discovered a strange fish buried beneath various known fish on a docked South
African fishing boat.248 She described it as the most beautiful fish she had ever seen: it
was five feet in length, pale blue, with flecks of white and an iridescent silver-green-blue
sheen over its entire body.249 This fish has more than enough interesting features to
attract the attention of the scientific community, it was a living fossil that was supposed
have died out some 65 million years ago. It has a oil-filled notochord instead of a bony
spine and an odd intracranial joint in its skull which allows it to open its mouth unusually
wide. The coelacanth, Latimeria chalumnae , is a member of the lobe-finned fishes, the
very ones that are believed to have given rise to our amphibians, of which later creatures
evolved from.250
It was thought that the coelacanth’s habitat was limited to the area surrounding the
Comoro Islands; another coelacanth wouldn’t be found again for fourteen years. On
December 21, 1952, another one was caught on the Island of Anjouan, off the coast of
Mozambique. It was later learned that islanders had been catching and eating the
coelacanth for generations. This is evidence that a creature from prehistory can survive
into modern times and even interact with man right under his nose.
37
The Kraken AKA the Giant Squid
251
252
253
From the darkest depths of the ocean comes an all devouring “monster” with multiple
arms that captures and draws its prey into the depths with it where it can shred and
consume its victom with its huge and powerful beak-like mouth. The creature I write of is
the kraken. I was young when I first leaned of the kraken and with the exception of
various fictional stories, representations of the kraken were depicted as a monstrous
octopus or squid. Of all the creatures of legend, it is rare to find such a correspondence
between an actual animal and one that is supposedly a mythically created one.254 The
kraken is real. As real as any known taxonomically recognizable creature, the kraken is
38
the colossal squid, Mesonychotesuthis hamiltoni, or its slightly smaller relative the giant
squid, Architeuthis dux.255
How do we approach this realization? The legends of the kraken first appear in
Homer’s odyssey in the form of Scylla.256
…she is a dreadful monster and no one not even a god could face her without
being terror-struck. She has twelve mis-shapen feet, and six necks of the most
prodigious length; and at the end of each neck she has a frightful head with three
rows of teeth in each all set very close together, so that they would crunch any
one to death in a moment, and she sits deep within her shady cell thrusting out her
heads and peering all round the rock, fishing for dolphins or dogfish or any other
monster she can catch.257
With this realization it must be noted that the Kraken was a cryptozoological issue
and the existence of the colossal squid was in question.258 It remained a mystery up until
1873 when the severed tentacle of a giant squid was found in the waters of Conception
Bay, a month later a whole specimen was discovered allowing for a few photographs to
convince the American and British zoologists.259 By the end of the 1800s there were
several that had been washed to shore in various areas across the globe.260
In 2007 the fishing boat San Aspiring was fishing for Patagonian toothfish in Arctic
waters south of New Zealand when the crew was shocked to hook and pull up a 450 kilo
squid, which was the first adult colossal squid caught, ever.261 It took two hours for the
crew to pull it in.262 Its eyes were as large as dinner plates and was ten meters long, so
large that if it were cut into calamari rings the rings would have been as large as tractor
tires.263 Still, some are open to debate that the Kraken and the colossal squid are not the
same, as the colossal squid would not be able to destroy and sink a large sailing vessel as
some early legends stated that it could and did.264
39
These above mentioned animals do not even begin to scratch the surface of the
animals that have been discovered that were considered nothing more than hearsay or tall
tales. In April of 2009 is was reported that a new population of orangutan, Pongo
pygmaeus was discovered in a mountainous area of Indonesia, with an estimated number
of two thousand; this was a previously unknown population265
In 2006 the Lazarus taxa popped up again with the discovery of the Jurassic shrimp,
Neoglyphea neocaledoncia, alive and well It was found on an underwater peak in the
Coral Sea and was the oldest organism listed in the 2006 Census of Marine Life, this
census also listed five hundred new marine species discoveries since the previous
census266
Jurassic Shrimp
267
A few of the above-mentioned creatures prove to us that myths and legends are many
times based on reality. There are far more examples of myth-to-reality animal
discoveries. I am certain that there will be many more to come. This is just one of the
reasons that cryptozoology must not be thrown aside as nothing more that an arcane
science. There are literally thousands of sightings of scientifically undocumented/poorly
understood animals all over the planet. With this many sightings varying both
morphologically and geographically it can be hypothesized that a good number of these
unidentifiables can and will eventually be proven to exist most likely in a less-than-
40
monstrous and mythical form, though it is important to keep and open mind when
investigating these unknowns. Those involved in cryptozoological research must stay
vigilant for hoaxes.
Hoaxes
We cannot let the fact that there are undiscovered animals cloud the scientific mind
from seeing and potentially being fooled by deliberate frauds and publicity seeking
hoaxes. There have been numerous cases where scientists and cryptozoologists have been
hoodwinked by manufactured stories and cryptid replicas. When put to closer scrutiny, or
in some newer cases, DNA testing, the truth of a faked specimen exposed. Here I will
present a few examples of such frauds.
The April 1995 issue of the American science magazine Discover featured an article
about a “hairless mole-like creature from the Antarctic. It was described as a creature
with a heat-emitting bony plate on its brow, for melting tunnels in the ice beneath
unsuspecting penguins, which the creature can seize and devour.”268 The article featured
an impressive photograph and the idea of such a distinctive new species attracted quite a
bit of attention. With subsequent reports appearing in many other publications, the reality
of the forgery wasn’t revealed until June 1995.269 It should be noted that the name of the
biologist who had discovered the creature was Aprile Pazzo, Italian for April fool.270
In the spring of 1984, the London Zoo began to publicize the arrival of a new
animal.271 This new animal could mimic its human observers, clapping when they
clapped, waving when they waved etc.272 It resembled a shaggy bear, had a white chest,
toes, and a white mandarin-like moustache that hung down to its cheeks. It was said to
have originated from an area in the eastern Himalayas a hundred miles or so from
41
Bangladesh.273 The locals called it the Lir-pa loof. It was the only known member of a
new mammalian family, and was given the name Eccevita mimicus.274 It generated a lot
of public interest; the Lir-pa loof made its television debut soon after its initial unveiling,
and appeared with its keeper George Callard on the BBC television show That’s Life on
April 1st.275 There were several clues given to expose the fraud this creature was, loose
fitting skin that could conceal a child or stooping man, Lir-pa loof spelled backward is
April fool and it’s scientific name Eccevita is Latin for ‘that’s life.’.276
The Jackalope, a jackrabbit with the antlers, can be found in bars across the United
States, as well on postcards throughout the west.277 Fur-bearing trout, a species of trout
said to live in the rivers and lakes of North America and Canada where the water is so
cold that they evolved and grew a coat of fur to prevent from freezing,278 even to
thesupposedly real Chupacabra the South American “goat sucker” has made it into the
annuls of sideshow fakery.
From 1917 to 1920 Swiss Geologist and adventurer Dr. Francois de Loys (1892-1935)
conducted an expedition into the mountain range Sierra de Perijaa along the ColumbiaVenezuela border.279 While there Loys claims he and his men encountered two creatures
resembling giant monkeys, but without tails. These creatures became angry at the
presence of the adventurers and defecated in their hands and threw their feces at the men.
Frightened, the men fired upon the creatures killing one, as the other fled.280
The body of the dead creature was carried back to the men’s camp, set upon a packing
crate, its chin propped-up with a stick, and photographed.281 According to Loys, every
photograph of the creature was lost, with the exception of one. When the boat they were
traveling along a river in capsized, the one photograph was retrieved and in excellent
42
condition (an oddity in the case of cryptid photos) was then published in the Illustrated
London News article written by Loys on June 15th 1929.282 French Professor George
Montandon was quick to declare that it was a new species. He also dubbed the creature
Ameranthropides loysi283
De Loys Ape
284
Both science and the cryptozoological world have been divided on the legitimacy of
the Loys photo. Most zoologists dismiss the creature as nothing more than a spider
monkey Ateles geoffroyi with its tail cut off, as did Ivan T. Sanderson, one of the original
and well educated cryptozoologists.285 Bernard Heuvelman (the father of cryptozoology)
believed that the creature was impressive and used the crate in the photo for scale and
affirmed to himself that it was a new species of spider monkey, of considerable size, as
much as 1.6m tall.286
A recent discovery and possible motive for French zoologist George Montandon to
legitimize the creature was discovered by cryptozoologists Loren Coleman and Michel
Raynal when they reported in an article published in the autumn 1996 issue of The
Anomalist. Montandon had proposed a racist theory of human evolution, his theory
claimed that instead of a modern-day multi-racial human species, Homo sapiens had
43
arisen from a single-common-ancestor. Its races springing up independently of one
another, allowing for each race of human to have each evolved from a differing species of
ape.287 Montandon proposed Africans sprang from the gorilla, Asians from orangutans.
His major problem with this theory was he didn’t have an ape of origin for Native
Americans, but with Ameranthropides loysi he had his answer, and his “missing link.”288
In the 1990s Karl Shuker came upon three different sources that claimed to have seen a
second photo of the creature, next to two natives. They did look like a spider monkeys,
all but one of an unusually large size, while the natives appeared to be adults, but short in
stature.289
In 2001 an article surfaced, published in Anartia, Publicaciones Ocasionales del
Museo de Biologia de La Universidad del Zulia, written by Angel L. Viloria, Bernardo
Urbani, and Franco Urbani.290 It presented an examination of the entire case history of the
creature, basically stating that the creature was indeed nothing more than a marimonda
spider monkey that de Loys adopted as a pet while in the jungle and after it died while on
their expedition he cut off its tail and propped it on the crate as a practical joke.291
In August of 2008 two “Bigfoot hunters” out of Georgia claimed to have found and
recovered the body of a dead Bigfoot.292 Rick Dyer, a former corrections officer who also
ran a business offering Bigfoot tours, and Sheriff deputy Matt Whitton also claimed to
have spotted three other creatures within the vicinity watching him as he dragged the
body out of the woods.293 After much fanfare it proved to be nothing more than a popular
costume placed into an open freezer, covered in animal entrails.294
The “body”
44
295
Surviving dinosaurs?
What is a “living fossil?” The meaning is relevant here because in some
cryptozoological cases we are concerned with the possible survival of species universally
thought to be extinct.296 For most people, a “living fossil” is an extraordinary looking and
amazing creature that survived from a vanished age, yet these same people likely wash
themselves with the skeleton of a sponge, something that hasn’t changed since the
beginning of the Paleozoic era.297 In your basement or cellar, there are dozens of “living
fossils” from the Devonian and Carboniferous periods spinning their webs and scurrying
about.298 There are many examples of these kinds of “living fossils” so it is perhaps best
to confine the term “living fossil” to groups otherwise thought “extinct.”299 It is generally
agreed among cryptozoologists and cryptozoologically inclined scientists to limit the
term “living fossil” to very small groups of survivors that have perpetuated themselves
through the ages with very few effects of evolution, while larger groups have been
undergoing immense changes and thus continue to give birth to new types.300 A “living
fossil” is best described as a stationary species.301
There are “living fossils” the oldest being the radiolarians, with remains being found
in pre-Cambrian strata, meaning that they date as far back as 2,000,000,000 years.302 The
opossum, Didelphis virginiana, and the armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus, date back to
45
the Eocene roughly 70,000,000 years ago.303 The point here is that there may be no
creature, however primitive that couldn’t potentially have survived up until today. We are
finding lingering examples in many different areas around the world, yet when someone
suggests the possibility of a surviving dinosaur, or something similar to it, a flying
reptile, or a relic hominid, exasperation follows.304
The most infamous of potential prehistoric survivors, though only moderately wellknown to those not familiar with cryptozoology, is the Mokele-Mbembe. The MokeleMbembe dwells within the swamps, pools and waterways of Central West Africa,
specifically the Likouala region of central Africa, which is made up of jungle swamp and
rainforest. This area is roughly 60,000 square miles in circumference, and is one of the
fewplaces on Earth that hasn’t changed (much) in over sixty-five million years.305
Lake Tele
306
46
307
Mokele-Mbembe or “The one who stops the flow of rivers”
The Mokele-Mbembe is a creature whose morphology is best described as sauropodlike. The size of the creature varies, some claim it is no bigger than an elephant, while
other reports have it at fifteen to thirty-feet in length. This is attributed to its neck and
tail.308 Its color varies, sometimes being gray, brown, or rust, and sometimes donning a
frill across its head, or entire back.309 There have not been any documented descriptions
of hair. The head is like that of a snake but larger than the largest “known” python.310 It
has very short, elephant-like legs, with three visible “claws” on its hind legs.311 Its
footprints are rounded, about a foot in diameter and when the prints are observed in the
sand, claw marks are present.312 Its principle food is an indigenous fruit known as the
Malombo, which is a species of the Landolphia gourd. Besides its generally placid
temperament, the Mokele-Mbembe can become very aggressive if provoked, capsizing
boats and killing the occupants, though not consuming them.313
In 1913 a German expedition to Northern Congo (then part of Cameroon) was put
together.314 It was led by Captain Freiherr von Stein zu Lausnitz, was to last two years,
but was cut short because of WWI.315 The official findings of this expedition were never
published, however certain aspects were obtained by cryptozoologists, accounts of the
47
Mokele-Mbembe were collected, however these reports placed a short horn, or tooth at
the base of the creatures head, Roy Mackal, who put an expedition together in 1980 and
again in 81. He theorized that this addition was an error on Lausnitz, mistaking accounts
of the Mokele-Mbembe with those of the Emela-Ntouka, another cryptid/prehistoric
survivor in the area.316
Other “prehistoric survivors”
In 1912 Carl Hagenbeck, “one of the world’s greatest animal collectors,”317 was
convinced that dinosaur-like creatures still lived in Africa.318 In his book, Beasts and
Men, he wrote of accounts from “English gentlemen” who had been traveling through
Rhodesia, both from opposite directions and of his own adventures in the Dark
Continent.319 Natives in the area told of a great water creature, half elephant and half
dragon. Drawings of the creature can be found on the walls of Central African caves.320
There were so many stories from so many sources that it was apparent to him that there
was indeed some kind of unknown creature living in the area.321
Emela-Ntouka
322
The Emela-Ntouka, known in other areas as Aseka-moke and Ngamba-Namae, is the
second most mentioned of Africa’s prehistoric survivors. It is best described as a
ceratopsian-like dinosaur, or perhaps an undiscovered rhinoceros. It is slightly smaller
than an elephant, with heavy legs that support the body from underneath, a heavy
48
crocodile like tail, and skin of a grayish-brown color.323 There are no ridges or frills along
the neck, but the neck is short with a horn, (not made of hair like that of a rhino, but like
that of an elephants tusk) protruding from the front of the head.324 It is semi-aquatic and a
foliage-eater, but most interesting is its earned nick-name, “killer of Elephants;” it is
known to kill, but not consume elephants and hippopotami.325
In the book The Lungfish, the Dodo, and the Unicorn, Willy Ley mentions a
mysterious animal called “the River Elephant,” sometime after the discovery of the
Pigmy Hippo in 1913 a piece of skin was presented by a settler living near Lefini, on the
Congo River.326 The skin was covered with a thick red fur. It by appeared to have
belonged to a rather large animal, resembling the hide of an elephant.327
Lucien Blancou, chief game inspector in French Equatorial Africa collected a great
deal about mysterious animals between 1949 and 1953.328 He spoke of Indigenous
peoples north of the Kelle district, mainly the pygmies, who knew of a forest creature
“larger than a buffalo, almost as large as an elephant, but not a hippopotamus. It is feared
more than any other dangerous animal.”329 Its footprints are described as being similar to
a rhinoceros, but they do not mention a horn.330 Around Ouesso the natives talk of
another such creature, but this one does have a horn, or horns on its head.331 In Epena,
Dongou, and Impfondo there is a creature that disembowels elephants. One was supposed
to have been killed twenty years ago, somewhere on the Ubangi and in the Belgian
Congo.332
Then there is the Mbielu-Mbielu-Mbielu. This anomaly is a semi-aquatic creature with
planks growing out of its back, something, according to native description, resembling a
Stegosaurus.333 The planks are large, and should not be mistaken for ridges along the
49
back,334 however there is no fossil evidence that the stegosaurus was an aquatic
creature.335 It is suggested that this creature could simply be another mystery animal
known as the Nguma-Monene which is seen in the Mataba tributary of the Ubangi River.
According to description it is a huge snake roughly 130ft long, has a serrated ridge along
its back, which consists of triangular protrusions, it can walk on land, has a low-slung
body and a forked tongue.336
On the 1981 Congo/Mokele-Mbembe expedition and at its base camp on the waters
edge of Lake Telle, there were frequent observations of large turtle whose shell reached
at least two meters in length.337 There are tales/sightings of a turtle similar to this one that
was four to five meters in diameter. This turtle is known locally as the Ndendeki.338 The
Ndendeki’s shell is more rounded than other known turtles, the natives do not fear it, or
consider it a danger to anyone.339 There isn’t much information about its diet but it is
assumed that it feeds upon detritus.340
The Mahamba, is a massive crocodile somewhere between twelve to fifteen meters in
length.341 When the Lingala speak of this creature they are adamant to point out that the
Mahamba isn’t just an oversized specimen of the ordinary variety and that it is not the
Nguma-Monene.342 While exploring the Congo River in the late nineteenth century the
Belgiam explorer John Reinhardt Werner reported seeing crocodiles of this size on more
than one occasion.343
The 1980 and 81 expeditions led into the Congo in search of the Mokele-Mbembe,
among other prehistoric survivors, the expedition was led by Roy Mackal. The
expedition’s main destination was Boha, whose inhabitants “own” Lake Telle, one of the
reported habitats of the Mokele-Mbembe.344
50
The Likouala region, or the Epena district, with all of its forests and swamps remains
almost entirely unfrequented by man because of inaccessibility. This area is a refuge for a
wide variety of species.345 Lake Telle itself is very shallow.346 With known depths of two
to three feet with sporadically placed deep holes, roughly six feet deep.347 The water is
dark, filled with rotting vegetation, and underwater visibility does not exceed fiftycentimeters.348 The bottom is muddy, with an estimated layer of seventy centimeters of
sediment in the middle, and one hundred and fifty around the sides.349 There are various
inlets that branch off into small forest rivers, but most of them disappear in the thick
vegetation.350
It seems to me that this lake would be, at least in depth and appearance, similar to
Utah Lake: very shallow, very murky, and muddy. This “dinosaur” is supposed to be able
to entirely submerge itself in this lake, so if this is the case it would have to A: lounge
about in the deep-holes of the lake, or B: be a very small version of a sauropod, or
something else entirely. I understand the Mokele-Mbembe has been seen in areas other
than Lake Tele.
Outside of Africa in the Malaysian state of Pahang is the lake Tasek Bera.351 It is
known for magnificent long-necked creatures with cobra–like hoods, which are called
Ular Tedong.352 They can raise their long necks out of the water to the “height of a palm
tree.”353 They have a large snake-like head, with two snail-like horns, their neck is long
and gradually grows to a width of six-ft. where is hits the water.354 Their head and neck
are covered with thumb-nail size scales, however the body of these creatures has never
been seen though a tail has been reported above the surface. Also the creature changes
51
colors as it grows older, when young it is a salty-gray and as it matures it turns to a
golden-hue.355
Dinosaur thoughts
When evaluating most dinosaurian examples of “living fossils” we find that there isn’t
any evidence for their existence, other than anecdotal. Everything that we know about
any of these creatures comes entirely from word of mouth, the theories and findings
derived from the various expeditions, and interviews with indigenous peoples in the areas
the creatures are said to inhabit, the trails the creature(s) may have made while lumbering
about the wood, and the various caves seen around certain bodies of water and river ways
where it is assumed a like-creature could rest. The only actual piece of evidence we have
are the photos of what may be fresh footprints of one of the living fossils.
In what was guessed to be either August or September of 1966, Atelier Yvan Ridel, a
professional French wild-life photographer, and a person considered to be “entirerly
reliable” by Heuvelmans,356 came upon and photographed what he believed to be the
footprint of a living fossil.357 The photo was taken in the Congo (Brazza) on a steep
bank.358 The creature’s tracks led out of a mass of reeds crossing a beach area and into
the water.359 The print that was photographed was the clearest one and was measured at
25 cm in width, while the stride of the creature was measured at around 1.2 meters with
the legs being 1.2 meters apart.360
It is hypothesized that the print is of the Emela-Ntouka. Ridel believes the print could
not have been that of a hippopotamus, Hippopotamus amphibus, it instead looked
“superficially” like a rhinoceros, Diceros bicornis, though the middle toe was sharper
than a rhino’s, but the closest known rhino was 1000 miles away from the Congo.361
52
Heuvelmans believes there still may be an as-yet undiscovered and slightly smaller
relative of the black rhino, Diceros bicornis. It could have developed elongated hooves
due to the marshy wet-lands in the area.362 The strange thing to Ridel was that the tracks
seemed to come from a bipedal creature, so if the trail was made by a dinosaur it wasn’t a
sauropod or ceratopsian dinosaur.363 The tracks had not been there the day before.364
The tracks in question
365
The tracks could have been made by a bipedal dinosaur, something akin to an
iguanodon, or a duck-billed dinosaur like a trachodont,366 but we will never know for
certain what creature these prints belong to until we capture this animal and compare the
feet to the print. I will admit that for me the thought of surviving dinosaurs has been the
most entertaining aspect of cryptozoology. But the fact remains, there just isn’t any solid
evidence…yet. There is far more anecdotal evidence and other for the existence of many
other cryptids. There have been legitimate scientists such as Roy P. Mackal, Ivan T.
Sanderson, and Bernard Heuvelmans, for example, who have investigated the idea.
Sanderson was one of the first to bring the idea of surviving African dinosaurs to the
forefront of cryptozoology.
We have to keep in mind that whether or not these cryptids are dinosaurs, we will not
know until we have an actual capture, or a reputable photo. They very well could be
53
something else entirerly, something completely new to zoology, an undiscovered
mammal or a kind of long necked monitor lizard in the case of the Mokele-Mbembe. In
the case of the Emela-Ntouka, we could have a new rhinoceros, or we can even theorize
at the possibility of a large unknown horned reptile. Everything is up in the air for now.
We cannot write anything off just yet, but as with most unknown creatures, once they are
discovered the reality behind them is far less grandiose than their myth.
The Congo is massive, as are many of the world’s jungles, so when one small underfunded and under-manned expedition party is surveying a particular area where one of
these creatures had been sighted, the creature could have easily moved on already. If
these creatures are real, they are not stationary. They feed and move on, unless they limit
themselves to a specific area, and then it comes down to finding that area. There are
many different possible variables to contend with and until the proper amount of funding,
man power, and equipment is available everything we “known” about these creatures will
be nothing more than guesswork.
Sasquatch and Bigfoot
367
The Sasquatch or Bigfoot (both terms are plural and singular) is North America’s
largest cryptozoological mystery.368 The name “Bigfoot” has come to denote any
54
unknown relic hominid that is reported throughout the world, though each unknown
creature does have is own label,369 like the Yeti or Abominable Snowman in the
Himalayas which is described as a creature smaller and less erect than Sasquatch,
something likened to a “rock ape.” A few examples of the world’s relic hominids are: the
five foot tall, dark brown and hairy shiru in the mountains of Ecuador, the “giant”
mapinguary of the Mato Grosso of Brazil. This is a creature that leaves 20 inch tracks and
kill cattle by tearing out their tongues,370 Sumatra is home to the Orang-Pendak a four
foot tall “hairy man” that may be a new species of orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus.371
The name Bigfoot first appeared in the Humboldt Times of Northern California on
October 5th, 1958 in a story written about a group of “church going” construction
workers, who reported finding a series of large humanlike foot prints.372 The name
Bigfoot, though a general term, is primarily used in the United States. The other, more
reputable, term for the creature is Sasquatch.
In the 1920s, Canadian Journalist J.W. Burns coined the term Sasquatch as a common
denominator for all the various Native American names of unknown hominid
creatures,373 Sasquatch derives from the word “sesquac.” This word is used in the Sto:lo
dialect of the Halkomelem language of the Coast Salish Indians of the Fraser Valley and
in parts of Vancouver Island.374 Names for the creature describe the creature’s behaviors
such as shaking trees, eating preferences, etc. These names reinforce the impression that
the natives are describing actual creatures, based upon their firsthand knowledge of the
creatures’ habits.375
55
Native American accounts
In the book The Klamath knot: Explorations of Myth and Evolution David Rains
Wallace ponders the Native “wild man” tales and raises the question,
What wild animal would be hardest to discover? An animal very much like us,
perhaps. Certain Amazonian tribes were not found until long after their region
was explored. Such wild animals couldn’t be too much like humans. If they were,
they would betray their presence by competing for the same habitat. Could an
animal be enough like us to escape our endless snooping, yet enough unlike us to
escape our endless competitiveness? What if another hominid species had
emotionally outgrown Homo sapiens had not evolved the greed, cruelty, vanity,
and other ‘childishness’ that seems to arise with our neotenic nature? What if that
animal had come to understand the world well enough that it didn’t need to
construct a civilization, a cultural sieve through which to strain perception? Such
a creature could understand forests in ways we cannot.376
The traditional Native American beliefs regarding Sasquatch are recognized by
cultural anthropologists, but only for chronicling of folklore and mythologies of Native
societies.377 The original inhabitants of North America were well aware of the
Sasquatch.378 The Sasquatch appears in their ceremonies and art alongside animals
known to the western world.379
The art and images depicting the Sasquatch have it looking (obviously) very apelike,
which is interesting to point out because there are not supposed to be any apes in North
America to base these likenesses upon.380 An example of this is the Tsimshian monkey
mask from northern British Columbia.381 It was collected in the early 1900s it is now in
the Peabody Museum at Harvard University. It is described as “a mythical being found in
the woods and today called a monkey.”382 The mask has common anthropoid features,
prominent brow, toothy grimace, projecting lower chinless lower face, and a flat upturned
nose the only thing lacking are the protruding canine teeth, a feature at odds with extant
great apes.383 Though the allegedly extinct Gigantopithecus a creature that some
56
“cryptozoologists” theorize may be a candidate for sasquatch has/had the lack of
protruding canine teeth.384 The features found in the mask are also found in prehistoric
carved stone heads from the Columbia River Gorge.385
Gigantopithecus
386
387
In Southern British Columbia the Kwakiutl tribe calls the “wild men” buk’wus.388
These buk’wus feature prominently in Kwakiutl artwork, particularly in carvings, masks,
totems, etc. the female element of the buk’wus is distinguished separately and called the
dsonoqua.389
Dsonoqua
390
57
A female who is described as “nocturnal, hair covered giantess, with large hanging
breasts, and is fond of abducting children.”391 This is similar to the storie that lingered
before the official discovery of the mountain gorilla, Gorilla beringei. These tales of
kidnapping are similar to the stories of the bogeyman that serve to frighten misbehaving
children.392
Other Native American tribes “wild men” are not quite as easy to point out since they
haven’t been immortalized through masks or totems.393 Painted Rock, located on the Tule
River Indian Reservation in the Sierra Nevada foothills of central California, is a rock
shelter associated with a Native American Yokuts village.394 On this site are pictographs
of bear, beaver, coyote, frog, caterpillar, centipede, eagle, lizard, condor, humans, and
other designs. There is also the “Hairy Man.”395
The “Hairy Man” pictograph also known as mayak datat, or sunsunut, measures 2.6
meters high by 1.9 meters wide, and is a black, red and white representation of an eight
and a half foot high two-legged “wild man” creature having what looks like long hair and
huge eyes.396 The creature depicted is based upon a clever, nocturnal, bipedal animal that
dwells in the forest.397 It’s reported to frequently steal acorn meal that has been left out to
dry, with only its footprints left behind as evidence of its presence.398
“Hairy Man”
399
400
58
Native American people regard the Sasquatch with great respect. It is considered an
extraordinary being because of his obvious relationship to humans, with some Native
elders considering it to be on the border between animal and human.401 Tribal cultures all
over are based on kinship the stronger the kinship the stronger the bond that exists
between to parties involved.402 Indian elders will not eat bear meat because of its
similarity to humans. Humans are (in some cases) beings that blend “natural knowledge”
of animals with the consciousness of humans, giving them a special kind of intelligence.
Sasquatch has this kind of intelligence.403
Anthropologist Jeff Meldrum has stated that in all his research of Northwestern tribes
he has never heard of Sasquatch being anything other than a physical being, yet separated
tribes such as the Hopi, Iroquois, Northern Athabascan, and the Sioux see the Sasquatch
as a spirit being, something supernatural whose appearance is always meant to be a
message.404 In 1938 it was shown just how real the Sasquatch is to the Natives and their
culture. On May 23rd, during “Sasquatch Days,” held at Harrison Hot Springs, British
Columbia,405 a prominent British Columbian official made an offensive slip during a
speech stating, “Of course the Sasquatch are merely legendary Indian monsters. No white
man has ever seen one and they do not exist today in fact….”406 He attempted to continue
his talk, but was drowned out by two-thousand angry “red men.” Chief Flying Eagle
rushed to the head of the podium surrounded by other dignitaries and “thundered in
excellent english” “The white speaker is wrong! To all who now hear I say: Some white
men have seen Sasquatch. Many Indians have seen them and spoken to them. Sasquatch
are still here. I have spoken!”407
59
Roosevelt’s Story
The following story is one that is often told and referred to in Sasquatch literature. It is
an interesting story, which may be all that it is, but worth telling nonetheless.
“Frontiersmen are not, as a rule, apt to be very superstitious. They lead lives too hard
and practical, and have too little imagination in things supernatural.”408 Ivan T.
Sanderson (1911-1973), one of the pioneers of cryptozoology and a man who ranks
equally with Heuvelmans in the annuls of cryptozoology.409 Sanderson is author of the
book Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life which is considered the basis of all
work done in the pursuit of relic hominids since its publication,410 Sanderson quoted a
tale originally published in the book Wilderness Hunter, by Theodore Roosevelt. There is
no date for the events, but this is believed to be one of the earlier stories to come out of
the Northwest.411
Roosevelt wrote a story he was told by a man he referred to as a “grizzled, weatherbeaten old mountain hunter” named Bauman.412 Bauman was still young when this event
happened.413 Bauman was trapping beaver with a partner in the Bitterroot, on the other
side of the Rockies from Yosemite,414 between the forks of the Salmon River from the
head of the Wisdom River.415 Bauman and his partner decided to head up an ominous
pass, which had a “reputation for evil,” because another solitary trapper had previously
been killed and half-eaten by an unknown beast.416 The story of the event did little to
deter the two men from venturing into such an environment with potential for disaster.417
After making camp and with two hours of daylight left they went upstream to lay traps.
They returned to find that their camp had been disturbed during their absence:
60
“Something, apparently a bear, had visited camp, and had rummaged about
among their things, scattering the contents of their packs, and in sheer wantonness
destroying their lean-to. The footprints of the beast were quite plain, but at first
they paid no particular heed to them, busying themselves with rebuilding the leanto, laying out their beds and stores and lighting the fire.”418
Soon after Bauman’s partner began to examine the tracks. He followed them up along a
game trail that the creature had used to leave the camp, after which he approached
Bauman and remarked “Bauman, that bear has been walking on two legs!”419 After
discussing whether or not the footprints were those of a human.420 At some point during
the night Bauman was awakened by a noise and a strong “wild-beast odor” that was
coming from a “great body in the darkness at the mouth of the lean-to.” He grabbed his
rifle and fired into the darkness towards it, but apparently missed as he could hear the
“beast” crashing through the wood in retreat.421 After this the men slept little and the next
morning they went out to retrieve and replace the traps that they had set the previous day,
neither leaving the others side via unspoken agreement.422 When they returned to camp
they were astonished to find that the creature had returned to their campground, again,
thrashing all of their belongings and destroying the lean-to.423 The men took turns
watching as the other rested the following night and around midnight the “thing” came
around behind them; they could hear it rumbling about, here and there, making odd and
“sinister” drawn out sounds, though it didn’t venture near the fire.424
Around noon they were within a few miles of camp and with the high sun beating
down on them they felt absurd to fear the “thing” the two gruff and armed men that they
were.425 With three traps left to gather, Bauman volunteered to retrieve them while his
partner went ahead to camp to ready their packs for departure. Bauman took several
hours to finish, cleaning the beaver.426 When Bauman returned to the camp he found his
61
partner dead, with his neck broken and four large teeth marks in his neck.427 Roosevelt
would later add that the large footprints scattered about told the whole story, the
“monstrous assailant” snuck up silently from behind and attacked. It was waiting for the
chance for the two men to be separated.428 The man’s body hadn’t been eaten, but it had
been “romped and gamboled around it in uncouth and ferocious glee, occasionally rolling
it over and over; it then fled back into the soundless depths of the woods.”429 Bauman
unsurprisingly abandoned everything and headed down the pass on foot to where their
two horses had been grazing, he mounted and rode through the day and night until he
believed he was beyond the beasts pursuit.430
The Patterson-Gimlin film
431
432
In 1967 Roger Patterson put together a poor man’s expedition in the Bluff Creek area,
north of Eureka, California after hearing reports of new “tracks” in the area.433 Patterson
made the Journey with his friend/associate and outdoorsman Robert “Bob” Gimlin.434
Patterson rented a Kodak K200 16mm Cine camera for the trek and as the men were
riding in Six Rivers National Forest on October 20, 1967 when early in the afternoon they
rounded a bend, about twenty miles beyond the end of a dirt road that was “slashed
through” for the use of logging trucks.435
62
The men were moving through dense underbrush when their horses were startled and
tossed both men to the ground, Patterson jumped to his feet and went for the camera,
because in front of them was a large, dark colored, upright creature walking away from
them on one of the sandbars.436 Patterson managed to shoot several feet of film and later
upon viewing the film they realized they had captured what appeared to be a female
Sasquatch.437 She had glossy black hair that covered her entire body with large
“pendulous breasts,” she was walking away from the camera and continued to look back
at Patterson and Gimlin as they watched and filmed her.438 She didn’t appear to be
frightened by the men at all, but seemed inquisitive,439 in an almost, “what are you
looking at?” manner, wishing to avoid contact.440 “Experts” have said the creature looked
to be around seven feet tall, with a weight estimation of 400 pounds.441 She left footprints
that were seventeen inches long, and she had a stride of forty-one inches.442 The
Sasquatch, disappeared into the woods, and the men pursued her for three miles, but lost
her in the heavy undergrowth.443 Patterson and Gimlin returned to where they first
spotted the Sasquatch and immediately began to cast footprints.444
Aftermath and findings of the Patterson-Gimlin film
The response to the film was varied; scientists from various fields of expertise came
forward to defend and discredit the footage. The curator of anthropology from Royal
British Columbia Museum, Don Abbott, had previously examined the tracks of three
supposed Sasquatch in the Bluff Creek area, regurgitated the feelings of many other
scientists impressed with the film, but found it challenging to bury their preconceptions
of such content.
63
It is about as hard to believe that the film is faked as it is to admit that such a
creature really lives. If there’s a chance to follow up scientifically, my curiosity is
built to the point where I’d want to go along with it. Like most scientists however,
I’m not ready to put my reputation on the line until something concrete shows upsomething like bones or a sku1l.445
In 1969 Ken Peterson, a senior executive at Disney Studios examined the Patterson
film and concluded to create something like it they would resorted to animation, if it was
hoaxed it would have to be a man in a suit.446 One of the top men in the costume field at
the time, Janos Prohaska had worked on numerous projects including the white gorillalike alien from the Star Trek episode “A Private Little War.” 447 Prohaska was convinced
that it was a living creature in the film, as “you could see all the muscles on the body.” “It
didn’t move like a costume at all.”448 He believed that if it was hoaxed the hair would
have been strategically placed on the body, a make-up job which would’ve taken upwards
of ten hours to complete.449
Dr. Dmitri Donskoy, chair of biomechanics at the USSR Central Institute of Physical
Culture in Moscow, and Dr. Don Grieve, professor of biomechanics at London’s Royal
Free Hospital of Medicine, studied the film. He derived that the feet were 13.3 inches
long instead of 15 inches.
My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the
Sasquatch on the grounds that it would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational
rejection based on the emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch
really exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the
film.450
The analysis hinged on the frame speed of the film. If the Speed was 16 or 18 Frames
per second the possibility of fakery is easily ruled out because under these conditions a
64
human couldn’t duplicate the pattern observed, suggesting that the Sasquatch possesses a
different locomotor system that a human.451 Patterson claimed he would normally have
the camera set at 24 frames per second, but after filming he noticed that it was set at 18,
the instructions for the camera used state the actual speed of the camera will vary within
10 percent of the indicated speed setting.452 In a separate test it was found the conclusion
was adequate and it was filming at a setting that would make it impossible for a human to
fake.453 The degree of motion-blurring that is evident in the film footage points to a
slower frame speed, vertical vacillations of the film frame correspond to the walking or
running of Patterson as he was filming the creature.454 World-class splinters can manage
five steps per second, so if the film speed was 24fps. Patterson would have made six steps
per second to produce the vertical at 4-frame intervals, this isn’t possible.455 Dr. Grieve
did believe it would be feasible for a well-practiced dancer to execute such a gait at 16-18
fps, but considered it highly improbable.456
The individual’s height can be determined by comparing its rate of step with a human
of known height. Grover Krantz (1931-2002) used himself as a comparative biped at 6’
5’’ and found the two-step stride required 1.15 if he was walking quickly and 1.3 if he
was walking slowly.457 So if the film speed was 24 frames per second the subjects
walking was less than one second per stride, which would be a very unnatural movement
for someone of a similar height.458 There are a number of perspectives and assumed
conclusions in regards to the film. Those who’ve investigated the film thoroughly have
concluded for themselves that the film is “probably authentic.”459 On the other hand,
those that immediately throw it aside as hogwash usually haven’t given all the available
additional evidence a look.460
65
Footprints
Animal tracks leave clues about numbers and behaviors.461 Dr. Jim Halfpenny stated
that mammals are some of the most elusive animals on the planet, with a great deal of
what is learned from them through stories that their tracks tell.462 It is important to
understand that there is so much more evidence for the existence of Sasquatch than most
people realize. We have eyewitness accounts, descriptions, drawings, plaster casts of
their prints, and photographs (some more reliable than others). Dr. John Bindernagel
believes that it’s the tracks that are depended on for the existence of an animal in a
specific study area. In the case of Sasquatch it is the most compelling data.463
Sasquatch prints are flat with no indication of the characteristics of a human foot.
They often have fixed longitudinal arches with little indication of weight bearing under a
specialized “ball” at the base of the big toe. The feet are broader with a thicker sole pad,
the heel and toe segments are larger than in human feet.464 Footprints on average are
between 15 to 16 inches long and are superficially humanlike due to the large inner toe
being aligned with the rest of the toes, where an ape’s inner toe diverges like a thumb.465
Characteristics that define primates are the presence of hairless friction skin on the
palms of their hands and feet.466 Some Sasquatch prints display what appear to be dermal
ridges and papillary ridges, along the skin ridges are the depressions that mark the
openings of the sweat glands, under the right circumstances, soil and weather conditions
permitting, the ridge detail can be transferred to the soil in a print.467 These details are
most visible under the toe tips and forefoot.468 Dr. Grover Krantz was first to show the
presence of these ridges with prints that were found in 1982 from the Blue Mountains of
Washington.
66
Dermal Ridges
469
470
Jimmy Chilcutt, a crime scene investigator and former fingerprint examiner for the
Conroe, Texas Police Department with experience in nonhuman dermatoglyphics has
printed hundreds of primates for research centers and zoos across the country. He
surveyed many different casts and found that some of the casts did display
dermatoglyphic features, but unlike any he had seen in all of his years of experience.471
He found the ridges were on average twice as wide as a humans and where a human sole
has ridges that run transversely across the width of the foot the ridges on the Sasquatch
print lay parallel to the edge and run lengthwise across the axis of the foot. Chilcutt was
impressed by what appeared to be healed scars on one pair of casts.472 Krantz has referred
to these specific casts as “Wrinkle Foot” because of extensive coarse dermatoglyphics.473
Chilcutt stated “If this animal is walking through the wilderness, he’s bound to come
across rock and rough terrain that will cut the bottom of his foot. As the wound heals, the
ridges curl inward toward the scar.”474 These prints were found in mud helping to
preserve the detail in them.475
Dr. Meldrum came across a cast that had been taken in Georgia, in 1997, by a police
officer that was investigating a “disturbance” at a ranch, the cast had very noticeable and
67
detailed skin ridges.476 Chilcutt examined the casts and determined the dermal ridges at
the stems of the second and fourth toes are definitely those of a nonhuman primate.477
This was concluded via the fact that humans have creases that run perpendicular to the
lateral ridge on the first joint of the toes, where the toe meets the foot.478 The ridge flow
is consistent with the 1967 prints found at Blue Creek Mountain and prints found in 1984
at Walla Walla, Table Springs.479
Ray Wallace and the “death of Bigfoot”
Ray Wallace (1918-2002) and his construction company in Bluff Creek in 1958 It was
an employee of his, Jerry Crew was the one to initially find the tracks that led to the
coining of the term “Big Foot” beginning the Bigfoot phenomenon in the media.480
Throughout his life Wallace would be involved with many other stories in relation to
Sasquatch, although in a joking sense. He began offering to sell a captured Sasquatch to
Tom Slick, a Texas millionaire with an interest in cryptozoology, and regularly wrote
letters to magazines about the whereabouts of Sasquatch proclaiming that he would
eventually provide a captured creature. He even went so far as to proclaim that he knew
for certain that the creature was a fan of Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes.481
Soon after Wallace’s death on November 26th, 2002 his family came forward to say
that he had perpetrated the whole Bigfoot phenomenon and it was nothing more than a
hoax.482 His family brought forward numerous wooden feet that he had manufactured and
admitted the obvious: that he was a prankster. His obituary and one reporter’s interview
with his “grieving” family set in motion a whirlwind of false information via “poorly
written” stories proclaiming the death of Bigfoot began to pop up all across the
country.483
68
The original story that was written by Bob Young of the Seattle Times was rewritten
by other outlets across the country. It became a polluted mesh of nonsense and hearsay.484
The story that Bigfoot was dead traveled across the nation. This was not true by any
means and is just another example of how the tabloid media misrepresents
cryptozoology.485
Ray Wallace with Casts
486
69
Wallace casts compared to actual casts
487
Hair
Sasquatch hair samples collected in California were examined by Dr. Sterling Bunnell
a member of the California Academy of Sciences. He compared these using microscopy
samples from Damnation Creek with; human, gorilla, Gorilla gorilla, chimp, Pan
troglodytes, Pygathrix monkey hair, and orangutan, Pongo pygmaeus. It was
distinguishable from all of these, but it seemed more like gorilla hair, than human hair.488
Ivan T. Sanderson submitted hair that was found in the Bluff Creek area to Dr. F. Martin
Duncan, who was over the hair collection at the London Zoo. It too was tested, but didn’t
match any of the hair samples on site. He determined it was from an unknown primate.489
In 1968 Sasquatch hair was collected in central Idaho and sent to Ray Pinker an instructor
in police sciences at the California State College he had the same findings.490 None of
70
these findings will mean anything though until we have actual known Sasquatch hair that
we can compare samples to.491
“The Skookum Cast:”
492
On September 22, 2000 a partial body imprint of what may have been made by a
Sasquatch was discovered by the BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) during
a field expedition in an area called Skookum Meadows.493 In the area that the body print
was found a pheromone attractant that had been attached to a tree was missing as well as
several pieces of fruit that were set out, some of the fruit fragments had large “shovelshaped” tooth marks.494 The impressions appeared to be of the left forearm, thigh,
buttocks, and heels,495 however there were no Sasquatch footprints found in the
surrounding area, as the immediate area was a halo of moist loamy soil and beyond that
was dry and hard.496 Hair was recovered from the cast and given to molecular biologist
Craig Newton of British Columbia Research for DNA analysis, who successfully
extracted DNA, although it was fragmented. He attempted to utilize nuclear DNA
71
primers, but based upon the sequences he was unable to rule out human contamination, or
even a possible human source.497
Where are the bones?
The lack of Sasquatch Fossils in North America should not be surprising as weather
conditions in the Pacific Northwest are not good for fossilization where moist coniferous
forests, volcanic soils, and acidic forest soils contribute to this.498 Acid in the ground
water creates caves in limestone sediment. The limestone stops some of the acidity
allowing for preservation of bones in caves.499 These caves have lateral passages, used by
bears, bats, etc. with vertical sinkholes, the vertical entrances are not conducive to bone
preservation because of in-falling debris and water.500
Grover Krantz, as well as many others, including myself, has been asked at least once,
“If there is a Bigfoot then why hasn’t anyone come across a dead one or the skeleton of
one?”501 To this Krantz responds:
Well if bears are real, then why don’t we find their bones? I’ve talked to
hunters, many game guides, conservation people, ecology students, and asked
them how many remains of dead bears have been found that died of a natural
death? Over twenty years of enquiry my grand total of naturally dead bear bones
found is zero! Now the best population estimate guess we can make is there are at
least one hundred bears out there for every one Bigfoot, and we haven’t found the
first bear yet. We would very much like to find the remains of a naturally dead
Sasquatch, but the chance is just simply so remote it’s not even serious to think
about it.502
World-renowned primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall has spoken openly about her
conviction that additional species of great ape remain to be discovered.503 Goodall places
a large amount of credence in the experiences and myths of Native Americans, and has
stated bluntly,
72
Well now you’ll be amazed when I tell you that I am sure they (Sasquatch)
exists…I have talked to so many Native Americans who’ve all described the same
sounds; two who have seen them.504
There is so much information on the world’s relic hominids, particularly Sasquatch,
too much to cover thoroughly in this thesis. There have been so many alleged sightings,
including the photos, and footprints. The native myths and the histories alone are
powerful form of anecdotal evidence. For me the question isn’t whether Sasquatch is real,
but when we will we finally come across one, and do we really want to?
The Mongolian Death Worm
505
The Gobi Desert encompasses half a million square miles and spans roughly a
thousand miles across southeastern Mongolia and northern China stretching five hundred
miles from north to south.506 It is home of a strange and reportedly dangerous cryptid, the
Mongolian Death Worm.507 The indigenous people and nomadic tribesmen refer to it as
allghoi khorkhoi508 which means “intestine worm”, due to its resemblance to cow
intestines.509
This creature can spit corrosive venom, and kill with a touch in a manner that is
suggestive of electrocution.510 Ivan Mackerle has investigated and sought the “worm” on
three different occasions, in 1990, 1992, and 1996.511 Each time he and his team have
73
come back with anecdotal evidence. A translated information sheet on the creature, based
upon his expeditions reads as follows:
Sausage-like worm over half a metre [18 inches] long, and thick as a man’s
arm, resembling the intestine of cattle. Its tail is short, as [if] it were cut off, but
not tapered, it is difficult to tell its head from its tail because it has no visible eyes,
nostrils, or mouth. Its colour is dark red, like blood or salami….It moves in odd
ways-either it rolls around or it squirms sideways, sweeping its way about. It lives
in desolate sand dunes and in the hot valleys of the Gobi desert with saxaul plants
underground. It is possible to see it only during the hottest months of the year,
June and July; later it burrows into the sand and sleeps. It gets out on [top of] the
ground [i.e. sand] mainly after the rain, when the ground is wet. It is dangerous,
because it can kill people instantly at a range of several metres.512
There is no physical evidence of the worm.513 The worm”may be nothing more than a
product of folklore and superstition, yet for the purpose of cryptozoological analysis, let
us assume that it is a real creature; anything that is known of the creature is nothing but
hypothesis based upon the testimonies of the indigenous peoples.514 We must remember
that the testimony of indigenous peoples has proven accurate in the past, time and time
again when it comes to unknown animals.
Is it a real, but harmless species whose death dealing ability is merely a product of
native fear and folklore, or a species with the capacity of emitting highly toxic venom, or
the ability to generate an electric discharge?515 Its featureless ends (no decipherable head
or tail) and elongated body is like an Annelida, or segmented worm, as is its tendency to
come to the surface after rain.516 If it is a segmented earthworm with the ability to squirt
venom, it must be able to sense the individuals coming, or locate them via vibration
because earthworms do not have any eyes. The sensitivity of earthworms in this regard is
well known.517
74
The large size of the worm isn’t out of question as Megascolides australis, an
earthworm found in Australia, can grow to thirteen feet.518 South Africa has the
Microchaetus, one specimen was collected that measured twenty-two feet long.519 A
species of worm Didymogaster sylvaticus from New South Wales does defend itself by
squirting fluid at distances of eighteen inches out of small pores that surround its body.520
The United States has the elusive Palouse earthworm.521 It smells like lilies when
handled. There have been specimens found that are three feet long. It inhabits the soils of
the Palouse, a two-million-acre wheat field near the Idaho-Washington border, but there
have only been a handful of sightings. It was common in the 1890s before the areas it
inhabited turned to agriculture.522 There have been a few documented discoveries of the
worm; 1978, 1988, 1990, and in 2005.523 It was considered extinct until 2005 when one
was accidentally dug up by a student collecting soil samples; it is currently the only
specimen in human hands.524 The specimen is six inches long.525
Palouse Earthworm
526
In regards to the Death worm’s ability to spit a deadly toxin or acid, Mackerle
suggests that it may obtain its venom from the poisonous roots of the saxaul or from the
roots of the goyo plant, which the “worm” is “associated with.”527 There are many
75
different poisonous species that obtain their toxins from external sources; Brazil’s Green
poison-dart frog, Dendrobates auratus, or the Strawberry poison-dart frog, Dendrobates
pumilio, are perfect examples of this.528 Regardless, if this creature did in fact discharge a
toxin, it is still a mystery how it could be instantly fatal.529 It sounds more like the
worm’s fatal reputation may have some merit, as the toxin it projects may indeed be toxic
to an extent, but because of its large size the worms spitting ability is very dramatic, thus
attaching more threat to it than is necessary.530 The indigenous people know nothing of
the worm’s diet, but this may substantiate the possibility of it being a worm like
earthworms it may have a small mouth and simply feed upon decaying organic matter.531
The environment of the Gobi Desert is the direct opposite of the preferred domain of
known earthworms; an earthworm placed in an arid environment will quickly die.532 The
worm’s activities, particularly its habit of only surfacing during the hottest months, is out
of character for an earthworm.533 This worm could have evolved so it could thrive in such
an environment.534 Some earthworms live in dry soil and avoid excessive water loss with
the development of excretory organs (eteronephric nephridia).535 This allows certain
worms to pass their urine through their digestive system, instead of releasing it, allowing
for most of the water to be reabsorbed.536 With the help of evolution this could perhaps
allow a worm to sustain itself in a desert environment.537
Dr. Karl Shuker believes it may be a kind of Amphisbaenian.538 An Amphisbaenian’s
skull is reinforced with bone and is very blunt, to facilitate an exclusively fossorial
existence, which requires little use of their eyes.539 Its tail looks exactly like its head, it
waves its tail while at the surface to fool predators into attacking its tail, which can be
shed in some species, it is often mistaken that this reptile has a head at each end.540
76
Amphisbaenid
541
Amphisbaenians are found in tropical and subtropical regions including arid regions
where their scaly skin is better able to resist water loss than the smooth skin of an
earthworm.542 Many, including some cryptozoologists are quick to dismiss the worm as
nonsense.543 There is nothing like the Death Worm that has been documented
paleontologically,544 but that doesn’t mean that we should count out the possibility of
some unknown creature being the culprit for the worm’s identity.
Why Cryptozoology should be legitimized and can it?
Cryptozoology is a hard science, hard not in its factuality, but in the difficulty of
categorizing it as a science. Cryptozoology will need to be a sub-genre of zoology. It
would take a lifetime to obtain what could be considered the “appropriate” credentials to
research cryptozoology with any “authority” as cryptozoology, like many other sciences
requires many differing fields of expertise. If such a degree existed it would require
knowledge of not just zoology, but ichthyology, paleontology, botany, geology,
anthropology, social anthropology, even psychology. Cryptozoology and the animals
77
therein are intensely controversial and cryptozoologists come down on both sides of the
debates on which animals (cryptids) coexist with us on this planet.545
Many of the cryptozoological mysteries are solvable, but what we require to do so are
real open mindedness, actual expertise, commitment, and unfortunately most important of
all sufficient funding,546 however before cryptozoology can hope to attain this it first
must gain the acknowledgement of traditional science. How can it do this? It must prove
the existence of a well known cryptid. Unfortunately, we are forced to come full circle
regarding the solvability and the requirements listed above.
Many of the leading cryptozoologists have varying fields of expertise, for example,
Eugenie Clark, “Shark Lady,” is educated in zoology,547 Loren Coleman anthropology,
zoology, with a masters in social psychology,548 Heuvelmans Zoology,549 Roy Mackal
bio-chemistry,550 Jeffrey Meldrum physical anthropology,551 Karl Shuker zoology and
comparative physiology,552 Grover Krantz anthropology.553 William Gibbons religious
studies, incidentally his main interest is surviving dinosaurs with the intent to prove the
evangelical “young Earth theory.”554 If cryptozoology does become a respected science it
must literally be a science of cooperation where experts in varying fields come together
and supply their varying expertise.
The pros versus the cons
Still the question remains, why should cryptozoology be legitimized? Does
cryptozoology matter? In 2001 primatologist Richard Leakey warned an audience in
South African that the Earth’s plant, animal, and insect species were dying off at a rate of
fifty thousand to a hundred thousand a year.555 Species disappear due to natural selection,
78
but just as many are threatened by the actions of man. There are many today that accept
the fact that many species have gone extinct before we even knew that they existed.556
There are two reasons for the legitimization of cryptozoology: first, for the sake of
curiosity, second to find these species so we may protect them before they are gone, (the
urgency of this grows with rarer species).557 What if for instance the Mokele-Mbembe
were authentic and we failed to locate it, and if for whatever reason it be deforestation,
pollution, or something else. Its small population died off due to an action that could have
been prevented if we had known for certain it was real? Some of the cryptids may hold
keys to human ancestry. 558 “It is easier to prevent [extinction] than to cure it.”559
On the same note, the legitimization of cryptozoology may be a double-edged sword.
If we open up the world of cryptozoology to legitimacy and we discover some of the
more infamous creatures (Sasquatch for instance), it could put many of these creatures in
danger. In the case of Sasquatch the question of whether to kill to prove they exist is a
heated topic among cryptozoologists. John Green makes the point there are no Sasquatch
available for study, unlike other known apes, there isn’t any definitive information on
Sasquatch.560 There are enough known apes in captivity that if more cadavers are needed
one would need to only wait for a natural death, but with Sasquatch, or any other relic
hominid they would definitely be hunted for scientific study.561 Green believes one must
be presented “in the flesh” for scientific study so that it can be established to exist and
until that is done there will be no possibility of having them studied effectively.562
He also believes that the capture/death of one must be done so that we may protect
their habitat, to protect these areas from being destroyed.563 Take Florida, home of the
Myakka Skunk Ape. It is extremely difficult to prevent developers from infringing on
79
wild areas on behalf of any animal.564 Green also believes they should be captured and
confined to zoos.565 However, what is most offensive is Green’s belief that if the
existence of Sasquatch was established and we were able to capture and breed them, they
should be utilized for the benefit of humans thus replacing primates in medical research
for vivisection. Because they stand and walk erect like humans, thus are more likely to
have more genetically in common with humans than primates.566 Grover Krantz also
follows the kill-to-prove-the-existence mentality.567
On the topic of killing Loren Coleman calls Green and Krantz “gun-toting” and is
against killing to prove the existence of Sasquatch.568 Many “cryptozoologists” follow
this no-kill policy, Dmitri Bayanov and George Haas for example.569 Coleman states the
world is not as “simple” as it was during the 18th and 19th centuries when seeking out the
unknown animals of the world meant going out and shooting them.570 Today’s
technology makes that kind of barbaric practice obsolete. He hopes that if Sasquatch is
found that at most, it is tranquilized, brought in, studied, given some rights, preferably
put on the endangered species list, and then released.571
I am staunchly against the killing of any animal, especially a creature as rare as a
cryptid. When I began writing this thesis my intention was to legitimize cryptozoology:
to bring it out of the shadow of “tabloid media” and the criticism it faces from respected
science. But now after thinking about why I would want to legitimize it, I wonder why
am I interested in cryptozoology? I now realize my place in all of this was at first a
selfish one. I would be lying if I said that I haven’t dreamed about being the one to prove
that one of these infamous creatures was a reality, to vindicate myself in the eyes of all of
the many people, professors, peers, I have defended my interests, my life’s ambitions. I
80
also aspired to be scientifically involved in the search and discovery of something that
was zoologically mind-blowing. I now realize that my mentality was wrong.
I am now of the firm belief that all cryptids should be left alone. Once they are
revealed to the public, they will be put in danger of being hunted by the sport hunters;
even if they are protected by endangered species laws they would still be poached. I
would rather see cryptozoology stay on the fringe, never respected, always the butt of the
joke, than come to the forefront and put these rare and wonderful creatures in danger.
Bernard Heuvelmans, “the father of cryptozoology” said it best:
I have a vague sense of regret-regret that I have revealed the still-undisturbed
retreat of so many unknown animals. When I think of what man has done with a
rifle, I am horrified that I should offer new targets. The most dreadful of the
monsters I have mentioned attacks man in self-defense or to provide himself with
food. Only man kills for pleasure. No sooner is a new animal discovered than the
hunt for trophies begins. These maniacs must be stopped at once. History shows
how alarmingly quickly man can exterminate a whole species……..Tomorrow we
may know one of our other relatives: the Abominable Snowman, for instance,
who is surely a shy and gentle great ape; or perhaps an even more human primate
like the tiny Agogwe or the elusive Orang Pendek. I hope with all my heart that
when he is captured there will be no needless murder. Have pity on them all, for it
is we who are the real monsters.572
81
End Notes
1
Bernard Heuvelmans, “What Is Cryptozoology?”, Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Journal Of the
International Society Of Cryptozoology Volume #1, Winter (1982): pg 1-2.
2
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume #1, pg 1.)
3
Ibid.
4
Loren Coleman, Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001), Cyptomundo: The Cryptozoologist,
mhtml:file://I:\Bernard Heuvelmans Obituary.mht Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
5
Ibid.
6
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume #1, pg 2.)
7
Loren Coleman, Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras
And Other Authentic Mysteries Of Nature (New York: Fireside, 1999), pg 75.
8
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology pg 4.)
9
Karl P.N. Shuker, Ph.D., The Beasts That Hide From Man (New York: Paraview Press, 2003), pg 182.
10
Ibid.
11
Tzuchinoko picture www.pinktentacle.com/images/Tsuchinoko_2.jpg Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
12
Dr. P. N. Shuker, “Nessie You Are Not Alone: Beyond Travels In The Wake Of North American Sea
Monsters”, Beyond, March 2008, Issue 14, pg 38.
13
Dr. Karl P.N. Shuker, In Search Of Prehistoric Survivors: Do Giant ‘Extinct’ Creatures Still Exist
(United Kingdom: Blandford, 1995), pg 37.
14
(Beyond Magazine Issue 14 pg 38.)
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Hellbender photo http://Channel.nationalgeographic.com/Staticfiles/NG Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
18
Bernard Heuvelmans, “The Birth And Early History Of Cryptozoology”, Cryptozoology:
Interdisciplinary Journal Of The International Society Of Cryptozoology Volume #3, (1984): pg 1.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 2.)
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 3.)
28
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 4.)
29
(Cryptozoology A-Z pg 16 Coleman.)
30
Bernard Heuvelmans (Abridged Edition), On The Track Of Unknown Animals (New York: Hill and
Wang, 1962), pg 9.
31
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 4.)
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 5.)
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 6.)
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 7.)
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid.
82
46
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 3 pg 10.)
Ibid.
48
Dmitri Bayanov, “Why Cryptozoology?”, Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Journal Of The
International Society Of Cryptozoology Volume #6 (1987): pg 2.
49
Ibid.
50
Ibid.
51
Ibid.
52
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 2.)
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 3.)
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 4.)
62
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 5.)
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
Oxford Pocket American Dictionary of Current English, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pg
719-720.
66
Dmitri Bayanov, “Why Cryptozoology?”, Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Journal Of The
International Society Of Cryptozoology Volume 6, (1989) pg 4.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid.
71
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 5-6.)
72
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 6.)
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
76
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 6-7.)
77
Ibid.
78
Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (New York: Verso, 2000), pg 11.
79
(Feyerabend: Against Method pg 12.)
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
Ibid.
84
(Feyerabend: Against Method pg 14.)
85
Ibid.
86
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 8.)
87
Ibid.
88
(Cryptozoology Journal 1Volume pg 9.)
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.
92
Ibid.
93
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 10.)
94
Ibid.
95
Ibid.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid.
47
83
98
Ibid.
Ibid.
100
Ibid.
101
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 11.)
102
(Cryptozoology A-Z pg 18.)
103
Ibid.
104
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 1.)
105
Ibid.
106
Ibid.
107
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 1-2.)
108
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 2.)
109
Ibid.
110
Ibid.
111
Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, Discoveries Of New Mammal Species And Their Implications For
Conservation And Ecosystem Services, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812419106 , Internet,
retrieved 05/13/09.
112
Ibid.
113
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 2.)
114
Ibid.
115
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 2-3.)
116
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 3.)
117
Ibid.
118
Ibid.
119
Ibid.
120
Ibid.
121
Ibid.
122
Ibid.
123
Ibid.
124
Ibid.
125
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 4.)
126
Ibid.
127
David C. Guynn, Jr., Rober L. Downing, George R Askew, “Estimating The Probability Of NonDetection Of Low Density Populations”, Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Journal Of The International
Society Of Cryptozoology, Volume 4 (1885) pg 55.
128
Ibid.
129
Ibid.
130
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 4 pg 56.)
131
Ibid.
132
Ibid.
133
Ibid.
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid.
136
Ibid.
137
Ibid.
138
Ibid.
139
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 4 pg 57.)
140
Ibid.
141
Ibid.
142
Ibid.
143
Loren Coleman, Elephant In The Woods, http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/charlie/ ,
Internet, retrieved 07/15/09.
144
Ibid.
145
Peter F. Brussard, “The Likelihood Of Persistence Of Small Populations Of Large Animals And Its
Implications For Cryptozoology”, Cryptozoology: The Interdisciplinary Journal of the International Society
of Cryptozoology, Volume 5 (1986) pg 38.
99
84
146
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 5 pg 38-39.)
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 5 pg 39.)
148
Ibid.
149
Ibid.
150
Ibid.
151
Ibid.
152
Ibid.
153
Ibid.
154
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 5 pg 40.)
155
Ibid.
156
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 5 pg 41.)
157
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 5 pg 42.)
158
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 5 pg 44.)
159
Christine Janis, “Fossil Ungulate Mammals Depicted On Archeological Artifacts”, Cryptozoology: The
Interdisciplinary Journal Of The International Society Of Cryptozoology, Volume 6 (1987) pg 5.
160
Ibid.
161
Ibid.
162
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 6 pg 6.)
163
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 1 pg 7.)
164
Ibid.
165
Micheal Newton, Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide (North Carolina: McFarland &
Company, Inc., 2005), pg 5.
166
Ibid.
167
Ibid.
168
(Ceballos, Ehrlich) Internet
169
Ibid.
170
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2 pg 4.)
171
Ibid.
172
Ibid.
173
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2 pg 12.)
174
Ibid.
175
Ibid.
176
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2 pg 4-5.)
177
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2 pg 5.)
178
Ibid.
179
Jeff Meldrum, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (New York: Forge, 2006), pg 44.
180
Ibid.
181
(Meldrum, pg 44—45.)
182
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2 pg 163.)
183
Ibid .
184
Ibid .
185
Ibid.
186
Ibid.
187
(Meldrum pg 45.)
188
Ibid.
189
Ibid.
190
Aardvark Picture, www.sheppardsoftware.com/images/Africa/tac Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
191
David Burnie, Don E. Wilson, Smithsonian Institution: Animal (New York: DK Publishing, 2005), pg
222.
192
Dr. Karl P.N. Shuker, Extraordinary Animals Revisited (Great Britain: CFZ Press, 2007), pg 17.
193
(Shuker, Extraordinary Animals pg 18.)
194
Ibid.
195
Ibid.
196
Gorilla Picture, www.dutchmills.nl/rwanda-gorillas/assets/imag... Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
197
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of pg 21.)
147
85
198
Ibid.
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A-Z pg 173.)
200
A.F. Dixson, Natural History Of The Gorilla (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981) pg 1.
201
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of pg 12.)
202
(Coleman Cryptozoology A-Z pg 173.)
203
Ibid.
204
Ibid.
205
(Meldrum: Sasquatch, pg 43.)
206
Ibid.
207
John Roach, Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps Or New Species?,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/91509069.html Internet, Retrieved08/03/09.
208
Ibid.
209
(Meldrum: Sasquatch, pg 44.)
210
Omaha Zoo Testing DNA Of Mystery Apes,
http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com-+Om Internet,
Retrieved 08/03/09.
211
Ibid.
212
Stephan Faris, Lost Apes Of The Congo,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1015856,00.html Internet, Retrieved 08/03/09.
213
Bondo/Bili www.ceticsmoaberto.com/imagens3/bondo01..... Internet, Retrieved 08/01/09.
214
Bondo/Bili Dead http://hr.aids.zip.net/images.Bondo_Monkey.jpg Internet, Retrieved 08/01/09.
215
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology pg 150.)
216
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology pg 506.)
217
Ibid.
218
Komodo Dragon Picture www.komodo-liveboards.com/images/komodo Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
219
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of pg 26.)
220
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A-Z pg 124.)
221
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of pg 27.)
222
Okapi Picture http://mnsbcmedia3.msn.com/j/ap/af76doc7-ed7e-4a Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
223
Susan Lyndaker Lindsey, Mary Neel Green, Cynthia L. Bennett, The Okapi: Mystery Of Congo-Zaire
(Texas: Univesity of Texas Press, 1999), pg 2.
224
(Lindsay, Green, Bennet: The Okapi pg 4.)
225
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A to Z pg 184.)
226
(Lindsay, Green, Bennett: Okapi pg 5.)
227
Ibid.
228
Ibid.
229
Ibid.
230
(Lindsay, Green, Bennett: Okapi pg 6.)
231
Ibid.
232
Ibid.
233
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A-Z pg 185.)
234
Giant Panda photo http://witsaboutme.file.wordpress.com2009/02/gie Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
235
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of pg 16.)
236
Ibid.
237
Ibid.
238
Ibid.
239
Ibid.
240
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of pg 29.)
241
Ibid.
242
Saola Picture www.ultimateungulate/Images/pseudoryx Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
243
(Coelman: Cryptozoology A- Z pg 214.)
244
Ibid.
245
Ibid.
246
Ibid.
247
Coelacanth Picture http://panaechereport.com/.../images/coelacanth_3.jpg Internet, Retrieved 08/02/09.
199
86
248
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 8 pg 4.)
Ibid.
250
Ibid.
251
Squid Photo http://squid.us/wp-content/uploads/colossal_squid_c... Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
252
Squid photo with man http://scienceblogs.com/.../2007/02/colossal_squid1.jpg Internet, 06/28/09.
253
Squid Chart photo www.worsleyschool.net/.../thegiant/diagram.gif Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
254
Oberon Zell-Ravenheart And Ash “leapardDancer” Dekirk, A Wizards Bestiary (New Jersey: New Page
Books, 2007), pg 188.
255
“Monsters of the deep”, Science Illustrated, May/June 2009, pg 36.
256
Homer, The Odyssey (Michigan: J.W. Edwards, Inc. Borders Classics, 2008), pg 141.
257
Ibid.
258
(Ravenheart: A Wizards Bestiary pg 189.)
259
Jon Bennett,“Where In The World: Rediscovered Creatures” Issue 10, Novenber 2007, Beyond issue
10, pg 66.
260
(Science Illustrated pg 36.)
261
(Beyond, Issue 10 pg 66.)
262
Ibid.
263
Ibid.
264
Ibid.
265
Robin McDowell, Indonesia: New Orangutan Population Found,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/12/indonesia-new-orangutan-_n_185978.html Internet, Retrieved
06/19/09.
266
Alister Doyle, Jurassic “Shrimp” Alive And Well, http://www.abc.net.au/cgibin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/news/stories/2006/180855 Internet, Retrieved 06/10/09.
267
Jurassic Shrimp picture http://dynimg.rte.ie/0000b2cd096.jpg Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
268
(Karl Shuker: Extraordinary Animals, pg 253.)
269
(Karl Shuker: Extraordinary Animals, pg 25.)
270
Ibid.
271
Ibid.
272
Ibid.
273
Ibid.
274
Ibid.
275
Ibid.
276
Ibid.
277
(Ravenheart: Wizards Bestiary pg 53.)
278
(Ravenheart: Wizards Bestiary pg 41.)
279
(Shuker: Extraordinary Animals pg 49.)
280
Dr. Karl P. N. Shuker “This Jokes Going To Run And Run: How The World Was Fooled By Animal
Fakes And Frauds”, Beyond Issue 11, November 2007, pg 21.
281
Ibid.
282
Ibid.
283
Ibid.
284
De Loys Ape www.bigfootencounters.com/images/de%20Lo Internet, Retrieved 06/16/09.
285
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 128.)
286
Ibid.
287
(Dr. Karl P.N. Shuker: Extraordinary Animals pg 54.)
288
Ibid.
289
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology pg 128.)
290
(Dr. Karl P.N. Shuker: Extraordinary Animals pg 61.)
291
(Dr. Karl P.N. Shuker: Extraordinary Animals pg 62.)
292
Jesse McKinleyTwo Georgians Say They Have Bigfoot’s Body,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/15bigfoot.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print Internet Retrieved
06/22/09.
293
Ibid.
249
87
294
Biggest story of 2008: The Georgia Body Hoax, http://www/bfro.net/hoax.asp Internet, Retrieved
06/22/09.
295
Big foot Hoax Photo, http://skinnymoose.com/heroutdoor/wp-content/up/upl Internet, Retrieved
06/22/09.
296
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of, pg 34.)
297
Ibid.
298
Ibid.
299
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of, pg 35.)
300
Ibid.
301
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of, pg 36.)
302
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of, pg 37.)
303
Ibid.
304
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of, pg 38.)
305
Dr. Roy P. Mackal, A Living Dinosaur? In Search Of Mokele-Mbembe (New York: E.J. Brill, 1987),
pg.2.
306
Lake Tele Photo www.wes-congo.org/.../03lactele/index.html Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
307
Mokele-Mbembe Picture With Pygmy www.occultopedia.com/images_/mokele_1.jpg Internet,
Retrieved 07/15/09.
308
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 224.)
309
Ibid.
310
Ibid.
311
Ibid.
312
Ibid.
313
(Shuker: Prehistoric Survivors, pg 18.)
314
Ibid.
315
Ibid.
316
Ibid.
317
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 10.)
318
Ibid.
319
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 12.)
320
Ibid.
321
Ibid.
322
Emela-Ntouka Picture www.reyastrol.com/CAP-1/1-BACKGROUNDS/0 Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
323
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 235.)
324
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 236.)
325
Ibid.
326
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 237.)
327
Ibid.
328
Ibid.
329
Ibid.
330
Ibid.
331
Ibid.
332
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 238.)
333
(Shuker: Prehistoric Survivors, pg 18.)
334
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 250.)
335
Shuker: Prehistoric Survivors, pg 30.)
336
Shuker: Prehistoric Surviviors, pg 30.)
337
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2, pg 107.)
338
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 267.)
339
Ibid.
340
Ibid.
341
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 273.)
342
Ibid.
343
Ibid.
344
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2, pg 105.)
88
345
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2, pg 109.)
(Cryptozoology Journal Volume 2, pg 110.)
347
Ibid.
348
Ibid.
349
Ibid.
350
Ibid.
351
(Shuker: Prehistoric Survivors, pg 33.)
352
Ibid.
353
Ibid.
354
Ibid.
355
Ibid.
356
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 316.)
357
Ibid.
358
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 319.)
359
Ibid.
360
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 316.)
361
Ibid.
362
Ibid.
363
Ibid.
364
Ibid.
365
Dino Footprint Photo http://livingdinos.com/mypictures/Iguanadon.jpg Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
366
(Mackal: A Living Dinosaur, pg 317.)
367
Sasquatch Picture http://ghostradio.fileswordpress/2009 Internet, Retrieved 08/05/09.
368
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A - Z pg 39.)
369
Ibid.
370
John Green, Saquatch:The Apes Among Us (Seatle: Hancock House, 1978), pg 132.
371
Karl P.N. Shuker, “The Futures Orang…”, Paranormal, November 2008, Issue 29, pg 30-35.
372
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A - Z pg 39-40.)
373
(Meldrum: pg 50.)
374
Ibid.
375
Ibid.
376
(Meldrum: pg 74.)
377
(Meldrum: pg 49.)
378
Ibid.
379
Ibid.
380
Ibid.
381
Ibid.
382
Ibid.
383
Ibid.
384
Ibid.
385
Ibid.
386
Gigantopithecus, http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGuNzzzjo7E/5JARH_yu7 …. Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
387
Gigantopithecus, http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RbskRuN13NE.5ZIg362gx.... Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
388
(Meldrum: Sasquatch, pg 75.)
389
Ibid.
390
Sasquatch Totem Photo http://k53.pbase.com/g6/39/6111339/2/87146710.N3... Internet, Retrieved
07/24/09.
391
Ibid.
392
(Meldrum: pg 76.)
393
(Meldrum: pg 79.)
394
Ibid.
395
Ibid.
396
(Meldrum: pg 80.)
397
Ibid.
398
Ibid.
346
89
399
Hairy Man Photo www.bigfootproject.org/…/moskowitz%20/fig6.jpg Internet, Retrieved 07/24/09.
Hairy Man Drawing www.bfro.net/leiterman/image1.jpg Internet, Retrieved 07/24/09.
401
(Meldrum: pg 82.)
402
Ibid.
403
(Meldrum: pg 82.)
404
Ibid.
405
Loren Coleman, Bigfoot: The True Story Of Apes In America (New York: Paraview Pocket Books,
2003), pg 32.
406
(Coleman: Bigfoot, pg 33.)
407
Ibid.
408
John Green, The Best Of Sasquatch Bigfoot (Washington: Hancock House, 2004), pg 92.
409
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A - Z, pg 211.)
410
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A - Z, pg 212.)
411
(Green The Best Of, pg 92.)
412
Ibid.
413
Ibid.
414
(Coleman: Bigfoot, pg 180.)
415
(Green: The Best Ff, pg 92.)
416
Ibid.
417
Ibid.
418
Ibid.
419
Ibid.
420
Ibid.
421
(Green: The Best Of, pg 92-93.)
422
(Green: The Best Of, pg 93.)
423
Ibid.
424
Ibid.
425
Ibid.
426
Ibid.
427
(Coleman: Bigfoot, pg 181.)
428
Ibid.
429
Ibid.
430
(Green: The Best Of, pg 94.)
431
Patterson Film Photo Walking http://beeryetifiles.wordpress.com/2008/12/sasquat..... Internet, Retrieved
07/14/09.
432
Patterson Film Photo Walking Away http://runningwitht1.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/bi.... Internet,
Retrieved 07/14/09.
433
(Coleman : Bigfoot, pg 81-82.)
434
(Coleman: Bigfoot, pg 82.)
435
Brad Steiger, Out Of The Dark: The Complete Guide To Beings From Beyond (New York: Kensington
Books, 2001), pg 54.
436
(Coleman: Bigfoot, pg 82.)
437
(Stieger: Out Of The Dark, pg 55.)
438
Ibid.
439
Ibid.
440
Ibid.
441
Ibid.
442
Ibid.
443
(Coleman: Big foot, pg 83.)
444
Ibid.
445
(Meldrum: pg 149.)
446
(Meldrum: pg 157.)
447
Ibid.
448
Ibid.
449
(Meldrum: pg 158.)
400
90
450
Ibid.
Ibid.
452
Ibid.
453
(Meldrum: pg 159.)
454
Ibid.
455
Ibid.
456
(Meldrum: pg 160.)
457
Ibid.
458
Ibid.
459
(Meldrum: pg 178.)
460
Ibid.
461
(Meldrum: pg 222.)
462
Ibid.
463
(Meldrum: pg 222.)
464
(Meldrum: pg 223.)
465
Ibid.
466
(Meldrum: pg 249.)
467
(Meldrum: pg 249-250.)
468
(Meldrum: pg 250.)
469
Dermal Ridge, Example #1, home.clara.net/rtfthomas/papers/images/derm Internet, retrieved 07/31/09.
470
Dermal Ridge Close-Up, www.sasquatchresearch.net/sitebuilder/images/.... Internet, retrieved 07/31/09.
471
(Meldrum: pg 254.)
472
(Meldrum: pg 255.)
473
Ibid.
474
Ibid.
475
Ibid.
476
Ibid.
477
(Meldrum: pg 258.)
478
Ibid.
479
Ibid.
480
Loren Coleman, Raymond L. Wallace, 84 Bigfoot Story Teller (1918-2002),
http://mhtml:file://I:\RaymondWallaceObituary.mht Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
481
Ibid.
482
Loren Coleman, Is Bigfoot Really Dead?, http://mhtml:file://I:\IsBigfootReallyDead.mht Internet,
Retrieved, 07/15/09.
483
Ibid.
484
Ibid.
485
Ibid.
486
Ray Wallace With Tracks, www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/w, Internet, Retrieved 07/31/09.
487
Wallace Footprint Comparisons, www.bigootencounters.com/images/billmiller.... Internet, Retrieved
07/31/09.
488
(Meldrum: pg 262.)
489
Ibid.
490
Ibid.
491
Ibid.
492
Skookum Cast, www.bfro.net/NEWS/bodycast/images/clean_c... Internet, retrieved 07/31/09.
493
(Meldrum: Sasquatch, pg 112.)
494
(Meldrum: pg 113.)
495
Ibid.
496
Ibid.
497
(Meldrum: pg 266-267.)
498
(Meldrum: pg 103.)
499
Ibid.
500
Ibid.
501
(Coleman: Pg 236.)
451
91
502
Ibid.
(Coleman: pg 87.)
504
Ibid.
505
Mongolian Death Worm, www.virtuescience.com/mongolian-death-wor... Internet, Retrieved 07/31/09.
506
Dr. Karl P. N. Shuker, The Beasts That Hide From Man: Seeking The World’s Last Undiscovered
Animals (New York: Paraview Press, 2003), pg 27-28.
507
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 21-22.)
508
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 21.)
509
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 26.)
510
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 24.)
511
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 28, 29, 30.)
512
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 26.)
513
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 46.)
514
Ibid.
515
Ibid.
516
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 47.)
517
Ibid.
518
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 48.)
519
Ibid.
520
Ibid.
521
Tom Leonard, Conservationists Hunt Elusive US Earthworm,
http://mhtml:file//I:\ConservationistshuntelusiveUSearthworm-Telegraph.mht Internet, Retrieved 07/30/09.
522
Ibid.
523
Ibid.
524
Ibid.
525
Ibid.
526
Ibid.
527
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 48.)
528
(Smithsonian Animal, pg 452.)
529
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 48.)
530
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 49.)
531
Ibid.
532
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 50.)
533
Ibid.
534
Ibid.
535
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 50.)
536
Ibid.
537
Ibid.
538
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 54.)
539
Ibid.
540
Ibid.
541
Amphisbaenid, www.herpbreeder.com/worldsspecies/Amphisbaenia Internet, Retrieved 08/07/09.
542
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 540.)
543
(Shuker: The Beasts That Hide, pg 73.)
544
Ibid.
545
(Coleman: Cryptozoology A - Z pg 21.)
546
Ibid.
547
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 106.)
548
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 109.)
549
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 194.)
550
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 277.)
551
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 290.)
552
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 424.)
553
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 236.)
554
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 171.)
503
92
555
(Michael Newton: Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology, pg 7.)
Ibid.
557
Ibid.
558
Ibid.
559
Ibid.
560
(Green: Apes Among Us, pg 463.)
561
Ibid.
562
(Green: Apes Among Us, pg 462.)
563
Ibid.
564
(Green: Apes Among Us, pg 462-463.)
565
(Green: Apes Among Us, pg 463.)
566
Ibid.
567
(Coleman : Bigfoot, pg 244.)
568
Ibid.
569
Ibid.
570
(Coleman: Bigfoot, pg 245.)
571
Ibid.
572
(Heuvelmans: On The Track Of, pg 300.)
556
93
Bibliography
Aardvark Photo, www.sheppardsoftware.com/images/Africa/tac Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
Amphisbaenid photo, www.herpbreeder.com/worldsspecies/Amphisbaenia Internet, Retrieved 08/07/09.
Askew George R., Downing Robert L., Guynn David C. Jr., Estimating The Probability Of Non-Detection
Of Low Density Populations”, Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Journal Of The International Society Of
Cryptozoology, Volume 4, (1984).
Bayanov Dmitri, “Why Cryptozoology?”, Cryptozoology: International journal of the International society
of cryptozoology, Volume 6 (1987).
Bennett Cynthia L., Green Mary Neel, Lindsey Susan Lyndaker. The Okapi: Mystery Of Congo-Zaire.
Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999.
Bennett Jon, “Where In The World: Rediscovered Creatures”, Beyond Issue 10 November 2007, pg 66.
Big foot Hoax Photo, http://skinnymoose.com/heroutdoor/wp-content/up/upl Internet, Retrieved 06/22/09.
Biggest Story Of 2008: The Georgia Bigfoot Body Hoax, http://www.bfro.net/hoax.asp Internet, Retrieved
06/22/09.
Bondo/Bili www.ceticsmoaberto.com/imagens3/bondo01..... Internet, Retrieved 08/01/09.
Bondo/Bili Dead http://hr.aids.zip.net/images.Bondo_Monkey.jpg Internet, Retrieved 08/01/09.
Brussard, Peter F. “The Likelihood Of Persistence Of Small Populations Of Large Animals And Its
Implications For Cryptozoology” Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Journal Of The International Society Of
Cryptozoology Volume 5 (1986).
Burnie David, Wilson Don E. Smithsonian Institution: Animal. New York: D K Publishing, 2005.
Ceballos Gerardo, Ehrlich Paul R., Discoveries Of New Mammal Species And Their Implications For
Conservation And Ecosystem Services, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0812419106 Internet,
Retrieved 05/13/09.
Clark, Jerome and Coleman, Loren. Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters,
Sasquatch, Chupacabras, And Other Authentic Mysteries Of Nature. New York: Fireside, 1999).
Coleman, Loren. Bigfoot: The True Story Of Apes In America. New York: Paraview Pocket Books, 2003).
Coleman Loren, Elephant In The Woods, http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/charlie Internet,
Retrieved 07/15/09.
Coleman Loren, Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001), http://mhtml:file://I:\BernardHeuvelmasObituary.mht
Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
Coleman Loren, Is Bigfoot Really Dead?, http://mhtml:file://IsBigfootReallyDead.mht Internet, Retrieved
07/15/09.
Coleman Loren, Raymond L. Wallace, 84 Bigfoot Story Teller (1918-2002),
http://mhtml:file://I:\RaymondWallaceObituary.mht Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
94
Death Worm Picture: http://mhtml:file://I:\ConservationistshuntelusiveUSearthworm-telegraph.mht
Internet, Retrieved 07/30/09.
De Loys Ape Photo: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/de%20Lo Internet, Retrieved 06/16/09.
Dermal Ridge: http://home.clara.net/rtfhomas/papers/images/derm Internet, Retrieved 07/31/09.
Derma Ridge Close-Up: http://www.sasquatchresearch.net/sitebuilder/images/ Internet, Retrieved 07/31/09.
Dino Print Photo: http://livingdinos.com/mypictures/iguanadon.jpg Internet, Retrieved 07/15/09.
Dixon, A.F. The Natural History Of The Gorilla. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981.
Doyle Alister, Jurassic ‘Shrimp’ Live And Well, http://www.abc.net.au/cgi.bin/common/printfriendly.pl?/science/news/stories/2006/180855 Internet, Retrieved 06/10/09.
Emela-Ntouka Picture: http://www.reyastrol.com/CAP-1/1-BACKGROUNDS/0 Internet, Retrieved
07/15/09.
Faris Stephen, Lost Apes Of The Congo,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1015856,00.html Internet, Retrieved 08/03/09.
Feyerabend Paul, Against Method. New York: Verso, 2000.
Green John, The Best Of Sasquatch Bigfoot. Washington: Hancock House Publishing, 2004.
Green John, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Washington: Hancock House Publishing, 1978.
Gigantopithecus With Man: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uGuNzzzjo7E/5JARH_yu7 Internet, Retrieved
07/14/09.
Gigantopithecus: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RbskRuN13NE.5ZIg362gx Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
Gorilla Photo: http://dutchmills.nl/rwanda-gorillas/assets/imag Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
Hairy Man Drawing: http://www.bfro.net/leiterman/image1.jpg Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
Hairy Man Photo: http://www.bigfootproject.org/.../moskowitz%20/fig6.jpg Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
Hellbender Photo: http://Channel.nationalgeographic.com/Staticfiles/NG Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
Heuvelmans, Bernard. “The Birth And Early History Of Cryptozoology.” Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary
Journal Of The International Society Of Cryptozoology Volume 3 (1884).
Heuvelmans, Bernard. On The Track Of Unknown Animals. New York: Hill and Wang, 1965.
Heuvelmans, Bernard. “What Is Cryptozoology?” Cryptozoology: Interdisciplinary Journal Of The
International Society Of Cryptozoology, Volume 1 (1982).
Janis, Christine, “Fossil Ungulate Mammals Depicted On Archaeological Artifacts”, Cryptozoology:
Interdisciplinary Journal Of The International Society Of Cryptozoology Volume 6 (1987).
Jurassic Shrimp Photo: http://dynimg.rte.ie/0000b2cd096.jpg Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
Komodo Dragon Photo: http://www.komodo-liveboards.com/images/komodo Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
95
Leonard Tom, Conservationists Hunt Elusive US Earthworm,
http://mhtml:file://I:\ConservationistshuntelusiveUSearthworm-telegraph.mht Internet, Retrieved 07/30/09.
Dr. Mackal Roy P. A Living Dinosaur: In Search Of Mokele-Mbembe. New York: E. J. Brill, 1987.
McDowell Robin, Indonesia: New Orangutan Population Found,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/12/indonesia-new-orangutan-_n_185978.html Internet, Retrieved
06/19/09.
McKinley Jessie, Two Georgians Say They Have Bigfoot’s Body,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/15bigfoot.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print Internet, Retrieved
06/22/09.
Meldrum, Jeff. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. New York: Forge Publishing, 2006.
Mokele-Mbembe With Pygmy Picture: http://occultopedia.com/images_/mokele1.jpg Internet, Retrieved
07/15/09.
Newton, Michael. Encyclopedia Of Cryptozoology: A global Guide. North Carolina: McFarland &
Company, Inc., 2005.
Okapi Photo: http://mnsbcmsdia3.msn.com/j/ap/af76doc7-ed77e-4a Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
Omaha Zoo Testing DNA Of Mystery Apes,
http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title-USATODAY.com+-+Om Internet,
Retrieved 08/03/09.
Oxford Pocket American Dictionary Of Current English. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Giant Panda Photo: http://witsaboutme.file.wordpress.com2009/02/gie Internet, Retrieved 06/24/09.
Patterson Film Photo Walking Away: http://runningwith1.files.wordpress.com/200906/bi Internet,
Retrieved 07/14/09.
Patterson Film Photo Walking: http://beeryetifiles.wordpress.com/2008/12/sasquat Internet, Retrieved
07/14/09.
Ravenheart, Oberon Zell And Dekirk, Ash, “LeopardDancer”, A Wizards Bestiary. New Jersey: Career
Press and New Page Books, 2007.
Roach John, Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps Or New Species,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/91509069.html Internet, Retrieved 08/03/09.
Sasquatch Picture: http://ghostradio.fileswordpress/2009 Internet, Retrieved 08/05/09.
Sasquatch Totem Photo: http://k53.pbase.com/g6/39/6111339/2/87146710.N3 Internet, Retrieved 07/24/09.
“Monsters Of The Deep”, Science Illustrated, May/June 2009, pgs 30-37.
Shuker, Karl P.N. Ph.D. The Beasts That Hide From Man: Seeking The Worlds Last Undiscovered
Animals. New York: Paraview Press, 2003.
Shuker, Karl P.N. Ph.D., “This Jokes Going To Run And Run: How The World Was Fooled By Animal
Fakes And Frauds”, Beyond, Issue 11 December 2007, pgs 14-22.
96
Shuker Karl P.N. Ph.D., “Nessie You’re Not Alone: Beyond Travels In The Wake Of North American Sea
Monsters”, Beyond, Issue 14, March 2008, pg 38.
Shuker, Karl P.N. Ph.D. Extraordinary Animals Revisited. Great Britain: CFZ Press, 2007.
Shuker, Karl P.N. Ph.D. In Search Of Prehistoric Survivors: Do Giant ‘Extinct’ Creatures Still Exist?. New
York: Blandford Publishing, 1995.
Shuker Karl P.N. Ph.D. “The Future’s Orang…”, Paranormal: Exploring The World Of The Unexplained,
Issue 29, November 2008, pgs 30-35.
Skookum Cast photo: http://www.bfro.net.NEWS/bodycast/images/billmiller Internet, Retrieved 07/31/09
Steiger, Brad. Out Of The Dark: The Complete Guide To Beings From Beyond. New York: Kensington
Books, 2001.
Squid Chart: http://www.worsleyschool.net/.../thegiant/diagram.gif Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
Squid Photo: http://squid.us/wp-content/uploads/colossal_squid_c Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
Squid Photo With Man: http://scienceblogs.com/.../2007/02/colossal_squid1.jpg Internet, Retrieved
06/08/09.
Lake Tele Photo: http://www.wes-congo.org/.../03lactele/index.html Internet, Retrieved 07/14/09.
Tzuchinoko Picture: http://www.pinktentacle.com/images/Tsuchinoko_2.jpg Internet, Retrieved 06/28/09.
Wallace Footprints Comparisons: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/billmiller Internet, Retrieved
07/31/09.
Ray Wallace With Tracks: http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/w Internet, Retrieved
07/31/09.
97