CRYPTOZOOLOGY CHEESES ME OFF

[bpollen]

To a large extent, I agree. Cryptozoologist is not that much different from psychic. Both are latin for "I'm probably a fraud."

That being said, there are instances where people have researched a local legendary beast, and discovered them to exist. Happened just recently in Vietnam with a type of deer, or gazelle or something similar. (I have a memory like a colander.... all sorts of details pass right on through.) The white dolphins of the Yangtze were considered a myth by western scientists and they exist (though they might now be extinct because of pollution.) The coelocanth was thought to have been extinct for 65 million years until somebody caught one in 1938.

As far as TV goes, science doesn't really wow the audience. At least, not as much as sensationalism. You are as apt to see a show about alien abductions as anything covering SETI. More likely, in fact. When we have some of our PUBLIC schools teaching the "theory" of creationism alongside evolution, it's not really suprising.

Speaking of which, did I ever tell ya I wanted to write a cookbook about recipes from the Holy Land that make use of cheese? I figured I would call it: "Cheeses of Nazareth."

[Moebius]

Speaking of which, did I ever tell ya I wanted to write a cookbook about recipes from the Holy Land that make use of cheese? I figured I would call it: "Cheeses of Nazareth."

Blackwolf - how about you change the subject to CRYPTOZOOLOGY CHEESES ME OFF as a tribute to 'Hey Hey It's Saturday'

(sorry guys, Aussie humour at work) http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,26015949-10229,00.html

Cheers.

[Cell]

If I ever see bigfoot while I'm tramping in the woods,and mountains over here Ill let you know












And I wrote that being serous.I'm a open minded person.I've seen a few "unexplained" things.I once saw a donkey that looked like a zebra down in Mexico...but no bigfoot.

[billhedrick]

I've seen a lot of things... but then I regularly go to SciFi Conventions!
I watch the shows occasionally and they are about 80% crap as you note,
when they are going for a big one, Sasquatch, Nessie, etc., my suspension of disbelieve
fails because The question comes to mind,"If they really found it, it would have been
in the papers already." So basically you are watching guys stumble through the woods and
failing.

[jagged^peak]

A More likely, in fact. When we have some of our PUBLIC schools teaching the "theory" of creationism alongside evolution, it's not really suprising. "

I think the real travesty here is that our public schools are teaching the (BS)"theory" of evolution as a fact. gain even a rudimentary understanding of genetics, DNA, RNA, and how genetic information is passed and maintained you just might start leaning in the direction that evolution is fundamentally impossible. its like a four million page coded book having to turn from rocks to paper then write and continually perpetuate itself.
I recently read several articles (on a slightly different note) concerning the quiet but viscous debate raging in the physics community concerning the proposed degradation of the speed of light. (a similar debate raged for 50 years over 300 years ago when it was proposed that the speed of light wasn't infinite (instant) but finite (has a speed). if the theory is correct, which numerous laboratory experiments conducted since it was proposed in the early 1970's seem to confirm, the ramifications for dating methods dependent on radioactivity is profound. the rate of radioactivity is DIRECTLY tied to the speed of light, and if the speed of light were greater in the past then the rate of of radioactive decay would also be greater accordingly. furthermore, if the speed of light did in fact slow down on a logarithmic curve as is proposed, then this further accentuates the implications. meaning that radioactive dating measuring an object to be millions or billions of years old would be in grave error and the values, if recalculated taking the speed of light into account, would be substantially lower.
I must also point out that the methodology used to date given fossils within the "geological column" as we were taught in public school is definitively circular in nature. some hobbyist goon, (I'm feeling a little too lazy to go re-research all this to get names and dates correct) that was a father to paleontology much like Darwin was a father to evolution, saw layers of strata with fossils embedded in them and started on a chronologically dating spree. scientists today use dates fathered, grandfathered, or great-grandfathered by this guys ideas to RELATIVELY date fossils based upon what strata they are found in. often they ignore stuff like petrified trees crossing strata (vertical) nearby, which is vindictive of hydrologic sorting (water sorting sediments based on density). we did an experiment showing its effects in a junior high science class.
to sum things up, evolution and its proponents are just as guilty of ignoring scientific fact if it doesn't fit into their philosophical worldview just as much as religious types are accused of being. religious nuts want a science that vindicates God while evolutionists want a science that cuts him out. just look at that goon richard dawkins (I leave his name in lower case out of disrespect), he would rather admit that a super duper advanced alien race came to earth and created all the complexity and interaction that is life on this planet than admit that a God might have created it. Honestly, to me, God seems like a more logical choice simply because if aliens did it who the F$%* made them? or did they spontaneously appear like our DNA. the point is that the religious posturing of either side doesn't help science. any time good science and scientists are ignored or ostracized for discoveries that contradict an idealogical view a fairy dies somewhere or a baby stops laughing and gets gas.

[bpollen]

I believe in evolution (ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Evolution in action...) and I believe in God. The two are in no way mutually exclusive. Rigid mind-sets of ANY persuasion tend to discount or ignore any data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.

[JOHNNYG]

Don't take much to PISS me off !!! Crypto postal !....... .... ..

[jagged^peak]

I believe in evolution (ever heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Evolution in action...) and I believe in God. The two are in no way mutually exclusive. Rigid mind-sets of ANY persuasion tend to discount or ignore any data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.

the interesting thing about antibiotic resistant bacteria is that they have revived bacteria that had laid dormant for a verifiable several hundred years (before the invention of antibiotics or even germ theory) and when it was cultured they were surprised to find strains already resistant to cutting edge antibiotics. what this means is the gene or potential to be resistant to antibiotics is already present much in the same way that the potential for a chihuahua was already present in it's ancestor. somehow that tidbit didn't make it to public knowledge the same way that the belief that the resistant bacteria were proof for evolution. that being said I agree totally with you that rigid mindsets of any persuasion tend to discount or ignore any data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. one point of my earlier post was that if the actual evidence that we do have is gathered and studied objectively (or as objectively as humanly possible) from what I've seen there are tremendous gaps between reality and the varied theories that make up the evolution theory as a whole. we are already almost a century after discoveries were made that darwin himself stated would render his theory obsolete and incorrect, and the theory of evolution is still being clung to with a fiery tenacity. all I was trying to point out is that it is being clung to for a reason other than real science.

I have to clarify my post's mood and intent. please, no-one take anything i've said as any kind of attack. I do have to say that I instantly like anyone who posts any kind of reply on this topic, simply because I find the whole subject absolutely fascinating. I absolutely respect anyone elses views and only try to respond with facts and knowledge that I have come across in my research. my wife tells me I get too intense! go figure right? Cheers!

jagged^peak

[diablo10000]

hey, wait a minute, i know bigfoot, i was married to her for 4 years, bigfoot does exist

[Fletch]

A little late to the conversation I know.
Really friggin late but I've been running slack for the last 3 years soooooo.

I know the crypto guys you referred to in the initial post.
They're the glory hunters who want all the attention.
Take heart though. There are cryptozoologists out there that don't care one whit about glory, opinions, making money from their hobby or even being on TV or radio.
Many of this latter type are highly educated and carry degree's.
I know of one that is the very best at what he does in the United States for law enforcement.
Check out the BFRO.
No, I'm not a member, but I'm a cryptozoologist and I'm under the radar for the most part in the area I study,,, and I've been at it since '69.
No, I can't prove anything to anyone nor have I ever felt compelled to prove anything to anyone.
I know what I know and am happy with only that.