#popcryptids — Public Fediverse posts

The 12 Days of Cryptids

Happy Holidays!

Join me in a special blog event to explore a cryptid theme every day for 12 days. Follow along at Modern Cryptozoology or Substack as I present info from my notes, files, and opinions that perhaps you haven’t heard before. Please subscribe to one of these sources so you get the links or content straight to your email inbox.

The traditional twelve days of Christmas begins on December 25 and ends on January 5. That’s quite a marathon to produce a cryptid-themed post every day. It’s possible that life will get in the way, and I’ll not meet the schedule, but I’ll complete the series for sure.

Each day will be a surprise theme that I will gather in the list below as they are published. Sharing the post to your own favorite social media site or reblogging is much appreciated.

Cryptid are more popular than ever before thanks to the Internet web pages, groups, forums, email groups, and social media platforms. Cryptid lore can tell us about our relationship with nature, our fears, and our cultural influences. Modern cryptid interest is still zoological for some, but for most, it is cultural – we hear the stories, see the depictions, and find value in ideas about mysterious creatures. I think you will see in my examples exactly what I mean by Pop Cryptids. For more on cryptids in popular culture, check out Pop Goes the Cryptid.

Here’s to a new year of contemporary legends and mystery animals!

1. Coming Dec 25
2. Coming Dec 26
3. Coming Dec 27
4. Coming Dec 28
5. Coming Dec 29
6. Coming Dec 30
7. Coming Dec 31
8. Coming Jan 1
9. Coming Jan 2
10. Coming Jan 3
11. Coming Jan 4
12. Coming Jan 5

#12DaysOfCryptids #cryptid #Cryptozoology #mysteriousCreatures #popCryptids

Pop cryptid in the News: Jackalope

An outbreak of Shope papillomavirus in Colorado is in the news for the past few weeks. The virus that causes warty growths in cottontail rabbits can be spread by ticks and usually aren’t fatal to the animal unless it interferes with their eyes or mouth.

Rabbits with severe cases of this condition overlaps with ideas about the infamous horned rabbit, the Jackalope. I’ve seen several displays of news or comments on this story that confirm that people really do not know anything about the disease or the history of the American Jackalope legend. They are confused about what is happening with these rabbits and calling them “Jackalopes”.

Some of the kids are amazed. Jackalopes are REAL! And several media outlets are not capable of making real nature stories not look like clickbait by calling the infected animals “Frankenbunnies” and “demon rabbits” because nothing matters today unless it has a stupidly exaggerated name. Tabloid trash says we’re being “invaded” or “overrun”. Nonsense.

I did find videos and references to “Frankenstein” rabbits from at least 12 years ago, even from the Smithsonian Magazine, so it’s not a new thing, but that doesn’t make it less silly. This should be a learning moment. I think, for the most part, it is, if the audience would just listen instead of being so overdramatic.

I pulled out and revamped my content on jackalopes that I wrote in Pop Cryptid Spectator 3 to revisit this topic.

Pop Cryptid: Jackalope

A major theme of the Pop Goes the Cryptid model is the never-ending dispute about calling something a “cryptid”. Today’s complicated example: the Jackalope – a creature that is well-associated with being a “cryptid” online but that almost everyone who knows some history of cryptozoology will insist is not a cryptid because it’s a mythical creature, a hoax.

With the public now seeing rabbits with horny growths and “tentacles” (you weirdo writers need to stop with the Call of Cthulhu), a realization is happening in the cryptid forums and social media that maybe there was something to the idea of a Jackalope as a real animal. But, it’s not simple or direct. Things that evolve in culture never are.

My reference is On the Trail of the Jackalope (2022) by Michael Branch, a comprehensive book that mostly treats the creature as a cultural creation but also briefly explores the idea of its cryptidness.

Animals suffering from the virus were seen by most hunters as suffering from some disease. It’s not hard to figure out. The dark, grotesque growths don’t resemble antlers. The Jackalope, proper, is an antlered jackrabbit or cottontail. So, to equate the two situations is an error.

The true home of the American Jackalope is Douglas, Wyoming where the first taxidermied example was made. The legend goes that it was created sometime between 1932 and 1940 by Douglas Herrick. This is from Branch’s book:

“One day young Doug and Ralph Herrick went out roaming the green hills hunting for small game to supplement the family supper. Having bagged a jackrabbit, the brothers returned home and tossed the hare’s body onto the floor of their shop in preparation to skin it. Because they had recently butchered a small deer in the shop, a modest pair of antlers already rested on the floor. By a sheer coincidence that would change the boys’ lives forever, the dead rabbit happened to slide up against the deer’s horns so as to make it appear the jackrabbit sported the rack.”

The resulting mount was exhibited at the Hotel LaBonte in the town which was ground zero for the legend and the commercialization of the creature. Creation of Jackalope mounts has become a cottage industry and is now well known worldwide as a symbol of the American West.

“[T]he horned rabbit is unalloyed Americana—a genuine artifact of this country’s folk culture—the mythical beast has also made its way across the oceans and around the world.”

According to the locals, says Branch, about half the visitors to Douglas leave believing the animals are real. Do they believe, or are they just having fun believing? Hard to judge. The same might be said about most cryptids as people like to imagine that tall tales are true because it makes life seem magical. This remains a strong theme in the Jackalope biography.

The horned rabbit

Cottontail rabbits with horn-like protuberances over various parts of their bodies, particularly their heads, were found to be infected with a type of papillomavirus. There can be little doubt that such stricken rabbits would be viewed as mysterious, then and now.

Branch notes that the prevalence of the horned rabbit across cultures suggests that they were at least somewhat based on these natural anomalies. But the precursors to the American Jackalope are numerous. The specific Jackalope may be a Wyoming invention, but it was not the first depiction of the horned rabbit.

In the early days of natural history, the “horned rabbit” was assumed to be a real, genuine, unique animal because witnesses said so. Early naturalists such as Conrad Gessner, Joris Hoefnagel (16th century) and others depicted the horned hare as a real animal. Later, other natural historians weren’t so sure, but this uncertainty about its existence and speculation on the cause of horned hares undoubtedly sounds like the modern idea of a “cryptid”. There is a good bet that the horned hare was at least somewhat based on the diseased animals.

There is also the wolpertinger, an even more badass bunny with not only antlers, but fangs and wings. Or, it was a more bizarre mashup of various birds, squirrels, and foxes. Again, it’s unclear if the virus-related growths helped spread this story. But if so, it was for inspiration only, because Wolpertingers are absurd in appearance. Depictions of wolpertingers originated in Bavaria where taxidermied hoaxes were popular in the 1800s with tourists. Therefore, it’s reasonable to say that the Wolpertinger was a valid ancestor of the Jackalope.

Is the Jackalope a cryptid?

The world was a different place centuries (or even decades) ago. Ideas and language change. We know more about what’s in the world and what isn’t.

If we go by the general cryptid definition of “an animal/entity that is believed to be real but not recognized by zoology” then the Jackalope can claim the title of an official cryptid. There have been stories of people claiming to see real jackalopes (as in antlered hares) or infected cottontails. There’s a good chance these have been conflated.

Ample evidence shows that most people are entirely ignorant of wildlife in their own backyard, let alone the zoological catalog of known animals. As with everything else in the modern world, we get our information from popular culture, not too much directly from qualified scientific experts. So, it not surprising that an average person would 1.) not know about Shope papilloma infected rabbits and how they look, and 2.) that there is not such animal as an antlered rabbit. For the latter, we have to understand that basic schooling doesn’t teach zoology, and many kids know nothing about nature. (A high percentage of the population does not understand basic geography or scientific explanations about the earth.) So, it is not surprising to me that some people might think jackalopes are plausible. Their appearance in popular culture might suggest to people who didn’t know any better that they are real. This latest hype about “frankenbunnies” also muddies the waters because people are getting poorly sourced “WTF is that!”-type coverage, instead of factual information.

Branch quotes Loren Coleman who runs the International Cryptozoology Museum regarding his inclusion of the Jackalope in the museum: “I would read visitors’ online comments… and they would say things like ‘I didn’t know that the jackalope really existed.’ ” Coleman continues by explaining he reorganized the exhibit to depict the Jackalope along with other hoaxes. To me, there is a lot to unpack in that anecdote. Do we really know which cryptid is a manufactured hoax, which are imaginary creatures that people wish to be real, which are mistaken IDs influenced by lore and campfire tales, and which are real animals? The line is very blurry and all the information available to most people.

The fact is, Pop Cryptids are what’s happening. Any weird animal that is legendary, mythical, or just plain-old manufactured on a whim are being called “cryptids”. And there is nothing any “cryptozoologist” can do to change it, no matter how much they indignantly rant about it.

People are viewing cryptids through various lenses (zoological, artistic, historical, cultural, etc.) If people wish to believe horned rabbits (jackalopes, wolpertingers, or other variations) are real animals hopping around in an alternative reality, that’s OK by me, as long as they aren’t declaring that in biology class. It’s important to recognize that horned rabbits have a history that can be legitimately viewed with a zoological lens. However, the history is fraught with flips, twists, and turns.

#cryptids #Frankenbunnies #Jackalope #popCryptids #rabbits #ShopePapillomaVirus

https://sharonahill.com/?p=10189

Pop Cryptid Spectator 18

Hi, everyone.

The Pop Cryptid Spectator is about the proliferation of depictions of cryptids in popular culture. In particular, these depictions are outside the context of the original, and serious, concept of cryptozoology as a specialized branch of zoology.

I realize this is a very niche topic. First, you have to know about cryptozoology. Then, you have to have some concept about how it was framed in its early inception. Finally, you have to be aware of, and interested in, the modern cryptid landscape, which exploded with new and imaginative ideas. Cryptids are EVERYWHERE today. And their presence in popular culture rarely has anything to do with a scientific endeavor to find a mystery animal unknown to science.

That calculation results in a tiny population of people that is going to get the gist of this specific newsletter. If you are one of them, thanks for coming along with me on this journey.

There are self-styled cryptozoologists and even scholars writing about these topics that don’t see the subject through the lens of pop cryptids. Even they aren’t catching this vibe. It’s still important for me to document the pop cryptid concept, since it helps me understand what’s happening in real time and tease out the reasons why cryptids are so popular these days, both commercially and socially. As always, I’m here to deliver examples of this popularity with each edition.

Through the pop cryptid lens, the creatures called “cryptids”, as defined and redefined continually through products of our society, transcend the idea of a “hidden animal” to be identified by zoological science. This is no longer the primary goal. Instead, the pop cryptid model shines a light on the many other purposes and goals. It’s important to document these cultural ideas because they can affect how we identify with the places we live or visit and our beliefs and our immediate environment. Cryptids are used in the stories we tell to convey important messages about ourselves and how we see the world. They reflect our fears and our relationship with the nature or the beyond-nature. The stories also play a huge role in tourism and media products. Let me illustrate…

In this edition:

• Jersey Devil is a Cryptid of the Moment
• Cryptid AI vlogs
• SpiracyCon goes heavy on cryptids and Christian commentators
• What’s with the “archiness” of water monsters?
• Monster Festivals Season – Thank the Mothman
• In Research Of… The Mothman Prophecies deep dive
• Pop Cryptid trivia

Jersey Devil is a Cryptid of the Moment

One can reasonably argue that the Jersey Devil (JD) is not a cryptid because it was viewed as a folklore creature, a mass panic event, or, in reality, a political smear campaign, instead of an animal to be discovered. However, JD clearly ranks as a top pop cryptid. It’s a fantastic creature and I love it. Reactor magazine has a lovely article about how a current book of poetry, a play, and a comic about the Jersey Devil have arrived to show it is still beloved. The three very different ways of utilizing the same subject show how versatile JD is. The writer remarks that it is “a combination of the Jersey Devil’s unique qualities and vague history that make it so appealing to writers and storytellers right now.”

Cryptid AI vlogs

I wrote a new piece for Modern Cryptozoology about the sudden proliferation of cryptid vlogs on visual social media platforms.

Starting in June 2025, video blog shorts have been materializing daily featuring cryptids rendered with amazing realism. They are meant to be humorous, with the cryptids pointing the phone cam at themselves and their friends, making jokes, and showing the viewer what it’s like to be their best selves. They talk, sing, demonstrate life skills, discover cool things, and even interact with people. Check out the piece here.

SpiracyCon goes heavy on cryptids and Christian commentators

I just want everyone to take a look at the header for SpiracyCon. This is really something!

This conspiracy conference promises “a world of intrigue and revelation!” “With a wide variety of speakers—bold investigators, daring theorists, and passionate truth-tellers… this event promises to challenge everything you think you know.” You wouldn’t expect cryptids to feature so prevalently – maybe UFOs and JFK. But, the dogman/werewolf, Bigfoot, and Mothman imagery is concerning when the content is advertised as “a thrilling mix of talks and discussions that dive deep into topics like government cover-ups, unexplained phenomena, and forbidden knowledge.” The term “truth seekers” is mentioned several times.

Of the content creators on the speakers list of 19 so far, 16 have “Christian” or Biblical studies in their bio. The other 3 might just not say it out loud, but clearly know this is an event with a seriously militant Christian vibe. Four mention Bigfoot research or cryptids in general. More than a few bios are downright terrifying in an evident personality disorder kind of way. If you know anything about the insane conspiracy ideas such as aliens as demons, Bigfoot as Nephilim, and Satanic allegations against one’s political enemies, you can bet what will be mentioned here will be even worse.

I would not be the least bit comfortable in such a crowd. However, it is not new that ideas about cryptids are popularly blending with the supernatural and occult, government coverups, and End Times Biblical stuff. Some people go hard core. Take this as a wake-up call – not all cryptid fans are in it for the fun.

What’s with the “archiness” of water monsters?

Charles Paxton and Adrian Shine have a new journal article out examining the “sticky” cultural image of water monsters depicted with “arches” of their long, serpentine bodies out of water. The conclusion of the article is that only very few eyewitness reports describe these “arches” in contrast to the very many media, art, and consumer imagery that does.

The more common description of “humps” (showing no space between the flesh and the water), while not examined in this article, is treated in Shine’s book A Natural History of Sea Serpents where he argues that the appearance of humps are frequently the result of natural wakes or waves on calm water. There is no related trend of eyewitnesses reporting “arches” even though the common pop-cultural depiction of, say, Nessie, shows these. This conclusion contrasts with other evidence that clearly suggests that pop-cultural depictions of cryptids influence eyewitness reports of seeing them. So, this is an intriguing finding.

It’s important to emphasize that NO vertebrate animal can move in a way that creates vertical “arches”, not even snakes. The best nature can do is a series of surface breaches just on the surface, such as when dolphins or porpoises travel in a line. Therefore, if a witness reports “arches” instead of humps, they can fairly be deemed to be mistaken to some degree.

A closing note on this, the BBC had a write-up where they got things confused regarding arches vs humps. People definitely see humps, but not arches.

Monster Festivals Season – Thank the Mothman

Town monster festival season continues: The Grafton monster festival, in its second year as one of several cryptid festivals located in West Virginia, was a huge success, and Port Henry, New York will hold its 40th Champ Day at Lake Champlain in early August.

Several other events coming in later summer and fall are ramping up to attract more visitors than ever as previous visitors tell their friends and families and word spreads via social media. Typically, these festival feature vendors, bands, and speakers. The speakers are frequently content creators, or associated with a TV show, what we colloquially call “para-celebs”. It used to be ghost hunters who got all the attention; but this social cachet is now rubbing off on cryptid investigators. If you visit one in your area, let me know how it was by emailing me!

Why do we have cryptid town festivals multiplying and growing every year? Mothman. Several new festivals, such as for Ol’ Green Eyes, Albatwitch, Grafton, Van Meter, and more, are spun from the template of Point Pleasant’s Mothman Festival.

In Research Of… The Mothman Prophecies deep dive

Here is a fantastic two-parter podcast that you must check out. Jeb Card and Blake Smith of In Research Of… go step by step through The Mothman Prophecies (2002) film. They compare the book to the movie and discuss aspects of the film and the phenomenon that you will certainly not have heard before. Instead of the usual Wikipedia-referencing shallow cryptid podcast, indulge with two extremely well-versed commentators sharing their thoughts on Mothman, movies, John Keel, and pop cryptids.
Part 1 https://inresearchof.libsyn.com/s04-bonus-the-mothman-prophecies-part-1
Part 2 https://inresearchof.libsyn.com/s4-bonus-the-mothman-prophecies-part-2

The Mothman festival, one of the most popular cryptid town festivals in the world, was almost certainly a result of this movie. And, remember, without the Mothman festival, there would probably not be the plethora of other monster festivals worldwide that we have today.

Pop Cryptid trivia

See if you can answer this movie trivia question.

What actress has appeared in TWO movies as a cancer-stricken wife of a man who embarks on a personal journey involving a cryptid?

Click here to go to my “reveal” page with the answer.

Thanks for reading.

Please continue to send me links to interesting news and content. I really appreciate that. Email sharon(at)sharonahill.com.

For more, click on Pop goes the Cryptid landing page. Make sure you subscribe to all the posts – it’s always free and I don’t send annoying spam. 

Pop Cryptid Spectator is also available on Substack. Please share this with cryptid fans you know!

Pop Cryptid Spectator 17

Pop Cryptid Spectator 16

Pop Cryptid Spectator 15

Pop Cryptid Spectator 14

Pop Cryptid Spectator 13

Pop Cryptid Spectator 12

#AICryptids #BigfootAsAlien #conspiracy #cryptidFestivals #JerseyDevil #Mothman #Nessie #popCryptid #PopCryptidSpectator #popCryptids

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9936

Pop Cryptid Spectator Issue 6

Welcome to the 6th issue of Pop Cryptid Spectator. I’ve found a fun collection of news, media, and pop cryptid information to share, featuring dragons and Bigfoot. As always, my aim is to urge the reader to question their boundaries of the definition of cryptid and to recognize how this has changed over time. Today, the use is looser and wider, where science and facts are almost unnecessary because finding an actual zoological animal is less of the point. Cryptids are icons and symbols in popular culture that can and should be viewed with different lenses.

In this edition:

• How to become a cryptozoologist? Indeed.
• Historical sightings of Chinese dragons
• American Cryptids movie for 2025
• Followup to Cryptid Cinema book
• Cryptid Merch: My cryptid crush
• Saxsquatch
• Betting on Bigfoot sightings
• Cryptid? Yes or No? Dragon.

How to become a cryptozoologist? Indeed.

If you peruse online forums about cryptids, you will often see posters asking how they can become a “cryptozoologist”. The answers are typically down-to-earth and reasonable, noting that this isn’t an actual career. Those who take the subject seriously become zoologists or wildlife biologists because they love animals. Or, they pursue writing or acting to showcase their interests in strange tales and mysteries. I was surprised, and a bit amused, to find that the job search website Indeed (UK) has a page for “how to become a cryptozoologist” that appears to have been written by AI scraping content from fictional works. It says:

“Cryptozoologists are science professionals who specialise in looking for and studying unobserved species of animal. They often lead research teams to investigate reports of potential animal sightings and compile any available evidence.”

Eh? Really? No, not really. There are a handful of people who might actually do this but they aren’t professional scientists. It is not a recognized science discipline, but instead is a title that people adopt for themselves (or gets bestowed upon them) because of their interest or content production. There remain no accredited degree programs or actual job listings for cryptozoologists – “professional” or amateur. This page seems like an example of wishful reality-shifting from last issue, where people imagine an alternative world of their own choosing to live in. Or, more likely, the people in charge of the pages of Indeed don’t have a clue. Unfortunately, there is no need for a paid position to legitimately investigate mysterious animals full-time. For now, you could be a YouTuber, author, or even a sociologist that specializes in cryptozoology, and even call yourself one, as many people do, but you won’t find job listings on Indeed or Zip Recruiter. Maybe check out the Werewolf Hunter position and more at Mystic Investigations.

Historical sightings of Chinese dragons

Peter Huston shared his recent article with me on his findings in historical volumes regarding dragons in ancient Chinese culture. It was a fascinating piece that sparked some important thoughts about cryptids. It also reminded me of the way we consider the tales of Native Americans to be associated with cryptids like Sasquatch and the Thunderbird.

While studying Chinese history (from the 13th to 17th centuries), Peter noted that people believed in the reality of dragons as uncommon creatures with awesome power to affect nature by bringing storms or destruction. Reports of dragons were noted in documents, carefully recorded by government officials. Of note, Peter says that these reports, while interesting, reflected the technology and knowledge of the time.

“[T]hese official reports in the documentation are not first hand reports by eye witnesses to the event. They are at least second or third hand reports. Nor were they intended to be seen or used as part of any investigative process.”

An obvious question arises: Can we use these accounts to research what people actually saw or assume that some mystery animal was a cause? Peter continues with a crucial point:

“[T]hat is a question rooted in modern conceptions where the value of the scientific method is recognized, and thus the world is divided into things that are natural, meaning recognized, measure, and defined by science, and things that are supernatural, meaning not recognized, measured, defined, or behaving in ways and producing actions definable by science.”

In other words, the dragon tales are of their time and place. This documentation is not scientific evidence.

It’s not only in China that dragons were taken seriously; stories were told in parts of Europe of dragons as well, though they looked a bit different.

It is not reasonable to apply our current knowledge framework to the distant past and to a culture to which we have no connection. This leads to mistaken assumptions. It is common in cryptozoology to use such stories, even the native lore, as anecdotal evidence to suggest some cryptid represents a real animal to be discovered. This is fraught with problems. As Peter concludes, “It is just part of the human condition that people occasionally seemingly truthfully and without intent to deceive, state they saw things that were not there.” It could be that their beliefs inform their tales, or that they have creative interpretations of a mundane event. While anecdotes can suggest a legitimate inquiry should be made, a strong argument exists that old tales are simply not suitable to be treated as evidence of a distinct mystery animal. We should avoid doing that.

For more on the problems with the similar claim that a creature, which represents Bigfoot/Sasquatch (as we know it), commonly appears in indigenous stories and folklore, check out this extensively researched video on The Native Bigfoot by Trey the Explainer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zJhJsdoTYQ

American Cryptids movie for 2025

A new horror film is in the making about two feuding families, one human and one not human. With American Cryptids, subtitled “Folklore no more”, the name and theme will further boost the framing of cryptids as a pop cultural theme. Writer Joseph Zettelmaier said,

“I’ve always been a huge fan of American folklore, and getting to deep dive into that world was a thrill. Cryptids are homegrown horror, and I love the way different communities have really embraced the local creatures as their own.”

The exclusive source is Rue Morgue. For more on how communities embraced local creatures, see Cryptid Festivals.

Followup to Cryptid Cinema book

Stephen Bissette writes on Bluesky that he is working on two followups to his Cryptid Cinema book. Along with Cryptid Cinema (2017) which covers an array of cryptid appearances in movies, TV series, comic books, toys, action figures, and other media, Stephen also wrote Cryptid Cinema: A Boggy Creek Primer, the true story behind the making of the 1972 independent boxoffice hit The Legend of Boggy Creek. Stephen’s books are available on Amazon.

Cryptid Merch: My cryptid crush

Cute, colorful critters are hugely popular in the world of pop cryptids. Check out this fundraiser for My Cryptid Crush – “a pin and plush collection for all the monster kissers out there!” Featuring over a dozen lovingly rendered cryptids. There are 1,133 backers with almost $100K raised to make 18″ plushies that can be dressed and cuddled. Whatever floats your boat!

In 2024, the Build-a-Bear version of plush Mothman sold out fast. They added a gargoyle and a Yeti as well. See also Cuddly Cryptids, Strange Fellows, Hazy Dell Press Plushies, and Etsy: Cryptid plush.

Saxsquatch

An online and touring musician adopted the persona of “Saxsquatch” and has made it stick. As his story goes, Saxsquatch is a native of the forests near Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He thrifted the saxophone and has been playing it ever since. With the support of his grandfather, whom he calls “Gigfoot,” and sister, whom he calls “Bigflute,” Saxsquatch has created a very real career as a musician. It’s a living!

Betting on Bigfoot sightings

Here’s a strange source of Bigfoot news: the Bet Ohio site covering sports gambling. One author there took the data from the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization to compile the number of reported Bigfoot sightings by state. He then developed the odds of seeing the creature in each. The leading state was Washington with a 13.3% chance that you could see Bigfoot.

I can’t say that I understand the process of calculating the odds, but it seems to me that you have to take into account a great many factors including the size of the area in question, how much is uninhabited or conducive to wildlife, etc. I won’t even go into how unreliable the BFRO sightings database is. However, since no Bigfoot sighting has ever been unequivocally validated, and we don’t know if it even exists or how to find it, this article is nonsense clickbait. It was written for fun. While I’m providing the link for reference, it would be nice if you didn’t click on it; it just encourages more of this silliness and revenue for gambling promotion. If we could make odds of a real Bigfoot being found this year, they would be ridiculously long.

However, to be more down to earth, it’s not unreasonable to give advice on the best location to have an experience that could be labeled as a “Bigfoot encounter”. It would be to go to the place with the most reported claims of Bigfoot encounters. This would be your best bet to have your own “Bigfoot experience” whatever the cause. And many people do follow this advice.

Cryptid? Yes or No?

As I’ve mentioned in past editions of the PCS, the definition of cryptid has changed. This changing meaning is at the heart of the Pop Cryptid framing that expanded the concept beyond that of “a mystery/hidden animal” that can be discovered and zoologically classified. The modern use of “cryptid” is any creature that is rumored to exist (in various degrees of seriousness) but is disputed by mainstream science. Today’s cryptid is defined by whatever stories are told about it at the moment. To illustrate, we have the example of the dragon as described above.

Is a dragon a cryptid?

• Yes. If the word existed during the times where the creature was supposedly encountered and believed to have existed, then it would have been a cryptid.
• Yes. If we consider that some people believe they may exist, even under magical circumstances.
• Yes. If people still claim to see dragons today or express a wish/hope that they exist in some form.
• No. If the end goal is to identify an animal that fits the description of a chimeric large beast. The historic dragon would be labeled a fantasy or mythical creature instead as part of zoologic-based cryptozoology.
• No now but Yes then. If we conclude that dragon (dinosaur) bones accounted for dragon tales, then it was a cryptid, but isn’t now because we have derived the natural explanation.

You can see that this gets confusing – the use of cryptid is imprecise, fluid, and depends on different perspectives of time, place, and belief. The dragon is generally considered not a cryptid by sci-cryptozoologists because, if we assume a dragon is a large land, water, or airborne snake-like creature with armored skin, talons, etc., there is no reasonable biological animal that could fit that description. The more absurd characteristics of fire-breathing, gold-guarding, invisibility, etc. further kick the claim right out of the zoological realm. But, in the most mundane sense, could a large snake have been mistaken for a dragon in the past? Were dinosaur bones imagined as once-living terrible lizards? Sure. So in terms of the Pop Cryptid big sociological tent – a dragon is a cryptid.

Thanks for reading! Send comments, questions, or suggestions to popcryptid(at)proton.me. If you want to send some cryptid plushies or other merch, or books to review, email for my physical mailing address.

For more, click on Pop goes the Cryptid landing page. Make sure you subscribe to all the posts – it’s always free and I don’t send annoying spam. 

Pop Cryptid Spectator is also available on Substack. Please share this with cryptid fans you know!

#Bigfoot #cryptid #cryptidMovies #cryptids #Cryptozoology #dragons #howToBecomeACryptozoologist #popCryptids #saxsquatch

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9273

Arguing over the science of mystery animals

This post is a first attempt to unpack the issue of cryptid research as “scientific” as perceived by those who know the history of cryptozoology and those just generally curious about mystery animals. It’s a thorny topic that typically ends up in arguments. Even if you aren’t interested in cryptids, this discussion reveals notable conceptions about the public perception of science.

Cryptozoology is still my favorite subject. Can you tell? The Pop Goes the Cryptid framing flowed from my observations of modern online media since the 2000s and the broadening of the use of the “cryptid” label. There are fascinating aspects that repeatedly surface in online discussions that reflect the general view about what cryptozoology was, is, and should be.

Since my Pop Cryptid presentation and ideas were widely circulated in the past two weeks, I’ve received some thoughtful comments via Facebook exchanges that revolved around the argument of cryptozoology as a science and whether it was ever really scientific. I’d like to expand on those points and provide two readily-found examples that show the strong perception of cryptozoology as potentially scientific, or at least a respectable matter for study.

Was cryptozoology ever scientific?

I want to be clear about my position from the start. There is still a vocal contingent of people who support cryptozoology in the sense that stories about mystery animals will turn out to be “new” species. I don’t find merit in that. For many reasons, I disagree that cryptozoology should be defined that narrowly. The field of cryptozoology, however, undoubtedly formed with the intention to be a sub-discipline of zoology. Some early participants, including scientific professionals, bought into that idea. But this scientific effort of cryptozoology failed, and the subject has since diffused into the vernacular. To label a creature as a “cryptid” is socially contentious, dependent on how you interpret cryptozoology.

Defenders of scientific cryptozoology make assumptions about the early days. Going back to the ISC journal and newsletter of 40 years ago is necessary and enlightening. The endeavor to legitimize cryptozoology was not well received by the majority of the scientific community. Despite the high enthusiasm by the editor and some contributors, the information presented via the ISC was not high quality, the evidence was shoddy, and the disagreements were numerous. It very much reminds me (true story) of a pair of guys in my freshman college chemistry class who assumed that if they showed up in white lab coats, sat at the front table, and spouted certain technical jargon, they would get a high grade.

Was cryptozoology ever really scientific? Did it contribute anything to zoology or accomplish anything of value? What would cryptozoology be like today if it became “scientific” as many advocates wish? These questions underlie much of the discourse on cryptids but get little to no attention.

Justin Mullis took the time to read and opine on my Pop Cryptid presentation. He also knows of my past work and interest in the behavior I call “being scientifical” – where non-scientists use the language, actions, and other superficial trappings of science and scientific culture to appear more credible to a likewise non-scientist audience. I looked at cryptozoologists as part of my study of Scientifical Americans, and, for sure, they do this. The tactic is effective, particularly with an audience of amateurs. Specifically, the cryptozoology crowd has many non-scientists who advocate for scientific methods even though these individuals would not be able to clearly describe what “scientific” would mean.

For those who should know better – people like Heuvelmans, Sanderson, Krantz, Meldrum, etc. who had scientific training – I say they were doing something different. They employed their credentials to suggest they understood scientific standards and norms, while still failing to meet them.

Justin commented that he has “strong reservations about the idea that cryptozoology was ever a truly scientific discipline.” Instead, Sanderson, Heuvelmans, and others submitting to the ISC Journal were “playing” at being scientists rather than doing science.

Ron Pine confirmed that “it was the intention of some of the early advocates of cryptozoology for it to constitute an actual science,” but it did not succeed. Ron takes a hard line that there has not ever been a cryptozoological success story because the field did not contribute anything to scientific knowledge.

Justin and Ron took from my presentation that I held that cryptozoology was once “scientific” and has lost that status. They argue it never had that status to begin with.

I understand this take, but I can not definitively conclude if early cryptozoology was scientific or not. Boundary work is fraught with problems. Cryptozoology was presented with the intention of being a sub-discipline of zoology. However, anyone with a foundation in science reading the early literature would not be impressed. The substance was not there and never showed up later. So, in hindsight, it is clear that it was off to a poor start and never got footing.

The nostalgic perception of cryptozoology

More important than the pedantic discussion about whether it ever was truly scientific is the perception of the field, then and now. It is an -ology that once involved (and to a far lesser degree still involves) people who talked a good talk, waived their hands confidently, and advertised themselves as credentialed scientists. Paranormal unnaturalness was rejected. Researchers published in the Journal and subjected themselves to peer review (which was usually negative). Advocates of scientific cryptozoology seem to cling to that nostalgic ideal design. Perception matters.

We don’t have hard rules about what is or isn’t science. There exists many discussions about the fuzzy boundaries between science and pseudoscience, including in my own book. Interestingly, cryptozoology is openly labeled as pseudoscience, while others will insist it is valid research. No one definitively nails it because it can’t be pinned down. Semantic arguments persist. Some will always make the most optimistic assumptions, lower the hurdles, and move the goalposts. Others dig in and won’t budge. Because of the messiness, I don’t find much value in participating in that debate. I prefer to pivot to a way to move forward in studying the widespread phenomenon of people believing in and embracing mystery creatures.

Examples hearkening back to scientific cryptozoology

There are two situations you can readily observe in cryptid discussions that reveal how seriously advocates take the subject. Both hearken back to the nostalgic scientific framing of cryptozoology.

First, with great regularity, posts about certain mystery creatures labeled as “cryptids” will include someone noting that the subject (Mothman, dogman, dragons, mermaids, aliens, etc.) is not a true cryptid as per the “official” definition. (There is no official definition of cryptid – everyone has their own version of it, and it has changed over time.) A mystery creature can only be considered a proper cryptid, they say, is if it is zoological in nature and potentially real, calling back to the “scientific” intention of cryptozoology. You can find this gatekeeping behavior most commonly on Reddit, probably the most active cryptozoology/cryptid forum. Why does this consistently happen if the field never established itself? There is a strong perception that it was scientific that carries through to today. “No true cryptozoologist” includes non-natural creatures in his scope of cryptids.

Here is an example in answer to the question of “Why aren’t aliens cryptids?”

Secondly, a regularly reoccurring post is someone asking how they can study cryptids or become a cryptozoologist. I surely don’t know what they assume the field to be, but the context suggests they think it is a legitimate area of study, perhaps even a “science”. Again, we see the perception that you can train to be a cryptozoologist as a real career. I’m always stunned by the naïveté (but, by now, shouldn’t be). The questioners don’t seem to be asking how to become content creators to make a living; they seem to be asking how to become an expert in an area that actually has no standards and is loaded with paracelebrities. That’s weird. But it also suggests the continued perception of cryptozoology as a legitimate, scientific field, especially when the responses say to “get a degree in zoology, first”.

We can’t easily fix a society without a clue for how legitimate science functions. Or how pseudoscientific ideas gain credibility. I advocate using topics that people are interested in, like monsters or cryptids, to illustrate how critical thinking can be applied. That can work, and many educators are doing that. The Pop Cryptids model can provide illustrative context for that content.

#cryptid #Cryptozoology #IsCryptozoologyAScience #popCryptids #Pseudoscience #scientific #Scientifical #WhatIsACryptid

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9136

Pop Goes the Cryptid: Explained

Here is an introduction to the world of Pop Cryptids, showing how cryptozoology, which was intended as a scientific discipline, has now lost that status and is instead a popular culture scene about any weird sentient thing of dubious existence. The scope of the definition of “cryptid” expanded very widely and people are using cryptid representations in all new social ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa7daq1cxSM

Transcript with images

This is Pop Goes the Cryptid
I’m Sharon A. Hill

In this presentation, I’ll argue that there has been an inevitable change in the cryptid landscape from its original intent as a scientific discipline to a modern general topic about any sentient thing of dubious existence. With that shift, we see the scope of the definition of “cryptid” expand very widely to include supernatural, fantastical, mythical or digitally generated creatures.

This shift in viewing cryptids is due to two main developments:
1. The collapse of the professional efforts of cryptozoology and
2. The impact of media of all kinds to bring about an explosion of content and commercialism related to mysterious creatures.

Together, these factors resulted in a proliferation of ideas about cryptids that strayed far from the original goal of identifying unknown creatures in a zoological framework. Instead we see the rapid diffusion and amplification of unnatural cryptids with fantastical characteristics as well as classic and new cryptids portrayed as supernatural, cute, social, or romantic, a very cultural framework.

Let’s start with an example of a modern media representation of popular cryptids. For Halloween 2023, the News media organization Axios conducted a tiered voting poll. It’s not clear how the authors chose the creatures to consider but the choices seemed… interesting.

There were obvious entries – Chupacabra, Jersey Devil, Mothman, Bigfoot, and Champ.
and then we have two admittedly spirit creatures – LaLlorona (a ghost legend) and the Wendigo. Two werewolf type creatures – the Rougarou and the Michigan Dogman. And the rest are a motley crew of legendary or pop cultural creatures. This voting poll by a general news site can be taken as a snapshot of what the general population thinks of as “cryptids” with only about a half of the 16 entries that might represent an arguably scientific zoological mystery, or a misinterpretation of a typical animal. The rest have decidedly non-zoological origins or characteristics.

The results were a bit of a confusing mix: Interestingly, traditional cryptids Champ and the Jersey Devil didn’t make it out of the first round! The final four were Bigfoot, Chupacabra, Mothman and (a bit of an outsider.. The Jackalope). In the finals, Chupacabra edged out Bigfoot 51 to 49%. Unfortunately, the poll wasn’t run again the following year. But all these entities are growing in cultural popularity.

To understand the evolution of cryptids and cryptozoology, we have to consider its original intent.
Solidified in the 1950s and 60s, the aim of cryptozoology was to be a sub-discipline of zoology where those specializing in cryptozoological methods could be the ones to bring to light some of the many large animals that remained to be discovered using the clues from local people. A key figure in the founding of this field, Bernard Heuvelmans, criticized established scientific institutions for not devoting attention to the stories of unidentified animals that may represent important new species.
He and others, intended it to be a serious endeavor led by zoologists and scholarly professionals. 

In the 1980s, cryptozoology reached the height of its scientific reputation, with participation of many prominent scientists in a professional society – the International Society of Cryptozoology – with its own journal.

From its inception, cultural stories of unusual creatures, some of which would become classic cryptids, had been imbued with unnatural or supernatural elements. A primary problem of scientific cryptozoology was how to manage those aspects.

The fantasy and fictional aspects inherent in many cryptid stories made them difficult for academic study. Selective filtering out of “weird” characteristics was encouraged. The scientific proponents deliberately diminished magical features of popular cryptids – depicting them instead as flesh, blood, pelts and paws. If the cryptid in question was associated with spirits, shamanistic magic, or witchcraft, or if it had supernatural abilities inherent in the local legends, these attributes were brushed aside in an effort to scientifically legitimize the being. This process was aptly termed “Weird washing” – a term coined by modern author Tim Renner. If the stories were from indigenous lore, podcasters Trey the Explainer and Miles Greb called the process “whitrofitting” to note the removal of important native meaning. Particularly unfortunate was that the critical social aspects and uses of folklore tales and legends were disregarded in order to try to legitimize the idea of a new zoological creature.

While the weird washing was intended to elevate the discourse on mysterious animals, it could not be effectively suppressed entirely and, coming up, we’ll see why.

By the early 1990s, cryptozoology as a scientific field was already in trouble. The scientific endeavors encouraged by the International Society of Cryptozoology hadn’t panned out. Several attempts to document Bigfoot the Yeti and Nessie, had not been successful.  Expeditions to seek out the Mokele-mbembe (which was suspected to be a living dinosaur in Central Africa, found nothing to support the legend but was a great example of the whitrofitting habit previously mentioned.

Hoaxes were also rampant. What was successful, however, were the media products that emphasized mystery and exaggerated features of cryptids.

In 1999, Fortean writers Coleman and Clark said in their Cryptozoology A to Z that cryptozoology was an “integral part of our culture”. In terms of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Yeti, this was undeniably true.

It’s around the turn of the 21st century that we see the word “cryptid” begin to gain popular usage. First, just in the cryptozoology scene. But, with the growth of cable television and the realistic docu-drama genre, internet forums, and social media, cryptids leave the sphere of scientific speculation and grow in contemporary culture and lore in a huge way. One prominent example is Monster Quest in 2007 – a tv series that explored current thinking about cryptids. This program was influential in showcasing cryptids and that people were actively looking for them. Monster Quest inspired many to dive into the subject themselves.

Yet, such programming again tended to weird wash the history. According to Palaeozoological scientist Darren Naish, descriptions of cryptids always reflected the cultural (and scientific) beliefs of the era, changing over time. This was an aspect that was not explored in short tv episodes, but the ever-changing descriptions of cryptids with the times were a strong argument against that cryptid being a real biological animal. 

An argument for the decay of cryptozoology as a scientific term is supported by two examples that compare the usage of the words cryptozoology and cryptids. The concept of cryptozoology existed in the 1950s, but the term cryptid didn’t appear until 1983 as a suggestion in the Society’s newsletter.

Using the Google Books Ngram Viewer, the data shows how often the words cryptozoology and cryptid appear in a corpus of books over the selected years from 1960 to 2018. First, we notice the rise of cryptozoology in the 1980s, when the professional society and its standing rises. The concept of scientific study of unknown animals is becoming more culturally known. Around 2000, we see the start of the popularization of the word cryptid published. Note that the internet was well on its way to connecting the world by this time. The media boom lifted both terms. But in 2014, there was a sea change. The term cryptozoology stagnated as the term cryptid took off. This can be attributed to social media influence that encourage and spread content about strange creatures. Monster stories trended. People clicked on them and there was a proliferation of local monster tales and publications.

This trend was also evident in internet search habits.

This is a graph of Google queries for “Cryptozoology” and “Cryptid” in the US. Again, we see something about 2014 that signaled a shift in the popularity of cryptid that, unexpectedly seemed to reinforce the decline of cryptozoology search term, It was as if the “zoology” part was not longer deemed useful or interesting. Beginning around 2007, as with the Ngram data, we see cryptid start to rise.

What’s with that spike 2014? As far as I can tell, this was the mainly the result of the premier of the history channel show called Cryptid – The Swamp Beast. This was a fictional horror mockumentary dramatizing alleged encounters with mythical swamp creatures in the southern US. Perhaps we might argue that the title and premise of that show really cemented the idea of cryptids as exaggerated monsters in pop mainstream.

Starting around 2005, a wave of imaginative depictions of cryptids appeared. The term and the concept appeared on television, in fictional literature, games, all over the Internet and eventually in community festivals, on social media and as a part of personal identity. The mysterious and paranormal elements were emphasized because that proved to be enticing to audiences. So, the result was a fun but exaggerated depiction of cryptids in popular culture. Here are some examples of the early 21st century cryptid boom – from 2005 to 2013.

Roland Smith’s Cryptid Hunters young adult adventure series, the hugely popular Messin’ with sasquatch promotion for Jack Links jerky, the cryptid hunting cartoon family in the Secret Saturdays show, the discovery of and explosion of interest in the Montauk monster – a raccoon carcass discovered in New York, the 2009 fictional series Lost Tapes on Animal planet – which was at the time viewed as an educational channel, and the stunning childrens book on the Legend of the Jersey Devil in 2013 – one of many books that commercialized cryptids for young children. And in the center, symbolizing the importance of local cryptids tales to small communities, is the mothman statue of Point Pleasant west virginia.

The foundational characteristic of cryptids, their secretiveness, remained a key feature. But the answer to the mystery of what they really were became less important than the situations and tales that could be spun from them. The possibilities expanded far beyond the concept of an unknown animal. Now a cryptid could be any kind of entity, real or fantastical. The more important aspect was belief and the utility of that belief. Cryptid belief manifested in consumerism, tourism, personal and regional identity and even influenced people’s overall worldview.

There were few scientific voices now advocating for the zoological reality of cryptids.. Without a scientific society or official cryptid gatekeeper anymore, creation and manipulation of cryptids was an open process made easy by worldwide platforms for self-expression. The internet made existing ideas freshly available to a new generation. The options for sharing ideas was greatly expanded. New ideas sprung up, evolved and hybridized.

With no scientific documentation, cryptids are untethered to reality, existing outside the rules of biological evolution, and zoology. They can freely evolve culturally. And so they did. Popular culture rewarded the expansion and remixing of these ideas, the creation of new cryptids, and the repopularizing of past cryptids for present purposes.

Even though Cryptozoology failed as a scientific endeavor, There will always be a portion of cryptozoology proponents that consider it to be strictly zoological, who insist that unknown animals once called cryptids will still be found, and that occult and paranormal aspects should be excluded and disparaged. However, today, the zoological cryptid idea had left the barn, so to speak…

The fun in believing in the folklore aspects of cryptids, and as mysterious and magical creatures, is clearly winning out as shown in our modern popular culture. No more weird washing!

In the social media age, the word cryptid expanded to now incorporate all types of weird entities. This trend is often denigrated by those old school self-styled cryptozoologists who insist a cryptid is a potentially classifiable zoological animal. But the zoological aspect of cryptid is too narrow for today’s definition. Here are some modern examples of cryptid expanded.

Your cat can be a cryptid if he’s mysterious and rarely seen. LOAB, is a haunting creature in the form of a frightening woman said to have been created unexpectedly by an image algorithm, and called the first AI generated cryptid. The term cryptid is used to describe any weird sentient thing like an unexpected and surprising human form or, possibly in the oddest example, a machine that has unusual and bizarre features as well as a mysterious origin.

New in the 21st century are efforts people make to publicly construct a personal identity, sharing it with the world via social media. Known as “aesthetics”, these are a collection of core elements that form an overall theme and mood adopted by a person as part of their social identity. The Cryptidcore aesthetic focuses on interest in creatures from legends and folklore. Note how it does not strongly identify with scientific zoology. Cryptidcore is not highly focused on the biological reality of the animal, but the on the paranormal, mysterious, and quirky aspects of cryptids. Other core elements are interest in unexplained phenomena, conspiracy ideas, and attraction to mysterious or haunted places.

The origin of cryptidcore can be traced to 2014 on Tumblr, where it emerged from the fanbases of televisions shows of the 2010s. Once again, we see a clear outcome of how media content has been an indisputable heavy influence on the modern view of cryptids. Cryptidcore embraces the cute, funny, magical, romantic and spiritual characteristics of cryptids. And the merchandise flows from these favored themes.

Modern online efforts made in seeking and studying a cryptid are frequently less about solving a mystery and more about fashionably performing one’s values, beliefs, and identity. Today’s cryptid enthusiast readily admits to enjoying and enhancing the spooky, off-beat, and mysterious aspects of the subject. They embrace the unusual or paranormal aspects because it’s more popular than assuming the creature is just a regular animal.

This is the opposite of what I previously referred to as weird washing or whitetrofitting – instead of demythifying a cryptid with a purpose to catalogue it to fit into the biological tree of life, the unusual or supernatural aspects are EMPHASIZED. The cryptid enthusiast wants to take the legend trips, and cosplay, and enjoy the spooky tales. The cryptid scene is far more open to diversity and being the “other” or the outsider is a celebrated.

To wrap up this introduction to Pop Cryptids, we have to return to the initial intent of cryptozoology.

Can scientific cryptozoology return? And should it? The strict zoological approach was not successful; and there are many reasons why it failed. The modern world is simply not the same as that of 19th century colonialist explorers the influenced the ideas of the original International Society of Cryptozoology..

Considering the lack of any progress made in finding Bigfoot and other cryptids, there is no justification for a special scientific field of cryptozoology. But that does not mean that the field of study dies, just that it evolves to make sense in the present.

Modern cryptozoology still includes scientifical performing. That is, talking and acting like one imagines a scientist would in order to sound credible and convincing about cryptid. Interestingly, now the supernatural aspects are included right alongside the representation of authority.

We also have a resurgence in local folklore and town-specific cryptid festivals that are open to everyone.

We have ample evidence for the development of “paranormal” beliefs as a folk religion. A prime example of various ideas about the paranormal including cryptids all coming together is Skinwalker Ranch where it’s suggested that all the events occurring in one place possibly have a single hypothetical supernatural cause.

Will the paranormal trend collapse and the scientific view reemerge on top again? The current superstar of cryptids, the biologically impossible dogmen, would suggest not. It’s hard to predict what will trend in the coming decade. But, without the body of a genuine high profile cryptid being discovered and exposed for the world, we are in the age of post-cryptozoology cryptids.

Thanks for listening.
Find out more and follow the news about pop cryptids on my website sharonahill.com

#Bigfoot #cryptidcore #Cryptozoology #MonsterQuest #Mothman #Nessie #Paranormal #popCryptids #popCulture #PopGoesTheCryptid #popularCulture #Scientifical #supernatural #weirdWashing #whitrofitting

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9108

Starting in the 1990s, the cryptid scene has been invaded by the dogman/werewolf/canid humanoid.

The stories took off in the American Midwest, first in Wisconsin – thanks to Linda Godfrey’s coverage of the Beast of Bray Road, followed by the Michigan Dogman legend. Godfrey’s books expanded to include stories of “American werewolves”, encompassing the Rougarou legend of the southern states. Now, the “dogman” or canid humanoid cryptid accounts can be found nearly nationwide.

There are a percentage of people who deeply believe that humanoid beings with canid characteristics exist across America. The stories are spreading and gaining popularity. Faked videos and images, and supposedly genuine eyewitness accounts, are fueling the belief. These stories are propagated via YouTube, TikTok and podcasts. New videos purporting to show a dogman creature appear every week.

While numerous non-scientific outlets for dogman stories exist, this week, vertebrate paleozoologist and well-know cryptid scholar Dr. Darren Naish has produced a comprehensive look at the dogman phenomenon on his Tetrapod Zoology blog, and discussed it on both his podcast and the Monster Talk podcast.

Whatever you believe about the canid humanoid phenomenon, it is popular and widespread enough to demand attention. It is, as they say, “a thing” these days – a true Pop Cryptid that expanded out of a core set of tales (eyewitness and hoaxed) that spread across the US, and is now making its way around the world by the exact means that Pop Cryptids reproduce – via media.

Most often, the creature is associated not with a zoological animal but with a supernatural, demonic, or magical entity who lurks near human burial sites. Naish explains that the plausibility of an actual dog-man biological entity is nil, but many people who consider the creature to exist as described do not subscribe to a scientific worldview. Instead, they take a spiritual view or are willing to accept an alternative reality that could include such a being (traveling through interdimensional portals, etc.). Why might this be a popular take? You should check out the podcast discussions to find out. The dogman is most definitely a complex socio-cultural idea with legs.

• Werewolves in America; the Tale of Dogman – Tetrapod Zoology
• Episode 93: Darren Naish Presents “Badgerman vs Dogman” – Tetrapod Zoology Podcast
• S03E46 – Darren Naish pt 1 : The Dogman – Monster Talk

https://moderncryptozoology.wordpress.com/2024/08/16/dogman-leads-the-pack/

#BeastOfBrayRoad #canidHominoids #dogman #MichiganDogman #popCryptids #popularCryptids #werewolf

Pop cryptid chatter: Beards and encryptids

My favorite fringe topic has always been cryptozoology, which is the intersection of animals and mysterious weirdness. As I’ve written about the subject of “pop cryptids”, fabulous monsters are now mainstream. They have become ubiquitous online and in American culture, not so much as possibly real zoological organisms to be scientifically recognized (because none have been) but as symbols, icons, and genii locorum (spirits of a place). It’s my opinion that these current depictions of cryptids are where the fascinating content lies, and that there is little value in considering cryptozoology as a zoological endeavor. The reasoning is complex but that leaves so much left to explore for these cultural concepts. For this post, I’m sharing some pop cryptid related items I found this week.

For more on Pop Cryptids, head to Pop Goes the Cryptid or see other posts here.

Cryptozoologists, represent!

Did you ever notice something in common between featured speakers of cryptid conferences?

What is with the beards?! Yep. Every one of these are guys with beards. (Hats may be an indicator of which of them are less “academic” and more field-oriented.) You may recognize a few of these usual suspects.

It’s all too easy to apply these generalized characteristics to those interested in particular fringe topics. (Maybe it’s just me, because I’m not a beard-fan.) And, I will admit, it’s not totally fair. That is, the audience is more diverse. The photo above was from the 2023 Florida Bigfoot event in which a YouTube video of the vendor room showed, Ok, many more beards, but also many women and some kids. Regardless of the audience, the narrow demographic appearing on the stage representing the leadership in this community is glaring. The invited speakers are not scientists (except for usually one who flashes that label for cred – last year J. Meldrum and this year R. Holland). The story, not the science, is the star. To me, that says something important.

The 2024 event just took place last weekend and not much has changed. The generalization holds.

Additional photos show that the appeal of the idea of Sasquatch, and all the cute and kitschy stuff related to it, is embraced by the younger generation because it’s fun. Not so much because they really think it’s a legit undiscovered animal.

From the NPR affiliate in Florida:

[Organizer] Pippin estimated that more than 2,000 people in total visited the conference, which featured a stage for speakers and about 45 vendors.

Ryan “RPG” Golembeske, 48, served as master of ceremonies.

“You are in the one absolute safe place to go all in on the squatch,” Golembeske said to the crowd. “Everybody here wants to talk about it. Everybody here is obsessed with it.”

I don’t think it’s healthy to be obsessed with an unproven creature. But, that’s a word that’s maybe overused these days. Maybe not.

And cryptid proponents love to tout how youngsters are getting into the cryptozoology act and often give them a platform. However, I’ve seen many such teens grow out of belief in forest monsters as real life dawns on them. Some stay hooked all their lives. Since we have 50+ years of actively looking for Bigfoot and not finding it, this seems like a highly questionable obsession.

The Encryptids

This week saw the Electronic Frontier Foundation launch their membership drive featuring The Encryptids – “the rarely-seen enigmas who inspire campfire lore. But this time, they’re spilling secrets about how they survive this ever-digital world.”

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that cryptid creatures can be creatively used for cryptocurrency and encryption. This promotional material is charming.

Note the appealing “cute” factor – a key to reaching a wide audience. It also appears EFF will be loose with the cryptid label by featuring not just Bigfoot, but a Jackalope and maybe a ghost. I do like it, though. Why not? It’s a good cause.

For your listening pleasure

Besides the Jackalope, a famous manufactured animal of renown is the Hodag, the official mascot of Rhinelander, Wisconsin. I want to recommend the Urban Legends podcast episode on the Hodag written and hosted by Luke Mordue.

Check it out here. And have a listen to the other Modern Myths episodes.

Passing of Richard Ellis

Finally, I was sorry to hear of the passing of Richard Ellis, 86, an author and artist who greatly informed me about marine life. His Monsters and the Sea is one of my top cryptozoology books.

I recommend his NYT obituary and this tribute by Darren Naish on Tet Zoo.

It is a sign of a life well-lived when you leave behind your lauded words, images, and ideas to continue on.

#animals #Bigfoot #cryptids #cryptozoologist #Cryptozoology #encryptids #Hodag #Internet #Monsters #podcast #popCryptids #popularCulture #RichardEllis #Sasquatch

https://sharonahill.com/?p=8596