DDG: We may be saying the same thing in essence since I can’t, and don’t want/need to, contend anything you’ve said yet find myself still standing by my own reasoning. Can we agree on one thing, though? In this nebulously defined era of which we speak, a creature with the characteristics I’ve mentioned, if real, would have a SOMEWHAT better chance of remaining hidden…“better,” of course, compared to the last fifty years or so.
While this isn’t the most carefully composed post I’ve ever come across, http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=28799&messageid=982645221 is a “naturalist”'s musing on the nature of the North American forest’s STILL difficult terrain. And yes, it was posted at a Sasquatch related BBS, but, as we’ve discussed, I wouldn’t automatically hold that against him.
Musicat, I’m not sure how to read your post. Is it a question as to an exact description of the Administration’s policy? That kind of question should be in the “About This Message Board” forum. (You can provide a link to this thread if you want to base your discussion on this thread.)
Is it because you are dissatisfied with the actions taken by C K Dexter Haven? That question should be in “The BBQ Pit”, again with a link to this thread if you deem it necessary.
BTW: any policy we state is going to have plenty of leeway. e.g. if we said “Mrs. X cannot post a link to a site where her books are for sale - that’s considered advertising”, someone is sure to say “so can Mr. X post it?” or “can Mrs. X post a link to another site that has the link to Amazon?” If the answer to both of those questions is “no”, then the next question will be “Can Mrs. X’s brother-in-law post the link?” or “can Mrs. X post a link to a site that has a link to a site that has a link to Amazon?” So as you can see it would be very difficult to have exact rules that govern every occasion. Most of these decisions are judgment calls made by the moderator in question.
In this thread, however, we see a clear-cut example of what we don’t allow - someone posting a direct link to the web page where his book is available for sale.
You also said <<if we lowly forum-ites wish to look for more info about Loren Coleman’s books like reviews or prices, we can still find it on Amazon, but not as easily as before, since you removed the hyperlinks? In what way is this benefiting us?>>
I would hope that even the lowliest of the forum-ites knows how to search for a book at a commercial book-selling site once they know the author’s name and the title. The benefit to you is that our policy prevents this board from becoming a “spam-fest” as you put it. The benefit to us as moderators is that by doing this one link we will be less subject to accusations of partiality the next time we remove a link trying to sell a newsletter that explains how you can make $50,000 in three weeks using a pyramid scheme.
But that’s the wierd thing about the whole cryptozoology scene!! I mean, what’s the most likely heretofore mythical animal to actually exist? Pretty much anything that lives in the ocean, right? The kraken, the leviathan, and so forth, especially if they’re intelligent, could hide out miles under the sea and we’d never find them. Many legit zoologists agree that there are likely hundreds of undescribed species of large animals in the deep ocean. But what’s the one the cryptozoologists always talk about? Sasquatch? A giant ape who lives in the US? These guys are more about conspiracies and rumor-mongering than legit science.
Okay, RD, I went and read your link. It was very interesting, :), but unfortunately, with his very first sentence, things started popping out at me. First,
I’m sitting here rolling my eyes and going “oh geez” at his unbridled romanticism. Um, what he’s no doubt considering “untamed forest” is actually reforested farmland. New England was extensively settled and farmed during the 17th and 18th centuries. Many of these farms were abandoned during the mid to late 19th centuries, as the agricultural center of gravity of the growing United States shifted to the Midwest, to the grainfields of Kansas, Illinois, and Iowa, etc. New England farmers couldn’t make a living anymore, so they went West, and their farms all went back to forest. Even today you can stumble over old cellar holes and stone walls, out there in the middle of the “untamed forest”.
So my question would be, where were all the Sasquatches when these Yankees were cutting down their trees and planting corn and hay?
Um, sorry, Steve, maybe YOU stay in clearings or on trails. But every deer hunter I ever met (and I know a few) make a POINT of bulldogging it through the back 40. That’s where the deer are, not up by the parking lot. I think it’s worthwhile to point out that Steve is a suburban naturalist who works with children, so his experience with off-trail hiking is going to be limited. He has also evidently never heard of the sport called “orienteering”, which is a kind of a road rally on foot, where you take a map and a compass and go out to the State Park and try to get from Point A to Point B. And then you eat lunch out of a paper sack and go home.
Also, the North American woods are hardly an echoing wasteland. There’s still a substantial human presence everywhere you go. Oh, sure, you can still get lost in the woods, but then again, you can get lost in Grandpa’s woodlot down on the farm, and freeze to death 100 yards from the house. It’s been known to happen. Stop for a minute and consider all the people who have a reason to be out in the woods. There are the professionals, people whose jobs involve being in the woods, folks like wildlife biologists, people from various state and federal agencies taking censuses of everything from deer to raccoons to newts and spiders. There are loggers and tree spotters. There are people doing doctoral dissertations on spruce budworm. Then there are the amateurs, the hobbyists. There are mushroom gatherers, birdwatchers, owl-counters…None of these people is going to stay on the path. Sooner or later, somebody’s going to spot weird-looking scat. Fancy word for droppings–deer and bear hunters are especially adept at identifying scat, because it’s how they locate their quarry’s hangouts. And people who work for federal agencies that concern themselves with deer and bear are also concerned with scat, and knowledgeable about it.
A Sasquatch is going to be an omnivore. A big omnivore’s scat would look like a bear’s scat in composition. However, a bear’s anus is considerably larger than a 200 lb. hominid’s. Bear scat has not only a distinctive composition that distinguishes it from cougar or wolf scat, but also it has a distinctive size. Don’t you think that sometime during the last 400 years, some deer or bear hunter somewhere would have noticed small-size scat “sorta like” bear scat? Are they supposed to have thought, “Oh, another very small bear or bear cub” and never to have wondered, “Hey, where are all these small bears coming from? Why do we keep finding bear cub scat with no mama bear scat close by?” Knowing what kind of game was out there in the woods was just as important for the early pioneers as it was for the Indians.
Steve’s reaction to “The Forest” is that of the classic City Kid. The City Kid goes to stay at Grandpa’s farm and hears strange noises at night out in the woods. He shivers under his blanket and thinks, “Wow, spooky stuff.” But if he goes and wakes Grandpa up and says, his teeth chattering, “What’s that awful noise?” Grandpa will only wake up halfway before he’ll say, “Eh? What? That noise? Dang, that’s just a big ol’ tom coon, out prowlin’ around. Now git back to bed, dagnab it!”
Um, sorry, but this is just not true. It may please Steve to think so, but it’s not. I’m sitting here with the Rand McNally Road Atlas and a compass. 30 miles from Boston is Lowell, so I’ll draw a compass circle to include downtown Lowell. And the first thing that pops out at me from looking at my circle is that it takes in an area that is well within the Interstate 495 loop, that they had to build around the Greater Boston area when the Interstate 95 loop was no longer sufficient to handle the traffic from the burgeoning suburbs. See what I’m saying? Everything within 30 miles of Boston is suburbs, not trackless wasteland. Oh, sure, there are a number of state parks, but I notice that they all have the “tree” symbol that means “no camping”, as opposed to the “tree with little tent” that means camping. In my experience, the reason that state parks do not offer camping is because (a) there just isn’t room to put a campground, with all of the roadways and parking pads that are required, and (b) the park is already so heavily used that they really don’t want to encourage MORE people to come, not to mention stay overnight.
So, none of these crowded, heavily used urban area state parks could be a candidate for Steve’s “inaccessible landscape”.
The only thing I see that he might be talking about would be Harold Parker State Forest, in Essex County. You get off I-95 at the Route 114 exit north of Wakefield, it’s about 6 miles. http://www.state.ma.us/dem/parks/harp.htm
Yes, but it also has an RV campground, a Pet Policy, a full schedule of events, and extensive trails for horseback riding, skiing, etc.
And being “the oldest forest” and so close to the Greater Boston area, and thus heavily used, don’t you think even more wildlife biologists, etc., would be out there prowling around, and don’t you think eventually somebody would have noticed some funny-looking scat?
He must not know much about farmers. He seems to think that farmers have lots and lots of extra woodland that they have no clue about, that they simply ignore. This is also completely untrue. A woodlot is a valuable timber resource. I know farmers who are growing trees like walnut and maple for their kids’ college education. To the farmer, those trees out there are like money in the bank, and there’s a huge body of information available from the USDA to help him manage it. You can call the county extension service and they’ll send a guy out to walk your woodlot and mark the trees for you that are worth saving, and mark the ones you should take out to help the valuable ones grow better. A farmer’s woodlot is managed like a crop, not a big neglected weedpatch.
Not to mention the constant parade of wildlife biologists, birdwatchers, people doing their doctoral dissertations on foxes, etc., who are always knocking on the farmhouse door, asking permission to census the woodlot. Especially in a crowded, urban place like the Northeast, people like these are constant visitors to every woodlot.
Okay, I’m looking at a map, at the chillingly named “Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area” [ominous music]. If you look at it on a Rand McNally Road Atlas, it’s a big empty space smack in the middle of Idaho. However, I’m looking at a DeLorme Gazeteer. Are you familiar with these? They’re designed for hunters and sportsmen, and they show EVERYTHING. So I’m looking at this “Wilderness” and what I’m looking at is–roads. Roads and trails, everywhere, on the average about 2 miles apart. Tiny red lines that mean that even if you can’t get a 4-wheel drive up there, you can probably get a mountain bike, and you can definitely walk. Those trails were made by loggers, because–here’s the thing–this is part of the Fayette National Forest and like all other national forests, it’s heavily logged. And when I say “logged”, I don’t just mean that every 40 years they come along and cut down the trees and then never come back again, thus providing hiding places for Sasquatch. When I say “logged”, I mean “managed”, like a crop. Biologists, both private sector and federal, need those trails to get up in there and check out the current crop, the same way the Ag Department guy drives up and down the county roads here in Illinois, looking at corn and soybeans. And they do go up there and check them–that’s a valuable crop.
It’s a mystery to HIM, but not to the probably hundreds of birdwatchers, mushroom gatherers, owl-counters, etc. who also use the place on weekends. He’s a City Kid, afraid of the dark, who enjoys believing there might be a Sasquatch living out there in his local conservation area.
And if he thinks those snowmobiles are ALL staying on the established trails, well, he doesn’t know snowmobilers very well. :rolleyes:
In an earlier reply, I posted the names of my books and their links, so those wishing to read about them could have an easy way to do so. As your readers know, the information contained at Amazon.com goes far beyond merely being about the selling of books. Amazon has become a primary point of reference, via book descriptions and reviews, for comprehensive information of a bibliographical nature. These books were thus originally listed as:
Cryptozoology A to Z: The Encyclopedia of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, and Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature (NY: Simon and Schuster/Fireside, 1999) by Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark
Mysterious America: The Revised Edition (NY: Paraview, 2001) by Loren Coleman
The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide (NY: Avon, 1999) by Loren Coleman and Patrick Huyghe
To which, this was posted by SD Chief CKDH -
NOTE: I have edited out links to an online book-seller location where these books may be purchased, since we do not permit advertising here. – CKDH
(Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 02-27-2001 at 08:04 AM)
Please note, the publisher’s webpage (not a selling site) which had an excerpt from Mysterious America, was also expunged.
Now, frankly, such CKDH “editing” certainly seems very suspect. A quick search of the overall SD “comments and replies” site has revealed many url active links to everything from Holocaust booklets for sale to movie DVDs listed on Yahoo for sale. Honestly, can you see how the appearance of censorship of further links to my opinions which are not in agreement with an SD article seems clearly in evidence here?
BTW, of course, I am the Loren Coleman, chronicler of cryptozoological events and bios. And as your science advisor must know, money is not to be made in cryptozoology. Surely he realizes that, like him, I am interested in the dissemination of information and the free exchange of ideas. Why would I write my books and continue to go into the red, living on the edge of bankruptcy, for forty years? Certainly the work of science and cryptozoology, you all must know, is not about making fortunes, because there are none to made in 99% of the examples in our lives.
Furthermore, I congratulate his zoological discoveries of many new insects in the rainforests of South America. I hope we both get MacArthur grants someday to continue our mutually satisfying but under-funded pursuits.
Thank you for participating in our little discussion board. We welcome all points of view and are glad that you have joined us to discuss the issue of cryptozoology.
The reason we have removed your links, and the difference between that and links posted by other members, is that you are posting links to items from the sale of which you stand to profit. Honestly, can you see how this would appear to us to be a form of advertising? If we wanted to squelch your opinion it would be very easy for us to delete your posts.
I will refer you again to my post above, in which I say:
Here’s hoping you remain to discuss your area of expertise.
Mr. Coleman, I’m so glad you came by. I recently purchased your book, The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti …, and do not find it a serious piece of work for a couple significant reasons. Maybe you can help explain a couple things to me.
First, and as you well know, but others here may not, you’ve proposed around ninety distinct species of previously unknown, or at least, unclassified, mammals, some of them with remarkably similar physical characteristics, especially your “water creatures.” I would like to know what criteria you used in to differentiate your species. It almost appears that your distinctions were made simply to more evenly populate each region, or continent, and thus each section of your book, with these purported beasts. I’m certainly no expert in zoology or taxonomy, and I realize your book isn’t a rigorous treatment (although it is promoted as a field guide, but are not actual physical specimens usually required to identify distinct species when their outward characteristics are so similar? The sheer quantity of separate animals you propose, would lead a reader to believe you have more evidence than simple anecdotal reports and suspect photographs on which to base your taxonomy. And were this the case, I’m sure you’d have presented this evidence.
I’m also curious about the illustrations and how your illustrator, Harry Trumbore, decided which reported physical characteristics to draw for each species and which to ignore. Additionally, how have you made your determinations to exclude certain reports, such as those of two- and six-toed bipeds? Your book delineates only bipeds with between 3 and 5 toes.
Finally, how do you answer the charge of the noted “bigfoot” researcher, Grover Krantz, who says he sees no compelling evidence for more than a single type of hairy-biped?
On another note, I’m sorry you feel we are censoring you here. As has been explained that is not the case; in fact, if you were to search this website, you’d find that I, myself, have posted a link to your book here several times. I find it unfortunate you resort to a classic tactic of “crankism” so quickly, that being, the claim of censorship. However, as you probably know by now, this is primarily a skeptically-oriented website. The people here are simply the portion of the public you are going to have to resoundingly convince of the existence of your purported beasts if they are to be finally accepted by the bulk of the public. Alternatively, if you are able to convice mainstream science of the existence of these creatures, we skeptics will also be convinced.
I find it extremely funny that skeptics criticize cryptozoologists for having no senses of humor, but when a good natured exchange like this one gets going, my attempts at jokes are called “crankisms”. Now that’s intriguing.
I apologize for not having seen that links to my books have been posted here. Forgive me. I was merely trying to be an educator, not a salesperson.
As to my book, The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide, no, there are not ninety “species” noted in the book. There are nine large groups, or classification groupings (per a system developed and defined by the series editor, not my choice, that’s for sure). The book gives 51 “types” which really translate into local names and specialized labels for these creatures that the book clearly discusses as being subcategories within the overall classes.
And, yes, of course, there was a design concept and balance globally that went into the construction of the book. This is rather standard practice in any book that is overviewing a wide variety of animals or natural phenomena which may present itself in various types, kinds, and specimens. My favorite zoological books and geozoological works create interesting texts by putting in some animals and leaving out others. For reader interest, and an attempt to be global in our outlook, such a field guide was our objective. Xenophobia and a remarkable pro-American lineup are two stances which occurs in too many cryptozoology books I read, and I am very much against such a short-sighted approach to the subject. Yes, I’m guilt for pushing for a global balance and making choices that went into the book to reflect that bias.
I worked closely with the book’s illustrator, reviewing, critiquing, and having revised drawing created to make certain the best drawings (id-kit style) would be in the field guide.
Grover Krantz and I agree that the evidence for hairy hominids appears to be firm. If you have closely read his recent books, you will see that he has changed his mind about his “single species” hypothesis, with regard to Sasquatch vs Almas vs Yeti. There are not too many hominologists or cryptozoologists that are well-schooled in the field who still consider the shortlived concepts (really only a part of the theories of the 1970s-early 1990s) that one species of Bigfoot exists undiscovered to explain the wide variety of mystery primates - hairy hominids, unknown anthropoids, other hairy hominoids - being described worldwide. Indeed, historians will write that the “Bigfoot” phenomena and use of that moniker only, is a byproduct of the mass media of the late 20th century. It certainly goes against witness descriptions, the differences between anthropoid (pongid) footprints versus distinctively hominid footprints, and other pieces of evidence pointing to the wide diversity in the species.
As to two- and six-toed footprints, as I tried to explain in a response in Skeptic which was heavily edited, of course I am discriminating and skeptical of some items presented to me. Like many of you, it is the body of evidence assembled, not the fringe elements, which I entertain as the facts demonstrating a trend in the data leading me to some of my conclusions.
I love it when the charge of “Censorship!” rears its ugly, somewhat droll, head.
Yes, of course, we have censorship here, if you choose to view it that way. This is a moderated and monitored board. That means we have Moderators who are empowered to enforce the rules. That means that you have to register to post here, and registering means agreeing to comply with the rules.
Those rules include prohibiting advertising. We also do not allow vulgar or ad hominem arguments (at least, not in this forum). We do not allow a discussion of cryptozoology to be interrupted by a teeny-bopper love sonnet, or by some kid asking “Anyone wanna email with a 12 year old girl who’s interested in Barbie Dolls and hot sex?”. We don’t allow links to illegal activities. There’s a whole lot of stuff that are prohibited under the rules. People who violate the rules find their posts are “censored.”
If you think that this “censorship” is wrong, and that we are trampling on your rights of free speech, there’s a simple solution: go post on some other, non-Moderated board. Don’t bother us, and we promise not to chase after you.
Most of us think that this is Moderating, rather than “censorship”, and we prefer this Message Board exactly because it is moderated.
Now, while there are some things that are clearly violations of the rules, there are other things that are less clearly so. True enough, the Moderators are human (aside from Lynn, who is very nearly perfect in almost every way) and therefore can make mistakes – both sins of omission and sins of commission. We can also remedy those mistakes aswhen they are pointed out to us, nicely and rationally. The Scream of “Censorship!” is not usually sufficient to cause us to rethink a prior decision. A well-reasoned argument may, on the other hand, cause us to rethink a prior decision.
Again, as I say, if you have problems with this, then you are politely but firmly directed to any of the thousands of non-moderated sites on the internet.
I fail to see evidence of a joke. What I see is a serious charge of censoring your posts. You claim the moderators removed your links, but leave similar links in various other places, and that constitutes an unbalanced treatment. But there is no punchline, no smiley-face, and no horrible pun. How is one to take that as a joke and not an accusation? It has all the hallmarks of someone who is directing attention away from the topic and onto a side issue, claiming censorship. Don’t get me wrong - I accept that you could see it as a valid claim. I think the moderators have responded to that claim. They also pointed out other fora for your use - About This Message Board to ask questions on protocol of posting links and what is acceptable, and the Pit where you can call the moderators bad names and throw a tantrum. But to call such a remark an attempt at a joke puzzles me. Can you not see how this fits a well defined pattern - people posting ideas out of the mainstream (be it in cryptozoology, or perpetual motion machines, or UFOs, or psychic powers) are almost hair-trigger with claims of censorship. I think that was what UncleBeer was pointing out.
Posts and responses, replies and quotes, comments and critiques. I find the back and forth here is getting very confusing as criticisms of one thing is being based on comments tied to something else. The threads seem extremely silly, by now, and have little to do with my passion for cryptozoology.
Please, respectfully, perhaps the moderator could be good enough to just remove all of my postings.
And this would make things less confusing how? If you want to stop participating in the discussion, that’s fine, of course, but why should we bother deleting your posts?
More to the point, perhaps, is that Moderators have a policy of NOT removing a post once others have responded to it. This is a general policy, and neither discriminatory nor censorious.
Does this mean Mr. Coleman’s not gonna explain the damning lack of biological artifacts for his mystery primates? Or tell us how his unknown pongoids came to evolve in North America, a continent that has always been totally devoid of any member of the ape family?
