Some Coleman lies and gobbledy-gook.
From a New York Review of Ideas website
interview with Loren Coleman...
Is the public more impressed by creatures like the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot than by small fries like sharks and birds?
Yeah, I call them “celebrity cryptids.” I think the word celebrity really captures it. People are interested in what Brad Pitt’s doing, not what his understudy or some other minor actor is doing. In the same way, people know the words Yeti, Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster. So if you’re telling them about reports of a bird—a warbler, say—that’s been seen by the native peoples of the Congo, and how zoologists and cryptozoologists are studying that and think they’re going to find it (which happened last year), you don’t get people in the media or even in the general public interested in that. Because it’s not splashy, it doesn’t get a lot of press. And yet there are snakes, there are birds, there are species of dolphins that are only known from eyewitness reports. Several new species of lemur have recently been discovered. New animals are discovered all the time, and some of them are found employing cryptozoologically-based methods of using eyewitness accounts to guide an investigation in a particular direction.
Loren could not name a single classified species of snake, bird, or dolphin known only from eyewitness reports to save his life. We still need type specimens to establish species. Was Loren talking about the Australian snubfin dolphin (
Orcaella heinsohni) that closely resembles the Irawaddy dolphin (of the same genus,
Orcaella), and was not described as a separate species until 2005? That would be a bad idea considering that five minutes research could have told Loren...
wiki said:
Taxonomy
The taxonomic name, Orcaella heinsohni, was chosen in honor of George Heinsohn, an Australian biologist who worked at James Cook University, "for his pioneering work on northeast Australian odontocetes, including the collection and initial analysis of Orcaella heinsohni specimens which form the basis for much of our knowledge of the new species" (Beasley, Robertson & Arnold 2005).
New species of large mammals are quite rarely described nowadays, and those that are usually from remote areas - such as the Saola - or are otherwise rarely encountered, see for example Perrin's Beaked Whale, or the Spade-toothed Whale which is only known from a few bones cast ashore. In fact, the Australian Snubfin is the first new dolphin species to be described in 56 years. It is unusual among recently-described mammals in that a population is accessible for scientific study.
Nonetheless, the existence of snubfin dolphins in the waters of northern Australia had only become known in 1948, when a skull was found at Melville Bay (Gove Peninsula, Northern Territory). This individual apparently had been caught and eaten by aboriginals. However, the discovery remained unnoted until discussed by Johnson (1964), and soon thereafter a Dutch skipper had his observations of the then-unrecognized species published (Mörzer Bruyns 1966).
Two scientists, Isabel Beasley of James Cook University and Peter Arnold of Museum of Tropical Queensland, took DNA samples from the population of dolphins off the coast of Townsville, Queensland. They then sent the samples to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla, California. The results showed that George Heinsohn was correct in his hypothesis (Arnold and Heinsohn 1996) that the Townsville population was a new species.
The holotype QM JM4721 (JUCU MM61) is the skull and some other bones of an adult male found drowned in a shark net at Horseshoe Bay, Queensland, on April 21, 1972. It was about 11 years old at the time of its death.(Beasley, Robertson & Arnold 2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_snubfin_dolphin
Known only from eyewitness reports my ass. More of Loren's lies...
If cryptozoology is involved in so many animal discoveries, why don’t we hear more about it?
My whole contention is that people mainly forget, and then they think, “Oh, some scientist discovered a new animal last year, what’s the big deal?” The big deal is that it’s found using exactly the same methods that are being used by people searching for the Sasquatch, or the lake monster in whatever lake, or sea serpents. But because we haven’t found what’s supposedly the big one, people forget that cryptozoology is successful. Of course we’ve found the big one; we found the okapi, we found the mountain gorilla. But people forget that, they almost have amnesia once these discoveries are made, and they keep saying, “Cryptozoology doesn’t work because you haven’t found Yeti” [laughs]. So it’s kind of a Catch-22.
Sorry, Loren, "you" didn't find anything. No cryptozoologist ever found the okapi or the mountain gorilla. And talking to locals about a potential new species of animal is not a science. It is standard procedure for naturalists, zoologists, biologists, etc. and you don't get to go and make it out to be something you fortean addict idiots came up with.
Mountain gorilla discovery and classification...
wiki said:
In October 1902, Captain Robert von Beringe (1865-1940) shot two large apes during an expedition to establish the boundaries of German East Africa. One of the apes was recovered and sent to the Zoological Museum in Berlin, where Professor Paul Matschie (1861-1926) classified the animal as a new form of gorilla and named it Gorilla beringei after the man who discovered it. In 1925 Carl Akeley, a hunter from the American Museum of Natural History who wished to study the gorillas, convinced Albert I of Belgium to establish the Albert National Park to protect the animals of the Virunga mountains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Gorilla
Okapi discovery and classification...
wiki said:
When the British governor of Uganda, Sir Harry Johnston, discovered some pygmy inhabitants of the Congo being abducted by a German showman for exhibition in Europe, he rescued them and promised to return them to their homes. The grateful pygmies fed Johnston's curiosity about the animal mentioned in Stanley's book. Johnston was puzzled by the okapi tracks the natives showed him; while he had expected to be on the trail of some sort of forest-dwelling horse, the tracks were of some cloven-hoofed beast.
Though Johnston did not see an okapi himself, he did manage to obtain pieces of striped skin and eventually a skull. From this skull, the okapi was correctly classified as a relative of the giraffe; in 1901, the species was formally recognized as Okapia johnstoni.
Somebody tell Coleman cryptozoology doesn't work not because you haven't found they yeti,
it doesn't work because you haven't found anything.
More crypto-fool garbage from
New American Dream interview with Loren...
NAD: The Georgia hoax thing. Was that hard on you? On others in the Bigfoot field? Do you think it made people even more skeptical? Do you care?
LOREN COLEMAN:
It was only difficult for me because certain vocal critics didn't understand that my few early open-minded statements about what was being presented was due to my interest in obtaining more data to analyze and expose the hoax.
As it turns out, lots of people were involved in pushing this one to its eventual conclusion, but I will always be proud that Cryptomundo was able to publish the first images that resulted (in ten minutes) with the finding of the costume that matched the "body in the freezer."
I, along with Jeff Meldrum and Matt Moneymaker, were targeted by the unholy three who were involved in the hoaxing.
The Georgia hoaxers burned my Bigfoot! on YouTube, and made gay jokes and burned Moneymaker in effigy later in the same clip.
The California promoter who got involved said Meldrum wasn't an anthropologist at the CNN News conference (even though Meldrum is).
The Georgia incident was a fiasco, but in the end, it was me, Jeff, and Matt that CNN, Fox, and other media outlets quoted as saying this was a hoax very early on (before the fakery was exposed).
We, of course, were right.
People should be even more skeptical. While there is no room for blind debunking anymore than there is for blind true believing, good cryptozoology involves heavy doses of skepticism.
Yes, I care.
LOL. What a bunch of horse $#!%. Loren's "real deal" comments about the Georgia hoax was all a part of his master plan to expose the hoaxers and we just didn't understand his cunning.
Hey, Loren, I'll always be proud that it was a JREF strong Bigfoot skeptic, William Parcher, that was the first in the world to identify the costume used by the Georgia boys. Your empty fluffing of the virtues of skepticism is a joke. Your paranoia over skeptics is laughable and your censoring of informative investigating by skeptics deplorable.
You are an intellectually dishonest and cowardly man devoted to the spreading of pseudoscience and fantasy lies.
