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!

#12DaysOfCryptids #cryptid #Cryptozoology #mysteriousCreatures #popCryptids

Pop Cryptid Spectator 20

Hi and welcome to the 20th, and last, edition of PCS. In nine months, this idea has run its course because, frankly, I can’t keep up. Everything is Pop Cryptid. I’ve certainly proven my point – the term “cryptid” now means “any weird and hidden creature”. In popular culture, it is rarely referred to in the context of a scientific effort to discover new species. I mean, when the President is referred to in this context, it’s game over.

That’s not to say that I won’t be writing about such topics in the future. I’ll certainly post more and on Modern Cryptozoology. But this PCS project is tapped; I’m moving on. Before I do, there are a few more things to $ay. So here goes.

In this final edition:

• Nessie, Jr. Another cute cryptid movie
• Faking Bigfoot
• Champ at the Museum
• Mothman says, “You Matter”
• Cryptids overexposed

Nessie, Jr – Another cute cryptid movie

There’s a new movie on the way that will influence how small children think about lakes and the Loch Ness Monster. It’s called Nessie, Jr. and it appears to be another cutified cryptid depiction in the same family-friendly vein as several other past movies – Harry and the Hendersons, Smallfoot, Abominable, Pete’s Dragon, The Water Horse, Baby: Secret of a Lost Legend, etc. It’s fine. I don’t have a problem with it. It’s just so… meh.

But speaking of fiction…

Faking Bigfoot

I wrote a piece on the performance art dude who displayed a fake Bigfoot at the NY state fair as real. It really didn’t go over well with serious Bigfooters, who said this guy was “ruining” Bigfoot research. Nah, the ‘footers do that part on their own – with their awful TV shows, in-fighting, and efforts to gain attention for terrible evidence. Bigfoot hoaxes have been around since the very beginning. In fact, cryptid tales are chock-full of hoaxes to the point where you are hard-pressed to sift through the chaff to find any wheat. Yet, the hoaxes themselves are quite interesting and very much a pop cryptid phenomenon. It’s not about finding the creature, it’s mostly about hope of finding it in what we like to imagine is a world that still holds mystery. And, unfortunately, it is an awful lot about people thinking you found it and usually making bank from that. Check out this short review of a book on how the media created Nessie. By the way, I don’t know how much money this Bigfoot Remains joker pocketed from the gaff, but the gimmick has already been mostly forgotten. We’re so used to such hoaxers.

Champ at the Museum

The monster of Lake Champlain now has its own exhibit. Both Port Henry, NY and Burlington, VT have tributes to Champ as they vie for the official place of the creature. Now Burlington has another attraction besides the Champ memorial and the Lake Monsters team mascot. They have a dedicated spot in the museum. The shore-side Echo Leahy Center at Lake Champlain is perfectly situated to promote the beast. The kiddie-themed gift shop was already full of toys depicting Champ as a cute cryptid. It’s logical they would capitalize even more as well as offering an opportunity to draw kids into learning about the lake’s natural history. I haven’t seen the exhibit because it just opened, and I was there last year. But the museum follows the template of Loch Ness, and other cryptid-themed real and pop-up “museums” that draw in those interested in the topic. And they sell merch.

Do you sense a theme? I’m afraid that I’m pretty jaded on the pop cryptid theme as it relates to cashing in. But that’s the American way these days. Gosh, it’s all so predictable and boring…

Mothman says, “You Matter”

In more rather misappropriate uses of pop cryptids, Mothman is pictured on informational material regarding mental health distributed by a West Virginia police department. This seems cool but using an imaginary creature that was also known as an omen of doom seems slightly clueless. While the project director says that distributing the material at the WV State Fair has let them connect to average people, the “friendly cryptids letting them connect with kids and create conversations”. Ok, sure. But, if people know the story about how Mothman was related to one of the most tragic events in WV history, the collapse of the Silver Bridge, they might struggle with the message “You matter”. Maybe I’m overthinking it…

West Virginia leads all states in the in commodification of their town mascots, like Mothman, Sheepsquatch, Veggie Man, and the Flatwoods Monster.

Cryptids overexposed

I don’t know… it seems to me the mystery is all gone. Cryptids are everywhere. They aren’t hidden anymore. They are losing their mystique. As I’ve noted in other places, cryptids, being copyright-free, are easily adapted for use in consumer products and logos. As the pop cryptid model spreads, where cryptids are seen as fun emblems or symbols, you can bet you’ll see their use increasing.

New Mexico indoor football team reveals new name: New Mexico Chupacabras

For more on the crossover between cryptids and sports teams, see here.

Here are more cryptid related stories from the past month from my main blog:

• If I don’t believe in cryptids, why am I here? – I answer why “skeptics” (those who question claims of cryptids), are bothering with participating if they don’t think there is any truth to the claims.
• Not a mystery beast, just a dog – Two photos on social media reveal that people can’t call a dog “a dog”.
• Pop cryptid in the News: Jackalope – I updated a section from a past Pop Cryptid Spectator to address the recent news of Frankenbunnies.
• Spooky seismic lakes – Loch Ness and its monster – In a crossover of spooky geology and cryptids, I dive into the idea that some people love: that Nessie is related to seismic activity.

The pop cryptid trend would not be icky if it wasn’t for the blatant overexposure and twisting of the concepts so that the original ideas behind them are now totally lost. In a way, this is what the Bigfooters hated about the NY State fake Bigfoot. It was disconnected from their vision and version of what a cryptid is. It mocked their view. Such things disregard the impact of the rich folklore and history by appealing to the casual fan and consumer who just know the stories from comics, games, mass distribution movies and Reddit groups. I can’t help but feel these depictions for the mass market are shallow and pathetic. Many people agree. I’m not sure it’s all that different from depicting other animals in anthropomorphic, cute, or exaggerated ways. This has also always been the way of things. It just took a longer time for beloved cryptids to become familiar enough to use in this way.

I’ve learned a lot in the few years that I’ve been examining cryptids in this new frame. I think it’s been highly useful, even if many cryptozoology-minded viewers thought it was dumb or reacted indignantly to what seemed like a cheapening of their belief system. I apologize if you felt aggrieved but, let’s face it, it’s NOT reasonable to view traditional cryptozoology as a useful field of study. You are not going to have success finding new species that correspond to Bigfoot, Nessie, Yeti, etc. However, you have a good chance of success in marketing these creatures’ images and talking about them in cultural terms.

A current wrap-up of trends

Some of the other trends I’ve seen lately:

• The #CryptidTok trend is far quieter than it was 2 years ago. It’s still a lot of AI and people performing knowledge (which isn’t knowledge, but stuff they got from other bad videos). I’m not sure how influential this is except for low-value content creators. Maybe people are tired of hearing the same wikipedia-derived info over and over again.
• Weird Appalachia – This genre continues to grow as we see with the prevalence of West Virginia/Pennsylvania/Ohio/Kentucky cryptid content and the marketing of their location-specific monsters. The popular idea now is that the land is haunted and the eldritch creatures or spirits take the form of not-deer, dogmen, shapeshifters and such that are called “cryptids”. It’s a fun and useful idea.
• Town festivals feature speakers who spread new stories as “lore” making it sound more credible than it is. But they aren’t asking any actual folklore or cultural experts, just popular content creators, personalities or artists. This is disappointing and a missed opportunity – I hope it changes.
• The continued gap between original cryptozoology concepts and the current state of things. There is very little solid work being done that produces credible knowledge worthy to be published. Instead, self-styled cryptozoology is still self-published books, YouTube, websites, and facebook posts. This is low value stuff that gets a short bump in interest but does not last.
• Increased use in all forms of merchandising and commercial representation. This means more fiction, movies, promotion, branding, etc. using cryptids.
• Growing popularity of “fearsome creatures” (fictional beings made up as old lumberjack tales such as the squonk, slide-rock bolter, hodag, snallygaster, etc. or indigenous/native stories such as the wendigo, skinwalker, La Llorona, etc.), “creepypasta” creatures (invented monsters from digital storytelling such as Slenderman and the rake), and AI generated monsters. These manufactured beings have nothing in common with traditional cryptozoology but are becoming the best known “cryptids”.
• Overhyping of bad evidence. The “sightings” are just as bad as ever. They are either nothing, obvious hoaxes, or AI generated. There is nothing worth paying attention to here. Yet, people click because it’s fun and they really want to believe.

All those trends say something important about cryptids. I’ve gotten the message – fun cryptid are great but serious interest in the complex folklore, the socio-economic and cultural effects, and the overall phenomena of cryptid encounters is unimportant to the masses. They want the scary, cute, funny, neatly packaged and easily digested popular fluff. But there are still several followers of “scientific” cryptozoology that only want a serious zoological (or supernatural) take on this subject and get angry with a lesser, “fluffier” treatment.

My view is the same as before – there is no value in an effort to search for mystery creatures as new species. It has not been successful and it CAN’T be, considering the modern times in which we exist. New species discovered by zoologists aren’t cryptids, even if they have the occasional help of citizen scientists. The contrived methodology of Heuvelman’s cryptozoology isn’t relevant. However, I’m all for expanding the field into relevant areas of anthropology, cultural studies – folklore, art, media, socio-economic, etc., psychology, wildlife biology, data science, etc. that will provide endless opportunities to research and analyze interest in cryptids. This was my position when I first envisioned the pop cryptid model and it applies just as much as ever. It’s likely to happen on its own.

For more, content and a fuller explanation of Pop goes the Cryptid, visit the subpage.

This has been the Pop Cryptid Spectator. My work here is done. Thanks for indulging me. Keep sending links and messages.

Now back to my regular blog.

#Bigfoot #cryptids #cryptidtok #Cryptozoology #Mothman #Nessie #popCryptid #PopCryptidSpectator #popCryptids #popCulture #WeirdAppalachia

https://sharonahill.com/?p=10328

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 isn’t 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0y-RAXsEQ8

#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?

Debra Messing. She played Mary Klein in The Mothman Prophecies (2002) and Thea Linnea Pyle in The Dark Divide, a 2020 movie based on the memoir Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the Dark Divide by Robert Pyle. While neither movie was primarily about the cryptid aspect, I thought this was an interesting commonality.

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 20

Pop Cryptid Spectator 19

Pop Cryptid Spectator 17

Pop Cryptid Spectator 16

Pop Cryptid Spectator 15

Pop Cryptid Spectator 14

#BigfootMuseum #cryptid #ElCuero #FresnoNightcrawler #GeorgiaBigfootHoax #hoax #lakeMonsters #Nahuelito #PuebloMysteryCreature

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9756

Pop Cryptid Spectator 16

Hi there, and thanks for checking out PCS 16.

In this edition:

• Pop cryptid mainstreamification
• Cryptid festivals near you
• Cryptid Cafes
• Social media feed of cryptids
• Zoos with cryptid content
• Chaneque video debunked

Pop Cryptid mainstreamification

The Pop Cryptid idea is a very hard sell to the stalwart, traditional cryptid enthusiast – the person who still believes that we will discover a real-life Bigfoot someday and holds that the concept of cryptozoology deserves a scientific approach. As I’ve expressed in countless instances, that view is anachronistic compared to the modern version of cryptozoology, which is more about any mysterious creature or thing you can imagine. Modern online cryptids have little to do with zoology, except in speculative and fictional aspects. The evolution has happened online.

Prior to the 1990s, information about cryptids could be found in person, print, or on TV. Most importantly, cryptids are stories transmitted locally, directly from one person to another. The internet changed everything as “local” became almost meaningless. There were already a very few cryptids that were known nationally or worldwide – Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, Champ. But then came the late 1990s and cryptids became a worldwide sensation thanks to web pages, shared video, and social media. Without the Internet, you would not have the phenomena of the chupacabra, the Flatwoods monster, or the Fresno nightcrawler.

From there, the concept of local mystery monsters was embraced and shared. The reasons why it has become so popular and mainstream is a fascinating cultural story. I’ve already mentioned the festivals, the tourism tie-ins, the commodification, and the diversification of the cryptid scene, however, the traditional cryptozoology enthusiast ignores or rejects this. They insist that their version is the correct one that needs to be rehabilitated from the sensationalistic commercialism and separated from paranormalism.

I do not believe that will ever happen. I don’t think it can happen because zoological-based cryptozoology doesn’t make sense anymore. What may happen is that a certain niche area that treats cryptid lore as folk zoology will grow. In that sense, we’re talking about post-cryptid cryptozoology – not the discovery of new animals, but about the cultural aspects, interpretation, and meaning of strange animal encounters. That is an endlessly fruitful branch of this interesting tree!

Meanwhile, the number of festivals grows each year, the mainstreamification evolution of new cryptids continues, and the commodification becomes more lucrative.

Cryptid festivals near you

West Virginia is one of the top states in celebrating and popularizing their cryptids. The small towns of Point Pleasant, Flatwoods, Grafton, and Fairmont have their own famous monster festivals, and there are a few other WV cryptid fests that are more general.

According to my active list here, Ohio has the most cryptid festivals with 9, WV is second with 8, and Kentucky is third with 7. But, hey, I might be missing some! Excluding “conferences” but focusing on family-friendly fairs, conventions and town celebrations, let me know if I’m missing any in your state!

At the new three-day Oregon Mt. Hood Bigfoot festival in April, the local news reported that more than 800 people attended the lectures, visited the exhibitors and purchased merchandise from the vendors, boosting local tourism.

I regularly see organizers saying how they approach their town councils for event approvals. They often have to explain what a “cryptid” is and assure the chairpeople that this will be a big deal and big boost for a small town economy. Check out this article on how one cryptid festival in Ohio will continue in 2025 in a new location. Note that the organizer describes cryptids as “mythological”, not zoological, because it’s far easier to buy into a festival when you are free to play with the ideas and have fun.

On a side note, this is the second year I applied to be a speaker at Squonkapalooza in PA. But they seem to not want an expert in the subject of their own event – pop cryptids! They have not responded to my application.

The Cryptid Factor podcast will be at the super popular Edinburgh Fringe Festival this summer.

Cryptid Cafes

It’s one of my crazy dreams to have a cryptid-themed bistro with a gift shop. This idea is not unique and it’s spreading, both in real life and virtually. Here are some examples:

• The Rooster & The Crow has a Cryptid Den Bar and Lounge in Wilmington, NC.
• There is a Cryptid Cafe and shop in Moss, TN
• Mythical Pizza looks like a great spot: a cryptid themed, family-friendly pizza shop in Berkeley Springs, WV.

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

Berkeley Springs is a neat little town (with cool history and geology) that deserves some love. I’m sad that I missed Mythical Pizza, which I didn’t know about (or didn’t exist), the last time I was there about 2 years ago. It’s such a smart idea to appeal to West Virginia cryptids (even though it’s quite far from the cryptid hotspots). The video explains that it was the young family member who hit upon the idea.

In addition to brick and mortar establishments, there are some virtual cryptid cafe spots:

Cryptid Cafe is a board game where you are a lead server at the Sasquatch-owned restaurant packed with legendary creatures from all over the world. You’re aim is to gather food, filll orders, and earn the most tips to be crowned the most “legendary” server.

Cryptid Coffeehouse is a casual, slice-of-life virtual game about living in the American Midwest, meeting new people, and developing feelings for someone. It’s a game about relationships and the importance of consent, permission, and respect in those relationships, especially relationships that are between stages. It’s about being yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q8Iymva1x8

Social media feed of cryptids

The best way to keep up with the ever-changing cryptid zoo is to check in with social media. The cutting edge stuff may be on Instagram but that app is not in my wheelhouse. And Xitter participation is completely out. But BlueSky has a stream of cryptid content that reveals some crucial characteristics of today’s pop cryptids. Here are some snapshots:

This Cryptid Crawl in Ohio encourages people to cosplay, patronize local business, and socialize with other cryptid fans. This event is an amazing way to support a small community and encourage inclusivity. Note the emphasis on queer acceptance – a HUGE component of cryptid culture. A “cryptid” is viewed as the shy and hidden “other”, a liminal being existing between two worlds, and pretty OK with their uniqueness.

Here’s a fun one:

What?! For those of you who find this use of “cryptid” cryptic, it is essential to understand the modern use of the world. Anything can be a cryptid if it is elusive, randomly appears or disappears, and has an aura of mystery and lore. Some people are lucky to find McRibs at their local McDs, and others can see no trace of it. Maybe you glimpsed one yesterday, but it’s like it never existed today. Get it?

With apologies to the cryptozoological purists, you are never going to squash this new usage of cryptid. It’s too darn convenient.

Social media #cryptid feeds have edgy original art, and portray people and animals as cryptids if they are photographed in weird circumstances or blurry. People call themselves cryptids if they are captured in an image at all because they deliberately avoid being seen.

Zoos with cryptid exhibits

At Halloween time, some zoos feature monster myths and spooky legends related to animals. I recently heard that the Audubon Zoo in Louisiana has (or had) an exhibit about the legends of local swamp monsters (Honey Island swamp monster, rougarou/loup garou, etc.). I haven’t seen it in person, but some commenters say it pokes fun at the belief of a monster in the swamps used to keep children in line.

This got me thinking about zoos, that people assume will provide straight zoological information, including mentions of rumored animals. The Audubon Zoo exhibit was installed in 2000 (perfectly timed with the pop cryptid explosion that began at this time). The info I saw regarding it was a few years old but the content seemed a bit off regarding the folklore. Cryptids are complex social phenomenon. How much does this presentation, or even just the presence of such information at a zoo, influence visitors’ knowledge?

This may be related to similar situation of showing fake documentaries (about mermaids and megalodons) on informal “educational” channels. And who could forget the Amarillo creature that the zoo staff “couldn’t identify”. (Sure, sure.) The source can mislead, resulting in missing cultural context, and unwarranted credibility. Certainly these types of exhibits are popular and fun, but are they appropriate? I think that really depends on the depiction. But cryptid content in zoos is a most certainly a pop cryptid topic.

Many visitors centers like to showcase their local monsters – but have you seen zoos, in particular, displaying info about cryptids? Let me know in the comments or in a message.

Chaneque video debunked

Finally, if you are a subscriber (it’s FREE, no strings attached), you saw that I did a reveal of the faked chaneque video that was popular a few months back (from PCS 11). The hoax was a manipulated version of a video that shows a real animal. The sounds in the video are real! See the debunking here.

Thanks for reading! Send comments, questions, or suggestions to sharon(at)sharonahill.com. 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!

Pop Cryptid Spectator 20

Pop Cryptid Spectator 19

Pop Cryptid Spectator 18

Pop Cryptid Spectator 17

Pop Cryptid Spectator 15

Pop Cryptid Spectator 14

#BigfootMuseum #cryptid #ElCuero #FresnoNightcrawler #GeorgiaBigfootHoax #hoax #lakeMonsters #Nahuelito #PuebloMysteryCreature

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9756

Pop Cryptid Spectator 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!

Pop Cryptid Spectator 12

Pop Cryptid Spectator 11

Pop Cryptid Spectator 10

Pop Cryptid Spectator 9

Pop Cryptid Spectator 8

Pop Cryptid Spectator 7

Pop Cryptid Spectator 5

Pop Cryptid Spectator 4

Pop Cryptid Spectator 3

Pop Cryptid Spectator 2

Pop Cryptid Spectator 1

#1 #chupacabra #cryptid #Cryptozoology #deathOfAUnicorn #popCryptid #reddit #rollerCoaster #scientific #seaSerpents #Skinwalker #Wendigo

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9144

Pop Cryptid Spectator 2

In this edition:

• News: Two deaths dubiously linked to Bigfoot hunting
• Cryptid Media See This – Out There: Crimes of the Paranormal
• Cryptid Media Skip This – Lost Monster Files
• Update on naming taboo cryptids
• AI cryptid carnival
• Google Earth cryptids
• Hood cryptids meme

Hello and welcome to the 2nd Pop Cryptid Spectator – my chronicle of observing the changing appearance of and attitudes towards “cryptids” in popular culture. My intent with this project is to highlight the fun ways legendary or dubious animals are showing up in modern media, to share interesting news bits about them, and to explore the expansion of cryptozoology into a mass cultural phenomenon – a cornucopia of strange entities that are labeled as “cryptids”.

News

Two men die searching for Bigfoot

Cryptid-related headlines appeared just after Christmas as two Oregon men were found dead in Gifford Pinchot Forest in Washington after they “failed to return from a trip to look for Sasquatch,” authorities said. This area is known for many Sasquatch sightings. However, I could find no report directly linking the outing to a Bigfoot excursion. In the subsequent days, I have not been able to find out much more about the intentions of the two hikers. Some commenters to news posts said they knew the men and expressed that it was not Bigfoot hunt but just a regular hike. I certainly can’t tell if this was true either, but the men appeared unequipped for camping outdoors, and that they perished from exposure in the cold and wet weather. Hikes in the woods here in the winter is not recommended. Rescuers spent Christmas facing dangerous conditions during the search.

It’s possible to assume a more gracious explanation – that the men were Bigfoot enthusiasts who hoped to see the creature. The ultimately unfortunate outcome was subsequently linked with the cryptid, which seemed to be out of proportion, as if belief in Bigfoot was the cause of death. Several commenters on the news stories, unsurprisingly, were cruel and mocked the men based on speculation about their behavior. Worse than that, some people took the tragedy even farther by saying that the men didn’t die from exposure, but from some other cause that officials are covering up. This is nonsense propelled by irrational and contrived ideas under the umbrella of a book series called “Missing 411” by Bigfoot writer David Paulides. Promotion of a sensationalistic cause for the tragedy works as clickbait for attention mongers. It’s unfair and ghoulish, and should be dismissed as such.

At least one news piece noted that certain tourism efforts in this area encourage hikes to look for Bigfoot, tacitly suggesting that local officials are promoting this type of potentially dangerous activity to outsiders.

Many people each year get lost in the woods and some perish. Many more people take forest excursions with the notion that they might have their own personal encounter with the unknown. It’s not “crazy” or worthy of scorn, but a sober lesson about safety and taking precautions when hiking.

Cryptid media

See This – Out There: Crimes of the Paranormal

A paranormal-themed docu-series streaming on Hulu from September 2024 surprised me by being well-written and produced, as well as captivating. That’s a rarity! But Out There: Crimes of the Paranormal, while sounding atrocious and potentially exploitative, was not only jammed packed with good content but also featured some truly heartbreaking stories directly related to cryptids or cryptid-adjacent.

I was impressed by the first episode on “Lizard People” which mainly centered on the paranoid conspiratorial belief about Reptilians which played into a Christmas 2020 suicide bombing in Nashville, Tennessee. The episode also touched on the legend of Lizard Man of Bishopville.

Episode 3 covered the growth of the legend of the Goat Man of Pope Lick, Kentucky. The town has a love/hate relationship with the Goat Man as legend tripping by young people results in deaths by attempting to traverse the active train trestle bridge. A festival to celebrate the Goat Man legend/cryptid feels, to some, disrespectful to the memory of several who died and perhaps increases the odds that more people visit and venture into harms way.

The content of all 8 episodes consists of interviewees, some of whom are telling their own story for the first time. The complex details of each episode topic are well-managed by the editing. Each succeeds in distilling a full narrative into an understandable and fascinating piece. The show also uses bits of animation to reconstruct scenes. To me, this is preferable over acted reconstructions. I recommend this show, produced by the Duplass Bros., at least as an example of how nonfiction TV about paranormal subjects can be smart and done well, contrary to the majority of examples.

Skip This – The Lost Monster Files

As one of the contrary examples, do not bother with the awful run of The Lost Monster Files, a cryptid show on Discovery channel based on the files of Ivan T. Sanderson. It’s not low budget, but it’s low on originality and almost insultingly dumb. I watched all the episodes (so you don’t have to). They did chop jobs on the chupacabra, the abominable snowman of North America, the Thunderbird, the Minnesota Iceman, the Kodiak sea monster, and the Gowrow of Arkansas. You can read my reviews to see the details regarding each episode, including the obvious oversimplifications, lack of experience from the cast, fabricated process of inquiry and staged investigation, and the extreme speculation and lack of reasoning found in their conclusions. It was a total bust in that it misinformed and conflated ideas without being at all entertaining. I’d rather not see the likes of it again.

Update on taboo “cryptids”

In the Spectator #1, I talked about the attempt to remove mention of two certain spirit/magical creatures based on Native lore from the cryptid subreddit. As I explained last post, I’ll call them the “W” and “SW” to avoid mentioning the names since that is seen as potentially dangerous or at least disrespectful, and perpetuates misconceptions about Native beliefs.

The renaming contest stalled quickly. People have suggested some names for the entities but none are helpful. Neither entity is referred to on the forum as representing what the “W” and “SW” actually represented in Native lore, and some posters have expressed their disgust, attempting to state the authentic origins of the SW as humans using witchcraft or the W as a spirit.

For the “W”, the names are meant to distinguish the skeletal “antlered” entity, depicted as huge and horrific, whose horns are not part of the indigenous lore. The leading contender for the alternate name is “Stag Man”. This version is seen everywhere due to popular art and a Hollywood movie.

The “SW” entity stories made popular by a book and TV show based on the paranormal ranch tales, depicts encounters outside the context of Navajo lore. The story has morphed into a being that is pale and spindly, absorbing the look and behaviors of the creepypasta creature, the Rake. (Confusingly, some depictions of the W also resemble an emaciated, pale creature.) It’s difficult to roll back that misinformation and correct the labeling when it becomes ingrained in popular culture.

The conversation at r/cryptids came right back around to enforcing contrived boundaries on the word “cryptid” and how neither entity should be mentioned at all – either in the the original or the popularly modified version. It’s not clear anything was accomplished by the effort to fix confusion except to highlight it.

I did wonder how both indigenous terms got into the common lists of pop cryptids. I had suspected that the umbrella of “cryptid” (as any thing of dubious existence) just organically encompassed them at some point in the 2000s. However, I’ve since discovered that both terms are included in in Eberhart’s renowned encyclopedia, Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology (2002). In it, “SW” is said to resemble a werewolf or bigfoot. “W” is in the cannibal giant category, which overlaps with several other creatures that are lumped into Bigfoot/Sasquatch discussions by some modern speculators.

Things are, therefore, quite messy, because the SW and W are based on culture, stories, and legends. We’re not dealing with zoological samples here; tales evolve far faster than animals. Cryptids are defined by the stories told about them. It will be hard to put these now well-known monsters back into their original contexts.

AI cryptid carnival

Social media is lousy with AI generated videos of extreme cryptids and manufactured images of fake creatures. It’s not clear if people think these are real, even though they are obviously not. It’s possible the audiences just play along because it’s fun to imagine, though some may lose the ability to distinguish the boundaries between fact and fiction. Examples I found this week illustrate the widespread problem caused by AI creating cryptid material.

In the Xmas issue of Fortean Times (No. 452), Dr. Karl Shuker pointed out the growing problem of AI generated videos and images circulated as real cryptids. Correspondents sent him images, in this instance, of giant owls, though Bigfoot is the most common subject seen in manufactured images. Any semi-expert eye can spot the flaws in these “too good to be true” images.

In Episode 99 of The Cryptid Factor podcast (October 2024) – the long running show featuring actor and comedian Rhys Darby – Buttons, the producer, asked Chat GPT to suggest cryptid news. He discovered that the algorithm manufactures fake news stories regarding cryptids based on conspiracy ideas and other associated themes.

According to the Unexplained Mysteries web site, the top cryptid story of 2024 was Bristol zoo creating a faked photo to drum up business. This was a clear fake, but again, I’m just not sure who believes this was a real mystery.

These examples show how cryptozoology is one of the prime news areas for manufactured claims, a well worn path for decades. Fiction is often mixed in alongside facts making it more difficult to tease out what may be real. At this point, every cryptid image, video or report online should be considered fiction, by default, unless multiple legitimate sources can confirm it (not just repeat it).

Google earth cryptids

Sticking with the explosion in fake content posing as genuine, here is an example of a fake that got quite a bit of traction – an image showing Godzilla appearing on Google Earth. There ought to be a name for movie creatures that get reported in real life – and there IS! They have been dubbed “scryptids” by Monster Talk host and cryptid historian Blake Smith.

The idea of Godzilla being a real creature is absurd but someone could not resist manufacturing an image that shows the kaiju swimming alongside a boat full of shocked tourists off Japan. The video of the reveal shows the person zooming in from the Google Earth platform. However, after a cut you aren’t supposed to notice, the manufactured imagery appears. Snopes.com reports that the video was seen across social media platforms and websites. It was particularly popular on TikTok, MSN (which syndicates news stories from other outlets), the UK Express, YouTube, and Instagram. As if seeing Godzilla in the ocean wasn’t enough of a clue, the clear giveaway that this is nonsense is that there are no “street views” of the ocean on Google Earth. Obviously. In the moment of seeing a fun and surprisingly reveal, people forget that.

https://www.tiktok.com/@hidden.on.google.earth/video/7377507909300751648?lang=en

There have been several other cryptid hoaxes that used Google Earth/Maps and we certainly will see more.

• Sail Rock, north of Antarctica, was said to be a giant squid or “kraken” by some speculative web sites. Uh, it’s a rock.
• People have claimed to have found other sea or lake monsters including a boat wake as Nessie.
• Who can forget Crabzilla! In 2014, a satellite view was said to show a gigantic crab off the pier in Whitstable, Kent. It was quickly debunked.

Hood cryptids

What are “hood cryptids”? This is a meme from December 2024 that serves as yet another in a parade of endless example of the extended use of the word “cryptid” to mean any weird creature whose existence has been suggested, but regarded as highly unlikely. “Cryptid” is used to describe photos that are distorted so that the subject looks unnatural or unsettling. (See also r/cryptiddogs for more hilarious examples.)

“Hood cryptids” is a TikTok trend of sharing photos of a younger person with some phrasing such as “When I grow up I want to be a…” followed by an altered, exaggerated, ridiculous image with the caption “Forgive me Mother“. The origin appears to be an Instagram account that would post freaky images of rap artists. As happens with social media, others copy the actions and they evolve into memes.

That’s a wrap for the second Pop Cryptid Spectator. I did not do a video for this version as I did for the first one because the ratio of effort vs return was low. I’d also love to do a podcast but I’d need some help with that becasue it’s a ton of work. Though, it seems like this is a pretty niche topic that many people who are already immersed in cryptozoology seem primed to reject. They would rather hang on tightly to their existing view and not embrace the inevitable wider scope. So, I’ll keep plugging away at this. If you like it, share this with your cryptid-loving friends. I know there are millions of people out there who are interested in cryptids because I see them everywhere. I’d like to reach them and hear their views!

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

You can email me with comments, suggestions or questions at Popcryptid(at)proton.me

More:

Pop Cryptid Spectator 15

Pop Cryptid Spectator 14

Pop Cryptid Spectator 13

Pop Cryptid Spectator 12

Pop Cryptid Spectator 11

Pop Cryptid Spectator 10

Pop Cryptid Spectator 9

Pop Cryptid Spectator 8

Pop Cryptid Spectator 7

Pop Cryptid Spectator 6

Pop Cryptid Spectator 5

Pop Cryptid Spectator 4

Pop Cryptid Spectator 3

#Appalachia #BritishCryptids #cryptid #CryptidFestival #cryptids #folkHorror #GreenEyes #GreenEyesFestival #hornedRabbit #Jackalope #Mothman #mythologicalCreatures #popCryptid #PopCryptidSpectator

https://sharonahill.com/?p=9206

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 “whitetrofitting” 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 whitetrofitting 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