Cryptozoology Facebook groups: Any good science?

For those interested in cryptozoology, Facebook is, of course, one of the most popular social media ecosystems. As with so many other topics, there are dozens of Facebook groups about it.  

PERSONAL OPINIONS COMING!

I've been at this a while and have developed some fairly strong views. If cryptozoology is to produce meaningful results, it needs to be real zoology, done to appropriate scientific standards. Some of the groups attracting the broadest audiences recycle the old claims, hoaxes, carcass photographs, and terrible logic that make broader acceptance so difficult.  

Some cryptozoolgists will find this list judgmental or narrow-minded. And I will politely disagree with them.  Again, my opinions. There are things on cryptozoology groups I personally would be happy not to see again. To wit: 

• The claim that finding the coelacanth over 80 years ago proves that live plesiosaurs are believable.
• A 1925 photograph of a decaying beaked whale carcass from Santa Clara, California. No matter how many times it's been explained, it pops up again as a "sea serpent." Never mind that the skull is still in a museum. 
• The "giant shark fin with a U-boat" picture and other bits from an allegedly scientific network's fake Megalodon and mermaid programs. 
• "The scientists are conspiring to hide the truth!" Considering that the person who proves Bigfoot is a real species will be world-famous, rich, etc., no. (There's no Nobel prize for zoology, but they would INVENT one just for this.)
• The same arguments made for 50 years over the Patterson-Gimlin film.
• Endless "paranormal" posts about interdimensional creatures, psychic contact, etc. I wish people would leave those for paranormal groups.  
• Posts claiming "lost" photographs, bodies, etc. are meaningful evidence.  
• Statements like "It doesn't matter if mainstream science accepts it, WE know." OK, cool.  But such posts should acknowledge that protection for an animal and its habitat requires scientific description and government recognition. 

There are many more, but you get the idea. 

Rather than try to name all the groups I've looked at but not joined, or left, I offer a sampling of those worth looking at, depending on your interests.  

• Cryptozoology for Scientists, Naturalists, and Scholars. Small group that actually is what the label says. Highest recommendation.
• Journal of Cryptozoology. This is a sizable group, (1.2K members) with a high ratio of science to nonsense. 
• Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research.  Some blobsquatch posts (thanks as always to Loren Coleman for that perfect term) and YouTube nonsense appear, but the intelligent discussions and science articles are worthwhile. I didn't join only because sasquatch isn't a top interest for me.
• The Zombie Plesiosaur Society. I would definitely have picked a different title, but there are some interesting sea creature sightings, historical accounts, and marine life articles here. 
• British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club. The doings of one of the better crypto-organizations, with some articles on Bigfoot and company. 
• International Cryptozoology Museum.  (OK, technically a page and not a group. Consistency is not my strong suit.) Follow the events at the world's biggest and best museum focused on all things cryptic. 
• Tetrapod Zoology. Items on oddities and discoveries about creatures of the past and present, many posted by the founder, Dr. Darren Naish,
• Association of Cryptozoological Fieldwork and Analysis. Some blobsquatches and nonsense posts appear, but it's mostly focused on mainstream cryptozoology and wildlife articles.
• StrangeArk Cryptozoology Investigations: Another group where almost everything is worth reading.  
• Cryptofiction. One of the most entertaining groups, covering cryptozoology in films, books, and so on.

Lob comments and brickbats as desired.

Check it out: www.mattbille.com - MattWriter on Twitter