In any
examination of cryptozoology, it’s important to report on the negative outcomes
of investigations as well as the positive ones.
Cryptids which turned out to have mundane explanations provide important
cautions for cryptozoologists, some of whom can be too eager to accept new
animals on the basis of insufficient evidence.
These situations can also illustrate how the search for new animals
should and should not be conducted.
Sometimes
cryptozoologists have been taken in by hoaxes.
The case of “Old Three-toes” was one example. In 1948, a clever jokester named Tony
Signorini fashioned three-clawed iron feet and left tracks on the Florida
beaches which fooled even veteran zoologist Ivan Sanderson. Signorini set out
to make imitation dinosaur feet, but what he created were very close in
appearance to penguin tracks, and Sanderson thought he was on the trail of the
granddaddy of all seabirds. Signorini’s
friends helped out by instigating some fake sighting reports of the supposed
monster, with rather ambiguous descriptions. The mystery was not definitively
cleared up until the hoaxer confessed in 1988. It had, in fact, been revealed by
author Thomas Helm in his 1963 book Monsters of the Sea (albeit without
the hoaxer’s name). but this seems to have gone overlooked for decades.
I wonder if Sanderson’s
acceptance of the Florida monster was partly due to his lack of familiarity
with the area. I grew up in Florida,
which has many types of beach sand. I remember
one grayish kind which changed in consistency from quicksand-like to
concrete-hard depending on the tide and the amount of sea water seeping through
it. Signorini left his footprints at night, and Sanderson saw them during the
day. If the tide had turned and the sand
was much harder, this might have led to Sanderson’s stated belief that the
prints were too deep to be left by hoaxers.
Rivaling
Three-toes for the “most famous hoax” title must be Francois de Loys’ South
American ape. As mentioned earlier, the
1917 photograph produced in support of de Loys’ claim shows an animal that,
while it has no visible tail, is far too much like a spider monkey (Ateles belzebuth) to be acceptable as a
new species to most zoologists. The
animal’s widely separated nostrils, the tiny, curved thumb, and the triangular
white patch on the forehead are only some of the telltale characteristics.
The case of the Silver
Lake Serpent is unique – an apparent double hoax. A serpentine monster was reported several
times in Silver Lake in New York state in 1855.
In 1857, a fake monster was reportedly discovered in the attic of the
lakeside Walker Hotel. The contraption
of wire and canvas was floated by compressed air and pulled by underwater
ropes.
In 1999, Joe Nickell, a
skeptical investigator of anomalies of all types, discovered there was no proof
the hoax monster had any more basis in fact than the “real” one. Nickell was unable to dig up the alleged
confessions of hoaxers or any historical accounts of the finding of the
“monster” remains. This convoluted (one
is tempted to say serpentine) tale of misperception and misdirection is a
caution to everyone about the acceptance of monster reports and of unverified explanations.
Wherever there is a
mystery, there will be jokers. Loch Ness
has attracted more than its share. Tracks
have been made with a stuffed hippopotamus foot. Many photographs of the “monster” have been
fakes. The most famous of Nessie’s
portraits, the 1934 Surgeon’s Photograph, is now widely considered a hoax as
well, although the hoaxer’s claim has been criticized. This does not mean the creature itself is a
hoax, but it does make proper investigation very difficult.
The ri from Papua New Guinea is another kind
of case. Here a reported unknown animal
was eventually unmasked as a known animal (the Indopacific dugong, Dugong dugon) displaying previously
unknown behavior. The dugongs in this
area flexed their backs more than other dugongs when diving and stayed
submerged for longer periods than previously recorded.
When a sea creature
called part human and part fish was described to anthropologist Roy Wagner by
the Barok people in the early 1980s, experts put forth candidates including the
dugong and assorted cetaceans. Marine
biologist Kevin Britton suggested a beluga, an animal only known to live in the
Arctic. Britton’s theory was based on the existence of a single beluga skull
which was allegedly collected off Australia. (Darren Naish has investigated
this case and believes a museum mislabeled the specimen.)
What actually happened
in the ri affair was that the most
proper type of investigation was pursued.
The case began with local reports of an animal which interested
scientists could not immediately identify.
Some cryptozoologists, on expeditions led by Wagner and later by Thomas
Williams, went out and looked at the animal for themselves. They also studied
the local folklore and languages, trying to identify the origin of the terms ri and ilkai (the name given the same animal by another tribe, the
Susurunga). It is worth noting this was a case in which the knowledge of the
Native peoples was incorrect. According
to both of the tribes involved, the ri
and the dugong were different animals.
The result: while no new species was found, some knowledge was added to
science.
A chronicle of Sasquatch
hoxes would fill its own book, so suffice to say at least half the evidence
offered has been challenged as fake. This includes the Bossburg “cripplefoot”
tracks, seemingly one of the most intriguing bits of Bigfoot lore, and of course
the Patterson-Gimlin film. The wrangling will likely go on forever.
The internet opened up
a whole new world for pranksters. The Ozark Howler, some kind of horned bear-cat-wolf
predator, existed as bits of folklore, but the modern version was created by a
student in Arkansas. Now it’s taken “seriously,” with TV host/scientist Forrest
Galante looking for it and the awful series Mountain Monsters showing us
people tramping through the brush and, well, howling at every noise.
The ningen is the same thing,
except far more absurd: there’s no fact or even folklore behind the idea of a
gigantic white semi-humanoid creature living in the Southern Ocean, but you can
find fabricated photos and articles with the click of a mouse.
The moral of this stories is that proper scientific investigation is rarely a waste of time, whether it results in a spectacular new animal or not. Speculation on the basis of insufficient or unexamined evidence, on the other hand, usually is fruitless. A science as controversial as cryptozoology requires a careful balance between open-mindedness and skepticism, with the most promising cases being subject to a cautious and thorough examination.
Coleman, Loren. 2000. Personal communication, September 6.
Cousins, Don. “Ape Mystery,” BBC Wildlife, April 1982, p.148.
Douglas, Harry S. 1956. “The Legend of the Serpent,” New York Folklore Quarterly (12), p.37.
Greenwell, J. Richard, 1988. “Florida ‘Giant Penguin’ Hoax Revealed,” ISC Newsletter (7:4), p.1.
Greenwell, 1983. “New Guinea Expedition Observes Ri,” ISC Newsletter (2:2), p.1.
Nickell, Joe. 1999. “The Silver Lake Serpent – Inflated Monster or Inflated Tale?” Skeptical Inquirer, March/April.
“Ningen,” https://cryptozoologycryptids.fandom.com/wiki/Ningen
“Ozark Howler,” https://cryptidz.fandom.com/wiki/Ozark_Howler
Wagner, Roy, Tom Williams, J. Richard Greenwell, and Gunter Sehm (various dates: correspondence) in Cryptozoology 2, 5, and 6.
Williams, Thomas R. 1985. "Identification of the Ri Through Further Fieldwork in
New Ireland, Papua New Guinea." Cryptozoology (4), p.61.
Smith, Gordon, 1985. “The Case of the Reclusive Ri,” Science 85, January/February, p.85.
No comments:
Post a Comment