Based in Brooklyn, NY, I write about all things creepy and strange. My book based on the real haunting of Doris Bither (The Entity 1982 movie) will be released soon. Got a question? Drop me a line.

Beyond The Edge Podcast interviewed Linda Godfrey last Sunday, in what I would describe as being a very level-headed discussion of strange credible reports of the “Michigan Dogman”. I say “credible” because if you know anything about Linda Godfrey, you would know that she started off as a very skeptical journalist assigned to a fun Halloween story of a supposed Werewolf report. She was adamant about believing that a creature such as a werewolf could exist. I mean…for a human to morph to some 7 foot tall wolf-like creature sounds ridiculous right?

The more she dug into the story, the more credible witnesses came forward. Doctors, lawyers, police…these were some of the witnesses that talked about seeing a very big wolf/dog hybrid that when surprised by their car’s headlights, would spring up on its hind legs and run at incredible speeds. Years later, she’s the author of several books in which she has compiled the eyewitness testimonies as well as possible scientific and spiritual theories that could explain what people are seeing.

I myself love a good scary story and to me, when I first heard of Linda’s work, I thought it was a joke. Honestly. But as I got to correspond with her and read her book, I learned that her plight is not to find a werewolf, but to try and explain what it is that many people have seen throughout the ages near Michigan that resembles and upright walking wolf. No, people don’t morph into werewolves but there is some unknown cryptid lurking around the U.S. that has many convinced that bipedal 7 foot wolves could be a possibility. Survival of the fittest I guess.

So get that coffee brewing and turn up the speakers as we listen in on Linda’s latest tales.

Check out Phantoms & Monsters for more information.

  • Javier,

    By all means, list the work of scientists and researchers. I’ll read it. Just be open to the scientists and researchers that refuted their work.The “strangeness crowd” are most definitely “guilty” of “disregard” when cherished myths are shown to be “bullshit”. It just keeps piling higher and higher.
    noyb

  • Henry

    “Henry and Javier; there is no equivalency between
    Zoology and Cryptozoology. A “single act of discovery” does not elevate the endless search for mythical animals- based on anecdotal accounts- an acknowledgment that Cryptozoology is a valid discipline, or even a science. Cryptozoology takes an “amazing claim”, and then promotes it endlessly with sensational testimony from witnesses that never seem to pan out after investigation.”

    A single act of discovery is exactly what elevates the search from legend to science, this is exactly the story of the Panda, the Coelacanth, what is being sought in the stories of Architeuthis, the Thylacine, Orang Pendek, Sasquatch, et al. There are new species being found, even today, there are places unexplored on this planet and a great deal of room for animals to hide. I freely admit there are many cryptids that are clearly b.s., that does not relegate them all to that status. The successes of the past can be taken as encouragement to keep looking. It is true that some attempt to profit from false claims does a great deal to undercut the search for knowledge, does that mean the search should be abandoned. The current case being discussed elsewhere on this and other sites, of the possible shooting death of two Bigfoots should be reason enough to determine if these animals exist, for their protection.

  • Henry,
    Maybe I didn’t made myself clear. Cryptozoology has not made A SINGLE DAMNED DISCOVERY OF ANY NEW ANIMAL! When Crypto’s FIND an Oreng Pendak or Sasquatch or any of the rest your mythical menagerie, then that thing becomes a fact. Until that happens presenting Cryptozoology with the field discoveries that Biologists and Zoologists make; is simply an attempt to gain legitimacy without having provided a single creature that passes examination, and determined to be a new species. Biologists and Zoologists have been in Sasquatch territory for decades and decades. You’d think they would stumble on a carcass by now. Or in their diggings had found a primitive primate bone or two. Not one sample of the two Bigfoot you mentioned has yet to be provided for study. The Crypto menagerie is simply not being found. And it’s been decades and decades of Crypto types searching. Should you all keep looking? Here again “The successes of the past can be taken as encouragement…” YOU, THE CRYPTO CROWD, HAVE HAD NO SUCCESSES, yet you shirt-tail upon the successes of others, as reason to continue your entertaining, but quite delusional, quest. Well, party on Henry. Just stop comparing past discoveries, equivalent with your myths. You people seem to think that we skeptics of your parasitic flummery need to be educated about how noble, and visionary is your search for knowledge. Mainstream science is just so blind, isn’t it? While you are the visionary. But yours is just the illusion of superiority, discovering nothing, while real scientists discover new species all the time. Is that clear enough now?
    noyb

  • Henry

    Yes, NYOB you are absolutely clear. Tell me the difference between Cryptozoology and a person investigating stories of a strange creature, even ifg that person is a zoologist, or a biologist. There was a time, when travel was by foot, or horse or boat, and very uncommon, that virtually all animals were newly discovered. A time when people did not, or could not believe in Elephants, or Kangaroos, a time when most animals were cryptozoology to someone.
    I assure you you are making a lot of assumptions about myself, and the field of inquiry called cryptozoology. It is a oversimplification that you make in order to legitimize your own argument when you claim that cryptozoology has never made a discovery. Cryptozoology is the search for undiscovered animals, often carried out by cranks and hoaxers, that I absolutely agree, but also frequently carried out by actual trained and professional zoologist, biologists, and anthropologists. So when a discovery is made, as I have pointed out there have been, you give credit to those professions rather than the field of inquiry those people were working in. I have given clear and verifiable examples of successes in that search. All you offer is redefining those successes to suit your agenda.

  • Henry,
    You HAVE NOT, “pointed out” a discovery made by a Cryptozoologist. Cryptozoology IS NOT the search for undiscovered animals. It’s the search for that predetermined mythical menagerie I mentioned. Name one that a Cryptozoologist has discovered among that menagerie. You have given ZERO examples of a discovery made by a Cryptozoologist! The Panda, Coelacanth, Thylacine, and Architeuthis were not discovered by Cryptozoologists. The difference between Cryptozoology and a person investigating stories of strange creatures is actually acquiring one. What creature has Cryptozoology acquired? Crypto’s talk , publish and debate; they take notes and tirelessly investigate- endlessly. Yet none of their menagerie is ever caught! Zoologists and Biologists that call themselves Cryptoloogists have yet to produce one discovery from their menagerie. Does that make Zoologists and Biologists the same as Cryptologists? To you, the answer is yes, because Panda’s and Coelocanth’s were at one time just myths. Therefore, that makes the search for Bigfoot, Mothman, Chupacabre (whatever), equivalent with the discovery of Panda’s and Coelacanth’s. And that’s your agenda. But your argument for equivalency with real science is weak. Imagine a Department of Cryptozoology at some university. For decades and decades looking for Bigfoot, and not finding one; or any of the others from the menagerie. I think the searchers would become very bored.
    Henry, you still just push your desire for Cryptozoology to be accepted as a science; equivalent with Zoology and Biology. But Crypto’s just don’t discover anything from their AMAZING MENAGERIE! So let’s stick to discussions about that. Skip the philosophical equivalency argument and history lesson.
    The animals you list as examples of successes to prove the point that Cryptozoology and Zoology are the same quest is just factually wrong. Those animals were found in short order compared to the endless dry-hole of searching for Sasquatch and others from YOUR MENAGERIE!
    noyb

  • noyb,

    I guess you haven’t heard about the ‘Bili ape’ or ‘Bondo Mystery Ape’.
    Locals in the Republic of Congo had been reporting bipedal apes that are five feet (or taller) for decades. Nicknamed “lion-killer apes”, they were known throughout the Cryptozoology community. Karl Ammann was the first to casts the ape’s footprints:

    http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bilinewx/

    -Javier

  • Henry

    Yes, there is a broad menagerie of mythological creatures sought by cryptozoologists. And much of that doe significant harm to the search for those creatures that there is a good chance do exist because we know and can prove their existence in the past, but so long as you choose to set definitions to suit your agenda then there is not discussion to be had here, only your desire to preach. Enjoy your pulpit.

  • Henry,
    So, from your statement: “those creatures that there is a GOOD CHANCE do exist because WE KNOW AND CAN PROVE THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE PAST” , I assume you mean Nessie, Pterodactyls, Plesiosaurs etc. Well, enjoy your delusional search for extinct mega-fauna. Well duh! That search has been thoroughly debunked. Enjoy you illusion of superiority. We real scientists will confine ourselves to the real world. I think I won the argument over evidence, and the Cryptozoology pseudoscience AGENDA, to sell itself as a science. The only definitions I set for our discussion, are those that RATIONAL people set for extraordinary claims: Show the PHYSICAL evidence. You know- a body, hair, a bone, an eggshell, a stool sample.
    Hey Javier,
    Where are those “examples of the paranormal in which scientists and researchers observed and documented unexplained phenomena…”?
    noyb

  • noyb,

    Example 1:
    Hessdalen Lights Phenomenon
    http://www.ghosttheory.com/2011/01/28/friday-video-the-hessdalen-lights-phenomenon

    Example 2:
    The “Entity case”
    http://www.ghosttheory.com/2011/08/06/the-real-entity-case

    Example 3:
    Nina kulagina
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Kulagina

    These are from the top of my head. These are examples of unexplained phenomena witnessed by scientists. All remain a mystery.
    I’m sure I’m forgetting more, but these are just a few….

    -Javier

  • Henry

    No, Nyob, your usual assumptions are wrong. I mean: Gigantopithecus, which exists in the fossil record and we call Bigfoot; Homo Florensiensis which exists in the fossil record and we call Orang Pendek; Thlylacine or Tasmanian Tiger which we have film of and is presumed extinct; the Argentavis magnificens or Thunder Bird which exists in the fossil record. I put these along side such successes that you deny as the Mountain Gorilla and Okapi in Africa, the Panda as I have mentioned before which were known only through anecdotal evidence, the Coelacanth as I have mentioned before which existed only in the fossil record until it was discovered alive, the Architeuthis which we have never found a live adult specimen of, but have remains and immature specimens; the Hoan Kiem Turtle. You claim no cryptids have ever been found based on searches that were carried out on anecdotal evidence, and I name many.

    I do not for one second believe in Nessie, as you presume to attribute to me, and I have stated so many other threads on this site, nor do I believe in any other surviving dinosaurs other than modern birds. I do not believe in the mothman, chupacabra, werewolves or Jersey Devil, et al. It is a shame that these creatures get lumped into the same category, but there it is. As a “scientist” you should be familiar with the scientific method, it is a shame that within the confines of this discussion you are unable to apply any part of it.

  • Henry,
    Again, you can’t come up with even one animal Crytozoology has discovered.
    That’s my point. You only continue to trot out examples that REAL scientists have discovered; and to link those discoveries with the quest to validate your pseudoscience. At some point you just have to abandon belief in YOUR favorite cryptids. Now that I know three of your favorites, and in lieu of a certifiable shred of physical evidence for their existence; I’m comfortable that Cryptozoology is bunk, and that you believe the fantasy that Cryptozoology is equivalent to the research that real science does. People like you are just parasites; trying to pass off the field discoveries of others as one in the with what is blatant story telling. Your responses are getting more and more off the point: Where is the physical evidence for your favorite cryptids? So come back when you site that physical evidence. Otherwise, I’m done with you.
    noyb

  • noyb, maybe you should read The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact by Ludwik Fleck and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn for starters. The science-not science binary is trite. Many people are quite misled by what science really is.

  • Noyb, you won’t gain many positive reactions when you call people “parasites.”
    If you are so sure of your position, you should not NEED to stoop to blatant name calling. If you get frustrated, you should just drop the post.

  • Henry

    And you continue to classify discoveries based on the profession of the searcher rather than the cause in which those professionals were searching. The search for Orang Pendek is being carried out by accredited scientists and is funded, at least in part by organizations who set out to protect endangered species. So I am sure that when it is discovered, people like you will say that the discovery belongs to zoology and biology, because that was the training of the people carrying out the search, when in fact if you would open your eyes in place of your mouth you would realize that the participation of biologists and zoologists in the cause of cryptozoology makes it a science and legitimizes the search.

    And for the record, if you bothered to confirm any of what you claim as facts, you would have learned that not all of the examples I have given were discovered by scientists, but by laymen, or explorers following anecdotal leads. You might also check your fingers, as I named four cryptids, not three for whom there is legitimate reason to consider their current existence. In several cases more evidence than existed to prompt the search for many already discovered. For which the evidence consists of video, photographs, personal accounts which are unrelated to each other and often corroborated by others in numbers that preclude all being taken as hoaxes, footprints and other environmental evidence.

    My responses have actually been fairly repetitive, to the point that I am sure they are becoming as boring as your repeated attempts to debunk them through bland, unspecific and ill informed denials.

    Maybe you should also read about the pursuit of Alchemy. I am certain you would hardly claim that to be a science and yet it is the foundation and established the formulas for most modern scientific pursuits. Actual scientists are reexamining the methods of alchemy in search of the means to generate new discoveries. But feel free to continue to live in a world of assumptions based on lack of information and call your self well informed as a “scientist.”

    By the way, the term is Cite evidence, not site.
    Cite:
    1. to quote (a passage, book, author, etc.), especially as an authority: He cited the constitution in his defense.
    2. to mention in support, proof, or confirmation; refer to as an example: He cited many instances of abuse of power.
    3. to summon officially or authoritatively to appear in court.
    4. to call to mind; recall: citing my gratitude to him.
    5. Military. to mention (a soldier, unit, etc.) in orders, as for gallantry.

    Site:
    1. the position or location of a town, building, etc., especially as to its environment: the site of our summer cabin.
    2. the area or exact plot of ground on which anything is, has been, or is to be located: the site of ancient Troy.
    3. Computers. Web site.