Encyclopedia of Cryptozoology: A Global Guide to Hidden Animals and Their Pursuers
By paranominal
Published: November 16, 2009
Tagged with: Branch Of Science, Continent, Creatures, Cryptozoology, Daily Basis, Encyclopedia, Existence, Extinct Animals, Founders, Global Guide, Hidden Animals, Isc, Modern Science, People, Persistence, Present Time, Product Description, Unknown Animals
I agree with Werner’s review; I have not bought this volume, nor will I buy it. Werner, see my review of the 185.00 encyclopedia which I inadvertantly ordered only to return it the next day. These authors overcharge for the simple fact that uneducated readers are willing to pay these exorbitant prices; the books are usually disguised as “specialty” subjects that require alot of research. I say B.S.–most such work is either copied or rehashed from the same few sources. Buyer beware.
Rating: 1 / 5
Like the reviewers before me said, why pay 95$ for a rehash? You’d be much better off buying a Loren Coleman book for about $10 like “Mysterious America”, or something by Jerome Clark. I got lucky and got a copy of Heuvellman’s (sp?) “On the Track of Unknown Animals” for $20 on [...] …arguably the Bible of early cryptozoology. In other words, go buy 5 better books rather than this one.
Rating: 1 / 5
The author is Michael Newton, who has done many “encyclopedia of ” this or that in the past, such as
the FBI Encyclopedia, and the Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, and others. He’s written dozens of books, mostly
related to murderers and crime. Here he murders CZ.
Despite his claims to have been into CZ from an early age, I suspect he is just using his research format to make still one
more “Encyclopedia of (whatever)” and I say so because he seems to have gotten most of his references from
Google. A good example is his listing of me. I have websites on Nessie, CZ, Bigfoot and spirit photography. On all of them
is my phone number and email address. I never got a single email, and not one phone call. Then he states that I started in CZ
in 1983 at Loch Ness, when I actually started in 1975 with Bigfoot. He cites all the negative info he can dredge up from
sites critical to me, written by amateurs and non-academics. If it is negative, he will quote it. He also says I claim to have
found “Bigfoot remains” in Lewiston,ID, a place I have never been, in a state I have never been in. I also never found any
bigfoot remains anywhere (but neither has anyone else). He ignores the 1983 color film of Nessie I took, the 16 photos
of bigfoot-related beings I’ve taken, the blood and hair samples I had scientists analyze, the digitization of the PG Film
I had done @ 65 mb per frame, all my PG Film analysis, and he fails to even mention my articles and theories. He holds
the Richard Greenwell- style f&b take on all “cryptids” despite thousands of years of failure to find any remains.
He gives mild praise to Loren Coleman, ignoring his blatant theft and sale of Peter Byrne’s photos to TV, saying (wow)
that Coleman has claimed to have visited all 50 states in his search for Bigfoot (and found nothing).
He praises Richard Greenwell, (deceased) for 30 years of finding nothing and getting an honorary PhD from some
South American university for finding nothing and not realizing that continued failure requires opening new doors.
He says that Matt Moneymaker is an attorney, when he never passed the bar exam.
He does at least give short shrift to Rene Dahinden, also deceased.
He praised Tim Dinsdale,also deceased, not knowing Tim had told me in person, with a witness, that he was
a secret paranormalist and kept it quiet just to save his book sales.
He praised zoologist Ivan Sanderson, also deceased, ignoring that he had become an outspoken paranormalist in his last
year of life.
My major complaint is his lack of objectivity, something that the flawed Wikipedia at least trys to achieve.
Anything good? Yes, many references to odd beings with tidbits of info all gathered together in one place.
He did go into something I did not know,about divers in the Gulf encountering large, terrifying strange
sea monsters that eat each other as the divers watch.
On balance, I give it a C+. Worth having if you understand he is not neutral and is very incomplete.
Jon-Erik Beckjord, a cryptozoologist. http://www.beckjord.com
415-289-2277
Rating: 2 / 5
Many journals have recommended ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CRYPTOZOOLOGY and it’s easy to see why: it packs in the research material, adds reference and bibliographic notes, and features animals unrecognized by modern science in nations around the world. That said, it’s also recommended as a pick for college-level natural history collections and public library holdings alike: it packs in over two thousand reference entries on particular creatures, providing history of human interactions, natural history, and comments on environment. While not many general-interest readers would initially pick up ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CRYPTOZOOLOGY, figuring it too weighty for leisure reading, its articles and listings prove surprisingly accessible to general-interest readers, once you get past the impressive, technical-sounding title.
Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch
Rating: 5 / 5
I will agree with the reviewer ‘reader’ and say this is an excellent collection of up to date material. To the others all I can say is if you can’t be bothered to read something, let alone pay for it, then don’t bother reviewing it. It’s nothing but sour grapes. As for the price, you get what you pay for, and if all you want are $10 books then stick to the rehash in the bargain bin.
For those looking for a serious collection this is the book for you. You could buy twenty cheaper books and not get everything that is in this one issuance. The appendices alone should keep you going with any of the subjects you find interesting.
To be fair the illustrations are not the greatest but it isn’t intended to be a picture book.
Yes, it isn’t cheap but if this is where your interests lay this volume should be in your collection.
Rating: 5 / 5