Supporters often argue that cryptozoological evidence is evaluated not on its merits or failings, but rather based on opinions of researchers, or on prevailing paradigms or world views. For example, biological anthropologists Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum have cited what they perceive to be ample physical evidence in support of the existence of Bigfoot, suggesting a surviving population of gigantopithecines. However, their arguments regarding Bigfoot have largely been dismissed by other scientists. Another supposedly well-attested cryptid that was largely ignored by scientists was the Minnesota Iceman of the 1960s, purportedly an unidentified hominid corpse inspected by two cryptozoologists, Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans.
Supporters claim that as in legitimate scientific fields, cryptozoologists are often responsible for disproving their own objects of study. For example, some cryptozoologists have collected evidence that disputes the validity of some facets of the Bigfoot phenomenon.
Cryptozoology supporters have claimed that in the early days of Western exploration of the world, many native tales of local animals initially dismissed as superstition by Western scientists were later proven to have a basis in biological fact, and that many unfamiliar animals, when initially reported, were considered hoaxes, delusions or misidentifications.
There are several species cited as examples for continuing cryptozoological efforts:
* Cryptzoologists claim the Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) was previously dismissed as folklore/myth, due to lack of evidence and fossils, before being confirmed in 1902.
* The
coelacanth, a "living fossil" which represents an order of fish believed to have been extinct for 65 million years, was identified from a specimen found in a fishing net in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. According to Dash, the Coelacanth is a good case for paying close attention to natives' knowledge of animals: though the fish's survival was a complete surprise to outsiders, it was so well known to locals that natives commonly used the fish's rough scales as a sort of sandpaper.
* The 1976 discovery of the previously unknown
megamouth shark off Oahu, Hawaii, has been cited by cryptozoologists to support the existence of other purported marine cryptids. Zoologist Ben S. Roesch agrees the discovery of megamouth proves "the oceans have a lot of secrets left to reveal," but simultaneously cautions against applying the "megamouth analogy" too broadly to hypothetical creatures, as the megamouth avoided discovery due to specific behavioral adaptations that would not fit most other cryptids. Cryptozoologists contend that as deep ocean remain unexplored, cryptozoological claims about oceanic cryptids should be given more credence. By plotting the discovery rate of new species, C. G. M. Paxton estimated that as many as 47 large oceanic species remain undiscovered.While the Megamouth is not a useful analogy to support the existence of marine "cryptids" in general, it does demonstrate the resistance of science to identify new large species of marine animals without a corpse. Sightings of Megamouths now number approximately one a year. Before the discovery, one could argue this consistent sighting record was also present, but that the sightings were ignored or discredited as of some other animal.
*
The Hoan Kiem Turtle was previously thought to be a local legend and classified as a cryptid, before conclusive evidence for its existence was accepted around 1998–2002.
* The 2003 discovery of the fossil remains of
Homo floresiensis, thought to be a descendant of earlier Homo erectus, was cited by paleontologist Henry Gee of the journal Nature, as possible evidence that humanoid cryptids like the orang pendek and Yeti were "founded on grains of truth." Additionally, Gee declared, "cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold."
