KRIPTOZOLOGI PSEUDO SCIENCE

1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.  Real science makes precise claims that are supported by evidence. Pseudoscience makes claims that are not. Let's use "sasquatch" as an example. Where is the evidence, solid, testable, scientific evidence, that support the claims? Fuzzy photos are not it.
2. Extreme reliance on confirmation rather than refutation. Pseudoscience looks for evidence that confirms the belief, and ignores evidence that refutes it. Science is the reverse – all evidence is examined and a conclusion is formed from that. Again, back to sasquatch – "cryptozoologists" attempt to find evidence that supports the existence, while ignoring all else, including the lack of evidence. There is also an over reliance on anecdote, mythology, and other unscientific information.
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts. Pseudoscience is generally not subject to peer review, or, if it is, it's generally by a biased review. Has there ever been one single article supporting the existence of sasquatch in any of the important science journals – Nature, Science, PNAS, or whatever?
4. Absence of progress. Pseudoscience generally doesn't progress, because of the lack of evidence. So, the search of sasquatch has never provided any significant evidence, while relying on claims that are over 100 years old. Much like the Loch Ness Monster or any other cryptozoology claims. 
5. Personalization of issues. Pseudoscience is often composed of closely tied social groups, who condemn others with personal attacks.
6. Use of misleading language. They try to create scientific-sounding terms to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless.

Yes, there are times that "cryptozoology" got it right. But not because of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology, but because of the scientific method that was used by real scientists, subject to analysis and criticism of the review process, published in respected scientific journals. However, this is rare. Science has tried to find the Loch Ness Monster – there's nothing there.

Unlike actual zoology, cryptozoology considers anecdote and folklore to be "evidence," starts from the premise that the fantastical creatures it purports to study must exist, and accepts no evidence that they do not. 

Genuine science makes assertions that are falsifiable (that is, can be proven wrong) and then tries to fslsify them. Only if something resists falsification can it eventually be accepted, and even then, only until something comes along that falsifies it. Science's acceptance of a model or an idea is always qualified.

Cryptozoology starts with the premise that these creatures absolutely do exist, and then attempts to prove that they do. When these attempts fail--which they do--cryptozoologists do not use that failure to question the initial premise. They explain away the failures, often in very fanciful ways, but still insist that the creatures must exist. No evidence, or lack thereof, is sufficient to make them conclude they are chasing a phantasm.