The Static Archive

THE STATIC ARCHIVE

I cannot guarentee that the links are active or unchanged in the archived opinions.

Posted Nov. 8, 2007

Praise For Seeker

While many followers of cryptozoology are focusing somewhat on the History Channel’s “Monster” series (which I’ll comment on at a later time), I got a little excited about a blog that I finally had time to read. The title is a rather long one, so I will simply say that it is at cz.com and can be found here.

Instead of going into any kind of detail, I would simply like to encourage folks to read it. It contains the elements I most like to see in a cryptozoology blog: imagination, skeptical thought, a genuine scientific approach, and good old basic common sense. And the writer does it all without demeaning belief or denouncing cryptid existence. Or at least, not so it’s obvious, anyway.

The writer goes by the member name of Seeker, though I believe he should switch to his real name and tap into a little recognition for incredibly intelligent writing. This isn’t the only blog he has written that has snared both my attention and admiration; he has also posted a number of boastful contributions in the past. Sadly, it did not get the attention it richly deserved from a site that, not too long ago, commonly linked to the blogs of cz.com. I’m speaking of the Anomalist. The much visited site once linked to a fair number of blogs from cz.com, but has not done so for a while now; which is a shame, because if ever a blog deserved the attention of a wider audience, it’s the one I linked to above.

There really isn’t anything more to say without rambling, so I’ll simply express my appreciation to Seeker for another excellent blog and look forward to further contributions in the (hopefully not too distant) future.

Posted Oct. 31, 2007

The Jacobs Photos

The Jacobs Creature, as it has come to be called, has roiled the “Bigfoot” waters a bit, but not enough to cause any waves. In fact, contrary to the intentions of a few dubious people, the entire thing hardly rippled. The followers of Bigfootdom debated the photos briefly, and came to an overwhelmingly unanimous decision: It’s a mangy bear.

One good thing that I have seen come out of this superficial turmoil is that even most diehard Bigfoot believers unquestionably see a bear in the photos. This shows that rationality is not a stranger (at least in this case) to many who believe in, or accept the possible existence of, Bigfoot.

There is, however, a small minority of believers who stubbornly insist that it is, or might be, a young Sasquatch. If nothing else, these images have effectively weeded out the extremely obsessive Bigfoot followers who are controlled by an insatiable need to believe; so much so that they cast away all common sense and rationality and boldly deny the obvious. The believers can now see which followers are science-minded (or at least allowing for some form of skepticism), and which are mindlessly dramatic. That is, if they haven't figured it out already.

It was very heartening to see the vast majority easily recognize and accept the truth. I very much hope to see further such examples of common sense in the future.

Posted Oct. 3, 2007

The following links are to news articles discussing the lack of sightings recently at Loch Ness:

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

Please read at least one of the linked articles before reading the opinion.

My Opinion

It appears that Nessie has grown weary of the spotlight; visitors to the loch don’t seem to be sighting her as much as they did in the past. Die hard believers have a variety of reasons for her excessive shyness as of late, but those reasons are, of course, pure speculation. You know, just like everything else that’s ever been written or said by those who completely believe in the Loch Ness Monster.

Folks who rely on tourism to make their living are understandably concerned with the sudden lack of sightings. Without Nessie, it is feared that Loch Ness will become just another ordinary loch, save for its legendary history, and would be good for little more than beautiful vistas and peaceful fishing. I dare say that the locals who care nothing for tourism would very likely favor a less popular, more peaceful Loch Ness.

Though the tourist trade may surely suffer to some degree, I found one quote, in most of the news articles, credited to Mikko Takala quite amusing: “It's becoming a potential crisis.” I’m curious as to how the recent rarity of sightings can be a potential “crisis”. Is the lack of sightings some sort of fateful omen for the world? If Mikko isn’t speaking of his own financial worries and/or loss of popularity in the Loch Ness realm, then why such a melodramatic response to folks failing to see Nessie as often as they once did? Would the disappearance of the Loch Ness Monster truly be a “crisis”? Of course not; absolutely nothing would change beyond the shores of Loch Ness, save for a bit of disappointment among the truest believers, who would by no means cease believing. And even among those who depend upon Nessie to make their living, it wouldn’t be a crisis so much as an opportunity for change or redirection. Some of the more resourceful folks in the tourist trade would surely find a way to make the decline of sightings work to their favor. Perhaps they might agree with those who say that there are only one or two beasts left in the loch, and for this reason photos would be worth a great deal more than they once were. For a mere £3 the boat operator will take them on a cruise of the loch, regale them with legends of the monster, and even pay £5,000 for a photo of the beast, should the photo meet all the proper criteria of course. And should the tourist fail to get the prized photo, well, there are always cute little figurines at the “Monster” shops that stubbornly hang on.

Just because the Loch Ness Monster disappears does not mean that imagination will disappear with it. Perhaps the number of tourists will decrease with the sightings, but I don’t believe tourism will simply come to a stop. Even without the monster, Loch Ness is a legend in and of itself; a legend that can never die, and people will still want to see that legend.

In contrast to Mikko’s quote, there is another quote in the news articles that I very much hope is true:

“I think we live in a more pragmatic age, and that people are becoming more aware of the sort of illusions that can occur on water.” -Adrian Shine

Not to deflate the importance of imagination in everyday life, but how nice it would be if, in the world of cryptozoology, people exercised wisdom over passion, common sense over whim, and rationality over dreaming.

Out of curiosity, am I the only one who wonders how often the Loch Ness Monster would have been seen, or how it would have been described by the majority of people who claimed to see it if Christian Spurling had sculpted his toy a bit differently?

Posted Sept. 13, 2007

The following discussion was posted here to the question: What is open-minded to you?

"Being willing to believe in and explore a possibility, but if the possibility proves to be a non-possibility, or non-probability, then being able to adjust my position on the matter accordingly. It does not mean blindly accepting someones tale of the paranormal, supernatural or the cryptozoological without an iota of physical evidence as a scientifically proven fact to back it up. Honest people make mistakes and dishonest people lie. Being open to everything without regard to the evidence is gullibility, not open mindedness. Somethings just don't pan out, others hold open a possibility. Such as there has never been any scientific evidence recognizing a colony of dinosaurs in Africa or pterosaurs in the South Pacific, but the giant squid had left physical evidence of its existance (sucker scars on whales, scars on a survivor of an attack during WWII, a claw found in the torn sonar dome of a US naval vessel) before it was finally caught on film.

--BillB

Who are the credible people who have ever seriously scientifically examined evidence of the paranormal? Did they examine evidence, or try to explain away? There's numerous sightings, photos & videos (one might include Patty), foot-prints & hand-prints & body-prints, hair samples/ectoplasm, cold-spots, anomalous movement of objects, voices on recordings, etc. There's more body of evidence for the paranormal in general than there is for giant squid at the moment, minus the bodies; and that's likely because it was taken more seriously.

--de_hart

Your questions must be rhetorical. It would seem that you already have your answers and would hardly be interested in mine.

--BillB

I'd listen to your reply;)

I've yet to hear of scientists that don't sound like weirdos themselves involved in serious research. Apparently the soviet government took psychic research seriously at least for awhile. Mostly it's the religious and scientific who try to disprove instead of "study." And the opposite end of the spectrum is full of hoaxers, money grubbers and new age flakes (my opinion/no offense really intended to any flakes reading this). I don't myself much trust what other people say because of liars and frauds, etc., but can't discount my own personal experiences.

--de_hart

"I'd listen to your reply;)"

No you didn't, you started hopping up and down without having the feintest idea in what I believe in and what I don't. Did you know that I am experimenting with EVPs because I find them very interesting and have not bought the official, "....it's a radio broadcast...." for those that seem to be cogent and understandable? Did you know that a friend and I experimented with photographing orbs and after our attempts at debunking them we agreed that the vast majority of reported orbs are in fact dust and/or moisture in the environment, but there are some that seem to fall outside of that explanation? I think that most of the reports of psychic or paranormal events are people who want it to be true, but their reports are not; however there are events that occur that seem to lack a quick and easy explanation. I do think that hoaxes have become the catch-all explanation for things that cannot be explained easily, the same way "paranormal BF" has become the explanation for something else that cannot be explained.

People get lazy and sometimes choose to accept an unreasonable position on something that may have a reasonable explanation. I don't blindly accept any position without having first considered the options. Living dinosaurs in Africa and pterosaurs flying around the South Pacific are science fiction because there is no physical evidence to support the theory that they survived beyond the extinction. I accept that BF is most likely a legend, but I hope not. (As an audiophile, this Fall I intend to begin recording sounds in the forests around me to see if I might be able to duplicate some of the sounds recorded elsewhere. But as someone who knows that people perpetrate hoaxes, I will not let on to anyone but a select few where I will be at any time so as to reduce the chances of being the subject of a hoax). There are no chupacabras. Mothman never existed.

The likelihood of actually finding a cryptozoological discovery, like a large animal is extremely minimal. I don't begrudge anyone who wants to believe in large cryptoids out there, but I find it intellectually dishonest and personally offensive to hear claims of existance for creatures without any solid evidence to back them up. I believe in God. I can't scientifically prove His existance, so I make [no] attempt at presenting "evidence" to support His existance. I am honest about that, and I expect people to be equally honest with me.

But as far as seeking cryptoids, someone else stated, "...it's not the destination, it's the journey..." And I do wish everyone a great journey.

--BillB

My Opinion

Here we have two people; BillB, who stands on a foundation of reason, logic, rationality, and the scientific method. While the other, de_hart, seems to float (more than stand) in a world of his own making without apparent reason, logic, or rationality, but with a clear derision of "the scientific".

BillB attempts to follow established rules for learning and study. de_hart contemptuously discards such rules, and makes up his own to fit the parameters of what he wants to believe.

It would be pointless to ramble on about what is quite obviously seen here. Suffice it to say, let de_hart and the like live in thier fantasy worlds; they aren't hurting anyone. Just don't listen to them unless you wish to be entertained and nothing more. BillB and the like, on the other hand, approach learning, study, and research in such a manner that we can learn a great deal from them. I may not necessarily agree with everthing BillB has to say, but he nevertheless has my respect, admiration and attention.

Addendum:I just saw this post, and loved it so much I just had to add it here. It's from the same topic as the above discussion:

Open-mindedness is the ability to change one's opinion or views on a subject matter when shown compelling evidence to the contrary. Of course, we all have different ideas of what is compelling evidence, and personally I have yet to see any for paranormal phenomena or "famous" cryptids really.
--mysticete

An entire book ingeniously compressed into a small paragraph. Yet one more rational thinker who has my attention.

Posted Sept. 10, 2007

The following opinion (printed here in portion) was posted here, and then reposted here.

Because the origin and intent of the opinion is unknown to me, in posting portions of the opinion here, I feel it necessary to make mention of section 107 of the copyright law: fair use.

(The emphases are mine)

"SIX THINGS A NEW BIGFOOT RESEARCHER SHOULD THINK ABOUT

1. BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE, HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.

2. BE WARY OF PEOPLE. YOU WILL LEARN MORE ABOUT HUMAN NATURE THAN YOU EVER WILL ABOUT BIGFOOT.

As for the cynics (I differentiate them from mere skeptics), know that you will always have the advantage over them. It's very easy to be cynical, especially about a subject as elusive and complex as Bigfoot. Cynics think there is very little risk involved in taking their position, but there is one great risk. It is impossible for them to prove that Bigfoot does NOT exist; there is no practical way for them to do that. It is entirely possible for you TO prove it if it DOES exist, if you find that elusive body. Then you can pull the toilet handle and make them all swirl down into the septic tank of irrelevance, and the last word would be all yours.

3. BE OBJECTIVE. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A THEORY AND A BELIEF.

4. ALWAYS QUESTION YOUR ASSUMPTIONS.

5. BE SKEPTICAL, OBJECTIVE AND REALISTIC ABOUT EVIDENCE AND KNOW ITS LIMITATIONS.

Photographs and film. Some very well known (to us, anyway) pieces of evidence fall into this category. They also tend to be the most controversial, and their actual value as evidence is hotly debated. You have the same problems here as with footprints since there is always the possibility of misinterpretation and forgery. As with casts, you can at most demonstrate only the possibility that something was indeed recorded on film. The Patterson film and the saga surrounding it should be an abject lesson to all those who think that film evidence by itself can be demonstrable proof of the animal's existence. It's valuable only if the person examining it is already predisposed to believe in the animal's existence. It will never constitute evidence to those who are not. If you are predisposed to accept it, film and video can be valuable. Much was learned about the animal's actual appearance and movement from the Patterson film by those who chose to accept it as genuine. So it is worthwhile to take a camera with you on your trips, just don't expect any real recognition to come from it no matter how good your results may be. The most you can hope for is to perhaps convince someone to pay closer attention to the phenomenon.

6. THE BIGFOOT MYSTERY IS SOLVABLE, AND YOU CAN BE THE ONE WHO SOLVES IT."

--Mr. Steve Hyde

My Opinion

Anyone who followed the links provided above and read the entire opinion, or who have already read the opinion previously will generally agree that what Mr. Hyde has written is reasonable and logical for the most part. However, it does contain a number of problems; some are pointed out by members on the forums that are linked to above. There are two problems in particular that I would like to point out here.

The first is where Mr. Hyde states that it is impossible for the cynic (as Mr. Hyde prefers to call a skeptic) to prove that Bigfoot does NOT exist, (first emphasis). While this statement is very true, Mr. Hyde is nevertheless untrue to his own opinion of objective skepticism by failing to point out that it is just as impossible to prove that unicorns do not exist. For that matter, we could add that the existence of three-headed ogres, jabberwockies, heffalumps, and invisible mind-sucking frumplesnorts also cannot be disproven. As has been pointed out numerous times by many others, demanding proof of nonexistence is a logical fallacy and a sure sign of desperation by those who are unable to prove existence. After hundreds of years of legend, lore, sightings, etc, there is not one shred of conclusive evidence that Bigfoot exists. Mr. Hyde can keep his ready hand on the proverbial toilet handle as long as he likes, but I won’t be holding my breath.

Despite the title line of point five, especially the first two words: "BE SKEPTICAL", Mr. Hyde clearly states his position of the Patterson film (second emphasis) as believing it is of a genuine Bigfoot. This is an incredible contradiction, as there is not the least hint of skepticism involved. The Patterson film is admittedly persuasive, but nonetheless highly controversial and far from proof that the figure in the film is not a man in a suit. Then Mr. Hyde contradicts his plea to be “objective and realistic about evidence and know its limitations”, by stating that, “Much was learned about the animal's actual appearance and movement from the Patterson film…”. Compared to what? I have to laugh at that because there is absolutely zero comparable evidence to support that statement in the tiniest way. It’s just as possible that much was learned about the actual appearance and movement of a man in a hot heavy suit under the direction of a hoaxer.

It appears that Mr. Hyde is redefining “skepticism” for the Bigfoot believer in an attempt to justify a belief that has no conclusive scientific support whatsoever. Instead of asking the reader to approach the “possibility” of the existence of Bigfoot carefully, he encourages them to bypass “possibility” and to accept & approach the “existence” of Bigfoot carefully. That would completely defeat the purpose of skepticism, scientific or otherwise. Those who follow Mr. Hyde’s six points by the letter are doomed to fail. The only thing that Mr. Hyde is truly flushing when he pulls his toilet handle is rationality.

Reader Feedback

ROFL!!!!! Very funny stuff, especially the "invisible mind-sucking frumplesnorts".

"it is just as impossible to prove that unicorns do not exist. For that matter, we could add that the existence of three-headed ogres, jabberwockies, heffalumps,"

Well, each of those are improbable morphologies within this biosphere. Sasquatch is not an improbable morphology.

--Z.Z.

Webmaster's Note: This is very true, but I didn't dare mention Chupacabra, Mothman, and Jersey Devil for fear that they might come after me.

Posted Sept. 7, 2007

The following is quoted from CZ.com

Although, the "true cryptids" seem to me to be more of a paranormal nature the more I look into things that can be a good-thing. Anyone can study and potentially have success with paranormal; college degrees and geographic location have little to do with your potential success.
--de_hart

My Opinion

So, are we to infer from this statement that [apparently] in order for a cryptid to be “true” it must “be more of a paranormal nature”?

To question the paranormal would require a great many more words than I wish to contribute to this opinion. However, I will question the paranormal nature of a cryptid.

What evidence do we have to support the paranormal among cryptids, aside from hearsay, which is extremely unreliable and the most worthless of evidence?

Does it make more sense to attribute the fact that we have no type specimens to paranormal abilities in cryptids than to simply say that they probably just don’t exist?

Despite this logical fallacy and a complete lack of evidence to allow for even the most remote possibility of a paranormal cryptid, a fair number of people whole-heartedly believe they exist.

Should that belief be questioned or challenged, they do not make even the slightest attempt to substantially defend their belief, but instead accuse those who challenge them of being afraid to step outside their socio-scientific box. They do this while wrapped tightly in their own little box; a box of ignorance that they neither step out of or look out of to see the reality that surrounds them.

“Anyone can study and potentially have success with paranormal; college degrees and geographic location have little to do with your potential success.”

This is so true that I cannot help but completely agree: Any uneducated fool can easily sit in his/her easy chair while growing fat on potato chips and cheese puffs and find incredible success in pretense.

Reader Feedback

LOL!

Personally I do not ascribe paranormal abilities to cryptids. There is no need to reach into the realm of the paranormal when simple normal abilities are more than sufficient to allow cryptids to remain hidden from us.

Why haven't we found Sasquatch?

Simple.

He knows we are there a long time before we ever get near him. He can hear that SUV coming up the mountain from 10 miles away, and beats feet outta there before we even park it.

--Z.Z.

-----------------------

I certainly have come the full circle myself in my interest of cryptids. From the belief in something flesh and blood to the understanding that ideas and myths can take on life and become a phenomenon seperate from that which began it.

The fun and interesting part is the journey itself and the friends that you make. It's easy to see how a fellow traveler can step off in a certain direction at a cross roads; one chooses the road with the paranormal view while others like myself step in the direction of human psychology.

The road winds onward ever onward, perhaps none who walk it may ever see a cryptid...if they're lucky they may get a glimpse at understanding why they chose that road.

--Rangoon

Posted Sept. 3, 2007

The following is quoted from CZ.com

I have been informed that a group of you "hunters" will be coming to Missouri to HUNT the sasquatch in the region I live. It is ILLEGAL to hunt them as they are not a specified game species that may be hunted or trapped in Missouri. It is also illegal to hunt ANYTHING without a permit. Furthermore, using nightvision equipment while armed is also highly illegal, as is baiting, and using surround techniques. Your hunt will be unsuccessful. The woods will remain silent for you (I'll make sure of THAT) and if you're ignorant enough to come here, the Conservation agents will perhaps be more convincing if I am not. Here is a letter from the Missouri Department of Conservation:

...As previously noted, the Wildlife Code of Missouri specifies when and under what circumstances animals may be killed, and no hunting or trapping season is specified for "MoMo.'

Bill Heatherly
Wildlife Programs Supervisor
Missouri Department of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180

--Nammi-Speaks

My Opinion

Some people might read the above quote and sing, "Koo-Koo". Others will no doubt simply write her off as just another eccentric cryptozoology fan.

But some of us read it and see many signs of a neurotic personality disorder.

Allow me to demonstrate:

"I have been informed that a group of you "hunters" will be coming to Missouri to HUNT the sasquatch in the region I live."

Who informed her? What proof does she have that the hunters are "sasquatch hunters"?

A neurosis of this sort touches upon paranoia and narcissism. A number of variables can be responsible for this kind of neurosis, but generally it is the result of emotional immaturity and low self esteem which is commonly sparked by social rejection and/or physical disadvantages such as being overweight and unattractive, which in turn encourages a denial of reality. It is this "denial of reality" that causes the neurotic paranoid to distrust nonexistent "sasquatch hunters", and the neurotic narcissist to control them with warnings against hunting a creature that has not even been proven to exist.

"It is ILLEGAL to hunt them as they are not a specified game species that may be hunted or trapped in Missouri."

"Not a specified game species". I suppose one could add unicorns, fairies, and gnomes to that list. Warning imaginary Sasquatch hunters that it is illegal to hunt a creature for which there is no absolute proof of existence is indicative of a neurotic narcissist creating a situation in which to exercise dominion and control. An attempt is made in the next sentence to show need for, and give credence to this "control" by listing a few basic and obvious hunting rules. It might even be seen as an attempt to disguise the neurosis.

But then she offers us this wonderful little line: "Your hunt will be unsuccessful. The woods will remain silent for you (I'll make sure of THAT)..." And just how will she make sure of "THAT"? A search for previous posts in cryptozoology.com by Nammi-Speaks reveals that she claims to be in contact with sasquatch. Even should sasquatch ever prove to be real, I believe that the sasquatch that Nammi-Speaks claims to know are imaginary. A common sign among female neurotic narcissists is the enhancement of social power among "special" others. Such "others" are always imaginary.

A neurosis that paranoia and narcissism share in common is the need for attention. Indeed, an endless need for attention is paramount to a neurotic paranoid narcissist, and she will do anything to get that attention; even warning everyone that she is going to protect imaginary creatures that have, thus far, evidently never needed protection. The very name "Nammi-Speaks" veritably shouts, 'Give me your attention'.

Nammi-Speaks then uses an excerpt from an alleged letter from the Missouri Department of Conservation to back up her attention getting warning.

I emailed Bill Heatherly to verify the letter and its contents. This is his response:

Dear ES:

According to folklore, "MoMo" is the name of a "Bigfoot"- or "Abominable Snowman"-type creature that some claim is present in Missouri.

I received an e-mail from a person inquiring about the likely status of "MoMo" as related to the Wildlife Code of Missouri. I responded that all native wildlife is protected by the provisions of the Code but that the Code provides for the taking of wildlife under specified circumstances, such as during prescribed hunting and trapping seasons. Because the Code does not specifically prescribe a hunting or trapping season for "MoMo," in theory such an animal could not legally be taken. However, I also noted that our Department has no evidence that such a creature exists or is present in Missouri.

I hope this information is of help. Please contact me if you have other questions.

Bill Heatherly
Wildlife Programs Supervisor
Missouri Department of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
phone: (573) 522-4115, ext. 3262
fax: (573) 526-4663
e-mail: Bill.Heatherly@mdc.mo.gov

Emphasis is mine. Much thanks to Mr. Heatherly for his quick response.

Apparently Nammi's neurosis takes her out of her way to get her attention. MoMo is not evident, so what is Nammi-Speaks protecting really, if not her neurosis?

Cryptozoology fandom has its share of people like Nammi-Speaks. If they are truly neurotic, then toleration and mature acceptance is the key. If, however, I am wrong, and they are not neurotic, then they are at least very entertaining.

REFERENCES:

Morf, C.C. and Rhodewalt, F. (2001), Unraveling the Paradoxes of Narcissism: A Dynamic Self-Regulatory Processing Model, Psychological Inquiry

Tschanz, B.T., Morf, C.C. and Turner, C.M. (1998), Gender differences in the structure of narcissism: A multi-sample analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Sex Roles, Vol. 38

Rhodewalt, F., Tragakis, M.W. and Finnerty, J. (2001), Narcissism and self-handicapping, Linking self-aggrandizement to behavior, Department of Psychology, University of Utah

Morf, C.C., Weir, C.R. and Davidov, M. (2000), Narcissism and intrinsic motivation: The role of goal congruence, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 36

Reader Feedback

I read the original post at CZ the day she posted it.

It sounds like you hit the nail right on the head when you point out the similarities between her post/personality and neurotic narcissism.

--Z.Z.

--------------------------

Funny.

I asked on that very thread, how she might 'keep the woods silent' and all i got was "thats my secret". In other words, 'i have no idea, because i'm just making this up as i go'.

--anon

--------------------------

This definately isn't the first time she has commanded an audience with her nonsense. She shows up at CZ.com to stir up trouble every now and then when things start to die down. We humor her no doubt.

--Tsigili

--------------------------

Yeah, the dangling carrot tactic that turned me off on her in the first place. "Ive got a secret and Im not gonna tell you, nyah nyah nyah..." She appears to be full of feces to me.

--Z.Z.

--------------------------

Thank you.

--lowredx

--------------------------

Nammi-Speaks displays all the attributes which are so often present around crypto-related discussion & which so often deny it any opportunity whatsoever of credibility.

--Stu

Back to Main