Post edited 9:58 am – April 26, 2011 by Nosfer Post edited 9:59 am – April 26, 2011 by Nosfer
The final episode of the first half of the second season airs this Wednesday night. Sorry folks, you'll have to be content with reruns and the occasional marathon to get your FoF fix for a few months. Yeah, I know you'll all survive lol
Austin's stunt-inhumanness is ignored again in this episode and the grueling task of performing as a Muck Monster will be done by Ben and Devin. Accompanied by Jael, they head back to Florida (is this starting to sound like DT or what?) to investigate claims of a Muck Monster.
Just what IS a Muck Monster? Personally I think someone just filmed some guy trying to get up after having fallen in the mud during a kegger-gone-wrong. Whether or not this is the case, unless there has been a recent sighting, this goes back to at least 2009 which DOES keep with their trend of investigating videos older than the investigators themselves.
The video that caused the stir originally was this one:
in which all you see are ripples and nothing breaking the surface. However, we do have a much darker and more grainy film which shows something out of the water. THIS is more like what I'd expect for one of these videos, throw clarity out the porthole.
I do not know if this is the video FoF goes after but at the moment it is my odds-on favorite, and they do try to recreate a "spiny fin" (which in this video looks to me like a tail) Recall that MonsterQuest did an episode in this area years ago and that a manatee was suspected…one who's tail had been damaged by a propeller. Anyone like to take bets that FoF declares this to be a manatee with a forked tail? Or possibly a mermaid? (Or even Ricou Browning?)
A WPTV news story from last year (bit more recent finally) talking about the public being asked to help in finding the creature:
Chi-Lan is along because the subjects of this investigation are photographs which are claimed to show ghostly activity. Either that or it's because the FoF team needed her to drive the rental RV to the museum.
There's going to HAVE to be a night-time investigation done by the team here, doncha think? One in which Bill finds the ghost of an alien?
Drinking scenes:
Anytime you get the urge to start humming the theme from Jaws.
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
The reflection looks nothing like the "fetus" but it's close enough so they dismiss it. Yet they don't dismiss a similar look from Austin in the reflection nor try to refine their technique. Course, I shouldn't be surprised.
Bill: Can you make this flame raise higher, oops, oh no!
Headline in next day's paper: "Conflagration takes Whaley Museum"
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
Thank goodness the producers are avid fans of MonsterQuest:
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
Okay…this is nitpicking…but I really don't agree with Jael labeling the Muck Monster as an example of the "paranormal". I mean, it may be a cryptid or more likely a known but misidentified animal…but "paranormal" has a specific meaning that would not apply.
Ok, I don't wish to delve too deeply into this one…
Nosfer, I vaguely remember the first video that you linked in the original post. Wasn't the creature originally a snake-like creature? The video seems to support the movement of a snake much more than a manatee. Of course…wind is also a great option. Also, right around that time, wasn't there a second video showing a snake-type thing splashing around the shore near a pier? And then right after that…the monster transformed (ala the Chupacabra) into a lumpy, swirling mass…or a manatee, with several videos.
The second video link that you posted seemed pretty dark. I don't believe that I had seen it before. The one that I remember…it was sunnier. And then you posted the MQ clip…botta-bing, botta-boom…my sunny manatee.
You know…comparing MQ to FoF….MQ looks brilliant now, doesn't it? Even with Dale Pearson…
And Axel…hmmm. I'm pretty comfortable with cryptozoology flying under the flag of the paranormal. What specific meaning would the word "paranormal" have that couldn't pertain to imaginary animals (going by the biggest names in cryptozoology like Bigfoot, Nessie, etc have never been proven to exist) that some people believe in without scientific validation?
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
There were two videos of "muck monsters" that I posted in my preview. The first was the ripples with no evidence of what makes them, and this is supposedly the video that started the whole marketing-craze. The second is the darker one which was the one that FoF looked at last night. The only relationship that I am aware of between the two videos is that both were "claimed" to be of the "muck monster" Other than that, there's nothing to tie them together. Well, I guess they were both filmed in an aquatic environment, but other than that…
And then of course there was Sonny, the Manatee from MQ. While this was not a case of FoF explaining a particular video that had already been explained (that we know of) it WAS a case where the fin/tail that they ooohed and aaaaahed over should have raised some red flags and instead of filming trash in the water (and also plastic bags) they should have first started with the injured manatee angle, resolved it off camera, and brought us something better like a jackalope.
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
The first was the ripples with no evidence of what makes them, and this is supposedly the video that started the whole marketing-craze. The second is the darker one which was the one that FoF looked at last night. The only relationship that I am aware of between the two videos is that both were "claimed" to be of the "muck monster" Other than that, there's nothing to tie them together. Well, I guess they were both filmed in an aquatic environment, but other than that…
I've had some time to look at various sites. I've seen some t-shirts and such. But the saddest:
I remember people "creating" all sorts of snake-type monsters to fit the video. My favorite was a snake/eel type of thing with giant fangs. I'll see if I can happen upon it…it was really funny.
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
Post edited 7:40 pm – April 28, 2011 by Axel Olrik
Revenant said:
I'm pretty comfortable with cryptozoology flying under the flag of the paranormal. What specific meaning would the word "paranormal" have that couldn't pertain to imaginary animals (going by the biggest names in cryptozoology like Bigfoot, Nessie, etc have never been proven to exist) that some people believe in without scientific validation?
Really? To me they are quite distinct, although the SyFy stable consistently muddies the water.
The [paranormal] "denotes events or phenomena such as telekenesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of of normal scientific understanding."
Of course some areas of physics might meet this definition…which is why they are "spooky".
However, I never at any point felt that the Muck Monster (or the Yeti, Purple Kangaroo, or Mamlambo etc.) somehow defied the laws of terrestrial biology or, should they exist, would be "beyond the scope of scientific understanding".
I thought of them as "cryptids": (species of animals) " that are either unknown or though thought to be extinct, may have survived into modern times and await rediscovery by scientists." (Definition from "Cryptomundo", although it seems to be widely accepted). Some cryptids are more probable than others, and some shade into legend or myth or take a greater degree of "faith" to believe in, but it does seem that the concept of cryptid requires some form of biological reality.
It may just be a personal distinction, and there are certainly creatures that straddle the fence between the two definitions (e.g. the Chupacabra in its many and various guises); but it does seem that when Josh Gates is hunting a cryptid, which witness believe to be a real and corporal animal, it is a fundamentally different process than when J&G attempt to make contact with a paranormal entity whose nature and expression are entirely unsubstantial and inconsistent with "normal scientific understanding".
Or "Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" Cryptids are not normally experienced (if ever) and are also not known yet by science, thus beyond normal scientific explanation.
"but it does seem that when Josh Gates is hunting a cryptid, which witness believe to be a real and corporal animal, it is a fundamentally different process than when J&G attempt to make
contact with a paranormal entity whose nature and expression are entirely unsubstantial and inconsistent with "normal scientific understanding"."
Why would corporeal be the deciding factor? "which witness believe to be a real and 'corporeal' animal" How is that fundamentally different than J&G attempting to make contact with… What they investigate normally has a witness, just like Josh's, and is beyond current scientific knowledge (just like cryptids) The only difference is the corporeal aspect that you mention which I do not see as a determining factor.
"unsubstantial" Loch Ness is unsubstantiated. Big Foot is unsubstantiated.
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
Post edited 10:34 pm – April 28, 2011 by Axel Olrik
But "unsubstantial" is not a synonym or variant of "unsubstantiated". The latter refers to something that is" not substantiated; unproved or unverified"; and could describe either a paranormal event or a cryptid.
"Unsubstantial", in the sense I was using it, means "without material substance" as in a ghost or spirit. It would, mediumistic ectoplasm excluded, by definition be descriptive of an immaterial or disembodied entity: One that lacks corporeal (i.e. "having, consisting of, or relating to a physical material body: as a: not spiritual b: not immaterial or intangible") existence. And as such is "beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation."
I think the distinction still lies in the presumed nature of the entity. Cryptids, whether proven to exist or not, are proposed to be living, biological entities subject to material investigation and documentation; ghosts, elementals, demons etc. are not.
Presumed by…. ? I don't see anything in the definition about the subject needing to be of solid form.
Question: What does a ghost supposedly consist of? Or a demon?
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
Post edited 10:58 pm – April 28, 2011 by Axel Olrik
I thought of them as "cryptids": (species of animals) " that are either unknown or though thought to be extinct, may have survived into modern times and await rediscovery by scientists."
Animal: A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things,
Cryptid: This link has a nice discussion of the origin of the word and its definition.
I think the distinction still lies in the presumed nature of the entity. Cryptids, whether proven to exist or not, are proposed to be living, biological entities subject to material investigation and documentation; ghosts, elementals, demons etc. are not.
This is not necessarily true. For example, Mothman is often described as "inter-dimensional." If one believes that aspect (and why would that aspect be more absurd than any other?), well, then all bets are off. A being from another dimension may not "living" as we understand it, it may not be biological in nature and we may not have the ability to subject it to any sort of material investigation or documentation (for example emitting an EMP to knock out both audio and visual recording devices). I mean…this is cryptozoology, it isn't chemistry. We can make up this stuff as we go along.
Thank you for the link from Cryptomundo. I found this quote interesting:
"Cryptids are either unknown species of animals or animals which, though thought to be extinct, may have survived into modern times and await rediscovery by scientists."
So…would that mean that every single dinosaur known to man (and unknown…) is technically a cryptid? Um…anyone else have a problem with how broad of a definition that that can be?
Anyway, if interested, I wrote this a while back…see what you think if you get a chance:
Axel, no where in the definition of paranormal is anything mentioned about the substantive nature of the subject. Going to the true definition of the term, that is looking at it's roots, there is nothing in there that requires it to be solid. "Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" covers cryptids quite nicely.
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
Thank you for the link from Cryptomundo. I found this quote interesting:
"Cryptids are either unknown species of animals or animals which, though thought to be extinct, may have survived into modern times and await rediscovery by scientists."
So…would that mean that every single dinosaur known to man (and unknown…) is technically a cryptid? Um…anyone else have a problem with how broad of a definition that that can be?
The "may have survived into modern times" is the key phrase here. If thought to be still roaming around today, such a dinosaur would qualify as a cryptid I'd think
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
And since I'm a cryptozoologist myself (prove that I'm not), if I say that "all" the known dinosaurs are still roaming around today or they could be….then…that's good enough. They suddenly become cryptids. It's as easy and as absurd as that.
Anyway…if any are interested in furthering this aspect of the conversation, then perhaps someone should create a new topic in either the General Paranormal section (What is Paranormal?) or the Cryptozoological section (What is a Cryptid?). Although it's been fun…we're really straying from the nonsense that is FoF.
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
(or should those be capitals?)
Thank goodness the producers are avid fans of MonsterQuest:
Topic RSS 
