Terror is a very, very real thing. [True Story inside, click if you dare]

[ShadowFireLance]

Alright, I guess this is the best forum, as it's not a story of anything involving media or whatnot, So it's going here.

This is a 100% true story, as witnessed by myself and five others.

So, Once a year I go camping, to the same place, every year.
Usually go with more people, but lives change and stuff, so it was only;
Myself, My Brother, One of his friends, A Girl from School, Her boyfriend, and Our resident Boy scout.

So, the day begins as normal, we arrive (two hour drive, middle of ****nowhere) at the Park. It's cold here, so we have the place generally to ourselves. We unpack and stuff, Girl and Boyfriend move a good deal away from everyone else, because we all know. Spend the day doing whatever, eating, wondering around the forest, random crap.
Around 5ish, We're making a fire, cause hungry. Finally get it going, when the smell of blood wafts itself to us. REALLY strong, like your nose is next to it strong. We look at each other and ask if any of us had been cut, but nope, nothing. I See movement out of Eye corner, look, see something moving far off distance, about height of deer. No bigge, think it's deer, move on.
The smell goes away after about..an hour or so? But the strangest thing is, It just vanishes, Like one moment it's there, and the next, Poof. Really odd.
It's about 9 now, And getting dark.

Now, one thing you should know about me is, I'm highly reactive and very paranoic when it comes to threatening things. I always have some form of blade on my person, usually quite large. I also have a 9mm Pistol I like to carry. I have both of these.

So, everyone generally retires to tents, after eating and crap. Blood smell returns. Yeah, Slightly freaked out at this point, don't know anything that smells like that, but I'm a city boy, so whateves.
Go sleep, Boyscout and Brother's friend in same tent, myself and bro in tent, and BF/GF in same tent.

Wake up a couple of hours later, check watch, and wonder why in Tiamat's name I'm awake. It's 12:06. Clearly remember that.
Note the fact some birds are making little noises, like going to sleep. Assume they might have been startled.
Silence.
Complete, and utter, silence. Adren rush, Fully awake.
Hear walking, ever. So. Silent. Walking. Like the amount of noise socked feet make on carpet. Except, it's snowy.

Slowly, Slowly stick head out of tent, full Combat mode is active, I'm sweating heavily. Something Very, Very Off is standing there, About 8ft tall, ****ing deer head, antlers and all. Blood smell is in full force.
Frozen with fear, I'm just watching it, hoping it doesn't look this way.

Wonders around, kicks at the ground a bit around the campfire, then walks towards the woods. Unnatural walk, like gliding more than actual walking.
Right as it enters the tree line, It looks right at me, I mean, directly at me.
And it ****ing smiles, then resumes walking into the woods.

After the blood smell poofs, I get everyone awake, and we break every speed limit known to man. When we get home, I remember something terrifying; As we were leaving, it was standing on the campsite, right where we were camping, but none of us noticed in our rush to get the hell outta dodge.

So yeah, This happened today, Just got back, freaked out as hell. Shaking, Barely able to type. Don't quite feel like removing myself from the bedroom with no windows that I'm in currently.

[blunk]

Cool! Was this in Wendigo territory?

[Zrak]

It was just standing there? That seems fine. It probably thought you smelled weird, too.

[GoblinArchmage]

Sorry about that, OP. That was me. I was hungry, and when I smelt the fire I assumed you would be cooking some food. Of course you didn't leave any out for me, though. Thanks a lot. I really appreciate how thoughtful you were.

That smile was ironic, by the way. I'll also have you know that, while I was walking away, I called you some pretty nasty names. How do you feel about that? It hurts, doesn't it? That's how I felt when you didn't leave me any food.

[ShadowFireLance]

Cool! Was this in Wendigo territory?
I'm in Missouri, so I have no clue.


It was just standing there? That seems fine. It probably thought you smelled weird, too.
Seems fine, yes. When something that unnatural looks at you and smiles, You know something's up.



Sorry about that, OP. That was me. I was hungry, and when I smelt the fire I assumed you would be cooking some food. Of course you didn't leave any out for me, though. Thanks a lot. I really appreciate how thoughtful you were.

That smile was ironic, by the way. I'll also have you know that, while I was walking away, I called you some pretty nasty names. How do you feel about that? It hurts, doesn't it? That's how I felt when you didn't leave me any food.

Alright, you got a laugh from me.

[LaZodiac]

The realist in me is saying it's probably a trick of the light that it smiled and it was gliding around, since...deer heads can't really SMILE, per say. The blood smell could easily be explained since if it's a deer, it probably gored some stuff on it's horns (it's size says it's probably a male and thus would have big ole horns for doing this). Additionally, while being paranoid and it being midnight, the chance of seeing illusory things is increased.

The other part of me says "oh my god you saw a minotaur ghost"

[GoblinArchmage]

In all seriousness, it was probably Satan. When the girlfriend and boyfriend couple went off to do their own thing, they were obviously summoning him. I can support this further by pointing out that I was trying to summon him around the same time, but it didn't work. Great. Months of preparation ruined. Do you know how many custom made items I needed to pay for? A lot. I also had to fast for days, and plan everything just right so that he stars would be aligned. Tell your friends that I said, "Thanks for ruining my spell."

[blunk]

I'm in Missouri, so I have no clue.Nope. Momo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_the_Monster) and Ozark Howler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozark_Howler) territory.


When the girlfriend and boyfriend couple went off to do their own thing, they were obviously summoning him.I refrained from asking him how many backs the beast had :smallbiggrin:

[Togath]

also, some deer may rear if alarmed, especially if it's an aggressive male in mating season. From my understanding anyway.
On they other hand, an aggressive male deer is plenty dangerous. :3

[Giggling Ghast]

Did it have any bird feathers or wings, OP? If so, then I would say you saw a peryton. Be glad you still have your heart.

[Zrak]

Yeah, I am more cautious around moose than around bears. Bears are big ninnies.

[Togath]

Yeah, I am more cautious around moose than around bears. Bears are big ninnies.

Ah, moose, forgot about them.
Aye, they can be d*** fearsome from what I've read of them, I'd take a bear any night to one of them.

[ShadowFireLance]

One thing that I forgot to mention, is that it didn't look like it had fur, more..slimy skin? Paleish skin?
Guess that's the best way.

Anywho, going to go to sleep, if I don't return, you know what ate me.

[Togath]

One thing that I forgot to mention, is that it didn't look like it had fur, more..slimy skin? Paleish skin?
Guess that's the best way.

Anywho, going to go to sleep, if I don't return, you know what ate me.

Ah, like the jersey devil(or that other deer-head myth thing I can't remember the name of)...
...Or perhaps a wet moose?:smallsmile:

[Zrak]

If there's one thing an interest in cryptozoology has taught me, it's that anything that looks unbelievably creepy is probably a regular animal with mange. More seriously, mange looks pretty disgusting and might even explain the smell.

[Telonius]

Any possibility this was just a (completely bat-guano) living human with a thing for wearing a freshly-killed deer-head?

EDIT: Was this thing a biped or a quadruped?

[Skeppio]

...Or perhaps a wet moose?:smallsmile:

That seems most likely. A particularly smelly one, from the description.

I was gonna guess Raw Head (aka Bloody Bones), but he's a hog, not a moose.

[Balain]

I am like one of the other posters. Being late and paranoid you are more likely to see stuff that enforces what is making you paranoid, being late tricks of the light don't help, and things like blood smell can be explained.

I would also be packing everything up and getting the heck away as fast as I could though.

Years and years ago I was driving with a friend and we saw a bunch of odd lights and were thinking hey A UFO. We knew it could be explained as something normal, but in the moment we totally believed it was a UFO and still joke about it.

[blunk]

There aren't a whole lot of moose in Missouri :smallamused:

[Zrak]

There is snow, though? Missouri is apparently a mystery to me.

[blunk]

[researches]

Oh geez, maybe there are. WHAT ARE MOOSE DOING IN MISSOURI.

Apparently Missouri is a mystery to me. :smallfrown:

[Killer Angel]

I am like one of the other posters. Being late and paranoid you are more likely to see stuff that enforces what is making you paranoid, being late tricks of the light don't help, and things like blood smell can be explained.

I would also be packing everything up and getting the heck away as fast as I could though.


That sounds like... the most realistic movie ever (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEbwhWDYwM).

[Serpentine]

Did it have any bird feathers or wings, OP? If so, then I would say you saw a peryton. Be glad you still have your heart.
Heck yes perytons.

[aberratio ictus]

When we get home, I remember something terrifying; As we were leaving, it was standing on the campsite, right where we were camping, but none of us noticed in our rush to get the hell outta dodge.

Wait, how does that work?

[Eldariel]

In all seriousness, it was probably Satan. When the girlfriend and boyfriend couple went off to do their own thing, they were obviously summoning him. I can support this further by pointing out that I was trying to summon him around the same time, but it didn't work. Great. Months of preparation ruined. Do you know how many custom made items I needed to pay for? A lot. I also had to fast for days, and plan everything just right so that he stars would be aligned. Tell your friends that I said, "Thanks for ruining my spell."

You're saying Teemo is real?

[Asta Kask]

[researches]

Oh geez, maybe there are. WHAT ARE MOOSE DOING IN MISSOURI.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/03/article-0-1A20AB2B000005DC-769_634x532.jpg

Statuetory rape?

[The Glyphstone]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/03/article-0-1A20AB2B000005DC-769_634x532.jpg

Statuetory rape?

FWWWEEEEET.

Red card, illegal use of pun. Ten yard penalty, still third inning with two outs.

[Asta Kask]

FWWWEEEEET.

Red card, illegal use of pun. Ten yard penalty, still third inning with two outs.

How about

A moosest unfortunate mistake.

[Proud Tortoise]

You know what, I'm just going to believe you. Because why not? I agree that it was either a peryton or a wendigo.

[Grinner]

The other part of me says "oh my god you saw a minotaur ghost"

There's a couple Native American legends that better match the description than the ghost of a long-departed Greek monster. :smalltongue:

[gurgleflep]

I'm in Missouri, so I have no clue.


Missouri you say? I'm in the same state, may I ask for a general location of said camping spot? The story has caught my interest so if it's close... I may get a few friends together, if nothing more than to just scare the bajeebus outta them :smallamused: I'm a coward, but I love a good scare :smalltongue:

[Silverbit]

I just looked up "mange deer" on google image search, and it sounds similar to what you described. The scent of blood may be due to it having gored something, as the other posters have said, and the "grin" may have been due to the effects of mange or similar skin diseases on the jaw. Probably not a Wendigo.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, as a confirmed unbeliever when it comes to cryptozoology, hauntings, and weirdness of any and every kind, I find your story interesting. My thoughts are:

1. It was a regular deer. Darkness and fear make things look a lot bigger than they are, just like they distort distances.

2. Blood smell could easily be some environmental factor totally unrelated to the animal. For example, deer carcase in the undergrowth, rotting vegetation producing a blood-like odor, etc. Changes in blood smell intensity easily explained by imperceptible shifts in air flow due to nighttime cooling.

3. Smile could be trick of light, imagination giving you a hard time when not fully awake, or animal opening its mouth incidentally and causing a momentary glint of teeth.

4. Slimy texture could easily be wet fur from swimming. Catching starlight/moonlight/ambient light, it could easily look smooth, pale, and wet, more like skin than fur.

5. Genuinely creepy explanation involving no supernatural/cryptozoological elements: apparition was sinister person wearing spooky looking outfit with antlers, drenched in slaughterhouse blood. Motivations range from trying to scare the heck out of you with a prank (mission accomplished), to serious predatory stalking with creepy costume thrown in for added terror value, depending on whether they're just a jerk or a psychopath.

I'm putting my bets on a regular ol' deer, though, possibly having just taken a swim. Have you ever heard a raccoon fight at night? You'd think that a pack of alien carnivores was ripping each other to pieces out in the darkness, and it can unnerve you until you find out what it is. A lot of natural phenomena are quite spooky with conditions of darkness, sleep, and isolation from civilization.

However, if there was anything genuinely horrific around, someone would have stumbled on it by now. There are too many people with instant communications, cell phone cameras, GPS, and so on around for there to be anything too mysterious left on this old Earth.

Anyway, maybe you should nerve yourself up and go look for tracks in the daylight. If I was closer, I'd volunteer to come along. :smallsmile:

[ShadowFireLance]

Missouri you say? I'm in the same state, may I ask for a general location of said camping spot? The story has caught my interest so if it's close... I may get a few friends together, if nothing more than to just scare the bajeebus outta them :smallamused: I'm a coward, but I love a good scare :smalltongue:

Klondike Park, actually. If it's close, it's a great camping spot.


I just looked up "mange deer" on google image search, and it sounds similar to what you described. The scent of blood may be due to it having gored something, as the other posters have said, and the "grin" may have been due to the effects of mange or similar skin diseases on the jaw. Probably not a Wendigo.
It's not a Wendigo by any means, I'm thinking it's a Skinwalker.



Well, as a confirmed unbeliever when it comes to cryptozoology, hauntings, and weirdness of any and every kind, I find your story interesting. My thoughts are:

1. It was a regular deer. Darkness and fear make things look a lot bigger than they are, just like they distort distances.

2. Blood smell could easily be some environmental factor totally unrelated to the animal. For example, deer carcase in the undergrowth, rotting vegetation producing a blood-like odor, etc. Changes in blood smell intensity easily explained by imperceptible shifts in air flow due to nighttime cooling.

3. Smile could be trick of light, imagination giving you a hard time when not fully awake, or animal opening its mouth incidentally and causing a momentary glint of teeth.

4. Slimy texture could easily be wet fur from swimming. Catching starlight/moonlight/ambient light, it could easily look smooth, pale, and wet, more like skin than fur.

5. Genuinely creepy explanation involving no supernatural/cryptozoological elements: apparition was sinister person wearing spooky looking outfit with antlers, drenched in slaughterhouse blood. Motivations range from trying to scare the heck out of you with a prank (mission accomplished), to serious predatory stalking with creepy costume thrown in for added terror value, depending on whether they're just a jerk or a psychopath.

I'm putting my bets on a regular ol' deer, though, possibly having just taken a swim. Have you ever heard a raccoon fight at night? You'd think that a pack of alien carnivores was ripping each other to pieces out in the darkness, and it can unnerve you until you find out what it is. A lot of natural phenomena are quite spooky with conditions of darkness, sleep, and isolation from civilization.

However, if there was anything genuinely horrific around, someone would have stumbled on it by now. There are too many people with instant communications, cell phone cameras, GPS, and so on around for there to be anything too mysterious left on this old Earth.

Anyway, maybe you should nerve yourself up and go look for tracks in the daylight. If I was closer, I'd volunteer to come along. :smallsmile:


This thing was only about one meter away, so I'm fairly sure that it rules it out. It's head was far too high for that, and the way it walked was in no way similar to a Deer.

The blood smell could be explained entirely, so I'll give you that.

That'd be true, if it didn't have a full grin, with corner up really, really high.

The Only lake was pretty much frozen.

Highly doubt, people can't make that little of noise, trust me, I've worked at it for a really long time.


Oh, people have. They just generally don't think much of it because people'd think their loonies.
Look up /k/'s Skinwalkers.

[Grinner]

Well, as a confirmed unbeliever when it comes to cryptozoology, hauntings, and weirdness of any and every kind, I find your story interesting. My thoughts are:

1. It was a regular deer. Darkness and fear make things look a lot bigger than they are, just like they distort distances.

2. Blood smell could easily be some environmental factor totally unrelated to the animal. For example, deer carcase in the undergrowth, rotting vegetation producing a blood-like odor, etc. Changes in blood smell intensity easily explained by imperceptible shifts in air flow due to nighttime cooling.

3. Smile could be trick of light, imagination giving you a hard time when not fully awake, or animal opening its mouth incidentally and causing a momentary glint of teeth.

4. Slimy texture could easily be wet fur from swimming. Catching starlight/moonlight/ambient light, it could easily look smooth, pale, and wet, more like skin than fur.

5. Genuinely creepy explanation involving no supernatural/cryptozoological elements: apparition was sinister person wearing spooky looking outfit with antlers, drenched in slaughterhouse blood. Motivations range from trying to scare the heck out of you with a prank (mission accomplished), to serious predatory stalking with creepy costume thrown in for added terror value, depending on whether they're just a jerk or a psychopath.

I'm putting my bets on a regular ol' deer, though, possibly having just taken a swim. Have you ever heard a raccoon fight at night? You'd think that a pack of alien carnivores was ripping each other to pieces out in the darkness, and it can unnerve you until you find out what it is. A lot of natural phenomena are quite spooky with conditions of darkness, sleep, and isolation from civilization.

This would rely upon the confluence of a number of disparate factors. Not impossible by any means, but this particular scenario seems unlikely. By Occam's Razor, I'm just gonna go with skinwalker (which means the psychopath theory is right on the money).


However, if there was anything genuinely horrific around, someone would have stumbled on it by now. There are too many people with instant communications, cell phone cameras, GPS, and so on around for there to be anything too mysterious left on this old Earth.

Hmmm....That's true, but we're not talking about Times Square here...In fact, I recall hearing a statistic that about 95% of the U.S. is undeveloped land. While communication and surveillance technologies are ubiquitous, they're concentrated around human populations.

Plus, I never seem to have my phone handy when I really need it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hmmm....That's true, but we're not talking about Times Square here...In fact, I recall hearing a statistic that about 95% of the U.S. is undeveloped land. While communication and surveillance technologies are ubiquitous, they're concentrated around human populations.

Aye. I remember scientists discovering a new species of a rather large lizard in caves or something. Now obviously that was a good while ago, but if I remember it then it happened within the last decade. Our oceans are even less explored than land, but that's not really applicable in this case. It's possible the world governments have a vested interest in keeping other sapient and/or supernatural things hidden from the public eye, since it would cause a huge uproar if one were to be discovered (I am not someone to believe every secondhand account, but I'm not one to dismiss them all as a series of coincidences).

[Creed]

Well, that **** is going into a D&D campaign. Sure hope none of my players look at this thread.:smalltongue:

[gurgleflep]

Klondike Park, actually. If it's close, it's a great camping spot.

Close-ish. 2 hours and 39 minute drive from a park just down the road from me (Ha Ha Tonka) to there. I'll check with a couple friends and see if they'd be willing to camp here sometime soon, only telling them your experience after setting up :smallamused: if nothing happens, at least they got scared and I got a giggle out of it.

[Zrak]

I just looked up "mange deer" on google image search, and it sounds similar to what you described. The scent of blood may be due to it having gored something, as the other posters have said, and the "grin" may have been due to the effects of mange or similar skin diseases on the jaw. Probably not a Wendigo.

None of the pictures on the first page are even as bad as it gets, either. Elk with really bad mange can look like horned jackal pus demons. I'm sure deer can, too.


Have you ever heard a raccoon fight at night? You'd think that a pack of alien carnivores was ripping each other to pieces out in the darkness

Oh, man, yeah.

[ShadowFireLance]

Close-ish. 2 hours and 39 minute drive from a park just down the road from me (Ha Ha Tonka) to there. I'll check with a couple friends and see if they'd be willing to camp here sometime soon, only telling them your experience after setting up :smallamused: if nothing happens, at least they got scared and I got a giggle out of it.


Make sure to tell them that Skinwalkers are attracted to people speaking about it, they're attracted to it more than anything. It literally will draw any in the area towards you.

[AtlanteanTroll]

And you didn't shoot at it ... why?

[ShadowFireLance]

And you didn't shoot at it ... why?

Because of a story I read on /k/ of Green Beret training group encountering this thing, and one guy ended up with a small tree through his leg.
I was not in the mood to screw with something.

[Grinner]

Because of a story I read on /k/ of Green Beret training group encountering this thing, and one guy ended up with a small tree through his leg.
I was not in the mood to screw with something.

Before or after the fact?

[ShadowFireLance]

Before or after the fact?

Before. Good Tiamat, Before. There was no way I was shooting something I haven't seen before.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion
Have you ever heard a raccoon fight at night? You'd think that a pack of alien carnivores was ripping each other to pieces out in the darkness, and it can unnerve you until you find out what it is.

Or a coyote that's a lot closer than you realized. When you're alone under the stars at 1 am, that sound hits something primal inside you, and it's nowhere near so deeply buried as you wanted to believe.

Also, marmots fighting under the cabin floor in the Colorado Rockies. At 3 am. Ahh, memories.


Originally Posted by Grinner
...I recall hearing a statistic that about 95% of the U.S. is undeveloped land.

I think you may have heard that backwards, or the source of the "statistic" wasn't that reliable. An overwhelming majority of the land in this country has been completely transformed from what it was before.


Originally Posted by ShadowFireLance
There was no way I was shooting something I haven't seen before.

This is probably a good policy all around.

That said, I might have missed it in your OP, but did you have a flashlight? That's the first thing I reach for, since eyeshine can tell you a lot about what's out there.

.

[ShadowFireLance]

This is probably a good policy all around.

That said, I might have missed it in your OP, but did you have a flashlight? That's the first thing I reach for, since eyeshine can tell you a lot about what's out there.

.

I was in no way shape or form alerting it, as I thought it didn't notice me.
If it had been something smaller, I would have hit it with a flashlight.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by ShadowFireLance
I was in no way shape or form alerting it, as I thought it didn't notice me.

I can understand why you'd want to keep a low profile. However, if I were in a tent, and it was a meter away from me, my first thought would be, "Busted!"

:smalltongue:


Originally Posted by Grinner
...I recall hearing a statistic that about 95% of the U.S. is undeveloped land.

Following up on this, as one quick example, take a look at this page (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003473/) for a Landsat-7 mosaic of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Scroll down to "available formats" and try out the 1000 x 1299 or a larger image.

Notice the small green rectangle with a dark spot in the middle? That's the Dismal Swamp NWR with Lake Drummond at its heart. Everything pale and fragmented around it is either urban, suburban or rural landscape.

Five hundred years ago, everything would've been the same color as the small green rectangle. Whoever made the 95% remark, that's probably not someone you want to rely on.

.

[Grinner]

Before. Good Tiamat, Before. There was no way I was shooting something I haven't seen before.

So you read an account of an encounter with it or something like it before this incident?


Following up on this, as one quick example, take a look at this page (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003473/) for a Landsat-7 mosaic of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Scroll down to "available formats" and try out the 1000 x 1299 or a larger image.

Notice the small green rectangle with a dark spot in the middle? That's the Dismal Swamp NWR with Lake Drummond at its heart. Everything pale and fragmented around it is either urban, suburban or rural landscape.

Five hundred years ago, everything would've been the same color as the small green rectangle. Whoever made the 95% remark, that's probably not someone you want to rely on.

Doesn't Washington D.C. land right in the middle of that?

"Undeveloped" wasn't the exact term used, either. There something about "Rural". I think it included farmland?

Anyway, I'm not saying the vast majority of the U.S. is pristine wilderness. I'm just saying there's lots of room around here without too many eyes watching.

[gurgleflep]

Make sure to tell them that Skinwalkers are attracted to people speaking about it, they're attracted to it more than anything. It literally will draw any in the area towards you.

You know you're just making this more fun for me right? :smallbiggrin: I already get pleasure from scaring people, and you're adding fuel to the fire :smallcool: I tip my hat to you.

[ShadowFireLance]

You know you're just making this more fun for me right? :smallbiggrin: I already get pleasure from scaring people, and you're adding fuel to the fire :smallcool: I tip my hat to you.

I have a literal pile of Skinwalker stories for you to tell, PM me if interested.

[thubby]

sounds like a moose. yes there are moose in missouri. they're rare to the point that various organizations have pushed to reintroduce them.

they're tall, 6 feet at the shoulder isn't uncommon. they're also notorious for not fearing humans, being aggressively territorial, and weighing as much as small cars.

silver/grey mottled coats are natural coloration for some species.

[ShadowFireLance]

sounds like a moose. yes there are moose in missouri. they're rare to the point that various organizations have pushed to reintroduce them.

they're tall, 6 feet at the shoulder isn't uncommon. they're also notorious for not fearing humans, being aggressively territorial, and weighing as much as small cars.

silver/grey mottled coats are natural coloration for some species.

The only two things lacking, Is pointy antlers and the walking. I've never seen anything in the world walk like that before.

[Grinner]

sounds like a moose. yes there are moose in missouri. they're rare to the point that various organizations have pushed to reintroduce them.

they're tall, 6 feet at the shoulder isn't uncommon. they're also notorious for not fearing humans, being aggressively territorial, and weighing as much as small cars.

silver/grey mottled coats are natural coloration for some species.

This changes things...By the way, ShadowFireLance, did you ever say whether it was quadrupedal or bipedal?

[Togath]

But.. they do have pointy antlers?
The walking could be a combination of moonlight and the shadows of tree leaves/branches.

[Palanan]

I think you said this place is about a two-hour drive from where you live?

Opportunity lost, then. First thing I'd do is look for tracks. Something as large as you describe would've left a decent trail.

[gurgleflep]

I think you said this place is about a two-hour drive from where you live?

Opportunity lost, then. First thing I'd do is look for tracks. Something as large as you describe would've left a decent trail.

From where I live, actually. I don't believe Shadow ever specified how far it was from his place of residence.

[ShadowFireLance]

This changes things...By the way, ShadowFireLance, did you ever say whether it was quadrupedal or bipedal?

This thing was, without a doubt, Bipedal. I pride myself on my night vison, and I can 100% with Certianty state, This thing was bipedal.


I think you said this place is about a two-hour drive from where you live?

Opportunity lost, then. First thing I'd do is look for tracks. Something as large as you describe would've left a decent trail.

It should Have. For the love of Tiamat, it should have.

But, I live about an hour away from it. I'm never going there again. :smalleek:

[Zrak]

You should've gone for a picture once you were in the car. I can see not doing it while you're outside with it, but once your in the car, get one out the window before you speed off; the sound of the car is going to alert it basically as soon as the picture does.

[TheThan]

At eight feet tall, it does indeed sound like a moose, keep in mind it’s dark out, humans have particularly poor night vision, and you know, an imagination to enhance our own fears.

Cracked has some interesting insight into it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAR1fp1tbds)

[thubby]

The only two things lacking, Is pointy antlers and the walking. I've never seen anything in the world walk like that before.

moose do have pointy antlers. only the males and they shed them seasonally. iirc this is the time of year they'd be growing them.

the walking is literally the only part that would remotely suggest its not a moose. if, however, it was a quadruped and you simply could not see the other 2 legs (if they were physically behind the part of it you could see, for instance), it would look rather strange.

[Remmirath]

At eight feet tall, it does indeed sound like a moose, keep in mind it’s dark out, humans have particularly poor night vision, and you know, an imagination to enhance our own fears.

Cracked has some interesting insight into it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAR1fp1tbds)

Indeed. Even those of us who do have good night vision -- and I know that, compared to most people I know, I do have very good night vision -- don't see nearly as well in the night as we do during the day. I have also done things such as mistake a stump (a mossy stump, yet) for a bear in broad daylight, so... yeah. Particularly if you already have a certain thing on your mind, it's very easy to imagine that something you see is different than what it actually is.

Also, one thing I haven't noticed anybody else pointing out yet, so I will -- injured animals can move very differently than healthy animals. Even just a strained muscle can be enough to make a creature move oddly, and worse injuries can indeed cause completely unnatural looking gaits. They can also easily account for a strong smell of blood, but even injured wild animals tend to be on the quiet side when not moving quickly.


the walking is literally the only part that would remotely suggest its not a moose. if, however, it was a quadruped and you simply could not see the other 2 legs (if they were physically behind the part of it you could see, for instance), it would look rather strange.

Also a good point. Particularly if combined with an injured animal.

Regardless of what it was, though, it sounds a rather unnerving experience and I can easily see why you wouldn't want to return.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Because of a story I read on /k/ of Green Beret training group encountering this thing, and one guy ended up with a small tree through his leg.
I was not in the mood to screw with something.

You believe these stories ... why?

[Zrak]

I don't see what's so crazy about that. It's not like they said the guy had a large tree through his leg.

[Telonius]

Might have an ID for this cryptid, or at least its cousin: the Honey Island Swamp Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey_Island_Swamp_monster).

The creature is described as bipedal, 7 feet (2 m) tall, with gray hair and yellow or red eyes, and accompanied by a disgusting smell. Footprints supposedly left by the creature have four webbed toes

Sound like your beastie?

EDIT: Another possibility, from a legend (http://www.native-languages.org/true-tiger.htm)of the Miami (Ohio, not Florida) and Illini tribes:


True Tiger is a powerful mythological water monster of the Miami and Illinois tribes, something like a cross between a giant lynx and a dragon. Its English name is a bit of a misnomer, since tigers are not native to North America; the true translation of the Miami-Illinois name is actually "Real Lynx," although the monster is more tiger-like in size. "Aramipinchiwa" means "Underneath Lynx" (a reference to the monster's home beneath the water,) "Wapipinzha" means "White Lynx," and "Michipinchiwa" means "Big Lynx."

According to legend, True Tigers live at the bottom of lakes and cause people to drown. A True Tiger is usually described as having the body of an oversized lynx with pale fur, antlers, armored scales, and sharp spines running down its back.

[gurgleflep]

You believe these stories ... why?

Why not? I've had some odd "encounters" so to speak, nothing quite so violent as a small tree in a leg, but still. There's something quite thrilling about the unknown.

[blunk]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/03/article-0-1A20AB2B000005DC-769_634x532.jpg

Statuetory rape?If that's what they're doing in MO, they're welcome to stay there.

[lordbobizawzom5]

I just read it. I know theres probably some explanation for it but its freaky

[aberratio ictus]

This thing was only about one meter away, so I'm fairly sure that it rules it out.

Do you know how short one meter is? It would have been standing right next to you in that case.

And then...

I was in no way shape or form alerting it, as I thought it didn't notice me.
If it had been something smaller, I would have hit it with a flashlight.

You thought a creature standing one meter away wouldn't notice you? Even if you only sticked your head out of the tent, considering the extremely short distance, and the fact that you've been moving, that's fairly unlikely.

And still -



When we get home, I remember something terrifying; As we were leaving, it was standing on the campsite, right where we were camping, but none of us noticed in our rush to get the hell outta dodge.


Wait, how does that work?

[Asta Kask]

This creature actually existed:

http://www.buzzhunt.co.uk/wp-content/2013/09/unusual_alienlike_creatures_that_really_existed_in _prehistoric_times_11.jpg

Yes, that big.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Remmirath
Also, one thing I haven't noticed anybody else pointing out yet, so I will -- injured animals can move very differently than healthy animals.

One of the best points made so far. I think we can explain the "smile" as the OP's nerves and a trick of the gloom, but an injury or disease would go a long way towards explaining the gait and the odor.


Originally Posted by ShadowFireLance
Because of a story I read on /k/....


Originally Posted by AtlanteanTroll
You believe these stories ... why?

Indeed. I've never heard of /k/, but I'm pretty sure their stories about Green Berets aren't too reliable.


Originally Posted by Asta Kask
This creature actually existed....

Reference, name, geological period? Not one of the eurypterids, but looks like somewhere around that same time.



And finally:


Originally Posted by ShadowFireLance
...I live about an hour away from it. I'm never going there again.

Fears should be faced. Most of my regrets in life, at least so far, involve fears which I allowed to get the better of me. I like myself better when I face them down.

Now, I can appreciate it's not always as easy as saying that, especially when you've had a profoundly chilling and surreal experience you can't remotely explain. Even so, I would strongly recommend getting back out there, this coming weekend if possible.

Bring large flashlights, and night-vision gear if you can get it. And, absurdly, bubble-wrap. Unlike popcorn, it won't draw creatures in to eat it--but it will give off a racket if something large moves that close. Think of it as a poor man's motion detector.

[Tyndmyr]

Ah, moose, forgot about them.
Aye, they can be d*** fearsome from what I've read of them, I'd take a bear any night to one of them.

Yeah. My dad's a forest ranger, so he gets to deal with them sometimes. Apparently, there's a form of parasite spread by deer(who are just carriers) that makes moose go insane with rage. They've been known to flip RVs in this fury...

Do not anger the crazy moose.

But yeah...the blood smell could have been actual blood. Maybe it was hurt. Or maybe it had hurt something else. Mange or another affliction is quite likely. Spend enough time in the wild, and you'll see some freaky stuff. Nature is not kind.

[blunk]

Now, I can appreciate it's not always as easy as saying that, especially when you've had a profoundly chilling and surreal experience you can't remotely explain. Even so, I would strongly recommend getting back out there, this coming weekend if possible.I agree. I'm pretty confident the OP is not going to get mauled to death (or to any degree) by a cryptid.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by blunk
I'm pretty confident the OP is not going to get mauled to death (or to any degree) by a cryptid.

Yup, I think the prospects of maulage are safely minimal.

:smallsmile:


Originally Posted by ShadowFireLance
Klondike Park, actually. If it's close, it's a great camping spot.

Looking up Klondike Park (http://parks.sccmo.org/parks/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7), I see that Bettie Yahn-Kramer is the park director, at 636.949.7535. You might give her office a call and ask them if there have been any odd sightings of deer or other cervids in the park or its vicinity.

Whoever you talk to will probably be administrative rather than a wildlife biologist, but if there have been multiple sightings of Something Strange, then they should be able to tell you something.

Also, 250 acres is tiny. A single wolverine needs two hundred square miles of snowpack to make a living. Most larger creatures need a fair amount of space as well.

It looks like there's some good stretches of woods to the north of the park, especially around Cady Lake and Little Lake in the Woods, and then there's the Weldon Spring and Howell Island parcels just a little downriver. All of it laced with roads, though, and probably a ton of footpaths as well. Plenty of opportunity for large-ish creatures to move back and forth, but also many chances every day for them to be seen.

To me this seems like a beautiful spot, especially with those cliffs. I'd go back in a heartbeat.

[Asta Kask]

Reference, name, geological period? Not one of the eurypterids, but looks like somewhere around that same time.

Yeah, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaekelopterus) that's a eurypterid. 8 ft 2 inches.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Asta Kask
Yeah, that's a eurypterid. 8 ft 2 inches.

No, it's not a eurypterid. Take a look at Figure 1 of Braddy et al. 2008 (http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/1/106.full.pdf+html). What's been photoshopped into the image you posted is actually a giant millipede, Arthropleura armata.

It's still a seven-foot-long millipede, which is boss, but not a eurypterid. Jaekelopterus, which is indeed a eurypterid, is labeled as (a) in Figure 1 and is to the left of the human silhouette. That's the classic eurypterid bauplann.

[Asta Kask]

I bow to your expertise.

[Socratov]

Is it too late to link this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s88r_q7oufE)?

[Zrak]

I've done laundry in Rhode Island basements. I'm not impressed. That's barely a centipede. :smallwink:

Seriously, though, that's cool. 46 centimeter chilcerae. Jeez.

[Bulldog Psion]

I've done laundry in Rhode Island basements. I'm not impressed. That's barely a centipede. :smallwink:

Thank you for the humor -- a welcome chortle! :smallbiggrin:


I agree. I'm pretty confident the OP is not going to get mauled to death (or to any degree) by a cryptid.

I would also put the chances at nil, and urge the OP to return to the site. At a minimum, you'll have a great time spooking yourself. Don't just endure the heebie-jeebies; embrace them for their entertainment value! :smallsmile:

Just please be careful with the waving of any firearms and/or the flourishing of any blades, particularly if you're going there with friends. People do get up in the middle of the night to take a leak in the undergrowth, after all, and can stumble around oddly, resembling a lurching cryptid bipedal bloodbat when in fact they're just trying to do up their fly in conditions of extraordinary murk.

I live deep, deep in the northwoods, and the trail cameras I've put in the most primeval parts of the forest on my property have revealed nothing but bears, deer, coyotes, skunks, and the occasional wolf. Dangit. :smallwink:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zrak
I've done laundry in Rhode Island basements. I'm not impressed.

I've lived in D.C. basements. I call it a better roommate than most of the ones I've had.

:smallbiggrin:


Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion
Just please be careful with the waving of any firearms and/or the flourishing of any blades, particularly if you're going there with friends.

Amen to this. Spooked nerves and a nine-milli don't mix well, especially on a park property that seems to be mainly campsites and walking trails.


Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion
I live deep, deep in the northwoods, and the trail cameras I've put in the most primeval parts of the forest on my property have revealed nothing but bears, deer, coyotes, skunks, and the occasional wolf. Dangit.

No bobcats? Dangit indeed.

Also, I'm envious of your property. And your trail cameras. Are you using Reconyx HyperFires, by any chance?

[tensai_oni]

Please link the page where you got this creepypasta from.

[ShadowFireLance]

Please link the page where you got this creepypasta from.

...I, actually experienced it. I've read similar stories, but this is mine..:smallconfused:

[Fawkes]

When we get home, I remember something terrifying; As we were leaving, it was standing on the campsite, right where we were camping, but none of us noticed in our rush to get the hell outta dodge.

What does this even mean? It was standing in the middle of the campsite, but no one saw it, and you didn't realize it was standing there until hours later?

Did anyone besides you see anything>?

[Bulldog Psion]

I've lived in D.C. basements. I call it a better roommate than most of the ones I've had.

:smallbiggrin:

I can imagine. :smallbiggrin:


Amen to this. Spooked nerves and a nine-milli don't mix well, especially on a park property that seems to be mainly campsites and walking trails.

Yes, in the shoes of the OP, I probably wouldn't take anything more hazardous than pepper spray.


No bobcats? Dangit indeed.

I've heard bobcats occasionally, and I saw a young lynx last year about 1 mile up the road from my house. But none of said felines have appeared on the cameras, for whatever reason.


Also, I'm envious of your property. And your trail cameras. Are you using Reconyx HyperFires, by any chance?

Actually, Cabela's Outfitter Series 8MP. But I wouldn't mind trying some HyperFires, heard good things about them.

[Togath]

...I, actually experienced it. I've read similar stories, but this is mine..:smallconfused:

I honestly would be interested in reading the original:smallsmile:
I wouldn't think less of you, they're made to be copied :3

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Togath
I honestly would be interested in reading the original.

Not sure what you mean by this. Most of us are taking the OP at his word.


Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion
I've heard bobcats occasionally, and I saw a young lynx last year about 1 mile up the road from my house. But none of said felines have appeared on the cameras, for whatever reason.

Ahh, more envy here. I'm far enough south that it's bobcats only. I've seen one, ever, plus a few dubious tracks from time to time.


Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion
Actually, Cabela's Outfitter Series 8MP. But I wouldn't mind trying some HyperFires, heard good things about them.

I haven't heard much about HyperFires, just seen them around. Don't know if they're high-end operationally, but they're priced way out of my reach.

:smallfrown:

[Bulldog Psion]

Not sure what you mean by this. Most of us are taking the OP at his word.

I certainly am, even if I differ strongly in my interpretation of what he saw. The account is disjointed and confused enough to be real. If it was more polished, I'd be more inclined to think it was a creepypasta. But as it stands, I automatically assumed it was a real experience.


I haven't heard much about HyperFires, just seen them around. Don't know if they're high-end operationally, but they're priced way out of my reach.

:smallfrown:

Which is why I don't have them, either. :smallfrown:

[aberratio ictus]

What does this even mean? It was standing in the middle of the campsite, but no one saw it, and you didn't realize it was standing there until hours later?

Did anyone besides you see anything>?

Don't bother, I've asked that same question twice before, not going to get an answer. I suppose our esteemed OP got a little overboard with his imagination, and admitting to having overdone the narration would dispel the overall illusion.

[ShadowFireLance]

What does this even mean? It was standing in the middle of the campsite, but no one saw it, and you didn't realize it was standing there until hours later?

Did anyone besides you see anything>?


Don't bother, I've asked that same question twice before, not going to get an answer. I suppose our esteemed OP got a little overboard with his imagination, and admitting to having overdone the narration would dispel the overall illusion.

Sorry, I guess I missed it. :smallfrown:
No one else besides myself saw/heard anything.
The best way to describe it was, as we were driving away, it was standing where our camping area was. Sorry if it wasn't that clear.

[The Glyphstone]

Please link the page where you got this creepypasta from.

Even if you don't believe the story, you could at least give him the credit of starting a creepypasta, rather than copying an existing one...

[Tengu_temp]

This would rely upon the confluence of a number of disparate factors. Not impossible by any means, but this particular scenario seems unlikely. By Occam's Razor, I'm just gonna go with skinwalker (which means the psychopath theory is right on the money).


I'm pretty sure that "a combination of several perfectly ordinary factors sounds unlikely, so let's go with a supernatural explanation!" is pretty much the opposite of how Occam's Razor works.

I'm a rational guy, I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If you want to change my mind, give me solid proof. A story without even a photo to accompany it just sounds like a good story to me, and nothing else; especially in this day and age, when most people have their smartphones with them all the time.

[aberratio ictus]

Sorry, I guess I missed it. :smallfrown:
No one else besides myself saw/heard anything.
Ah, no worries - I only asked twice unanswered, if it would have been three times, I'd have started to wonder.



The best way to describe it was, as we were driving away, it was standing where our camping area was. Sorry if it wasn't that clear.

I understand. And you only noticed what you saw as you were driving away when you got home? I do understand that you were a bit stunned, and things like that take time to process, I guess.

[T-Mick]

This is a good story. Maybe it was the Devil. He's known to hang in American woods, and your description fits well enough. You were wise to get away. Could have been a witch too.


I'm a rational guy, I don't believe in supernatural phenomena.

This one made me laugh. A nice little contradiction. Fun Fact: If you stop standing on your head, you realize that it's not the world that's upside-down, but you. :smalltongue:

[Leecros]

I'm a rational guy, I don't believe in supernatural phenomena. If you want to change my mind, give me solid proof. A story without even a photo to accompany it just sounds like a good story to me, and nothing else; especially in this day and age, when most people have their smartphones with them all the time.

I generally would agree with you, but in this situation "Pics or it didn't happen" isn't really fair. If you're thrust into a situation where you're encountering something like the OP did, most peoples reaction isn't going to be "Hey i should take a picture of this". Your first reaction is going to either be to get the hell out of there, hide and hope it goes away, or fight. There's a reason it's called the fight-or-flight response, not the Fight, Flight, or take pictures response. When you're being threatened in some way, your first reaction isn't going to be taking pictures for posterity. It just isn't. In fact i would probably think less of someone who thought it would be a good idea to stick around taking pictures of something that might possibly tear your face off.

[Tengu_temp]

The story as described gave me the impression that the creature was a fair distance away from him, and he watched it for a while from his tent. If he had his phone with him, that's enough time to collect yourself and take a picture.


This one made me laugh. A nice little contradiction. Fun Fact: If you stop standing on your head, you realize that it's not the world that's upside-down, but you. :smalltongue:

Do you have an actual point to make, or are you just going to laugh because I'm not naive enough to believe in ghost stories?

[T-Mick]

"Rational" people live in reality. Really, they're best described as sane, not rational. Irrational people also live in reality, but refuse to accept, or outright ignore, things outside of their own worldview. That's one symptom, anyway.

In other words, supernatural things happen, and those who accept them, while they may be foolish or naive, are at least more sane and rational than those who deny the entire possibility of them.

The standing on the head thing means to say that, when reality doesn't conform to a worldview, it's best to inspect the viewpoint before saying that reality is wrong.

I meant no offence in my comment, but the whole "Rational, therefore no supernatural" is seriously naive.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The story as described gave me the impression that the creature was a fair distance away from him, and he watched it for a while from his tent. If he had his phone with him, that's enough time to collect yourself and take a picture.

He said it got as close as a meter away.

As for the rational thing, I cannot figure out how rational it is, but having complete skepticism for anything supernatural does not correlate with someone being rational. It might correlate with them being irrational, but I don't think rationality is inherently tied to it. It is hard to say, as it's never really been proven, but tales of strange things settling down after priests or mediums came to a house and did their work are common enough that it's hard to deny, too.

[Grinner]

I'm pretty sure that "a combination of several perfectly ordinary factors sounds unlikely, so let's go with a supernatural explanation!" is pretty much the opposite of how Occam's Razor works.

The scenario as posited was a deer, recently having bathed in the nearby frozen lake, wanders through an occupied campsite while a rotting corpse lay nearby. I'm certainly no zoologist, but deer frequently seem like skittish creatures to me. To that effect, the deer probably wouldn't be quite right in the head, given the fact that it's wandering through a campsite while every predator nearby can smell the blood nearby. Rabies, maybe? Doesn't rabies impose an aversion to water though?

It's also possible that the deer in the above scenario had a bad case of mange instead.

As suggested later, it could also have been a moose. The behavior and physical description do match after all, but Missouri isn't exactly renowned for its native moose population.

The fact is that we just don't have any solid information, and any conclusions drawn here will mean nothing. I'm sorry my opinion offends you.

And let me assure you, the last thing anyone thinks of in that kind of situation is "Gee, I wonder what the guys back home would think of this. I'd better get a picture." The first reaction is fear, and the second is self-preservation.

[Tengu_temp]

Nope. Supernatural things don't happen. The vast majority of them were explained by normal means or as hoaxes, and the rest weren't explained because we don't have enough information on them. The number of supernatural things that were proven to be supernatural? Zero.

Trust me, a real scientist, or someone else with equally rational approach, would be overjoyed if they were given irrefutable proof that aliens or ghosts exist. But no such thing happened so far, so yeah.


The scenario as posited was a deer, recently having bathed in the nearby frozen lake, wanders through an occupied campsite while a rotting corpse lay nearby. I'm certainly no zoologist, but deer frequently seem like skittish creatures to me. To that effect, the deer probably wouldn't be quite right in the head, given the fact that it's wandering through a campsite while every predator nearby can smell the blood nearby. Rabies, maybe? Doesn't rabies impose an aversion to water though?

What I mean is, if you refute one normal answer as implausible, don't immediately jump to a paranormal answer. See if other normal answers seem plausible first. That will be the case in pretty much every situation.

"The story is entirely made up" is also a normal answer.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nope. Supernatural things don't happen. The vast majority of them were explained by normal means or as hoaxes, and the rest weren't explained because we don't have enough information on them. The number of supernatural things that were proven to be supernatural? Zero.

Well that's because once you figure out how something supernatural works, you expand your knowledge of the natural world to include that, and it's no longer supernatural. I'm sure if ghosts were proven to exist it would be something about how the human mind can create an electric afterimage or something, and it would be treated as a natural thing.

It's circular logic.

[Starwulf]

The story as described gave me the impression that the creature was a fair distance away from him, and he watched it for a while from his tent. If he had his phone with him, that's enough time to collect yourself and take a picture.?

Not getting involved in any of the rest of this, but, what if the OP doesn't own a smartphone? It's not exactly THAT uncommon is it? I don't have a smartphone, just a regular old cellphone that can't even text/access the internet, and the pictures it takes...well, put it this way: If I take a picture of my 10 y/o with it, when I look at the picture I can't tell if it's my daughter, or Bloody Mary, because it's so distorted/blurry.

[blunk]

I'm pretty sure that "a combination of several perfectly ordinary factors sounds unlikely, so let's go with a supernatural explanation!" is pretty much the opposite of how Occam's Razor works.The Razor states (in the most popular formulation), "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Positing several perfectly ordinary factors is invoking more entities, on the surface, than a single supernatural factor. But if you broke out that "single" supernatural factor into all the additional ordinary entities required to support its existence, it would probably far outnumber those posited in the non-supernatural explanation.

Also:


I don't believe in supernatural phenomena.
supernatural things happenWell, this disagreement seems pretty cut-and-dried :smallcool:

[Mx.Silver]

I'm pretty sure that "a combination of several perfectly ordinary factors sounds unlikely, so let's go with a supernatural explanation!" is pretty much the opposite of how Occam's Razor works.


Just a little bit yes. Particularly as an explanation for something seen by an admittedly easily terrified person at night, who had just woken up and was in a state of panic.
Because those probably aren't factors one should ignore.





You were wise to get away. Could have been a witch too.
Man, the Wiccans must have been covering that one up pretty well.



I'm certainly no zoologist, but deer frequently seem like skittish creatures to me.
Not always... (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/31/stag-attack-highlands-lochailort)

[Tengu_temp]

Well that's because once you figure out how something supernatural works, you expand your knowledge of the natural world to include that, and it's no longer supernatural. I'm sure if ghosts were proven to exist it would be something about how the human mind can create an electric afterimage or something, and it would be treated as a natural thing.

It's circular logic.

When was the last time something previously thought to be supernatural turned out to exist for real? The only thing I can think of was that some cryptids turned out to be real. Fairly unimpressive, realistic cryptids like the Tasmanian Wolf. Noting like yeti or the Loch Ness monster. And the last such discovery was over a century ago.

So yeah. Ghosts, aliens, monsters? Until proven, it's only logical to assume they don't exist.


Not getting involved in any of the rest of this, but, what if the OP doesn't own a smartphone? It's not exactly THAT uncommon is it? I don't have a smartphone, just a regular old cellphone that can't even text/access the internet, and the pictures it takes...well, put it this way: If I take a picture of my 10 y/o with it, when I look at the picture I can't tell if it's my daughter, or Bloody Mary, because it's so distorted/blurry.

This is a possibility. I myself didn't own a cellphone of any kind until a few years ago, when I was given one for birthday. However, I admit such cases are very rare, and exceptions rather than the rule. Same with the fact that someone would have a gun and a knife with him, but not his phone.

Therefore, I'd like to ask for an explanation here. It's better than guessing in the dark.

[Grinner]

Nope. Supernatural things don't happen. The vast majority of them were explained by normal means or as hoaxes, and the rest weren't explained because we don't have enough information on them. The number of supernatural things that were proven to be supernatural? Zero.

Trust me, a real scientist, or someone else with equally rational approach, would be overjoyed if they were given irrefutable proof that aliens or ghosts exist. But no such thing happened so far, so yeah.

Do I really have to break out that tired old Shakespeare quote?


What I mean is, if you refute one normal answer as implausible, don't immediately jump to a paranormal answer. See if other normal answers seem plausible first. That will be the case in pretty much every situation.

"The story is entirely made up" is also a normal answer.

Well, it isn't for a lack of trying. Aside from your last suggestion, every scenario suggested thus far has seemed equally far-fetched.

As for your last suggestion, it's certainly possible, but are you prepared to call the OP a liar? I'm not.

[T-Mick]

Also see stigmata and incorruptible Saints for thoroughly examined supernatural occurrences.

By the way, if we're going to have a debate, could we move it out of this guy's thread? Real or not, it's a charming story, and doesn't need to be dragged down by pedants like us.

[Tengu_temp]

Do I really have to break out that tired old Shakespeare quote?

Yeah, a XVI century playwright sounds like a great authority on modern science.


As for your last suggestion, it's certainly possible, but are you prepared to call the OP a liar? I'm not.

He either saw a normal creature and took it for a monster due to circumstances (including having just woken up and being afraid), or he's spinning a creepy tale for everyone's enjoyment. Creepypasta, like some people said.


Also see stigmata and incorruptible Saints for thoroughly examined supernatural occurrences.


Unproven at best, depending on the case. Would go into detail but board rules. Let's just say that most people who examined various stigmata weren't exactly neutral and unbiased about it.

[Arkhosia]

When was the last time something previously thought to be supernatural turned out to exist for real? The only thing I can think of was that some cryptids turned out to be real. Fairly unimpressive, realistic cryptids like the Tasmanian Wolf. Noting like yeti or the Loch Ness monster. And the last such discovery was over a century ago.

So yeah. Ghosts, aliens, monsters? Until proven, it's only logical to assume they don't exist.



This is a possibility. I myself didn't own a cellphone of any kind until a few years ago, when I was given one for birthday. However, I admit such cases are very rare, and exceptions rather than the rule. Same with the fact that someone would have a gun and a knife with him, but not his phone.

Therefore, I'd like to ask for an explanation here. It's better than guessing in the dark.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_data_so_far.png

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Grinner
Do I really have to break out that tired old Shakespeare quote?

If you're referring to "Man, proud man," please do. It's not tired, it's timeless.


Originally Posted by Tengu_temp
Yeah, a XVI century playwright sounds like a great authority on modern science.

Modern science, no. Human vanity, absolutely.


Originally Posted by Tengu_temp
...especially in this day and age, when most people have their smartphones with them all the time.


Originally Posted by Tengu_temp
If he had his phone with him, that's enough time to collect yourself and take a picture.

Apart from the other points mentioned about self-preservation, I'd also like to note that this was a few minutes after midnight. I don't know too much about smartphone cameras, but do they get you anything reliable at midnight?

As for phones in general, I have one in my coat pocket right now, solely because I made a long drive through a very snowy state a few days ago, and it seemed like a good idea. Otherwise I rarely if ever have one on me.

Some people just don't. Does that automatically make them less reliable? That hardly seems...rational.

:smallamused:

.

[Zrak]

I've lived in D.C. basements. I call it a better roommate than most of the ones I've had.

Haha, right? I kinda got to thinking about the huge centipedes all over our basement as my pets, and got really sad when the washing machine broke and drowned a bunch of them.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zrak
Haha, right? I kinda got to thinking about the huge centipedes all over our basement as my pets, and got really sad when the washing machine broke and drowned a bunch of them.

Actually it was camel crickets for me. &#%$@!! things were everywhere.

And pillbugs. I lived in one place where they were rampant. I don't mind them, much, but still. Even an arthro-tolerant guy like me can only handle so many isopods in one room at one time.

[Grinner]

If you're referring to "Man, proud man," please do. It's not tired, it's timeless.

Err....I was actually thinking of the "There are more things in heaven and earth" one. I guess that one applies just as well, though.

[Dire Moose]

Um, about the campsite thing? Sorry I scared you like that.

[Grinner]

Um, about the campsite thing? Sorry I scared you like that.

See, a confession. Mystery solved. :smalltongue:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Grinner
Err....I was actually thinking of the "There are more things in heaven and earth" one. I guess that one applies just as well, though.

Ahh, okay. Your Shakespeare quote is very apt here.




Originally Posted by Dire Moose
Um, about the campsite thing? Sorry I scared you like that.


Originally Posted by Grinner
See, a confession. Mystery solved.

But does this "Dire Moose" character have photos of himself at the campsite? From a smartphone? Because otherwise we just can't accept it.

:smalltongue:

.

[Helanna]

In other words, supernatural things happen, and those who accept them, while they may be foolish or naive, are at least more sane and rational than those who deny the entire possibility of them.
. . .
I meant no offence in my comment, but the whole "Rational, therefore no supernatural" is seriously naive.

Whooooooaaaaahhh there, let's slow down. You can't just state that as fact and then say anyone who disagrees with you is naive and irrational. That is just not how that works.

QualiaSoup on Youtube has a wonderful video about the concept of open-mindedness and I think everyone should watch it, but let me quote my favorite part:


If you believe in pseudoscientific and supernatural concepts, that's your privilege. If you want to put forward your personal reasons for believing in them, understanding that whoever's listening may have questions or find flaws in your arguments, that's fine. But if you're in the habit of targeting individuals you've never met and suggesting they're in some way deficient just because they don't believe in these concepts; if you reject conflicting evidence and counter-arguments without consideration but demand that others accept your arguments and what you regard as evidence uncritically; not only is that close-minded, it's controlling, arrogant, and presumptuous in the extreme.


Well that's because once you figure out how something supernatural works, you expand your knowledge of the natural world to include that, and it's no longer supernatural. I'm sure if ghosts were proven to exist it would be something about how the human mind can create an electric afterimage or something, and it would be treated as a natural thing.

It's circular logic.

How are you defining supernatural? I define it as something that cannot exist under the laws of science. Now, the problem is that we don't know everything there is to know about how the universe works. So yes, even if something were proven to exist and was defying the laws of physics, I would consider the possibility that we just don't know enough to explain it. But I don't think labeling something as "not supernatural" because we found out how it works is circular logic, I think it's just the definition of supernatural.


Just a little bit yes. Particularly as an explanation for something seen by an admittedly easily terrified person at night, who had just woken up and was in a state of panic.
Because those probably aren't factors one should ignore.
]

We really, really, really shouldn't. The human mind is ridiculously good at fooling itself, and our memories are not nearly as reliable as we would like to think. It's entirely possible that by the time the OP got home and wrote this up, his memories had actively changed to make it bigger, scarier, more surreal, etc. Human minds are incredibly unreliable.



As for your last suggestion, it's certainly possible, but are you prepared to call the OP a liar? I'm not.

I'm not going to call him a liar, but I'm certainly not going to believe him unreservedly. Sorry, OP. I'm not saying that you are making it up. I'm sure you're a great guy, but I have literally no idea who you are, you are a random stranger on the internet. Maybe you made it up. Maybe you just didn't see what you thought you saw. And hey, maybe a deer-monster is stalking the woods and in a couple weeks it'll be all over the news. But without evidence one way or the other I'm filing this one away as good creepypasta fodder.

Now, I will admit that halfway through making this post I was spooked by a noise coming from outside my (ground-level, basement) window and moved upstairs, where I discovered it was really windy. So it was probably just the wind. Probably. If you never see me on these boards again, consider it my concession to the existence of the deer-monster, coming for revenge. :smalltongue:

[Zrak]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_data_so_far.png

I can make crudely drawn graphs, too:
http://s3.postimg.org/dakgmrbub/xkcd.png

(Nothing personal. It's not your fault I hate xkcd.)

[GoblinArchmage]

I can make crudely drawn graphs, too:
http://s3.postimg.org/dakgmrbub/xkcd.png

(Nothing personal. It's not your fault I hate xkcd.)

I'm not sure I understand why people like xkcd.

[ShadowFireLance]

I apply Schrodinger's cat to this situation.

[Grinner]

Some of the comics are entertainingly whimsical. Others are downright illuminating. Still others are clearly the rushed work of a man hard-pressed for ideas and on a deadline.

In fairness to Mr. Munroe, he's been coming out with them every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for years now. I imagine it's difficult to be consistently witty and informative for so long a period.

Sturgeon's Law applies admirably here, I think.

[Skeppio]

I can make crudely drawn graphs, too:
http://s3.postimg.org/dakgmrbub/xkcd.png

(Nothing personal. It's not your fault I hate xkcd.)

Cheers very much, I'm saving this for future use. :smallamused:

XKCD is crap.

[Giggling Ghast]

And you didn't shoot at it ... why?

Perytons are immune to non-enchanted weapons. It would have just pissed the creature off.

[banthesun]

Alright, I guess this is the best forum, as it's not a story of anything involving media or whatnot, So it's going here.

This is a 100% true story, as witnessed by myself and five others.

So, Once a year I go camping, to the same place, every year.
Usually go with more people, but lives change and stuff, so it was only;
Myself, My Brother, One of his friends, A Girl from School, Her boyfriend, and Our resident Boy scout.

So, the day begins as normal, we arrive (two hour drive, middle of ****nowhere) at the Park. It's cold here, so we have the place generally to ourselves. We unpack and stuff, Girl and Boyfriend move a good deal away from everyone else, because we all know. Spend the day doing whatever, eating, wondering around the forest, random crap.
Around 5ish, We're making a fire, cause hungry. Finally get it going, when the smell of blood wafts itself to us. REALLY strong, like your nose is next to it strong. We look at each other and ask if any of us had been cut, but nope, nothing. I See movement out of Eye corner, look, see something moving far off distance, about height of deer. No bigge, think it's deer, move on.
The smell goes away after about..an hour or so? But the strangest thing is, It just vanishes, Like one moment it's there, and the next, Poof. Really odd.
It's about 9 now, And getting dark.

Now, one thing you should know about me is, I'm highly reactive and very paranoic when it comes to threatening things. I always have some form of blade on my person, usually quite large. I also have a 9mm Pistol I like to carry. I have both of these.

So, everyone generally retires to tents, after eating and crap. Blood smell returns. Yeah, Slightly freaked out at this point, don't know anything that smells like that, but I'm a city boy, so whateves.
Go sleep, Boyscout and Brother's friend in same tent, myself and bro in tent, and BF/GF in same tent.

Wake up a couple of hours later, check watch, and wonder why in Tiamat's name I'm awake. It's 12:06. Clearly remember that.
Note the fact some birds are making little noises, like going to sleep. Assume they might have been startled.
Silence.
Complete, and utter, silence. Adren rush, Fully awake.
Hear walking, ever. So. Silent. Walking. Like the amount of noise socked feet make on carpet. Except, it's snowy.

Slowly, Slowly stick head out of tent, full Combat mode is active, I'm sweating heavily. Something Very, Very Off is standing there, About 8ft tall, ****ing deer head, antlers and all. Blood smell is in full force.
Frozen with fear, I'm just watching it, hoping it doesn't look this way.

Wonders around, kicks at the ground a bit around the campfire, then walks towards the woods. Unnatural walk, like gliding more than actual walking.
Right as it enters the tree line, It looks right at me, I mean, directly at me.
And it ****ing smiles, then resumes walking into the woods.

After the blood smell poofs, I get everyone awake, and we break every speed limit known to man. When we get home, I remember something terrifying; As we were leaving, it was standing on the campsite, right where we were camping, but none of us noticed in our rush to get the hell outta dodge.

So yeah, This happened today, Just got back, freaked out as hell. Shaking, Barely able to type. Don't quite feel like removing myself from the bedroom with no windows that I'm in currently.

Rather than get into whether or not this is true, I'm going to critique it as I would a creepypasta. Hope that doesn't offend you, at the least it could mean you can tell the story better

First thing I'd say is write more description. Pretty much the only description that isn't explicit creepy stuff is the mention of your knife and the couple slipping off. A description of the camp site and a few lines about the campers would go a long way to setting readers in. if you want to go the extra mile, descriptions of setting up camp or having a camp dinner could really help them picture the scene.

As for issues, perhaps you could mention how come you could instantly recognise the smell of blood, or describe a similar scent that people might think it was. It'd be a good place to describe how your friends reacted too. Most people wouldn't want to camp near a dead animal or the like.

On a similar note, it's a little unbelievable that everyone would just take your word that you saw the creature and agree to evacuate in a panic. No one thought you could have been dreaming, or pulling their leg? I mean, everyone else in the thread has suggested things it could be, but your friends agreed to leave in a hurry without even looking for it? On top of that, you poined out yourself that you're paranoid about stuff, which might make your testimony even more unbelievable.

As for the good, some of the description of the creature is good, particularly the bit about how it moved. The use of smells is good, but you need to be more descriptive to stop readers simply treating it as cheap horror. The style of the writing is believable for a true story, though some parts could do with some refining to smooth the reading experience.

Best of luck for your future writings, or alteratively, best of luck not getting killed by the monster:smalltongue:

[Somensjev]

Man, the Wiccans must have been covering that one up pretty well.\

hey, it wasnt us this time


When was the last time something previously thought to be supernatural turned out to exist for real? The only thing I can think of was that some cryptids turned out to be real. Fairly unimpressive, realistic cryptids like the Tasmanian Wolf. Noting like yeti or the Loch Ness monster. And the last such discovery was over a century ago.

10 minutes of research revealed that among other things the; platypus, giant squid, komodo dragon, mountain gorilla, and the okapi were all believed to be fake

just last year (possibly the year before as well) the following species were discovered; the carnivorous olinguito, giant amazon freshwater arapaima, and glow-in-the-dark cockroaches

although, a quick wikipedia search says there's only been one known specimen of the cockroach, some 70 odd years ago, then it said the volcano they called home entered a new eruptive phase in 1999, then it said they were discovered in 2012. so take that how you will
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Glowing-roaches.jpg

[Kato]

He either saw a normal creature and took it for a monster due to circumstances (including having just woken up and being afraid), or he's spinning a creepy tale for everyone's enjoyment. Creepypasta, like some people said.

This, pretty much... not a bad read, but certainly either made up, a dream took for real, or a nightly meeting distorted by fear.


XKCD is crap.

Well, they say you can't argue about taste... :smallconfused:

[dehro]

that webcomic isn't as bad as more like over-hyped. it's just not as good as people claim it to be


most people have their smartphones with them all the time.

I tried to capture a relatively faint but still quite visible Aurora Borealis on my cellphone. all I got for my troubles was a black screen.

on a different note:
am I really the only one reading this thread who found the notion that a self confessed (and by the looks of it rather jumpy) paranoid walks around with a large blade and a handgun the scary part of this story?

[aberratio ictus]

on a different note:
am I really the only one reading this thread who found the notion that a self confessed (and by the looks of it rather jumpy) paranoid walks around with a large blade and a handgun the scary part of this story?

:smallbiggrin: No. No, you're not. :smallbiggrin:

[SiuiS]

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/330/4/7/omg_a_gif_of_deer_hands_by_pillowpetsonfire-d4heo5c.gif


?

[dehro]

also, I was expecting a slew of harry potter patronum jokes.

shame on you, fellow geeks

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090305101932/harrypotter/it/images/0/06/Harry_Potters_Patronus.jpg

this would be funnier if I had the photoshop-fu to put a creepy smile on the thing

[Mx.Silver]

hey, it wasnt us this time
Well of course if you're hiding the ability to transform into giant demonic deer/moose-beasts you're hardly going to admit it, are you? Yeah, we're wise to your tricks.




am I really the only one reading this thread who found the notion that a self confessed (and by the looks of it rather jumpy) paranoid walks around with a large blade and a handgun the scary part of this story?

No, but the rest of us didn't want to risk making him feel threatened in case panicked and attacked. :smalltongue:

[Telonius]

10 minutes of research revealed that among other things the; platypus, giant squid, komodo dragon, mountain gorilla, and the okapi were all believed to be fake


To add another to the list, the succubus/incubus stories. The creature isn't real, but the experience is; and it's explainable by a sleep disorder. I'd place many alien abduction stories with similar qualities in the same bin. (People generally don't believe in wandering devils anymore, but they do believe in aliens, so that's the image the brain provides).

[ufo]

No, but the rest of us didn't want to risk making him feel threatened in case panicked and attacked. :smalltongue:

Wow, so this is pretty much the scary background story for the real creepy about to go down.

[Socksy]

I scare easily, and this thread has been tempting me for days.

[SiuiS]

I love your avatar. So pretty!

[Starwulf]

that webcomic isn't as bad as more like over-hyped. it's just not as good as people claim it to be



I tried to capture a relatively faint but still quite visible Aurora Borealis on my cellphone. all I got for my troubles was a black screen.

on a different note:
am I really the only one reading this thread who found the notion that a self confessed (and by the looks of it rather jumpy) paranoid walks around with a large blade and a handgun the scary part of this story?

He's out camping. Around here, when you go camping you always have some kind of Firearm, and certainly at least 1 blade, if not several, just in case you decide to do some fishing(just the blades for the fishing) and want to eat what you catch. Doesn't strike me as odd or scary at all.

[dehro]

He's out camping. Around here, when you go camping you always have some kind of Firearm, and certainly at least 1 blade, if not several, just in case you decide to do some fishing(just the blades for the fishing) and want to eat what you catch. Doesn't strike me as odd or scary at all.

That explains it, I guess. I was under the impression that he carried them on a daily basis, not just when camping. (hunting with a Pistol?:smallconfused:)

[Starwulf]

That explains it, I guess. I was under the impression that he carried them on a daily basis, not just when camping. (hunting with a Pistol?:smallconfused:)

never try to understand a redneck. LOL. I'm not one myself(though I do like to fish), most of the people I know are, and while they generally only hunt with Rifles, sometimes they decide to change things up for whatever reason. But yeah, it is fairly uncommon to actually hunt with them. But for just camping? Wouldn't surprise me any at all, i wouldn't even blink, I've seen far stranger :)

[SiuiS]

That explains it, I guess. I was under the impression that he carried them on a daily basis, not just when camping. (hunting with a Pistol?:smallconfused:)

He was carrying it on a regular basis.

I more empathized than anything. You never know when you'll need the small knife, or the big knife, or the really, really sharp knife, or two knives... I have one clipped in my boot at work and another in my pocket. My keys are arranged to be an efficient knuckle duster spike set and or an efficient distraction projectile, and I wear my pants cinched high so I have the freedom of movement to climb trees and fences without the indecency of a skirt during a high kick.

Some people are just paranoid. It's better to let us have our security than have us even more on edge constantly, because then we feel backed into a corner.

[Iruka]

XKCD is crap.

No, it is not. :smalltongue:

So, does anyone live near the OP who would be willing to investigate the campsite?

[Kalmageddon]

on a different note:
am I really the only one reading this thread who found the notion that a self confessed (and by the looks of it rather jumpy) paranoid walks around with a large blade and a handgun the scary part of this story?
We should just be be thankful he didn't reenacted this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKYyYGf4l8Y) scene from Predator as soon as he thought he saw something.

[Somensjev]

XKCD is crap.

i dont even know what that is


Well of course if you're hiding the ability to transform into giant demonic deer/moose-beasts you're hardly going to admit it, are you? Yeah, we're wise to your tricks.

shhhhhhhhhhh, you're not meant to know, just forget, forget everything


We should just be be thankful he didn't reenacted this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKYyYGf4l8Y) scene from Predator as soon as he thought he saw something.

hey, if he had reenacted that scene and survived at least we'd know it was probably just a deermoosething, unless he found no body, then he would've had to run, fast :smallbiggrin:

[dehro]

Some people are just paranoid. It's better to let us have our security than have us even more on edge constantly, because then we feel backed into a corner.
I used to collect knives and would often carry one around, when I was a kid. Then I was advised on just how much legal trouble it could get me into here in Italy.
Heh... now I would be more nervous about carrying them than anything else, for fear of the aforementioned legal troubles.

That said, no, sorry, I can't really get my head around the notion that someone who is jumpy/paranoid should be allowed to carry weapons because not having them would make him feel backed into a corner and.. more paranoid. I'd rather have him/her backed into a corner but without a firearm than not in a corner and armed.

@SiuiS, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you or the fact that you do carry a weapon (or two). I am talking on general principles, I don't know you or Shadowfirelance well enough to make any qualified comment about either of you.
I've been around firearms for long enough to know that an accident can happen very easily.
Without straying into politics, and purely as a general concern, I'll just say I feel somewhat safer with the notion (well, ok, the illusion) that the people who are more likely to be unsettled/unnerved/scared/made to panic by a perceived threat, are not the ones carrying means to kill.

[Asta Kask]

As for the rational thing, I cannot figure out how rational it is, but having complete skepticism for anything supernatural does not correlate with someone being rational. It might correlate with them being irrational, but I don't think rationality is inherently tied to it. It is hard to say, as it's never really been proven, but tales of strange things settling down after priests or mediums came to a house and did their work are common enough that it's hard to deny, too.

“I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. ”


Isaac Asimov

And yes, there are more wonderful things in Heaven and Earth... but they're not supernatural.

[SiuiS]

I used to collect knives and would often carry one around, when I was a kid. Then I was advised on just how much legal trouble it could get me into here in Italy.
Heh... now I would be more nervous about carrying them than anything else, for fear of the aforementioned legal troubles.

I am fully informed on the legal and ethical ramifications of my decisions. :smallsmile:


That said, no, sorry, I can't really get my head around the notion that someone who is jumpy/paranoid should be allowed to carry weapons because not having them would make him feel backed into a corner and.. more paranoid. I'd rather have him/her backed into a corner but without a firearm than not in a corner and armed.

There is no such thing as unarmed. A bent drinking straw can rupture an eyeball. A broken belt buckle can cut deep enough to rupture the carotid. Chairs and tables can be deconstructed in eye blinks and result in stakes and clubs. A table or chair are already clubs. Shoes on laces can reach tremendous speed and deliver kinetic energy behind traditional guards like upraised arms or turned heads. The human elbow is considered a lethal weapon in many jurisdictions.

You would rather have someone scared, stressed. Suffering from tunnel vision and instinctually looking to remove stressors to the point that these all become options that start to look good, than have a pen knife barely able to cut an apple that gives someone peace of mind enough to not relate to situations as a cages animal but with their higher cognitive processes.

That's fine, but you want to be mindful of all the details. I personally don't believe that discomfort can be traded; that taking someone with an actual condition and making them suffer because otherwise you, in good mental health, suffer, is at all okay. Not until aggression picks up. But then, it's impossible to make a good, form statement in a white room. There are definitely situations where I would be right beside you in agreement.


“I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. ”


Isaac Asimov

And yes, there are more wonderful things in Heaven and Earth... but they're not supernatural.

Depends on how you define supernatural, really. The supernatural is natural but of a higher form. Human cognitive function is supernatural, for example. You believe in human cognitive function, right? :smalltongue:

Mostly though, supernatural is just a silly word, entirely based on emotional understanding. It falls apart as a premise, or becomes something so specific that you can agree it exists but also that it's not longer the same in spirit as when used loosely.

[coineineagh]

sounds like the forest spirit from Mononoke Hime. don't watch it; it'll just freak you out even more.

[Asta Kask]

Depends on how you define supernatural, really. The supernatural is natural but of a higher form. Human cognitive function is supernatural, for example. You believe in human cognitive function, right? :smalltongue:

You'll have to explain what you mean by "higher form", because I don't understand it. Do you mean "unexplained"?

[dehro]

You would rather have someone scared, stressed. Suffering from tunnel vision and instinctually looking to remove stressors to the point that these all become options that start to look good, than have a pen knife barely able to cut an apple that gives someone peace of mind enough to not relate to situations as a cages animal but with their higher cognitive processes.


on one hand, a pen knife, just like any of your other examples, is enough to put an eye out etc etc, and the whole thing started with the OP mentioning something quite a bit bigger (my mind went to Mr. Crocodile Dundee, I'm sure you know what scene from the movie I'm talking about)... and a gun.
I agree that even a rolled up magazine can be turned into a weapon, in a pinch.
On that principle, if I had/when I have personal safety concerns, the knowledge that there are all sorts of weapons lying around makes me not feel the urge to go buy a rifle, but that's just me.
As you point out, my mental health is not the issue here.

On the other hand, I have no clear cut answer and yes, I am aware that anxiety, conditions of various nature and intensity can be soothed by carrying an equivalent to Charlie Brown's blanket. For some it's an inhaler, for others something else, depending on the nature of the condition...
Of course some people feel safer with a knife, and a knife + a condition don't automatically turn someone into a public menace....
but then again, sometimes that's precisely what it does.. and people are left wondering after the doodoo hits the fan, why that particular individual was given the option of, say, having access to firearms or explosives (or a crowbar or a screwdriver, I know, that slope is slippery in whatever direction you try to walk it)
Again, it's very much a case by case situation, I reckon, and that's the best I can come up with... which I realize is not nearly good enough.
So, on a case by case analysis, if an individual is considered responsible and sufficiently in control to manage a weapon, whatever it's nature, and whatever conditions s/he might have, then by all means, give him access to it.
If another individual with a similar situation or condition but stronger triggers and a potential... degree of unpredictability(?) assessed by duly appointed autorities, wants a weapon, then there should be a manner to deny it to him.
How any and all of that is even practically possible to do (I reckon it's pretty much impossible in the US of A, today) goes beyond my level of competence on the subject and beyond the scope of this thread (or any other on this forum, I guess).
Going back to this thread, it pretty much starts with:
I'm kinda paranoid. also, I'm armed. Which actually is an odd thing to say, as no use of weapons or issues of personal safety come up anywhere else in the tale. Unless I've misread things, the OP never pulled the gun on the creepy antlery thing.
My whole thought process which led to that remark pretty much came about because I'm really skeptical when it comes to supernatural or "spooky" events, and more worried about unregulated weapon distribution.. so starting with the premise "this is a disturbing/creepy story", I reacted to that "fact" giving it more thought than I gave to the rest of the story.
that's all, really.

[Grinner]

You'll have to explain what you mean by "higher form", because I don't understand it. Do you mean "unexplained"?

I think she's arguing the semantics of the term "supernatural". Things which seemingly defy explanation can be termed supernatural. Things which have been documented thoroughly are not. As mankind expands its catalogs of the universe and applies explanation to the things observed, things formerly regarded as paranormal become mundane.

Take the previously described animals for instance or, if you take Greek mythology at face value, even lightning.

Also, while your Asimov quote sounds nice, you must understand that those of a scientific bent are still human, and humans have preconceptions. Unless you can cage it and dissect it, telling them otherwise, especially a whole culture of them, is quite taxing.

[Asta Kask]

Also, while your Asimov quote sounds nice, you must understand that those of a scientific bent are still human, and humans have preconceptions. Unless you can cage it and dissect it, telling them otherwise, especially a whole culture of them, is quite taxing.

Oh, I understand that. But we shouldn't assume things without evidence because that leads to sloppy thinking. Take aliens molesting cows for instance. If you accept this, you stop the investigation and learn nothing more. If you continue a little further, you learn a whole lot about how small local carnivores and the drying effects of the sun can produce something that, at a casual glance may look like a molested cow.

[Bulldog Psion]

am I really the only one reading this thread who found the notion that a self confessed (and by the looks of it rather jumpy) paranoid walks around with a large blade and a handgun the scary part of this story?

No, you're not, but I try to be diplomatic.

[dehro]

I'm now slightly perturbed by the notion of... what does a molested cow look like?

[SiuiS]

You'll have to explain what you mean by "higher form", because I don't understand it. Do you mean "unexplained"?

No, because an unexplained phenomenon is an unexplained phenomenon.

Super means more, above. Natural means a lot of things, but usually not man made. Supernatural is more than nature, which doesn't make much sense on the face of it. The brain is natural. The mind could be viewed as supernatural; an amazing, inexplicable phenomenon that us an emergent property and belies the components it stems from. Hyperbole for effect, but still.

It's silly to deride the supernatural when 'supernatural' is a fitting definition for a lot of things we now take for granted, like the same energy that allows our eyes to see being able to pass through different tissues at different intensity and mark out bones onto film, or to read time-shifted messages across all of the world on a pocket sized window of glass that can take my voice from one person to another with no effort.


on one hand, a pen knife, just like any of your other examples, is enough to put an eye out etc etc,

That's very true and somehow I didn't notice that. :smallredface:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by chaotic stupid
...carnivorous olinguito, giant amazon freshwater arapaima....

These are good points overall, but the olinguito is hardly a ravening carnivore. As for the arapaima, that was a question of splitting a known species based on new molecular work, rather than any dramatic discovery per se. Sadly, arapaimas are so well known they're being heavily overfished.

That said, your points about the giant squid, mountain gorilla, et al. are absolutely correct and right on target. I could add several more creatures that were thought to be mythical and proven to be real.


Originally Posted by dehro
...am I really the only one reading this thread who found the notion that a self confessed (and by the looks of it rather jumpy) paranoid walks around with a large blade and a handgun the scary part of this story?

I'm comforted by the thought that he didn't randomly shoot or stab, he just ran like heck. :smalltongue:


Originally Posted by starwulf
never try to understand a redneck.

I lived among them for years, and came to learn their ways, but they never truly accepted me as one of their own.

:smallamused:

[Asta Kask]

I'm now slightly perturbed by the notion of... what does a molested cow look like?

The tongue is gone, and so is the anus and sometimes the inner organs. That's a signature of small carnivore who begin with the softer parts. They also chew around the hoofs and when the skin is dried by the sun it shrinks and the result looks like precise cuts.


No, because an unexplained phenomenon is an unexplained phenomenon.

Super means more, above. Natural means a lot of things, but usually not man made. Supernatural is more than nature, which doesn't make much sense on the face of it. The brain is natural. The mind could be viewed as supernatural; an amazing, inexplicable phenomenon that us an emergent property and belies the components it stems from. Hyperbole for effect, but still.

We don't know that it's inexplicable. We know that it's unexplained. If you agree that the two are different then don't confuse them.


It's silly to deride the supernatural when 'supernatural' is a fitting definition for a lot of things we now take for granted, like the same energy that allows our eyes to see being able to pass through different tissues at different intensity and mark out bones onto film, or to read time-shifted messages across all of the world on a pocket sized window of glass that can take my voice from one person to another with no effort.

But all that is explained by Quantum Electrodynamics. We have a perfectly good theory for all that. I don't understand it, but that's another matter. It makes precise predictions and, while I would prefer something I could comprehend, there's no law that says I have to comprehend everything. But predictions are good enough.

[SiuiS]

We don't know that it's inexplicable. We know that it's unexplained. If you agree that the two are different then don't confuse them.

Inexplicable is defined as unexplained. Unexplained is defined as not known or not made clear. Technically these two are synonymous. They have different connotations, however, which is what I was using.



But all that is explained by Quantum Electrodynamics. We have a perfectly good theory for all that. I don't understand it, but that's another matter. It makes precise predictions and, while I would prefer something I could comprehend, there's no law that says I have to comprehend everything. But predictions are good enough.

And? I never said unexplained, ever. I even said 'no' when you asked me if I meant unexplained. Are you just trying to pin an already-debunked paradigm on me so you can dismiss it summarily? I was very clear that it's a semantic point and that supernatural has a functional definition that does not mean "magic". You're preparing for a fight that doesn't need to happen.

[Grinner]

But all that is explained by Quantum Electrodynamics. We have a perfectly good theory for all that. I don't understand it, but that's another matter. It makes precise predictions and, while I would prefer something I could comprehend, there's no law that says I have to comprehend everything. But predictions are good enough.

This may or may not be relevant, but I'm gonna guess Guglielmo Marconi hadn't the faintest idea what quantum electrodynamics is. That didn't stop him from making the first commercial radio.

In fact, I recall an XKCD comic where quantum electrodynamics is described as the thing that makes electronics work. This is false. The discovery was not derived from the theory. The theory was derived the discovery.

[Bulldog Psion]

This may or may not be relevant, but I'm gonna guess Guglielmo Marconi hadn't the faintest idea what quantum electrodynamics is. That didn't stop him from making the first commercial radio.

In fact, I recall an XKCD comic where quantum electrodynamics is described as the thing that makes electronics work. This is false. The discovery was not derived from the theory. The theory was derived the discovery.

Grinner -- your username makes me suspect it was you sneaking around that campsite. :smallwink:

[dehro]

The tongue is gone, and so is the anus and sometimes the inner organs. That's a signature of small carnivore who begin with the softer parts. They also chew around the hoofs and when the skin is dried by the sun it shrinks and the result looks like precise cuts.


I just had to go and read, didn't I?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_hXjhQ1_xjuQ/TCfLg8sh_wI/AAAAAAAAJdM/G5I3xFUoEPU/s1600/Eye%2Bbleach.jpg

[Grinner]

Grinner -- your username makes me suspect it was you sneaking around that campsite. :smallwink:

I'm afraid you'll have to ruin the joke, because I'm not following.

Do you mean the part where the Deermoosething appeared to be smiling?

[Bulldog Psion]

I'm afraid you'll have to ruin the joke, because I'm not following.

Do you mean the part where the Deermoosething appeared to be smiling?

Exactly. :smallwink:

[Kato]

You would rather have someone scared, stressed. Suffering from tunnel vision and instinctually looking to remove stressors to the point that these all become options that start to look good, than have a pen knife barely able to cut an apple that gives someone peace of mind enough to not relate to situations as a cages animal but with their higher cognitive processes.

No offense, but I'm more inclined to agree with dehro here. Obviously, my personal favorite would be you/whoever not having anxiety issues and not feeling the need to have a weapon around at all times, but as discussed, an armed person who feels trapped in a corner is still far more dangerous than a unarmed person trapped in a corner. And people who may feel like helping or who are innocent bystanders are less likely to get seriously hurt.
(But this likely comes down to a general dissonance towards arms between different cultures in general)


Inexplicable is defined as unexplained. Unexplained is defined as not known or not made clear. Technically these two are synonymous. They have different connotations, however, which is what I was using.

Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "unexplained" merely the state of being... well, not explained and "inexplicable" something which CAN not be explained? It's not a huge difference but enough to be different definitions. (obviously tell me if I'm wrong)


In fact, I recall an XKCD comic where quantum electrodynamics is described as the thing that makes electronics work. This is false. The discovery was not derived from the theory. The theory was derived the discovery.
Well, quantum electrodynamics make pretty much everything work, apart from pretty few phenomenons which come down to general relativity. The statement "quantum electrodynamics make radios work" doesn't contain you need to understand QE theory for a radio to work. (I feel I have a hard time making my point here, sorry)

[Arkhosia]

My first suspect is Grue. :smalltongue:

[Nix Nihila]

Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "unexplained" merely the state of being... well, not explained and "inexplicable" something which CAN not be explained? It's not a huge difference but enough to be different definitions. (obviously tell me if I'm wrong)

That is the definition as I understand it.



And? I never said unexplained, ever. I even said 'no' when you asked me if I meant unexplained. Are you just trying to pin an already-debunked paradigm on me so you can dismiss it summarily? I was very clear that it's a semantic point and that supernatural has a functional definition that does not mean "magic". You're preparing for a fight that doesn't need to happen.

What definition does it have that doesn't mean magical? Certainly, it is used sometimes as a metaphor to emphasize a quality (e.g., a woman of supernatural grace), but it isn't a definition of the word so far as I can tell. Perhaps preternatural would be a better descriptor, as it doesn't carry to baggage of something existing contrary to the laws of physics?

Anyway, I think using supernatural in the context you suggest (to evoke the awesome nature of certain natural phenomena) only obfuscates what you mean.

[Asta Kask]

Inexplicable is defined as unexplained. Unexplained is defined as not known or not made clear. Technically these two are synonymous. They have different connotations, however, which is what I was using.[/quotes]

I'm sorry, I was using the word in a secondary way as "incapable of being explained ever" as opposed to "we can't understand it yet." That may be a non-standard usage but it's common in the skeptic community.

[QUOTE=SiuiS;17022710]And? I never said unexplained, ever. I even said 'no' when you asked me if I meant unexplained. Are you just trying to pin an already-debunked paradigm on me so you can dismiss it summarily? I was very clear that it's a semantic point and that supernatural has a functional definition that does not mean "magic". You're preparing for a fight that doesn't need to happen.

See Nix Nihila.

[SiuiS]

No offense, but I'm more inclined to agree with dehro here.

Oh, no offense will come from someone disagreeing with me, don't worry.



obviously, my personal favorite would be you/whoever not having anxiety issues and not feeling the need to have a weapon around at all times, but as discussed, an armed person who feels trapped in a corner is still far more dangerous than a unarmed person trapped in a corner.

But it is disarming them and leaving them feeling helpless and isolated which makes them cornered. There is no corner otherwise.



Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "unexplained" merely the state of being... well, not explained and "inexplicable" something which CAN not be explained? It's not a huge difference but enough to be different definitions. (obviously tell me if I'm wrong)

Well, here's what I grabbed to check.

http://i1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee468/WizardPony/examples/E553E592-E454-485E-913F-9692311060D5.png

&

http://i1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee468/WizardPony/examples/6FF6DCDA-A8AE-44C4-A663-AFA4AB39AAC0.png


So, yes, possibly. I took cannot be explained in the human sense of no one can explain it, not there is no explanation possible. Which just underscores the conversational rather than technical use of language I'm working with. I try to avoid technicalities when defusing an escalation.


My first suspect is Grue. :smalltongue:

Pfffffff



Anyway, I think using supernatural in the context you suggest (to evoke the awesome nature of certain natural phenomena) only obfuscates what you mean.

How can it obfuscate what I mean when that's the entire point of what I mean? "Summary dismissal of a category which is delineated by metaphor as much as definition is silly if you don't acknowledge that it's categorized by metaphor". In the same way a person can use spiritual language to mean psychological and emotional health.

[Asta Kask]

How can it obfuscate what I mean when that's the entire point of what I mean?

People think you mean ghosts.

[SiuiS]

People think you mean ghosts.

If people hear me say "supernatural" and immediately go "OMG she believes in ghosts!" And rush past my explanation in that same paragraph that clarifies why I don't mean ghosts, it's not my bad. Formulating a response to a statement you haven't heard yet and don't understand cannot be a fault of the speaker over the listener.

I mean, really, now. I say "supernatural means more than ghosts" and someone goes "aha! Ghosts!", it's like that person is looking for an excuse to prove themselves at my expense... And make themselves look silly in the process.

[Asta Kask]

If people hear me say "supernatural" and immediately go "OMG she believes in ghosts!" And rush past my explanation in that same paragraph that clarifies why I don't mean ghosts, it's not my bad. Formulating a response to a statement you haven't heard yet and don't understand cannot be a fault of the speaker over the listener.

I mean, really, now. I say "supernatural means more than ghosts" and someone goes "aha! Ghosts!", it's like that person is looking for an excuse to prove themselves at my expense... And make themselves look silly in the process.

If I consistently use the word "blue" to mean "black" - and can point to historical precedence - are people who misunderstand me silly?

[SiuiS]

If I consistently use the word "blue" to mean "black" - and can point to historical precedence - are people who misunderstand me silly?

If you provide, in your opening statements, your reasoning for doing so and use it consistently in that one conversational thread, yes. But that's not what happened.

I asked you to re-evaluate your derision based on first a breakdown of the roots and then by examples which fit the newly emergent understanding I was pointing to. Which is why I'm being so insistent now on clarity; the response wasn't confusion, it was active antagonism towards a hypothetical based on prejudice... Backlash against a possibly useful framing device because of preconceived notions that do not in fact take the device itself into account in any way.

Which is fine, actually, I just like people to admit their prejudices. I do! When I see them, that is. :smallsmile:

[Frozen_Feet]

As a funny side-note, the Finnish word for elk or moose, "hirvi", is only one letter away from our word for monster, "hirviö".

Also, our folklore contains vengeful ghosts of deers who impale hapless people on their antlers, as well as occasion of female witches who lure men to secluded places, then turns into reindeers and impale them.

Our folklore also contains tales of fire-breathing ghosts belonging to vengeful cows who had their children killed and eaten by humans.

The boring realist in me would say these were all inspired by the occasional impaling or trampling given to a careless human by a perfectly normal elk, deer or cow. Unlike what some people think, "herbivore" doesn't imply "peaceful" and certainly doesn't mean "dangerless".

[thorgrim29]

It always confuses me why people bring up the gorilla thing as proof that wendigoes or bigfoot are plausible. Western zoologistnot running into one particularly isolated species of higher ape for a while in a region where there are several such species is something you'd expect. A ten foot tall hominid somehow living in north america without ever leaving credible evidence despite thousands of people obsessing over finding some for a few hundred years is not.

[AtlanteanTroll]

These are good points overall, but the olinguito is hardly a ravening carnivore. As for the arapaima, that was a question of splitting a known species based on new molecular work, rather than any dramatic discovery per se. Sadly, arapaimas are so well known they're being heavily overfished.

That said, your points about the giant squid, mountain gorilla, et al. are absolutely correct and right on target. I could add several more creatures that were thought to be mythical and proven to be real.
The problem is those creatures all exist in environs that have not been thoroughly explored. The US most certainly has.

[Nix Nihila]

If you provide, in your opening statements, your reasoning for doing so and use it consistently in that one conversational thread, yes. But that's not what happened.

But was there a good reason to bring up the metaphorical usage of supernatural? It isn't clear in the post by Jade Dragon which Asta originally responded to that supernatural was meant in the same way you are using it now.

To me it just further confuses the matter, but as I arrived to this thread quite late, I am missing some of the context myself.

[Asta Kask]

As a funny side-note, the Finnish word for elk or moose, "hirvi", is only one letter away from our word for monster, "hirviö".

And not too far from "hiiri", meaning mice. Which lead to convulsions of laughter when I spoke of tanssi hirvi. Moose slowly waltzing through the forest, maybe breakdancing to spook an angry bear...

[Chen]

But was there a good reason to bring up the metaphorical usage of supernatural? It isn't clear in the post by Jade Dragon which Asta originally responded to that supernatural was meant in the same way you are using it now.

To me it just further confuses the matter, but as I arrived to this thread quite late, I am missing some of the context myself.

This is pretty much how I read it too. We're talking about a monstrous goat creature in the woods (or what someone imagined to be that) and the term "supernatural" came up. Its seems fairly obvious what definition of this word we're using here based on context.

[Grinner]

Well, quantum electrodynamics make pretty much everything work, apart from pretty few phenomenons which come down to general relativity. The statement "quantum electrodynamics make radios work" doesn't contain you need to understand QE theory for a radio to work. (I feel I have a hard time making my point here, sorry)

Don't worry about it. I have those moments too.

I think what you're saying is that you don't need to understand something to make it work, and that, really, is the crux of my message. Our theories are separate entities from the the phenomena they describe. They're just interpretations. Not having a convenient description for a phenomenon does not preclude it from existing.


The boring realist in me would say these were all inspired by the occasional impaling or trampling given to a careless human by a perfectly normal elk, deer or cow. Unlike what some people think, "herbivore" doesn't imply "peaceful" and certainly doesn't mean "dangerless".

This seems like a very plausible explanation for the first and perhaps the second one, but I'm a little curious about third. :smallconfused:

[Frozen_Feet]

Cow digestion does create a lot of methane, which is very flammable. There is a very amusing joke of a vet treating one suffering from indigestion, and asking for more light to get a better look. I'll leave the consequences to your imagination,

[SiuiS]

As a funny side-note, the Finnish word for elk or moose, "hirvi", is only one letter away from our word for monster, "hirviö".

Also, our folklore contains vengeful ghosts of deers who impale hapless people on their antlers, as well as occasion of female witches who lure men to secluded places, then turns into reindeers and impale them.

Our folklore also contains tales of fire-breathing ghosts belonging to vengeful cows who had their children killed and eaten by humans.

Neat!


It always confuses me why people bring up the gorilla thing as proof that wendigoes or bigfoot are plausible. Western zoologistnot running into one particularly isolated species of higher ape for a while in a region where there are several such species is something you'd expect. A ten foot tall hominid somehow living in north america without ever leaving credible evidence despite thousands of people obsessing over finding some for a few hundred years is not.

Wizards. Wizards hiding all the bigfeet.


But was there a good reason to bring up the metaphorical usage of supernatural? It isn't clear in the post by Jade Dragon which Asta originally responded to that supernatural was meant in the same way you are using it now.

To me it just further confuses the matter, but as I arrived to this thread quite late, I am missing some of the context myself.

It was it's own conversation. As a capstone, Anders said there are many unexplained things, but nothing supernatural. I said that depends on how you mean super natural. The catching point was when one party seemingly tried to lead the other into agreeing to an easily dismissible premise. Everything since has been clarifying the original point and divining whether trying to attribute a different stance was intentional, or simply inferred.

[Asta Kask]

Cow digestion does create a lot of methane, which is very flammable. There is a very amusing joke of a vet treating one suffering from indigestion, and asking for more light to get a better look. I'll leave the consequences to your imagination,

Cows’ farts and burps cause explosion in Rasdorf, Germany (http://www.euronews.com/2014/01/28/cows-farts-and-burps-cause-explosion-in-rasdorf-germany/)

[Kato]

But it is disarming them and leaving them feeling helpless and isolated which makes them cornered. There is no corner otherwise.
While we are getting off-topic, can you be sure you won't feel threatened/troubled/??? even if armed maybe because something out of the ordinary happens? Because, then you do have a scared, armed individual quite easily.
And on a more general term, if we accept this reasoning as a general rule for people to wear arms, people with evil intent could rather easily abuse such a law.


So, yes, possibly. I took cannot be explained in the human sense of no one can explain it, not there is no explanation possible. Which just underscores the conversational rather than technical use of language I'm working with. I try to avoid technicalities when defusing an escalation.
Language can be a bitch :smallbiggrin:


Don't worry about it. I have those moments too.

I think what you're saying is that you don't need to understand something to make it work, and that, really, is the crux of my message. Our theories are separate entities from the the phenomena they describe. They're just interpretations. Not having a convenient description for a phenomenon does not preclude it from existing.

Agreed. Still, I'm also very skeptical when it comes to using "we don't know everything about the world" as a reason to say "scientifically unexplained thing X exists even though we can't prove it". Not to say we have discovered everything there is to know about the world but e.g. I'm just pretty convinced if there are vampires/ghosts/??? we would have found some definite, reproducable proof for it instead of stories and legends.


Also: Fire Breathing Cows sounds like a great name for a metal band :smalltongue:

[SiuiS]

While we are getting off-topic, can you be sure you won't feel threatened/troubled/??? even if armed maybe because something out of the ordinary happens? Because, then you do have a scared, armed individual quite easily.
And on a more general term, if we accept this reasoning as a general rule for people to wear arms, people with evil intent could rather easily abuse such a law.

I can be certain when that is the premise this started with, yes. I am the person who first mentioned "feeling cornered" and specifically as caused by being made to feel helpless by not having a security device. :P

People of evil intent are ironically not stopped by stricter law anyway. Although we weren't discussing law? I thought this was about comfort.



Language can be a bitch :smallbiggrin:


She's so pretty though, I can't resist :f

[Tiffanie Lirle]

Look up /k/'s Skinwalkers.

/X/ here, one of your camping buddies isn't one of your camping buddies anymore. You dun' goofed by not going full /K/ommando during the happening.

Though your chances are still cool as long as you avoid contact with any friends who've started eating a lot of rare meat since then.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by AtlanteanTroll
The problem is those creatures all exist in environs that have not been thoroughly explored. The US most certainly has.

What I'm saying is that some creatures once thought to be "mythical" were, in fact, entirely solid. Doesn't mean every myth is automatically tangible, obviously, only that sometimes we should allow ourselves a little room to be surprised.

Also, yes, the US has been heavily surveyed, but new species can still be described here. I have a friend who did just that a few years ago.


Originally Posted by Grinner
Our theories are separate entities from the the phenomena they describe. They're just interpretations. Not having a convenient description for a phenomenon does not preclude it from existing.

This is nicely put, and absolutely spot-on.

[Bulldog Psion]

Agreed. Still, I'm also very skeptical when it comes to using "we don't know everything about the world" as a reason to say "scientifically unexplained thing X exists even though we can't prove it". Not to say we have discovered everything there is to know about the world but e.g. I'm just pretty convinced if there are vampires/ghosts/??? we would have found some definite, reproducable proof for it instead of stories and legends.

Exactly. People seem to think that skeptics/rationalists like yers truly would refuse to believe in vampires, Bigfoot, or Cernunnos because it's some article of faith, and that even in the face of evidence, we would continue to deny it.

If someone hauled out an actual vampire, sasquatch, yeti, or Nessie, I would believe it in a snap. Heck, I think I would be saying "wow, that is the coolest ****ing thing I ever have seen." Even if I was fleeing like heck to get away from it.

It's just that I don't believe stuff without evidence. Someone saying "I saw something scary in the woods at night" isn't evidence to me. Photographs of sufficient quality and authenticity (preferably a lot of them from multiple sources), tracks, bodies, live creature in a cage -- that's evidence. Multiple campers disappearing in a park, with strange footprints and shreds of bloody clothing left behind, combined with sightings -- that's evidence, though not conclusive of exactly what's going on.

"I saw something weird with horns grinning at me after I woke up in the middle of the night" is a fun, spooky story for the campfire and I'm all for it. But if you expect me to link it to real phenomena in any way other than "you were scared and saw a deer dying of mange in conditions of darkness" without any evidence beyond saying "the supernatural exists no matter what you skeptics say!" isn't going to score many points with me believing it's anything but a fun, spooky fireside story anyway.

I like the story, actually. It appeals to that "things man was not meant to know," fear of the dark stuff that reminds you of how spooky stuff was back when you were a kid and everything still seemed possible. To that deliciously creepy feeling of dark adventure from "there's something out there." I love that "mysterious American backwoods weirdness" atmosphere a lot from an aesthetic point of view.

But though I currently find it imaginative and entertaining, it's not something that will cause me to suddenly start thinking that the Sons of Cenarius are loose in the U.S. woodlands until I see some actual proof. Beyond saying "the supernatural exists, so there!", that is.

I would believe in spells if I saw someone actually casting them. Dragons if one flew over. Vampires if I saw one in action. Weird deer-demons in the woods if someone photographs, shoots, or captures one. But until then, I will continue to believe that the burden of proof is upon the person claiming the weirdness, rather than the one doubting it. I am skeptical of deer demons, Bigfoot, dragons, and unicorns not because I have anything against the concepts but because there has been no physical proof of them anywhere, ever.

P.S. This is not directed at the OP but an attempt to clarify the position of a specific skeptic regarding his attitude towards supernatural claims.

[AtlanteanTroll]

What I'm saying is that some creatures once thought to be "mythical" were, in fact, entirely solid. Doesn't mean every myth is automatically tangible, obviously, only that sometimes we should allow ourselves a little room to be surprised.

Also, yes, the US has been heavily surveyed, but new species can still be described here. I have a friend who did just that a few years ago.
Was this species more than 2 feet at the shoulder and not a reclassification of a prior known species? Because if not, doesn't much matter in this context.

EDIT: Not to disparage their scientific achievement.

[Aliquid]

Exactly. People seem to think that skeptics/rationalists like yers truly would refuse to believe in vampires, Bigfoot, or Cernunnos because it's some article of faith, and that even in the face of evidence, we would continue to deny it.

If someone hauled out an actual vampire, sasquatch, yeti, or Nessie, I would believe it in a snap. Heck, I think I would be saying "wow, that is the coolest ****ing thing I ever have seen." Even if I was fleeing like heck to get away from it.
To support your perspective, a quote from National Geographic:

"A British scientist has linked supposed hair samples from the legendary Yeti, or 'Abominable Snowman', to a breed of ancient Arctic bears that he says could have survived to the modern day—but other experts say the results need to be published before any conclusions can be drawn."

If this scientist's analysis is backed up by peer review, I’m sure your response would be “that’s so cool!”, rather than “I still don’t believe there is a big hairy creature hiding in the Himalayas”

Until it is peer reviewed you are likely not committing to either side of the argument, but intrigued that it might be true.

[ShadowFireLance]

/X/ here, one of your camping buddies isn't one of your camping buddies anymore. You dun' goofed by not going full /K/ommando during the happening.

Though your chances are still cool as long as you avoid contact with any friends who've started eating a lot of rare meat since then.

No, Not really. None of them show the signs.

Now, I will say something, I believe, unless proven wrong, things exist.

And also, the reasoning for not going full commando and shooting it, is the fact that very few things are actually able to injure it. I had no ash on hand, nor Silver.

[dehro]

Not sure what not putting any underwear on has anything to do with things
Because language

[AtlanteanTroll]

And also, the reasoning for not going full commando and shooting it, is the fact that very few things are actually able to injure it. I had no ash on hand, nor Silver.

Implying you knew what it was and debasing the OP.

[ShadowFireLance]

Implying you knew what it was and debasing the OP.

It had all the signs of a Goatman/Skinwalker.
I love the idea of those things, and have done my fair share of research.

[GoblinArchmage]

It had all the signs of a Goatman/Skinwalker.
I love the idea of those things, and have done my fair share of research.

The fact that "Goatman" immediately puts an image in my mind that isn't a satyr probably means I've been on the internet for too long. I'm not sure what to think about the fact that the image that I do see makes me smile.

[obryn]

I'm pretty deeply skeptical of anything that happens right after waking up, because I've had hypnogogic hallucinations my whole life. Usually they happen about an hour after I go to bed, but generally I'll partly wake up, then be convinced that there is someone else in the room with me, some animals crawling around me or on the floor, etc. I've seen my door moving, people walking, etc.

To me, they are incredibly real. It takes a lot of effort on my part to convince me otherwise; they can last several minutes sometimes. Usually I have to get out of bed and touch whatever is there - if it's a person, whatever pillow, blanket, etc. I think is a person. If it's an animal - like bugs crawling all over my floor - I need to get in close.

As soon as I touch whatever it is, the hallucination is gone - my mind snaps right back into seeing the world as it is.

So yeah. I simply don't put much stock into any stories of odd visions or occurrences that happen right after someone wakes up. I'm sure what the OP saw was incredibly real to them. But I don't believe it was a real occurrence outside his/her mind.


It's just that I don't believe stuff without evidence. Someone saying "I saw something scary in the woods at night" isn't evidence to me. Photographs of sufficient quality and authenticity (preferably a lot of them from multiple sources), tracks, bodies, live creature in a cage -- that's evidence. Multiple campers disappearing in a park, with strange footprints and shreds of bloody clothing left behind, combined with sightings -- that's evidence, though not conclusive of exactly what's going on.
Edit: Also, this.

[razark]

Now, I will say something, I believe, unless proven wrong, things exist.
Wow. Just, wow. That's, uh...

I've got this dragon in my garage. I'll show it to you for $10. For $5 I'll sell you some scales from it.

[ShadowFireLance]

Wow. Just, wow. That's, uh...

I've got this dragon in my garage. I'll show it to you for $10. For $5 I'll sell you some scales from it.

Well, that point's fairly moot, because Dragons do exist, as proof has been shown.

[GoblinArchmage]

Well, that point's fairly moot, because Dragons do exist, as proof has been shown.

I think we both know that he/she wasn't talking about a Komodo Dragon.

[Zrak]

To support your perspective, a quote from National Geographic:

"A British scientist has linked supposed hair samples from the legendary Yeti, or 'Abominable Snowman', to a breed of ancient Arctic bears that he says could have survived to the modern day—but other experts say the results need to be published before any conclusions can be drawn."

If this scientist's analysis is backed up by peer review, I’m sure your response would be “that’s so cool!”, rather than “I still don’t believe there is a big hairy creature hiding in the Himalayas”

Until it is peer reviewed you are likely not committing to either side of the argument, but intrigued that it might be true.

Honestly, my biggest problem with the so-called skeptics is the fact that they will pretty much just accept anything that passes peer review as True Objective Fact because, apparently, skepticism does not apply to institutional science. Given some of the things that have appeared in peer reviewed journals, I would be regard most published studies as dubiously as I would entirely unverified internet reports.

In other words, get skeptical, skeptics.

[obryn]

Well, that point's fairly moot, because Dragons do exist, as proof has been shown.
OK, so among all this talk about "skinwalkers" and this, I'm finding your story less and less credible. Not that I think you're lying about your experience, but I don't think your experience was connected with the reality of the situation in any direct sense.

And if you're just playing on Komodo dragons... well... "People have found animals that were believed mythical in the past" is not evidence that your thingamabob, or any other specific "cryptid" such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc. exists. That's not how evidence works.

If you're arguing, "There are more animals in the world than are known to science," then yeah, that's inarguably true, and any zoologist would agree in a heartbeat. But something as bizarre as a deer-headed guy who smiles and walks through campsites ... that requires some pretty convincing evidence. Certainly more evidence than testimony like this.

edit:

Honestly, my biggest problem with the so-called skeptics is the fact that they will pretty much just accept anything that passes peer review as True Objective Fact because, apparently, skepticism does not apply to institutional science. Given some of the things that have appeared in peer reviewed journals, I would be regard most published studies as dubiously as I would entirely unverified internet reports.

In other words, get skeptical, skeptics.
Skepticism is the driving force behind peer-reviewed science.

-O

[ShadowFireLance]

OK, so among all this talk about "skinwalkers" and this, I'm finding your story less and less credible. Not that I think you're lying about your experience, but I don't think your experience was connected with the reality of the situation in any direct sense.

And if you're just playing on Komodo dragons... well... "People have found animals that were believed mythical in the past" is not evidence that your thingamabob, or any other specific "cryptid" such as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc. exists. That's not how evidence works.

If you're arguing, "There are more animals in the world than are known to science," then yeah, that's inarguably true, and any zoologist would agree in a heartbeat. But something as bizarre as a deer-headed guy who smiles and walks through campsites ... that requires some pretty convincing evidence. Certainly more evidence than testimony like this.

-O


No, I'm talking about intellegent, Flight Capeable Dragons. I can provide specific evidence of them, but that is a different topic.

[GoblinArchmage]

No, I'm talking about intellegent, Flight Capeable Dragons. I can provide specific evidence of them, but that is a different topic.

Please do tell us about these totally real, magical, flying dragons.

[TaiLiu]

No, I'm talking about intellegent, Flight Capeable Dragons. I can provide specific evidence of them, but that is a different topic.
I am highly sceptic of this claim, and would like to know more.

[razark]

No, I'm talking about intellegent, Flight Capeable Dragons. I can provide specific evidence of them, but that is a different topic.
No, it's not a different topic. You've posted this as a true story, and postings since then have only called your credibility into question.

Not to mention your definition of "evidence".

[ShadowFireLance]

No, please do tell us about these real and totally not mythical magical flying dragons.

Alrighty.


I am highly sceptic of this claim, and would like to know more.
Entirely Acceptable.


No, it's not a different topic. You've posted this as a true story, and postings since then have only called your credibility into question.

Not to mention your definition of "evidence".

Alright then, Believe what you will.

Actually, Upon thinking, I can't actually state my evidence, because of forum rules.

[Togath]

No, I'm talking about intellegent, Flight Capeable Dragons. I can provide specific evidence of them, but that is a different topic.

You're confusing fact with fiction.. :smalleek:
That.. or you only watched some animal planet show up until right before the "this is just a dramatization" popped up(there was some fiasco with "mermaids" and "Megaladons" where people thought they were watching a real documentary rather than just a standard scifi-channal-esc movie).:smallamused:

edit


Actually, Upon thinking, I can't actually state my evidence, because of forum rules.
So.. you expect us to believe you, when you can't even provide the "proof" you supposedly had?:smalltongue:

[obryn]

No, I'm talking about intellegent, Flight Capeable Dragons. I can provide specific evidence of them, but that is a different topic.
...Yeah.


Actually, Upon thinking, I can't actually state my evidence, because of forum rules.
I find this kind of hard to credit, too. What sort of evidence of real dragons would run afoul of any forum rules?

[TaiLiu]

Entirely Acceptable.
Is this a book, or...?

[Mx.Silver]

I had no ash on hand, nor Silver.

Well if you don't tell me in advance you can hardly expect me to get there on time :smalltongue:
Fun with capitalisation.

[Zrak]

Skepticism is the driving force behind peer-reviewed science.

-O

I disagree; money is the driving force behind peer-reviewed science. Hence my argument that the process of peer review and the industry of institutional science ought to be treated with a great deal of skepticism rather than blind belief.

[TaiLiu]

I disagree; money is the driving force behind peer-reviewed science. Hence my argument that the process of peer review and the industry of institutional science ought to be treated with a great deal of skepticism rather than blind belief.
Hm. I wonder what you think of ResearchGate.

[obryn]

I disagree; money is the driving force behind peer-reviewed science. Hence my argument that the process of peer review and the industry of institutional science ought to be treated with a great deal of skepticism rather than blind belief.
Having been involved in said peer-reviewed, institutional science ... nope.

You're not pushing skepticism, you're pushing paranoia.

[Fawkes]

Alright then, Believe what you will.

Actually, Upon thinking, I can't actually state my evidence, because of forum rules.

http://www.memecreator.org/static/images/templates/567.jpg

[Bulldog Psion]

This conversation just got a bit above my pay grade. :smallbiggrin: I'm out.

If you get any pictures of your antlered visitor, though, and post them up anywhere, PM me a link. Always keep an open mind is my motto.

[Angel Bob]

...Huh. Who know GITP forumgoers uniformly despise xkcd? Learn something new every day.

Personally, a lot of the programming jokes go over my head, but I have a soft spot for some good old snark and/or spontaneity, so I appreciate a good 30% of the strips at least. Weird.

Not sure what to say about your wendigo encounter, though. :smalltongue: Technically, I live in Missouri as well (though the average St. Louisan is loath to admit that), so I'll keep an eye out for it. This balmy weather will probably keep it far away, tho. XD

[GoblinArchmage]

Holy crap, everyone! I found an actual picture of the creature from the OP!

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/monty_python/imamason.jpg

It looks like what the OP saw was Graham Chapman's ghost.

[Zrak]

Having been involved in said peer-reviewed, institutional science ... nope.

You're not pushing skepticism, you're pushing paranoia.

So, if I understand, you are contending that there is no corruption whatsoever in institutional science on the basis of you, personally, not having experienced any corruption in your scientific career?

Somehow, this does not strike me as a contention behind which skepticism is even a driving force.

[obryn]

So, if I understand, you are contending that there is no corruption whatsoever in institutional science on the basis of you, personally, not having experienced any corruption in your scientific career?

Somehow, this does not strike me as a contention behind which skepticism is even a driving force.
Come on now, I'm saying that any assertion that the entire institute of peer-reviewed research is corrupt, is paranoid.

I'm certainly not saying there have never been any bad apples or whatnot.

But this is pretty far afield - so let's play a game and say you're right, that there's nothing but hollow money and corrupt researchers in the entire field of scientific research. How in the world does this support the OP's assertion that flying, talking dragons live in the world alongside antler-headed cryptids who smell like blood and scare campers in Missouri?

[Deadline]

I know i'm late to this party, but the OP probably saw an Elk. They are huge, stink to high heaven, and have been known to flash some pretty wicked smiles to passersby:

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/6/4392/640/20elk01.jpg

Also, they have recently returned to the area, after a long absence.

[Aliquid]

Come on now, I'm saying that any assertion that the entire institute of peer-reviewed research is corrupt, is paranoid.

I'm certainly not saying there have never been any bad apples or whatnot.
Money talks with cancer research and things of that nature... the peer review is not as good as it should be there....

BUT if a scientist says he has evidence about the origins of a Yeti, then other scientists will be salivating at the opportunity to prove him right or wrong. There is no magic money out there to be gained for studies of this type.

[Zrak]

Come on now, I'm saying that any assertion that the entire institute of peer-reviewed research is corrupt, is paranoid.
Oh, sorry, that isn't what I meant to imply. I meant that money was the driving force in the sense that research doesn't happen without funding, not in the sense that the entire institution is corrupt; my point was that the need for funding makes the industry susceptible to corruption, not that the institution as a whole is corrupt. Between the possibility of corruption, theory inertia, and the simple fact that peer reviewers are not infallible, I think the level of skepticism so-called skeptics have for (nominally) peer-reviewed studies is woefully inadequate.


But this is pretty far afield - so let's play a game and say you're right, that there's nothing but hollow money and corrupt researchers in the entire field of scientific research. How in the world does this support the OP's assertion that flying, talking dragons live in the world alongside antler-headed cryptids who smell like blood and scare campers in Missouri?
Oh, it absolutely does not. I was responding to "If this scientist's analysis [of supposed yeti fur] is backed up by peer review. . ." by saying that I don't think passing peer review should put something above suspicion.

[Grinner]

*snip*

Good suggestion.

Would you say they're more or less populous than moose?

[Zrak]

Yeah, if there are elk out there, that's a definite possibility. They're a little smaller than moose, but otherwise closer to the OP's description. I think they're also more susceptible to most kinds of mange, but I can't actually find anything about that so maybe I just think that because I've seen more mangy elk.

Also, like I said, mangy elk can look really awful. I think my exact words were "horned jackal pus demons."

[obryn]

Oh, it absolutely does not. I was responding to "If this scientist's analysis [of supposed yeti fur] is backed up by peer review. . ." by saying that I don't think passing peer review should put something above suspicion.
No, and it's not above suspicion. Fortunately, there's a massive "open data" movement that a number of journals - especially newer, online ones like PLOS ONE - are requiring.

A key portion of all published studies is strict methodology, so that other researchers can attempt to repeat the experiment. The fact that this isn't done more often is, indeed, regrettable.

But like I said - skepticism is the driving force behind peer review and about exhaustive documentation behind research methodology. It's not unimpeachable, but it's a damn sight better than random guy-on-the-internet anecdotes.

[Deadline]

Good suggestion.

Would you say they're more or less populous than moose?

Given the area, probably less populous. And they move ... different than deer, which could account for some of the oddness.

[Zrak]

No, and it's not above suspicion. Fortunately, there's a massive "open data" movement that a number of journals - especially newer, online ones like PLOS ONE - are requiring.
PLOS ONE is great, and I'd really like to see more journals like it catch on.


A key portion of all published studies is strict methodology, so that other researchers can attempt to repeat the experiment. The fact that this isn't done more often is, indeed, regrettable.
Moreover, even if it is done and the attempts to repeat the experiment show the results aren't reproducible, a lot of times the original study is still going to end up with more attention and citations than the ones that refute its conclusions. For example, ideas about Broca's area and Wernicke's area that were shown to be false years ago still appear in textbooks, are still cited in papers, and are still widely believed.


But like I said - skepticism is the driving force behind peer review and about exhaustive documentation behind research methodology. It's not unimpeachable, but it's a damn sight better than random guy-on-the-internet anecdotes.
I guess this just comes down to cynicism versus idealism. I would say skepticism is supposed to be the driving force behind peer review, I just don't know how often I really believe it is. :smallfrown:
That said, I didn't really mean that peer review isn't more reliable than guy-on-the-internet anecdotes. Rather, I meant that one should apply the same level of scrutiny to both, simply because peer review isn't infallible. I agree that it's a hell of a lot more likely to stand up to that scrutiny than guy-on-the-internet anecdotes, but I don't think that means one should assume it will stand up to it, especially if one is a self-described skeptic. My point was just that it irks me to see people proudly proclaim their skepticism and then unquestioningly accept something because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[GoblinArchmage]

Good suggestion.

Would you say they're more or less populous than moose?

I initially misread "populous" as "popular," and I think that is also an important question. So, are elk more or less popular than moose?

Also, I want to remind everybody about the best post of the thread:


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/03/article-0-1A20AB2B000005DC-769_634x532.jpg

Statuetory rape?

Keep that in mind, everybody.

[Zrak]

Apparently, I was mistaken.

[SiuiS]

It can't be slut shaming, like, not even enough to support the joke.

[Zrak]

Yeah, that really was a stretch, even with "popular" italicized. Joke redacted.

[Asta Kask]

No, I'm talking about intellegent, Flight Capeable Dragons. I can provide specific evidence of them, but that is a different topic.


Alright then, Believe what you will.

I intend to.


Actually, Upon thinking, I can't actually state my evidence, because of forum rules.

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/skeptical_cat_02-300x199.jpg

Is it religious, political, hateful language or obscene?

[Kato]

I might be wrong or deluded but I think ShadowFireLance is making a joke and nobody gets it? :smallconfused:


I can be certain when that is the premise this started with, yes. I am the person who first mentioned "feeling cornered" and specifically as caused by being made to feel helpless by not having a security device. :P

People of evil intent are ironically not stopped by stricter law anyway. Although we weren't discussing law? I thought this was about comfort.
Ah, well, I'll trust your word on this, then. Still, when in doubt, I prefer people around me to not be armed. It just gets me anxious :smallwink:

Well, whether or not a person is permitted to carry arms is a matter of law, isn't it? But I think we're treating more dangerous territory here, so maybe we should stop :smalleek:



She's so pretty though, I can't resist :f
Agreed :smallbiggrin:


...Huh. Who know GITP forumgoers uniformly despise xkcd? Learn something new every day.

As more than one person mentioned, that's not true. I am a bit confused there are people who despise xkcd at all, though, even if I don't like every single post and it might be a bit overhyped, at times. (Not to say it isn't one of the best webcomics but still :smalltongue: )

[Tebryn]

Now, I will say something, I believe, unless proven wrong, things exist.


That's not how logic works. I'm sorry, it's just not. The default is to not believe until evidence is provided. Which means we can write the story off. You want this to be what you want it to be and no one can explain to you that it's not.

[Asta Kask]

Now, I will say something, I believe, unless proven wrong, things exist.

The Tooth Fairy?
Santa Claus?
Evil witches who will eat your soul and must be burned at the stake?
Universe-farting hamsters?
Giant sentient rainbows from the planet Nibiru?

[Tengu_temp]

...Huh. Who know GITP forumgoers uniformly despise xkcd? Learn something new every day.

I love the science and programming jokes and anecdotes in xkcd. If someone doesn't get them... Well, google is right there. This is the era of easy access to information.

What I don't like about xkcd is the bad romance, bad poetry, and how it puts White Knights, Nice Guys and Manic Pixie Dream Girls on a pedestal, as if they were something to aspire to. Pretty much any comic where the White Beret Guy appears is a primary offender.
Also shameless Joss Whedon fanboying. I like Firefly, but unless you have constant sexual fantasies about River, this (http://xkcd.com/311/) would not be a good movie.

Fortunately, the frequency of the bad comics seems to have dropped over the last few years. But there was a time when every other strip was one of those.

[Somensjev]

this (http://xkcd.com/311/)

that is the first one i've ever read :smallredface: just now..

[obryn]

As more than one person mentioned, that's not true. I am a bit confused there are people who despise xkcd at all, though, even if I don't like every single post and it might be a bit overhyped, at times. (Not to say it isn't one of the best webcomics but still :smalltongue: )
I think, given the general tenor of this thread, it's in part because Munroe is such an effective skeptic. I mean, comics like this one:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/settled.png

... are pretty great as a teaching tool, IMO.

[Grinner]

I've seen a time-lapse video of an Egyptian statue turning itself around to present the writing on its backside, reading something about beer and bread. On both CNN's and Time Magazine's websites, no less.

It was met with depressingly little fanfare, and many just dismissed it out of hand with the argument that vibrations from passerbys' footsteps caused the movement. The problem is that when I was little, my father kept a display case full of collectibles. Being a rambunctious child, I would run about the house, and he would always yell at me about those. See, those glasses began to "travel" from all of that running and jumping.

This statue? It did not. It made a perfect 180 degree turn.

Moreover, no other statue moved.

I'm convinced I could slap you each with Bigfoot's right hand, and you all would write it off as a forgery.

CNN (www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/world/europe/uk-spinning-statue-mystery/)
Time (newsfeed.time.com/ 2013/ 06/ 25/ watch-spinning-statue-at-manchester-museum-mystifies-staff/)

[Reverent-One]

I like Firefly, but unless you have constant sexual fantasies about River, this (http://xkcd.com/311/) would not be a good movie.


At the risk of going even further off-topic, what makes you think that's seriously meant to be a good idea and not an over-the-top ridiculous (and amusing) one? But then, you also seem to think he's supporting "Nice Guys" even when he's very clearly ripped them apart (https://xkcd.com/513/), so that sort of interpertation seems par for the course.

[Aliquid]

My point was just that it irks me to see people proudly proclaim their skepticism and then unquestioningly accept something because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.Depends on the field of study and on how many peers have reviewed it.

[Tengu_temp]

At the risk of going even further off-topic, what makes you think that's seriously meant to be a good idea and not an over-the-top ridiculous (and amusing) one? But then, you also seem to think he's supporting "Nice Guys" even when he's very clearly ripped them apart (https://xkcd.com/513/), so that sort of interpertation seems par for the course.

I think it's supposed to be an over the top ridiculous idea he'd still watch and enjoy (and assume that you, the reader, would as well). I'm saying this because I know how Joss Whedon fanboys think and act. And if you don't think Munroe is a Whedon fanboy, just look at the Firefly race storyline.

It's true that he's criticizing Nice Guys in this one comic, but he's showing similar behaviour in others. For example this infamous White Knighting comic (http://xkcd.com/322/). It was deconstructed here (http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2008/05/09/strip-363/).

[obryn]

I've seen a time-lapse video of an Egyptian statue turning itself around to present the writing on its backside, reading something about beer and bread. On both CNN's and Time Magazine's websites, no less.

It was met with depressingly little fanfare, and many just dismissed it out of hand with the argument that vibrations from passerbys' footsteps caused the movement. The problem is that when I was little, my father kept a display case full of collectibles. Being a rambunctious child, I would run about the house, and he would always yell at me about those. See, those glasses began to "travel" from all of that running and jumping.

This statue? It did not. It made a perfect 180 degree turn.

Moreover, no other statue moved.

I'm convinced I could slap you each with Bigfoot's right hand, and you all would write it off as a forgery.

CNN (www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/world/europe/uk-spinning-statue-mystery/)
Time (newsfeed.time.com/ 2013/ 06/ 25/ watch-spinning-statue-at-manchester-museum-mystifies-staff/)
"In April, museum officials installed a time-lapse camera that snapped an image of the statue every minute of every day for a week.

When they ran the images in fast motion, they came across a surprising revelation: the statue only moved during the day, when visitors were walking past.

It seemed, Price wrote, that vibrations caused by foot traffic in room was the culprit."

So on the one hand, we have "vibrations from footsteps are doing this, since it's only doing it when people are walking around; yeah it's weird it turned just this way, but it's likely there's a physical explanation once we dig into it, taking into account the vibration from foot traffic."

On the other hand we have, "everything known about the conservation of mass and energy in the universe is wrong and incorporeal spirits and/or egyptian gods possess inanimate objects to arbitrarily rotate them in museums."

Give me a statue rotating without a perfectly reasonable physical explanation and I'll celebrate about exciting new developments in scientific exploration. Show me a bigfoot specimen, and I'll be thrilled about how much more there is to learn in the world and look forward to learning more about them.

[Grinner]

Give me a statue rotating without a perfectly reasonable physical explanation and I'll celebrate about exciting new developments in scientific exploration. Show me a bigfoot specimen, and I'll be thrilled about how much more there is to learn in the world and look forward to learning more about them.

No, you won't. You'll just come up with another rationalization.

Come on, now. I've seen this game played before. Already you're ignoring certain aspects of the reports.

[Fawkes]

I've seen a time-lapse video of an Egyptian statue turning itself around to present the writing on its backside, reading something about beer and bread. On both CNN's and Time Magazine's websites, no less.

It was met with depressingly little fanfare, and many just dismissed it out of hand with the argument that vibrations from passerbys' footsteps caused the movement. The problem is that when I was little, my father kept a display case full of collectibles. Being a rambunctious child, I would run about the house, and he would always yell at me about those. See, those glasses began to "travel" from all of that running and jumping.

This statue? It did not. It made a perfect 180 degree turn.

Moreover, no other statue moved.

I'm convinced I could slap you each with Bigfoot's right hand, and you all would write it off as a forgery.

CNN (www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/world/europe/uk-spinning-statue-mystery/)
Time (newsfeed.time.com/ 2013/ 06/ 25/ watch-spinning-statue-at-manchester-museum-mystifies-staff/)

They actual solved that one. With science. They stuck a sensor on the bottom, and measured the rotation. The statue moved the most during peak hours of the day, when there were the most people walking around it, and stopped moving at all overnight.

It was the only moving statue because its base was uneven, while the other statues had flat bases. It doesn't 'travel' like your father's collectibles because it's much, much heavier.

BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-25005916)

[Helanna]

I've seen a time-lapse video of an Egyptian statue turning itself around to present the writing on its backside, reading something about beer and bread. On both CNN's and Time Magazine's websites, no less.

It was met with depressingly little fanfare, and many just dismissed it out of hand with the argument that vibrations from passerbys' footsteps caused the movement. The problem is that when I was little, my father kept a display case full of collectibles. Being a rambunctious child, I would run about the house, and he would always yell at me about those. See, those glasses began to "travel" from all of that running and jumping.

This statue? It did not. It made a perfect 180 degree turn.

Moreover, no other statue moved.

I'm convinced I could slap you each with Bigfoot's right hand, and you all would write it off as a forgery.

CNN (www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/world/europe/uk-spinning-statue-mystery/)
Time (newsfeed.time.com/ 2013/ 06/ 25/ watch-spinning-statue-at-manchester-museum-mystifies-staff/)

This statue with the convex base? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/itv/10462550/TV-sleuths-solve-mystery-of-rotating-Egyptian-statue.html)

That was a five-second Google search. Were you really prepared to accept one time-lapse video of a statue slooowly twitching around as irrefutable proof of the supernatural? Because all they had to do was hook up some sensors to find a perfectly reasonable explanation for it.

Edit: Ok, I was ninja'd.


No, you won't. You'll just come up with another rationalization.

Come on, now. I've seen this game played before. Already you're ignoring certain aspects of the reports.

Did you want to elaborate at all on these 'other aspects'? And just saying "You're too close-minded to accept the supernatural!" and then close-mindedly refusing to consider any explanation other than the supernatural is pretty hypocritical.

[Reverent-One]

I think it's supposed to be an over the top ridiculous idea he'd still watch and enjoy (and assume that you, the reader, would as well). I'm saying this because I know how Joss Whedon fanboys think and act. And if you don't think Munroe is a Whedon fanboy, just look at the Firefly race storyline.

Wierd, I'd call myself a Whedon fanboy and took it as a joke. Maybe you don't know us/them as well as you think.


It's true that he's criticizing Nice Guys in this one comic, but he's showing similar behaviour in others. For example this infamous White Knighting comic (http://xkcd.com/322/). It was deconstructed here (http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2008/05/09/strip-363/).

So a guy calling out people being *******s equals white knighting in all cases now? Certainly it can be, but at the same time, he's not making up the issue here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_17/109-OMG-Girlz-Dont-Exist-on-teh-Intarweb-1). If XKCD was written by a woman, would you still have a problem with that strip? Writing off any guy who comments on this sort of thing is both sexist and unhelpful. EDIT: Heh, Kris Straub even comments on how you lose either way on that strip because of people doing exactly what you're doing.

[Grinner]

Did you want to elaborate at all on these 'other aspects'? And just saying "You're too close-minded to accept the supernatural!" and then close-mindedly refusing to consider any explanation other than the supernatural is pretty hypocritical.

The convex base...That's a good one. Did any article you find mention how much it spun around? The video I saw indicated 180 degrees. I'd be willing to concede if you found anything indicating how much it spun (i.e. Did it spin like a top, or did it stop once its backside was presented to gallery floor?)

I'm also a little curious about how it took eighty years for this behavior to manifest...

[obryn]

No, you won't. You'll just come up with another rationalization.

Come on, now. I've seen this game played before. Already you're ignoring certain aspects of the reports.
What rationalization? An insistence on strong evidence to support extraordinary claims?

"Everything known about the conservation of mass and energy in the universe is wrong and incorporeal spirits and/or egyptian gods possess inanimate objects to arbitrarily rotate them in museums" is one hell of a claim, requiring stronger evidence than time-lapse footage of statues moving when visitors' feet are vibrating the floor. And yes, I am sorry to break it to you, but explanations which build upon everything known about the physical workings of the universe (as opposed to just arbitrarily tossing them out the window) will carry more weight.


The convex base...That's a good one. Did any article you find mention how much it spun around? The video I saw indicated 180 degrees. I'd be willing to concede if you found anything indicating how much it spun (i.e. Did it spin like a top, or did it stop once its backside was presented to gallery floor?)

I'm also a little curious about how it took eighty years for this behavior to manifest...
These are all good questions that can be researched! But just because they are good questions doesn't mean you get to leap immediately to throwing out the conservation of mass/energy, existence of statue-moving incorporeal beings, etc.

[Grinner]

What rationalization? An insistence on strong evidence to support extraordinary claims?

"Everything known about the conservation of mass and energy in the universe is wrong and incorporeal spirits and/or egyptian gods possess inanimate objects to arbitrarily rotate them in museums" is one hell of a claim, requiring stronger evidence than time-lapse footage of statues moving when visitors' feet are vibrating the floor. And yes, I am sorry to break it to you, but explanations which build upon everything known about the physical workings of the universe (as opposed to just arbitrarily tossing them out the window) will carry more weight.

I've gotta get going, but I'll point out that you're unnecessarily pinning a lot on me.

For instance, I never claimed all of physics is hogwash. I made claim that there's something really weird about that statue, and yet it goes ignored.

[razark]

Did any article you find mention how much it spun around? The video I saw indicated 180 degrees.
I came across the terms "full circle" and "360 degrees". I think those were from the CNN article and video. The time lapse seemed to show it facing different directions than a simple 180 degree rotation would allow.


I'm also a little curious about how it took eighty years for this behavior to manifest...
Has anything happened in that 80 years that might have changed vibration patterns? Construction? Tunneling? Amount of visitors and road traffic? Has the statue always been displayed in the same case in the same location in the same manner?

[obryn]

I've gotta get going, but I'll point out that you're unnecessarily pinning a lot on me.

For instance, I never claimed all of physics is hogwash. I made claim that there's something really weird about that statue, and yet it goes ignored.
There is indeed weird stuff, but if you read the BBC article it wasn't ignored. It was researched and a perfectly reasonable physical explanation (that doesn't rely on incorporeal spirits) was found.

And yes, you probably aren't intending to do so, but when you insist on non-physical explanations for the movements of physical macroscopic objects - hefty ones, like a statue - you're basically tossing out centuries of physics. Because actual real evidence that there are non-physical forces beyond the four we know of, that interact with the physical world to spin statues around, would more or less upend the whole institution.

Aside:
If it did, mind you, that would be a candidate for the most exciting moment in human history, and scientists would be besides themselves looking for other manifestations of such phenomena. While conventional physics - which is founded on observable forces - would have to be largely discarded, the field would be wide open for new researchers to take their place in the history books.

Skepticism isn't a belief paradigm which directly says, "Ghosts don't exist." Rather, it's an approach which requires evidence before accepting that they do. Pointing at a time-lapse video of an event with a reasonable physical explanation doesn't cut it. You need unimpeachable evidence to get there.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'm also a little curious about how it took eighty years for this behavior to manifest...

Though the video doesn't show the display well, that cabinet sure doesn't look like it's 80 years old.

Additionally, the article itself states:


For decades, the figurine stood perfectly still -- until museum workers moved its case a few feet from its original position.

So, they moved the case right before the movement of the statue started. Thus, putting the shelf at a different angle, AND placing it on a different area of floor. It was only moved a few feet, but angling of the shelf could be critical. Plus, what if the case is now resting over a floor joist that transmits the vibration of people walking more strongly? Or conversely, is no longer over a joist that was making the floor under it more stable and immobile?

I'd say irregular base + glass shelf + newly moved case + vibrations are enough to explain the phenomenon quite thoroughly. Sorry, I just don't see the need to invoke the supernatural. I'd say "spookiness of the gaps," but I don't even perceive any gaps here.

[SiuiS]

No, you won't. You'll just come up with another rationalization.

On the contrary. Obryn is a remarkably mindful individual. Dismissing someone you don't know all that well because they don't agree with you is silly.


This statue with the convex base? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/itv/10462550/TV-sleuths-solve-mystery-of-rotating-Egyptian-statue.html)

That was a five-second Google search. Were you really prepared to accept one time-lapse video of a statue slooowly twitching around as irrefutable proof of the supernatural? Because all they had to do was hook up some sensors to find a perfectly reasonable explanation for it.

Edit: Ok, I was ninja'd.

That actually makes sense. How does the common path of movement around the exhibit look when compared? Does the statue routinely move with this flow? Is it clockwise or counterclockwise? Can this feat be replicated? Have they tried? All interesting.



Did you want to elaborate at all on these 'other aspects'? And just saying "You're too close-minded to accept the supernatural!" and then close-mindedly refusing to consider any explanation other than the supernatural is pretty hypocritical.

It might be I missed something, but I don't recall Grinner saying the supernatural (in any sense :smalltongue:) was responsible, just that people would dismiss phenomena as "oh that's just science".



For instance, I never claimed all of physics is hogwash. I made claim that there's something really weird about that statue, and yet it goes ignored.

Oh, no. It hasn't been ignored, it has been studied. The "really weird" was examined, and found to not be weird at all. It no longer being a mystery is not a dismissal. Claiming that others not agreeing with you is ignorance is faulty.