Tracking the Chupacabra

[Kieran]

Sometimes these kinds of conversations get bogged down in minutiae, so at the risk of that, it doesn't require travel to get a copy of the front page of a newspaper. Libraries have researchers who can be hired quite cheaply to do this kind of research. I hired several myself when researching Otis Carr. I told David about this as well. I should also mention that this only one avenue of finding something like this.

Lance

But Lance maybe he doesn't care about proving it to someone he doesn't know? If he had this experience for real then its a memory he will always have, finding this paper will be only be done to satisfy people like you and me and so on. And David by the way is now no longer involved with the paranormal. Now you could if you like try yourself and prove to everyone he is lying, it's your right because David has claimed this happened to him.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

As far as the difference between Angelo and I: I have yet to see a philosophical difference between us on matters of the paranormal. He is a lot nicer than me! But I do try to work on that from time to time.

I'd have to agree with Lance. Fundamentally, we have a similar take on the topic, and bringing it back to the thread, we share it with Radford as well.

I try my best to be nice. It's part of Canadian law actually.

 

[mike]

How clear do I have to be? They are none of those things. You and Cats seem to be making up your own definitions and expect me answer within your own limited framework. If someone's doubts makes them neutral then everyone is neutral and a fool.

I think the hosts of the Paracast have their own very definite personal opinions on the paranormal. Some of Chris' views are at right angles to both your views and mine. And lance's. He is certainly not neutral. He has put forth his own interesting take on the paranormal that is thought provoking. I don't think he would go along with you trying to place him "somewhere in between" any two points of veiw. My opinion. If I'm wrong about his take on this I'll let him correct me.

As for Gene, again I can't speak for him. You'll have to ask him yourself. I don't consider him to be neutral. Unless you want to try to equate a nuanced position with neutral.

And yes it's true, I'm very opinionated and not the least bit diplomatic.Like everyone else I do place value on arguments, evidence and different points of view. Unlike some others I have no problem saying exactly what I think.

As for Kieran, I don't consider him to be a believer. Unlike you and Trajanus he is not dogmatic. He is not so arrogant as to actually claim parsimony for his thoughts about the phenomenon.

Actually a bit clearer than you are ,would be appreciated, "none of those things" doesnt seem a good answer
I mean, you could say Not skeptic, and Not a believer, but then that would leave them "foolish" neutral.
And if you insist they fall into none of those categories, then what are they ?.
"None" or "neither" would logically leave us with a neutral answer

not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy:
of no particular kind, characteristics, etc.; indefinite

Clearly skeptic and believer by your definitions are "sides" black/white.....right/wrong propositions

If they are in your opinion neither skeptic or believer then they must by definition be neutral

And these are your definitions, you defined skeptics as "right" you defined believers as "absurdly wrong", and you defined a neutral position as "foolish" and "nonsensical".
Your definitions not Pair of cats, not mine, yours.
Youve assigned comparative values to the three major stances, skeptic/neutral/believer.
Youve heard the show, youve seen the guest list and the topics they research, you can see the forum pages from the forum home page including a page on UFO's.
Im not asking you to speak for Gene, or for Chris i'm asking for your view of the Hosts, Do they seem to you to be skeptics and thus "right" are they believers and thus "absurd" and "wrong" or neutral and thus "foolish and nonsensical"
You have the podcasts and the forum format to draw on to form a conclusion, and i am ,as are others genuinely interested in your opinion.

Youve categorised those with an interest in this field into 3 camps, and assigned a comparative "value" to each camp.
Clearly the hosts have an "interest" in the topic. I'm keen to know which camp and thus value you feel they fall into.

 

[softbeard]

Look above in this thread where I categorically demolished the Jerusalem video. Notice how at least one person argued and argued about it until shown the definitive proof and then childishly simply stopped discussing it and slunk away.

Eh, what's that you say. You have definitive proof? I asked you this before and you dredged up the 'hoaxkiller1' YouTube video; something I have qualms about using as proof of anything. As for slinking away; I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be slinking away from. Is it your analytical skills I'm supposed to fear? Do you have any more substantial arguments to offer?
By the way, if you had bothered to read a bit further you would have found that the video I was trying to discuss
actually claims more proof of Jerusalem as a hoax by analysing the sound tracks. It was not an attempt at deflecting the issue.
You see, Lance, I am not so much interested at winning some popularity contest or showing off my debating skills, but more at analysing the subject at hand.
You, on the other hand, seem to hold displays of haughtiness and arrogance as more important. You may indeed be fully correct re Jerusalem and your other contentions, however your claims of 'definitive proof', are, as I stated, not credible.
I have read some of your writings. You write a lot, but provide little useful information. Mostly, you come off as self-important and opinionated. If you are trying to win debates, as seems to be your primary goal, this is not the way to do so.
Also, by the way, you may wish to consult definitions of straw-man arguments yourself. I think you'll find my usage was proper.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

stphrz.

Hence my view that somehow being "neutral" is nonsensical.

You made the statement. You should have to explain that same statement if quizzed on it. It seems you weren't clear enough with your initial statement.
You're welcome to your view on neutrality and how it applies to being a sceptic, i suppose. As Mike was saying....

Clearly skeptic and believer by your definitions are "sides" black/white.....right/wrong propositions.

I can't speak for Mike but i believe what we questioning, stphrz, was how you could so clearly define anything in the paranormal field.To me nothing in the paranormal or UFO worlds are black and white and so perfectly defined. Yes i disagree with your assessment on neutrality in scepticism. So what? The same coulld be said of you. When you say neutrality is foolishness you seem to be making up your own definitions within your own limited framework. The same as Lance. His framework is extremely limited as he believes there is nothing more than a sociological quotient to the paranormal, as does Angelo. Both operate from a very narrow point of view. Their definition of a sceptic could be said to be closer to that of debunker.

Phil, your desire to create your own definition of "skeptic" is understandable. The idea that you are leaving out is that skeptics don't look at all evidence with the same weight. We weigh the evidence and we doubt. Feel free to create your own term for the kind of person you are looking for but I don't think skeptic is it.

Well that's exactly what you are doing. You have defined being a sceptic from within your own personal framework. Everyone in this discussion has so far. All have their opinion on the subject and inject that opinion into their personal definition of what a sceptic is or should be.
You see, you once again make assumptions. If you don't consider me to be a sceptic, what do you consider my position to be, true believer? I would be fascinated to hear it And since you like assumptions I have made my own regarding you in a previous portion of this post. Hope you like it.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I am supported, I think, due to the fact that I have followed the modern skeptical movement almost since its beginning and am aware of the precepts therein. Your description does not fit into that framework. If you want to commandeer the term, that's fine. But I'm sure you are creative enough to think of your own

Being aware of the precepts and actively practicing them are two different things in your case it seems. And yes i suppose "debunker" doesn't fit the modern skeptical movement but i'm sure that your man enough to wear that tag with some sort of pride.

Lazy?

Much like your answer to my question, i see. Not surprising really.

 

[softbeard]

Yes Lance, I have read the material and do understand your argument.
I do agree that the building does appear fully symmetrical about the (almost) vertical line as sketched. I do not agree that the (almost) horizontal line is a true line of symmetry, however. If you look closely at some of the frames in the video, you will see a few light points not symmetrical about the horizontal line. Furthermore, should not the 2nd videographer's clothing (robe?) also be mirrored about this line? It does not appear to be.
Even assuming a motion-tile-effect has been used in this video, why only in this one? How do they get camera shake in the other videos?
Is there no other explanation for symmetry in that building except use of a motion-tile filter?
Because the hoax explanation for these videos seems to rest on just that symmetrical building. Could not the symmetry have been introduced through some other innocent process?
I do not claim that these videos are real. I have not seen any definitive proof. However, if you think about it, the videos do contain many complex elements that are consistent and that they get right. This makes the hoax explanation difficult for me to accept without strong evidence.
I have no problem if the answer is that, yes, a motion-tile filter is the only possible explanation for why the video looks the way it does and therefore shows clear signs of manipulation. But I do object to people approaching this question with a closed mindset and simply declaring case closed.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Now, now Lance let's be fair. Not everyone who questions the evidence is a debunker. Perhaps only you.

It's like looking into a mirror into a silly world where black is white and stupid is smart.

Heh heh. "Lance Through the Looking Glass"-A debunker's fairy tale. Although it sounds more like a bad porno.
Maybe only at your house. But that's just the condescending reply i had expected. The kind where anyone who disagrees with you is considered a true believer or stupid or both. 99% of the people on these forums are what i would call sceptics including myself and stphrz. But you seem to fall into the 1% of those who consider scepticism is only defined by what parameters lancemoody applies to them and therefore everyone else is living in a.....

silly world where black is white and stupid is smart.

I wish that I was a debunker. I wish that I could claim to have debunked some important case. Debunking is good. It is needed. A lot more of it is needed.

You sound like the Gordon Gekko of UFOlogy. You are more like a frustrated Phil Klass without the TV time. You may like looking down your pinocchio length nose at those of us that disagree with your stance and wishing you were a real debunker but from where i sit you have more than earned your stripes.

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:18 PM ----------

I'll tell you what! Let's both be skeptics.
I'll be the old fashioned kind who questions the evidence to extraordinary things that might tend to change known science.
And you be the mod kind who accepts it all and thinks that questioning evidence is so last century.
I smell a TV show

Cool! I like. But lets make it a UFO Muppet show where you can play BOTH the grumpy old guys on the balcony and i would play Kermit the Sceptic and would say "It's not easy being in between"

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I actually edited out that somewhat inflamatory paragraph (prior to your post) as being too confrontational.


The Pinocchio nose thing implies that I am a liar (in addition to all my other faults). Is this one of those things we have to just accept with an open mind or might you deign to show some evidence.

Lance

Well don't let inflamatory stop you. Well i am sorry that you thought that. Perhaps i should clarify. I was referring to my perceived length of it rather than it's length due to any lying. You may invoke all sorts of opinions but i don't consider you to be a liar. Just a bit wooden and inflexible. Navigating your way through the Paranormal wildness in a stiff uncoordinated manner not unlike a puppet.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Now back to our regular programming...........I think that the word skeptic/sceptic invokes different feelings or definitions in different people. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I may disagree with stphrz on the neutrality section but i agree with his assessment on most other things. I even agree with debunking if it is shown to be correct and definitive or proves without question something to be false. (are you taking note Lance?) I have been following the paranormal and UFO story for many decades and one thing is abundantly clear to me is that there are no real answers to anything within their parameters, only more questions.

 

[softbeard]

Your question about the horizon line indicates that you don't understand the concept. The horizon line has NOTHING to do with this The building is not just symmetrical--it's lines of symmetry are horizontally reversed---the lines of the windows go diagonally down until they reach the tile and then start diagonally up as the tile starts. Real buildings don't look like that.

I do not want to get into a long debate about the technical aspects here, it is not the proper thread. This is why I do not bring screenshots to illustrate my arguments.
Nevertheless; Lance, I said 'horizontal line', not 'horizon'. I am fully aware of the proper definition of a line of symmetry. A mirroring line of symmetry will reverse all symmetry in an object, as a mirror would, so it is not surprising that 'the lines of the windows go diagonally down until they reach the tile and then start diagonally up as the tile starts'. The building does indeed appear mirrored; I do not dispute it.
Lance, I find that you have a tendency of not answering questions directly put to you and being very selective in your responses. Though, to be fair, that response seems to be the order for the day for most people when they are pressed. Myself included.
My claim is that there are frames in the video which are inconsistent with mirror tiling along the horizontal (not horizon) bottom part of the frame. If this is true, then even if the building is mirrored it is not due to a synthetic mirror-tiling-effect, since both vertical and horizontal tiling are required to simulate the camera shake.
It is important, in a case with controversy like this one, to also do a meta-analysis; i.e., look at the bigger picture. Therefore, again, I ask, even assuming a motion-tile-effect has been used in this video, why only in this one? How do they get camera shake in the other videos?
Based on your technical expertise, please render an opinion on the viability of simulating exposure of building-architectural-details briefly to the camera by simulated lighting. In other words, simulating brief illumination, or conversly, simulating prolonged darkness in a video. Is it realtively simple to synthetically hide building details in one area of the video and then expose them?

 

[stphrz]

All of the terms I am outlining have general meanings and specific meanings in context. These meanings are in the context of the paranormal and this discussion.

Believer = Pejorative. Anyone who claims parsimony for their beliefs regarding the paranormal. If you understand how the term parsimony is used in science you will understand just how arrogant and insulting Believers are. Believers are paranormal positive in that they believe in it's reality.

Skeptic = One who doubts that events have a paranormal nature or origin. (yes the definition really is that simple)
Skeptics are paranormal negative in that believe or at least have a strong tendency to believe that it does not exist. Most skeptics claim to be open minded and would be willing to change their stance should sufficient proof come to light. (I take them at their word).

Neutral = Pejorative. One who has or strives to have no opinion on the paranormal. Neutrals are either fools or folks who don't care at all. After all striving to have no opinion on any subject is really really dumb. Neutrals are neither paranormal negative or positive. Neutrals probably don't even exist.

Everyone Else = Anyone who does not fall into any of the above categories. Everyone else are paranormal positive in that they have at least some minor suspicions that something is going on beyond our ability to explain with current knowledge. They lack both the skeptics doubt and the believer's surety. They have their own opinions and are willing to discuss, debate, or defend them. They don't claim parsimony. They are most certainly not neutral.

How I value each in terms of rightness: (to answer mike's question once and for all)

1. Everyone Else.
2. Skeptics
3. Believers
4. Neutrals

I really hope this clarifies everything because I won't be responding to this stuff any further.

---------- Post added at 09:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 AM ----------

My apolgies. I forgot one thing. Debunkers. Debunkers are skeptics that claim parsimony. They are not open minded and would refuse to accept any evidence that does not conform to their stance. In that, they can be described as a speical class of Believer. Debunkers are paranormal negative

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Kieran, et. al.,

Hopefully you have never heard me summarily deny what someone claims as personal experience. I can't do that.

Look above in this thread where I categorically demolished the Jerusalem video. Notice how at least one person argued and argued about it until shown the definitive proof and then childishly simply stopped discussing it and slunk away.

On the off chance that the person you're referring to is me —since I did add some comments criticizing the way Radford reviewed the video in question— first I don't know if it's fair to consider "childishly" when someone sincerely admits to have been wrong about something, instead of stubbornly defend a position just for the sake of winning an argument (in fact I would consider it the exact opposite).

Secondly, I don't know about you guys, but some of us welcome the chance from time to time to "log off" during a holiday (like the past Easter). It does good to the mind to get away from the endless Internet discussions

To sum it up: I admit that the evidence presented by Lance is sufficient to discredit the validity of the Jerusalem video, BUT I'm still very critical about the way Radford went about debunking it on the aforementioned articles in Discovery magazine online.

It also amazes me how little discussion the topic of the Chupacabras received in this thread. For my part during some hours of last Wednesday I tried to do some research on old newspapers to try to pinpoint the dates when the first animal slaughterings purported to the mysterious creature in Mexico started to be reported. Using the newspaper La Jornada as a guideline (and the cartoon strips that were printed on several editions), I found that May 9 1996 was the earliest date where the Chupacabras was mentioned in that particular newspaper.

It is also my belief that, at least in Mexico, the Chupacabras story was used as a form of 'smokescreen' by the government. I say this because I always found very odd how much primetime coverage these sort of news received in the Mexican TV back in those days; and also because during that time the government was having a lot of trouble dealing with the incendiary situation of the Zapatista guerilla movement in the Southeast. So instead of showing the troubles dealing with the peace negotiations and the many outbursts of ethnic violence that were occurring in that region —caused by paramilitary groups that were on the payroll of the rich landlords who were not too happy with the supporters of the Zapatistas— the official news media were happy to go and interview the witnesses that had observed the nefarious blood-sucking critter.

Incidentally, the whole chupacabras hysteria caused a real problem in the Tequila industry during those days in Mexico, because scared farmers went looking for the malevolent beast in nearby caves, and ended up killing a lot of bats that inhabited them. Since bats are the ones responsible for the pollination of the agave plant that is used to produce Tequila, the production plummeted and prices sky-rocketed.

Maybe that's one of the reasons the Chupacabras is my least favorite cryptozoological creatures

 

[stphrz]

I more or less agree with stphrz above with the exception that I don't think that the mythical debunker actually exists (even if we ignore that stphrz's definition diverges from any real life one). And I certainly would rank skeptics as #1!

Ok, I can relate. 1 and 2 are fairly close in my book. I can understand the skeptical view even though I don't share it. Neutrals and debunkers both being non existant I can accept as well. So that leaves the Believers last on the list. Way last.

 

[softbeard]

You apparently have no experience in the field and I have done this for 30 years.

I do not claim expertise in the graphics field (though I do claim expertise in basic geometry and trigonometry). This is why I try to pose questions about the subjects to people with expertise in the field. When I do so, on first contact, they usually assume I am mounting a personal attack on them and their contentions. I have become used to this response.

And what you are doing is decidedly not that. You ignore the ridiculous provenance of the videos and decide that if one is shown to be fake, we STILL need to look at the subsequent ones.

No, Lance, I do not find the provenance of the videos ridiculous at all. If you looked at it in detail, I think you would find the video's provenance consistent with events, as expected on the ground. But the provenance argument should not color the technical argument.
And, yes, Lance, that is use of faulty logic. And it is the heart of the straw-man argument. You do indeed need to look at all the evidence in a case such as this. The fact that some of the evidence is dodgy or suspect does not automatically invalidate other evidence.
And again,...' based on your technical expertise, please render an opinion on the viability of simulating exposure of building-architectural-details briefly to the camera by simulated lighting. In other words, simulating brief illumination, or conversly, simulating prolonged darkness in a video. Is it realtively simple to synthetically hide building details in one area of the video and then expose them? '

 

[softbeard]

It also amazes me how little discussion the topic of the Chupacabras received in this thread. For my part during some hours of last Wednesday I tried to do some research on old newspapers to try to pinpoint the dates when the first animal slaughterings purported to the mysterious creature in Mexico started to be reported. Using the newspaper La Jornada as a guideline (and the cartoon strips that were printed on several editions), I found that May 9 1996 was the earliest date where the Chupacabras was mentioned in that particular newspaper.

This is probably because Ben and his ilk use the Chupacabras as a set-piece; a straw-man, if you will. So the actual subject is not really important and simply serves as a means to an end.. They start by pretending that they are neutral skeptics, scientific investigators. They are, however, not neutral. Their minds have already been made up. They have already decided there is a simple explanation lurking behind all the mumbo-jumbo. They then expose some faults or obvious flaws as are bound to occur in the claimant's contentions and select with prejudice for facts and arguments that will support their predetermined outcome. They 'kill' the starw-man, or at least believe they do. Now all they have to do is write it up in a book explaining how they solved the mystery. As to the actual analysis of the situation at hand; that is of secondary importance.
The above is, of course, an idealization. I do not claim Ben has pre-formed malevolent intentions as I've outlined. He probabaly thinks he is doing his job as an investigator as best he can, because, in the end it is a job for him. Just like with Jaime Maussan.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

If I follow the question, you are asking if I can take an existing video that shows a building and hide the details (I assume in darkness?) but intentionally "light" the building up on occasion to reveal those details. Is that right? I would have to see the actual sequence to say just how easy this would be but I can tell you in general it is pretty easy. It is very common for me to throw a "light" onto an scene in order to give a flat scene more interest by dropping the edges off slightly. Kinda hard to explain but it looks good. More difficult to do would be if there were no details for the building in the original video--then a building would have to be composited in.

Thank you, Lance. This is basically as I imagined it. From my viewpoint, after all the arguing and flaming, it basically means to me, that though the origin of these videos could indeed be synthetic, producing them would require concerted technical effort along with directorial skill to maintain consisitency throughout their elements.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I really hope this clarifies everything because I won't be responding to this stuff any further.

Thanks for your opinion on what you think constitutes being a sceptic. I had thought I agreed with many of the opinions you espoused but i find i actually agree with few.