Less Than Credulous Trusting no one, we find out for ourselves

A Monster By Any Other Name

September 21st, 2009 2:53 pm by Jonathan

It's been over a week since I've written for this site, but it is not for a dearth of topics or news. So let me kick off this article with something that's probably been burning in everyone's mind.

Last week, in Panama, the body of a creature only identifiable as a “Montauk Monster” was discovered. The article (posted at the hard-hitting UK Telegraph), goes on to state that the creature (and even the original Montauk Monster) has yet to be identified, but there is speculation that it may be a dog, a sloth that lost its hair, to a discarded prop used in a marketing stunt.

This particular specimen, according to those who happened upon it, was crawling out of a cave. Rather than try and route or capture the creature, the witnesses did the natural human thing and attacked it and then took pictures. This is why we can't have nice things.

My problems with how this has played out are many, but for the sake of not going on a tirade about destroying that which we do not understand, I will limit this to why we know so little about this living anomaly when it makes itself apparent.

First and foremost, regardless of if this creature was beaten to death by a pair of youngsters who balanced the fight or flight equation in their own special way, they had a corpse. The boys could have brought this into town or somewhere to have it studied. Rubber props don't move of their own volition, so if this thing is an animal, we could better understand it from examining its remains than we can from a couple of pictures posted on the internet. Anyone can have her/his version of the Patterson-Gimlin expedition these days.

Secondly, if we look at these photographs, this Montauk Monster (I'll address the name in a little bit) has hair tufts on the lower torso. I am willing to speculate that this creature probably had a coat of some sort, and lost it to disease, chemicals, or someone who though how weird certain animals look if shaved (my neighbor's cat, for example). I know this was touched upon by scientists the first time people were trying to resolve what this type of creature was, and (unlike what The Telegraph stated) with results.

Lastly, and this has nothing to do with skepticism, can we give this a different name? I understood calling it The Montauk Monster, when it washed up on the shores of Long Island, NY. This one, however, was found in Panama. It needs a new label. We all know what a Frankenstein's Monster is and looks like (or simply “A Frankenstein” if you want to be pedantic about it), but this thing is far from that iconography or allegory. I'm toying around with the idea and rationale behind a temporary endangered species list for cryptozoological creatures. If we come across an anomaly, let it live, document it through pictures, and let people know where you saw what you saw. If you find a body, or accidentally kill or injure one (I saw Harry and the Hendersons once, so I consider myself pretty damned qualified in this field), bring it somewhere to be studied. If it turns out to be a variant of a common animal (raccoon without hair, I'm looking at you), or in abundance but well hidden, then great! Open season! We'll see Sasquatches and Montauk Monsters replacing the turkey in Rockwell paintings.

If you have a crypto experience you would like to share, or if you want to offer a new and better name for The Montauk Monster, I encourage you to leave your stories and comments.

Alien Baby Corpse: Real, Hoax, Or First Casualty In The Oncoming Galactic War?

September 4th, 2009 1:02 pm by Jonathan

Okay, we've been promising since the inception of Less Than Credulous that we were going to write articles that fell into the realm of the paranormal. So, (with a little help from our neighbors to the south) rather than review an off-center movie, give you a definitive list of video games that changed the industry, or discuss the mortally depressed bovines of Switzerland, I present to you this:

The story has it that in 2007, a Mexican farmer saw two of these creatures and drowned one out of fear (the other fled the scene). Now research has revealed that the corpse contains both human and reptilian characteristics, and a large brain (which points towards intelligence).

Mexico (particularly this area of the country) has a great number of reported UFO sightings and crop circles. Award-winning Mexican UFO researcher Jaime Maussan was the first to break the story.

Now, I am enthralled by tales of encounters with creatures, aliens, and the unexplained; but this article begs some questions that go beyond whether or not this is a hoax:

This is Mexico, for crying out loud! Why are we approaching this as the corpse of an alien, and not a chupacabra?

This one seems pretty easy to me. Chupacabra was sensational in the mid-1990s. Over time, sightings and evidence have been debunked to the point where it has become a B-list cryptid. It won't achieve the status of a Bigfoot, Jersey Devil, Loch Ness Monster, or even Champy. However, when one says this thing is an alien, groups and societies worldwide might actually pause and take interest.

Look at the size of that thing! That flew across space and time to play with a well pump?

I'm not saying that this little guy's sole purpose was to check out farm equipment. It could be part of a naturally curious species. It may not even have traveled through the cosmos, but rather interdimensionally, or from some subterranean dwelling. However, it could also have been some varmint infestation that the farmer was eliminating when he realized that the dead thing (when devoid of hair) looks pretty damn strange (Montauk Monster, I'm looking at you).

It has characteristics of both human and reptilian nature? How is that possible?

Now, before everyone gets in a panic that this might be a descendant of the Rothschild family on behalf of The Illuminati, exercising their will over humanity (or whatever the hell else David Icke believes), let's approach this with a critical (but open) mind:

1. The teeth do not have roots. I cannot explain this one. I do not know enough about biology across different species to give any sort of answer (though I certainly welcome advice) other than saying that since its death, perhaps the roots decayed and no longer exist. Who knows, maybe this guy killed a baby sleestak.

2. It can stay underwater for long periods of time. Evidently not long enough to outlast a Mexican farmer bent on starting an intergalactic war. But seriously, the farmer did say he had to hold the thing underwater for hours before it stopped moving (died). The issues I have with this are a) given its size, I can think of methods that would probably be quicker and more efficient to terminate the life of this creature – provided it wasn't some sort of space-Rasputin (perhaps to be covered in a later article), and b) I'm not seeing any sign of a struggle or any damage to the body in any of these photos or x-rays shots. Maybe it was a gentle drowning, or the creature was biding its time in hopes that the farmer would tire of trying to drown it in a ditch. (But seriously, who ever tires of that kind of fun?)

I'm not saying that researching this is a waste of resources. I'm not even saying that hands-down this is not an alien, but a more earthly creature. I'm not entirely joking in this proposition, but why not include the possibility of goblins, gremlins, and other “fey beings” into the line-up? Does it not fit those descriptions, as well?

I really haven't been around that long, but in my lifetime I've seen people come forth confessing how they faked famous photos of Nessie, a preserved dragon in a jar, alien babies (I know my harlequin kids), and (most recently) an authentic Bigfoot displayed for all the world to see. Not a one of them was what it was supposed to be. However, I am not averse to sound proof to the contrary. I encourage everyone to post their comments, questions, and any evidence they have regarding this, and other anomalies in this reality.

To quote The Bard (or one of them), “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Dr. Frank’s Pet Pain Spray Redux

September 2nd, 2009 10:13 pm by Shane

I have already written about this topic once before, in fact, almost two years ago.  My original article, while overly thin in content, had a huge response and I've decided to revisit the topic again.  I hope this time I can expand on some of the points and criticisms my original post received.

First, let's once again include the definition of homeopathy:

Homeopathy (also spelled Homoeopathy or Homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations which are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term "succussion," after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment. Homeopaths call this process "potentization". Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.

There is often a lot of confusion as to what homeopathy is. It's not just any "alternative" medicine. That's a whole other topic that I may or may not choose to write on. Homeopathy is the process of diluting active substances so much that none of the original substance remains. Again, it's just water.

When it comes to animals, and what people will do for their companion animals, I get it. I really do. My wife and I have adopted 5 dogs together and before we met, I had adopted a cat named Ozzy. Three of our pets are over ten years of age, which seems to be a dividing line between young and geriatric animals. Luckily none of our animals have reached their old age, but when they do we'll be sure to do everything we can to keep them comfortable and happy.

A lot of people feel the same way about keeping their animals comfortable and happy. They see the commercials for Dr. Frank's Pet Pain Spray where overweight dogs waddle around in obvious discomfort. They see video of people spraying something in the dogs' water bowl, and viola! The dog is now playing like he is a puppy again. What is in this magic spray? I'll get to that in a bit, but first let's look at some "great" quotes from Dr. Frank's website:

* "Homeopathy is an alternative form of medicine which relies on research that uses homeopathic provings. This is entirely different than the scientific double blind study methods most people are familiar with." It's refreshing to see the website admit they don't do tests that could prove effectiveness. Double-blind tests are a necessity for proving the efficacy of any medication. Without them, you shouldn't even waste your time. For more information on double-blind tests click here.

* "All these ingredients are present in exceedingly small amounts; all diluted more than one trillion times. It is for this reason that they are well known for having no substantiated reports of side effects." In other words, it's just water, and since water has no known side effects, it's cool.

* "The ingredients in the formula are identified by Latin names for the natural ingredients that are, for the most part, plants or minerals." This sounds like window dressing to make the ingredients sound more impressive than they are.

And now, on to the ingredients:

* Bryonia Alba - This treatment is derived from the white bryony vine – a plant that's in the same family as the cucumber Water.
* Calcarea Carbonica - This treatment is derived from calcium carbonate. Water.

* Causticum - This treatment is derived from calcium also. Water.

* Sulfur - This is organic sulfur. This is kind of funny to see. First, because it's an actual substance that can do something in the body. Supposedly I was/am allergic to penicillin so when I was sick as a kid, I used to take these foul tasting sulfur-based medicines to fight off infections. Secondly, there are some studies out there that were designed to test whether sulfur helped arthritis (I can't find any positive results though). Alas, Dr. Frank has decided to dilute it down to, yep, water.

* Rhus Toxicondendron - It is made from poison ivy. It will not and has never caused a poison oak or ivy outbreak because it is so highly diluted. Water...again.

* Ruta Graveolens - This treatment is made from a small evergreen shrub. Water.

* Pulsatilla Nigrans - This treatment derived from the wild plant commonly known as wind flower or meadow anemone is often called the queen of homeopathic remedies since it is indicated in so many conditions including pain of the back and extremities. Water.

* Calcarea Phosphorica - This is another homeopathic form of calcium. Water.

* Silicea - This is homeopathic silica, a compound of silicon which is found in quartz and other rocks. Water.

So after looking at all the active ingredients, they all boil down to water. Distilled water. There is no substance left that has any interaction with the body for anything other than hydration. So if you think homeopathy works, remember what you're really saying is that you believe water takes on the "vibrations" or "essence" of the original substance after massive dilution and even though this has never been proven, you believe this imbued water somehow heals the body.

Specifically looking at Dr. Frank's Pet Pain Spray, you have a product with nothing but distilled water from a process the site admits doesn't use double blind scientific tests. There is a web page that tries to explain homeopathy too, but it's pretty disingenuous. I don't think the website has any intention of promoting good science.

So why does it work? It really doesn't. A couple things are in action here. The biggest one is simply that guardians of animals trick themselves into seeing their animals improving. Guardians might push their pets to be more active or simply pay more attention. Another thing that could happen, is that the animal gets better. It happens, and it's not uncommon. It doesn't mean the "magic" water had anything to do with it.

I said in the beginning of this article that I really get it when it comes to animals, so really, I don't want to sound too harsh when it comes to people with animals. Please, don't spend another dime on this scam. Feed your animal a little less, get him/her to lose some weight, and talk to your vet about real medicine. Homeopathy is not real medicine. It's a relic from the 1780's when our knowledge of medicine, physiology and biology was just a fraction of what we know now. It's a relic that I wish would just go away.

Note: Anything in italics was taken from here: https://www.mypetspainrelief.com/formula.php

Paying too much for water

August 26th, 2009 10:41 pm by Shane

One reason I decided to start LessThanCredulous.com comes from the response to a post I wrote about Dr.  Frank's Pet Pain Spray on my personal blog, shanebrady.com.  The post wasn't particularly well-written or well researched, but it quickly became my most popular post ever.   Last time I looked, it had well over 80 comments.   My website comes up for  any Google searches for various combinations of  "Dr. Frank's Pet Pain Spray".  I definitely hit  a nerve and it inspired me to write for this new site, on the same topic.

I won't be going into the specifics of Dr. Frank's Pet Pain Spray in this post;  I'm saving that for the next one.  For now I would like to consider cost of the supposed medicinal substances of homeopathic derivatives.  First, let me include a definition of homeopathy (from wikipedia):

Homeopathy (also spelled Homoeopathy or Homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations which are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term "succussion," after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment. Homeopaths call this process "potentization". Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.

Let there be no doubt that what you end up with is simply water.  Homeopaths will tell you the same thing.  The key, they claim, is that after this process of dilution, the water retains a memory of the original substance.  How this happens and why it would be better to use water with memory versus the original substance to begin with is never explained.  There is no proof of water memory from a voluminous number of studies too long to list here.  Homeopathic solutions are just water.

It's become common to note (derisively) that Americans pay more for bottled water than they do for gasoline no matter how much unrest there is in the Middle East.  While tap water is ridiculously cheap, Americans spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 billion a year for bottled water. I did a little research online to come up with some prices that I could pay for water:

• Nestle Waters® Bottled Spring Water -  $0.76/L
• Water from Springbrook Springs, Conchord, NY - $1.80/L
• Aquafina - $0.31/L
• Ozarka - $.28/L
• Perrier - $1.79/L
• my tap water - $.002/L

Obviously my tap water is cheaper and with the use of a filter in my fridge, I improve the taste for a fraction of the cost of bottled water.  This is well traveled ground.  I want to now look at the costs of homeopathic solutions, ie, water.

As an easy example, I started with Dr. Frank's Pet Pain Spray.  The best price I could find was $22.98 for a 6 oz bottle, which works out to be $129.52 per liter.   For water.  Looking at some other popular homeopathic treatments you come up with this:

• Zicam Cold Remedy Oral Mist - $654/L
• SnoreStop Extinguisher - $1589/L
• King Bio Homeopathic Sleep Aid - $2118/L
• Ridgecrest Herbals ClearLungs Liquid - $186/L
• Liddell Laboratories Nicotine Free - $311/L

Do I need to go on?  It's pretty obvious the cost of the water in homeopathic treatments is ridiculous.  Since there has never been any scientific proof that water has memory, it seems awfully expensive to pay that much for "special" water.  However, if I can't change your mind about homeopathy, consider your tap water.  It comes into contact with all sorts of substances that are extremely diluted within the water.  If you believe in homeopathy, then you should also believe that your tap water has  healing properties.  It's the "ultimate" homeopathic solution.  So if I can convince homeopathic believers of anything, I hope, at a minimum, it's that it's better to just drink your own tap water, than to pay $12 bucks for a 2 oz bottle of distilled water.

My next post will deal with the specifics of Dr. Frank's Pet Pain Spray and why I think it's a waste of money.