Cryptids

A friend asked me if I've done much study in cryptozoology or Fortean topics. If so, were there any cryptids or anomalous phenomena I found particularly compelling? 

We need to draw an initial distinction. Some cryptids, if they exist, are biological organisms. Therefore, assessing reported sightings depends in part on what's naturally possible or probable. 

Conversely, some cryptids, if they exist, are numinous beings. So naturalistic criteria don't apply. 

Kraken

That may have its basis in the giant squid

Giant anacondas

It's possible that there are larger anacondas in the wild than we've discovered. However, beyond a certain length, an anaconda would have the girth of a subway train. How realistic is that? 

Loch Ness monster

Several issues:

i) I guess the theory is that after the ice age receded, it left behind a geographically isolated species. Old glacial fiords. I don't think there's anything antecedently improbable about that.

ii) One issue is how many breeding pairs would need to reside in Loch Ness to maintain a replacement rate. You'd expect more sightings if there are more specimens.

iii) I believe Loch Ness has been probed by sonar beams, but nothing turned up.

iv) To me, the famous grainy 1934 photograph looks like a bathtub toy for kids (e.g. rubber ducky). And the picture has no frame of comparison to judge the scale of the object. 

I'm guessing the Loch Ness monster is a legend, perhaps to promote tourism. 

Bigfoot

i) If it exists, what is it? Is it an Old World ape that migrated to the New World across the  Bering Land Bridge during the ice age? Or is it supposed to be humanoid (e.g. Neanderthal)?

ii) If it has humanoid intelligence, I'd expect it to produce corresponding material culture (e.g. Neolithic). That would be easy to detect. 

iii) To my eyes, the famous  Patterson–Gimlin film looks like a man in a monkey suit. Like those low-budget sci-fi flicks from the 50s. 

iv) I've read about Indian tales of Bigfoot. But in Indian tales, Bigfoot is a numinous being. So that either rules out naturalistic explanations or else Indian tales reflect legendary embellishment.

v) A difficulty with Indian stories is establishing their indigenous pedigree. Since most tribes were oral cultures, it's hard to say how old the stories are. 

And that raises the question of whether Indian stories have evolved due to contact with the white man. Could these be hybrid stories that reflect cross-pollination between Indian folklore and European folklore? 

vi) I'd add that (iv-v) also apply to wendigo. 

vii) I don't have an informed opinion about the Yeti. Perhaps such an animal could exist in the remote religions of the Hindu-Kush without scientific confirmation. Or maybe it's a tall tale for gullible tourists. 

Chupacabra

From what I've read, this was first reported in 1995. That would be pretty inexplicable on either naturalistic or supernatural grounds. 

Hellhound

I actually read a reported example of that recently Forget where.

In general, I believe that Old-Hag syndrome probably has an infernal source. I believe that individuals and cultures that practice witchcraft and necromancy can expect to encounter evils spirits, whether demonic or vengeful apparitions of the damned.

In her book, The Hands Feel It, academic anthropologist Edith Turner talks about specters and other spooky phenomena reported by locals at an Eskimo fishing village where she lived for a year. The village was located on old Indian burial grounds. Some of the graves were Eskimo witchdoctors.

Some of the villagers were Christian while others continued to practice indigenous witchcraft. Under the circumstances, I find it plausible that spooky things happened. 

Elvis sightings

A common atheist trope is to compare the Resurrection to postmortem Elvis sightings. There are multiple problems with that comparison:

i) In my reading, atheists who use that comparison never document their claim. We're just treated to unsourced reports. They don't tell us where they got their information. Is this a newspaper story? 

They don't cite named witnesses. They don't say when and where it occurred. No date. No address.

They don't quote what the witness said. They don't quote "Elvis" saying anything.

Note how different this is from NT accounts of the post-Resurrection appearances which name witnesses, say where it happened, when it happened. What Jesus said and did. What the witnesses said.

Atheists mention Elvis sightings as an example of how legends can develop, but ironically, the atheist meme is helping to popularize an urban legend. Atheists rely on thirdhand rumors of Elvish sightings, which, in turn, contributes to the legend. A circular process. 

ii) Given the proliferation of Elvis impersonators, there's nothing incredible about reports of observers who say that saw a man matching the description of the late pop star. To the contrary, that's to be expected. Indeed, that's inevitable. 

iii) Given how populous America is, what might seem like a large number of reports can be statistically insignificant. 

iv) How many reported Elvis sightings are simply jokes? Because atheists don't cite actual reports, don't interview (alleged) witnesses, there's no telling.

v) Some atheists compare the Elvis cult to devotion to Jesus. Problem is, even if there are studied parallels, that would be a case of fans aping Christian piety. The fact that some fans, influenced by Christianity, turn Elvis into a travesty of Christ, does absolutely nothing to cast doubt on the original source of inspiration. 

vi) The comparison begs the question. It only works because most folks believe that Elvis is dead. But to say that's analogous to Jesus assumes the very issue in dispute.  

Roman Catholic Intellectuals Always Did, and Still Do, Spread “Urban Legend” as Truth

Howard Kainz is “emeritus professor of philosophy at Marquette University” and contributor to “The Catholic Thing”, the same conservative Roman Catholic website that flashes the name of Roman Catholic Convert Francis Beckwith on its masthead. The site is run by the “Faith & Reason Institute”, and it advertises itself as “a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary”. But that doesn’t stop Kainz from spreading urban legends – outright falsehoods – in the effort to make a polemical point.

Kainz’s recent article, “How Can Protestants Be Saved?”, part of his effort to help poor Protestants be saved is to ruminate:

The quotation, “it is easier to live as a Protestant but better to die as a Catholic,” is ascribed variously to Martin Luther or one of Luther’s wavering followers...

Even though that statement has been “variously ascribed”, it has been falsely “variously ascribed”. Neither Luther nor Calving nor Melancthon ever said such a thing, as James Swan points out in this recent analysis of the history of the phrase. “Whomever first said it, I can't think of any plausible reason why either Luther or Melanchthon would say it.”

This is the kind of urban legend and even the kind of falsehood that Roman Catholics don’t mind to perpetuate in their efforts to make a polemical point. Roman Catholicism is a religious system that’s built on falsehoods and urban legends, given legitimacy merely because someone in “authority” says so. It has been so at least since the time of “Pope Damasus”, who hired a mob of gravediggers, essentially thugs with pick-axes, to enforce his "election" as pope.

Who consciously and determinedly re-wrote Roman history to include the Roman Church.

Who has also been officially canonized as a saint.

“How can Protestants be saved?” Here is Kainz’s answer:

… those who are not completely sure of being “saved” might avail themselves of some assistance from the Blessed Virgin, who promised to St. Dominic that those who say the rosary frequently, meditating on the life, passion, and resurrection of the Savior, will receive the graces necessary for salvation at the time of their death.

Who can say “amen and amen” to that recommendation?