BEAST HUNTER: Nightmare of the Amazon

National Geographic Channel - Original Air Date: 3/5/11

Pat Spain goes to the Amazon looking for the mapinguari -- either a beast or an evil spirit, which the show describes as a one-eyed monster(with a sideways face), slashing claws, a noxious stench, a mouth in its chest, and a savage howl.  It also supposedly protects the forest from clearcutters.  To ingratiate himself to the locals, Pat undergoes a ritual involving being stung by bullet ants (so called because the sting feels like being shot).  Talking to witnesses, Pat theorizes that a giant anteater may be responsible for at least one attack.  Another scientist theorizes that the beast could be a giant ground sloth (supposedly extinct).  Pat does some call blasting, and gets a reply (which sadly does not show up on their audio).  He also gets a witness to pick the giant sloth out of a lineup.  Interesting theory, but next time I hope we'll have more evidence.

BEAST HUNTER: Man Ape of Sumatra

National Geographic Channel - Original Air Date: 3/5/11

Hunting host Pat Spain goes to Sumatra in this kick off for a series of monster hunting shows - boldly going where Josh Gates (Destination Truth) and MonsterQuest have gone before.  This show does the usual witness interviews and chats with locals.  Some of the witnesses, especially the naturalists, are very compelling.  Then Pat tromps around the jungle looking for the beast.  And, of course, doesn't find it.

While this might be okay for newbies, mostly it seems like a less entertaining version of Destination Truth.  I expect a little more meat from my National Geographic shows.

My Capricon 2010 Schedule

As those of you who follow my free newsletter know, I'm appearing at Capricon 2010, in suburban Chicagoland this weekend.  (February 11-13, 2010)

Here's a rundown of the events/panels I'm appearing at.  Hope to see you there!

D & D - The Beginning - Friday, 02-11-2011 - 11:30 am to 1:00 pm - Lake Michigan B
C'mon, we've all played a little D & D at some point, right? Stephen Sullivan joined TSR as part of the development team for Dungeons & Dragons. Come get the inside scoop on how the world's most famous role playing game came to be.
Stephen D. Sullivan

Breaking Into the Gaming Industry - Friday, 02-11-2011 - 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm - Ravinia B (Teen Lounge)
Got an idea for the next D & D or WoW? Learn from the pros how to get into the gaming industry and succeed.
David Abzug
Brian Babendererde
Stephen D. Sullivan (M)

A Celebration of Bad Films, Part Deux - Friday, 02-11-2011 - 8:30 pm to 10:00 pm - Willow
We couldn't cover them all last year, so welcome back for Part Deux! They are the films you claim never to have seen, but when they come on cable, you can't turn away. You might even have a copy on DVD hidden behind the more sociably acceptable porn. What movies make Plan 9 From Outer Space look like a masterpiece of plotting, character, and special effects? 
Br. Guy Consolmagno
Lee Darrow
Dave McCarty
Paul McComas (M)
Stephen D. Sullivan

Reading: Stephen Sullivan - Saturday, 02-12-2011 - 10:00 am to 10:30 am - River AB (Cafe)

Autographing: Paul McComas & Stephen D. Sullivan - Saturday, 02-12-2011 - 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm - Autograph Table

Escapist Gaming - Saturday, 02-12-2011 - 8:30 pm to 10:00 pm - Birch B
For most people, a primary childhood escape was "make believe". As "adults", we still escape through games - role playing, board games, online, and others. What are your favorite escapist games?
Donald J. Bingle
Matthew Duhan
Melissa Fichter
Eileen Maksym
Stephen D. Sullivan (M)

Tentacle Love - Sunday, 02-13-2011 - 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm - Birch B
The influence of Lovecraft and Cthulhu on today's SF and horror.
Brian Babendererde
Valli Hoski
Stephen D. Sullivan (M)
Gene Wolfe

Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide

History Channel - Original Air Date: 2/2/11 (?)

This show claims that its team of "top scientists" will search the globe for bigfoot, doubt its existence, discover shocking new evidence, and wonder if we've been searching for the wrong creature all along.  In 2009, North Americans reported 250 bigfoot sightings.  The show plots 10,000 sightings on a world map to determine patterns.  More than 95% of all reported sightings are in Asia or North America; nearly 70% of these are at high altitude with dense tree cover.  Hotspots include the Himalayas (Yeti), Indonesia (Orang Pendek), Central Asia (neanderthals), and North America (Sasquatch).  The wilds of British Columbia have one of the highest concentrations of sightings in the world.  The show then does numerous recreations of sightings (with quite good special effects).  Team members include Jeff Meldrum (from the stone-throwing MonsterQuest incident), Ian Redmond (bigfoot hunter), Anna Nekaris, Bill Sellers, and Jack Rink.

They look at video footage, trying to sort out the hoaxes -- like the one from Bamf (sp?) Canada (a local promotion) -- and images too blurry to be any good.  Once they've eliminated these, there's not much left.  The team isn't surprised, as animals can be hard to photograph -- and cite the recent discovery of the bili ape.  (I however, would point out the pictures of this ape are much, much better than any bigfoot evidence, despite all the bigfoot searching.)  They look at a "tree structure" in the woods (which looks like a tree fall to me) and speculate it may be territory marking by bigfoot.  They do some moonlight hunting and engage in tree knocking and "call blasting" and even use tracking dogs.  Of course, they find nothing.

Then they look at the Patterson film.  Redmond and Nikaris point out the "natural gait" of the creature (they clearly haven't seen the clips of Bob Heoronimous walking with his natural gait); Sellers and Rink are skeptical, pointing out that Patterson was a scoundrel.  Journalist Mike McCleod relays that Patterson never held a steady job, claimed to be an "inventor," and published a book on Bigfoot (Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?) a year before featuring a sketch similar to what he later claimed to photograph.  Patterson also borrowed money to direct a film about bigfoot and was down on his luck.  The whole thing seems to good to be true.  The team remains split on the authenticity, and I'm still disappointed these "experts" apparently haven't seen the National Geographic Is It Real special I referenced above, which convinced me the Patterson film is a fake.  The team does dismiss the "skunk ape" Florida sightings as most likely "pet" chimps (or other apes) released by their owners.

Then Meldrum looks at the famous Shipton Yeti prints, which he's convinced are real -- if perhaps pathological because of the twin big toes on one foot.  (He ignores the idea that the print is something else distorted by snow melt.  None of the rest of the photos look like the "footprint" cast to me.)  The show points out that only one species of primate is known to live in cold weather, and speculates that Yeti might have adapted, too.  Redmond, at least believes that Yeti don't live in the snow, but merely pass through.  He also believes in a lowland yeti called "mandi baru" (sp).  They mention the yarin as well, and quickly turn to gigantopithecus as a possible explanation.  Could Bigfoot be this human offshoot/ancestor?  There are sightings of such creatures worldwide, especially in Russia, where they are called almas.  They recount a Red Army encounter with such a creature and then talk about the "hobbit" found in SE Asia and orang pendek.  Then they turn to homo heidelbergensis, a large-framed human offshot, as a likely suspect.  We then get stories or bigfoots/wildmen chasing and kidnapping women.

Jack Rink then suggests that bigfoot isn't a throwback, but rather modern humans who have deliberately adapted to the wild -- possibly as part of a shamanistic ritual.  In British Columbia, one First Nations archeologist believes that Squamish nation initiates spent years training in the woods, covering themselves in moss to keep warm.  When these "wild people" were seen by members of other societies, they led to the legends.  The show then suggests that these shamanic traditions may continue even today, all over the world.  But is this enough to explain all the sightings worldwide?  The team weighs all the evidence and -- not surprisingly -- the skeptics remain skeptical and the believers remain believers.  What seems clear is that the Patterson film escalated sightings, but not all sightings are hoaxes or easily explained.  Bill Sellers points out that if these creatures were real, there should be more solid physical evidence.

With a title like Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide, one would hope for a show full of sightings and good science.  While we do get plenty of stories and sightings, a pretty good overview of the phenomenon, and a veritable catalog of bigfoots, bigfoot-like creatures, and suspects for what bigfoot could really be, the science beyond that cataloging is very much of the "I want to believe" variety rather than actual "how can we form a hypothesis and test it" science.  What we mostly get, rather than "good" science is speculation, lots and lots of speculation.

Review - Frankenstein vs. the Creature from Blood Cove

I stumbled across this flick in my continuing quest for B-Movie fodder (now that I'm regularly contributing prizes to the B-Movie Cast) and decided to check it out. I'd been wondering recently why old-style monster movies weren't being made nowadays, since modern technology should put doing so within the reach of talented amateurs.  This flick, from its promo material, seemed to fit that bill.  And it's a pretty decent movie.  I enjoyed it.  There are plenty of monsters and monster fights and the makeup/suits are pretty good looking, though the werewolf outfit (not the face) is a bit Muppety.  What surprised me, as it was billed as a homage to Universal and films of the 40s-50s, was the amount of nudity.  I'd expect that in an exploitation homage, or a Euro homage,or a modern film, but not something that claims lineage from Universal and AIP.  In its execution, the film reminded me of the Lost Skeleton of Cadavera, though it's not as successful.

The main problem I had with "... Blood Cove" were these: 1) The story needed more development: though the elements were good, they didn't come together to form a compelling whole; extraneous ideas should have been trimmed and the plot focused on the title conflict' the story should finish on the title characters, not with a deus-ex-machina "twist." 2) Though the cinematography was generally competent, the lighting made the movie look flat and uninteresting.  Consulting any Outer Limits episode would have helped, not to mention the movies this film was homaging.  Again, Cadavera did a better job in aping the "classic" look.  3) The acting was often campy when it would have been better served by being sincere.  Playing it straight is what saves a lot of Euro-horror flicks with stories just as underdeveloped as this one. 4) A full orchestral score, or something approaching one, would have helped.  The score, though well conceived, often sounded tinny to me.

Despite all that, I liked the picture. I enjoyed the attempt at a modern Frankenstein vs. ... film.  I just wish they'd pushed it a little further toward the material that inspired them.  I think there's a market for old-style horror movies, and this was a good attempt (despite the nudity).  That and better lighting would have raised this a star, at least, in my estimation.  I still enjoyed it more than the "classic" Dracula vs. Frankenstein, which I watched 2 days previously.  It was worth the few bucks I paid for it -- and it has a really good set of DVD extras.

Rating (out of 5) - ***

FACT OR FAKED: Bayou Beast - River Ghost

Syfy - Original Air Date: 12/9/10

The finale of their first season takes the FF crew further down the road of serious science and skepticism.  The cases they do not look at in depth are: Christmas Ghost, which seems to show a ghostly image at a Christmas party.  But Chi-Lan correctly points out that it's just lens flare.  Ice Vortex shows a very strange circular vortex, which was observed for 12 hours, in the middle of an icy river.  But it's merely the result of a methane gas uprising and the Coriolis effect; strange but not paranormal.  Ghost Girl seems to show a ghostly girl in a deserted house.  But it turns out this was a fake, a publicity put up to promote an internet site.  Good job on exposing those, guys.  Which leaves the 2 cases for investigation.  Honey Island Swamp Monster seems to show a bigfoot-like creature skulking through the swamp near New Orleans.  Ghost Light shows a mysterious light flying near a bridge on the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon.

Heading to Louisiana, Ben, Chi-Lan, and Larry trek into the swamp, check out the area seen in the super-8 film, and interview witnesses. Then they go to see if the thing in the film could be a Louisiana Black Bear.  The bears are very large, and can stand on their hind legs, but they don't walk very well, unlike the thing on film.  Next test: a hunter (Ben) in a camouflage ghillie suit and stalking make-up.  (Shades of the Michigan Dogman!)  The resulting footage looks just like the original film.  Of course, that doesn't mean it couldn't be bigfoot, so they set some nighttime traps for the monster, just in case.  While they don't catch a monster, they do catch some strange and disturbing howls on their equipment.  Conclusion: The film shows a man in camo, and the howls are identified by an expert as wild boar fighting.  Also, the film is a short roll--indicating some of it's footage is missing, perhaps deliberately.  While this film was "fake," there could still be a monster out there somewhere.

On to Oregon, where Bill, Austin, and Jael talk to the people who shot the flying light film; they seem sincere.  At night, the team goes to the bridge and conducts some experiments.  First, they throw Frisbees bedecked with lights off the bridge; they don't stay aloft long enough to replicate the flight pattern.  Next, they pull a lighted balloon from a speedboat to try and replicate the object.  This looks closer, but the flight pattern isn't smooth and regular when the boat turns.  Finally, they outfit an RC plane with LED lights; though the object was described as "silent," it's impossible to hear the plane over local traffic.  The plane is a dead-on match.  Conclusion: The object is an RC plane, though the witnesses didn't know that; they were just fluke observers to a nighttime RC plane flight.  It was merely a case of mistaken identity. Fake.

Over the past few weeks, this show has gone from a flabby "We want to believe" show to a harder-hitting "What's the most reasonable explanation" show.  As they've improved, they've gained me as a loyal viewer and supporter, and I suspect many other fans as well.  Since they've deservedly been renewed for next season, I hope they'll be able to cast off the EVP sessions and other remnants of pseudo science and stick solely to the facts in the season to come. They seem well on their way to becoming SyFy's equivalent of Mythbusters. I look forward to next season.

FACT OR FAKED: Lunar Landing Hoax - Tropical Intruder

SyFy - Original Air Date: 12/2/10

The show starts with the usual rundown of videos that might be worth investigating. Lancaster PA Mothman is filmed through a window and shows a creature taking off near a clothesline at night.  It looks like a bird (owl) to me, but the video quality is low, and the team passes.  Texas Explosions fill the sky with blue light, but it looks like weather to me (and Chi-Lan, too).  Which leaves us with the two cases to be investigated this week.  Apparently, one-quarter of the world's population doesn't believe the Moon Landings actually happened.  (For those of us alive then, this theory is really insulting/annoying.)  They show the hammer falling at the same rate as a feather; the moon jump salute to the flag, and an astronaut "assisted" to his feet - supposedly done on a Hollywood set.  Gulf Breeze UFO shows one of the classic glowing UFO shapes (with apparent portholes) gliding through the trees; it vanishes suddenly.  "Too good to be true," springs to my mind, but let's see what the team thinks.

Aron Ranen started as a documentary filmmaker, and now believes that NASA is hiding something.  He has a good story, but is any of what he says true?  He hedges though, and says, "There is a possibility that man's first landing on the moon might have been a hoax."  So, the team (Ben, Austin, Chi-Lan) builds their moon landing set, and Austin gears up.  Then they do the falling bodies test with a hammer & a weighted feather; video looks very similar.  Chi-Lan then suits up, and Austin uses spring boots to make the salute jump; this looks terrible - and I can't imagine how the spring boots would have been used with 1960s tech (no CGI)  to remove those boots.  They try again with theatrical fly wire (which is what the conspiracy buffs claim the moon suit's radio antenna is); it looks better, after a few takes, so they continue with the wire.  (Note that the physics of the jump is still wrong; the suit drifts with the wire.  Note also that the early moon landings were broadcast live.  Want to get that right in one continuous take?)  They then try the assisted stand, which looks pretty good with the wire, too.  But a pressurized suit would have a natural spring-back motion, explaining what's seen in he original footage anyway.

Conclusion: Yes, the "stunts" can be replicated, but no one in the cast believes they were faked.  (They don't mention it, but watch the physics of the moon dust in the original footage.)  Ben points out that because these tests were done on earth, it doesn't mean that similar results wouldn't happen on the moon without SFX, and 400,000 NASA workers are a lot of people -- too many, to involve in such a conspiracy.  If you are interested in this conspiracy, you should see the excellent Mythbusters show on moon conspiracies, as well as Conspiracy Moon Landing from Nat Geo.  Sorry, conspiracy buffs, the moon landings did happen (in the age before the politics of personal destruction), and it's insulting to all mankind to think they didn't.  Good recreations, though.

On to Gulf Breeze, on the coast of Florida near Alabama, home of an Air Force base.  They talk to Mike Hawkins, the witness responsible for the video, and he claims he wasn't involved in a hoax.  He says the UFO was hovering over the bay, and he and the other witness moved through the trees to get better pictures before the UFO disappeared.  The team (Bill, Jael, Larry) makes a mock UFO with foam sheets, a beach ball-type thing, lights, and tape ($20 of materials), and then attach it to a zip line outfitted with pullies.  A remote turns the light on and off, to simulate "disappearance."  It looks amazingly similar, aside from light cast on a tree and lack of vertical motion -- which I think they could have solved with a different rig further back in the trees.  They then try attaching a UFO to an RC helicopter and repeat the test; again very similar, but the UFO is flat, and when it swings in the wind that hurts the effect.  So they doubt that's the solution. Next they use a GOBO (Go Before Optics lighting) setup rear projected onto a screen, like the Bat Signal.  Again, it's amazingly similar, and a camera move makes the craft disappear.  Looks like a hoax, so they subject their interview to voice analysis.  Initially, the tape shows Hawkins is telling the truth about seeing the thing, but, later on, he's being deceptive about not knowing what it was.  (I remain dubious of this technique, but...)  Conclusion: he may not have been in on the hoax initially, but he likely did know what it was later.

Again, this episode presents two tough looks at famous videos and shows how they could have been faked (though the moon landing was not).  I wish they'd done some more proof about the good evidence for the moon landing (scientific mirrors left by the astronauts, etc), but that's a small quibble for a show that is more and more bringing hoaxes into the light.  Good job, gang!