Talk:Mothman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Killer Moth

"Killer Moth's appearance in the Teen Titans animated series bears a notable resemblance to descriptions of the Mothman." is false. This cartoon villain looks nothing like the moth descriptions anywhere. google the image and you'll see. Aside from being moth based, it is an obvious parody, the episoded ended with him destroying the town's suspension bridge.

Moth-based and destroying a bridge? Certainly sounds like it was inspired by the Mothman, although they apparently took some liberties with the appearance.

The opening section of the Killer Moth entry states (apparently as fact) that "The name of the cryptid, 'Mothman', was derived from 'Killer Moth'." If that's a fact (which seems unlikely), it should be included in the Mothman article. If it's not a fact, but just somebody's inaccurate speculation, it should be removed from there.

"Some anonymous copy editor gave it a name, spun off from the Batman comic character which was then the subject of a popular TV series. he dubbed the creature Mothman" - from The Mothman Prophecies by John A Keel, page 77. Note a complete lack of reference to Killer Moth. You'd better excise it from there I've removed it. Feel free to delete it if someone else puts it in again. Totnesmartin 08:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Barn owl (Skeptical Enquirer)

2nd paragraph:

Skeptics have argued (notably in the March/April 2002 issue of the magazine Skeptical Inquirer) that the most likely explanation of the sightings is excited eyewitnesses mistaking a barn owl.

-I removed this paragraph because (on the magazine's website, I haven't read the issue in question, however) there is no reference to Mothman and/or a debunking in the Mar/Apr '02 issue contents. However, the "mistaking a barn owl" story reminded me of the debunking of a completely different "mystery monster" story in another issue. That issue turned out to be the Nov/Dec 2000 issue.

Hypernovean 11:27, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• I put the Skeptical Inquirer back, as the article is, indeed, in that issue - I've got the copy right here, written by the indubitable Joe Nickell. (Note that it's 2002, not 2003) Here's a LookSmart link:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2843/2_26/83585954/p1/article.jhtml

Ahh, sorry then. I guess there are a lot of "barn owl monsters" :) Hypernovean 03:11, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

None has or none have?

Regarding the changing of "none has" to . "none have" - this is a source of much grammatical debate. Purists say "none" means "not one" and therefore is singular but many people feels "none" means roughly "none of the possibilities" and therefore is plural. I won't revert, just mentioning it. DavidWBrooks 18:14, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Although it is a bit late, the correct grammatical structure is indeed "none have" because "not one" is actually not singular; it is instead a plural negation - a disinclusion of many people into a group, and all those people are the subject. The phrase "not one" is just a figure of speech. I know it's not relevant anymore, but I hope it helps someone in the future. --Deriamis 20:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Movie out

There is a movie out, on DVD as well called The Mothman Prophecies. Martial Law 05:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone sees the movie, please note that there are two versions: the regular, single, DVD; and the special edition 2-DVD box with interviews, etc. I strongly recommend the latter.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mothman / Killer Moth

Do we have a source for that comment about Mothman being named for a villain on the '60s Batman series? The moth-themed Batman villain was "the Killer Moth", not "Mothman", and the one episode of that particular show that featured him never actually aired. 04:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) -I'm going to remove the reference. Killer Moth originates in 1951, Mothman was not called Mothman until the events of 1966-1967

Pop culture references

Do you guys think Mothmonster man from Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a reference to mothman? He does terrify them for a while, although he's rather nice and laid-back. Identity0 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the ATHF reference from the list. If anyone feels the need to put it back in there, it definitely needs to be rephrased. It said that the ATHF episode parodied a scene from the film "The Mothman Prophecies", in spite of the fact that the episode came out almost 4 months prior to the film. If it is a reference to the Mothman, it was not a reference to the film. Juansmith 08:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion that in the Cthulhu Mythos universe the mothman sightings would have been Byakhee sightings seems entirely speculative, since AFAIK the Mothman was never mentioned in any books following the mythos. If this is mentioned in a book, or a Call of Cthulhu sourcebook or something, it needs to be properly attributed. Also, Raziel from Soul Reaver is a fairly typical design for a demon: his wings are batlike, and his body is more or less human with a distinct head and normal-sized eyes as opposed to a headless, furry mass with huge eyes set in the chest. Making a connection there seems spurious. Finally, Arthur from The Tick is just a guy in a winged costume, and aside from the ability to fly and the intent to be a moth (although everyone assumes his costume to be that of a winged bunny), he doesn't have anything to do with the Mothman (unless somebody can dredge up a quote by Ben Edlund of being inspired by stories about the Mothman or something). — Gwalla | Talk 18:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how Arthur, the sidekick from The Tick, has *anything* to do with the Mothman aside from the moth-themed suit. Is any moth usage a "pop culture" reference to the Mothman? The connection to Silent Hill is just as spurious. The bridge is out, not wrecked, and not far through the game you activate it and cross.

The reference to the batman tv show should be removed or fixed. There was no Killer Moth in the show.

It's explained in the Killer Moth entry (perhaps in a more recent edit?) that the episode with Killer Moth was shot but never aired. Whether that means there was or wasn't a Killer Moth "in the show" is debatable. Although either way, attributing the naming of Mothman to a derivation of Killer Moth seems pretty tenuous.

ATHF Mothmonsterman

Yes, I know there's a reference to this in the previous Talk entry, but I see an edit war on the horizon since I've removed this two or three times, and it's been put back in every time.

There is absolutely zero evidence to support any connection between Mothmonsterman and the Mothman. People think Wikipedia is often wildly inaccurate for a reason. You want to help Wikipedia gain a better reputation? Stop entering baseless claims like this one. Encyclopedias are based on facts, not opinions. Kestrel 17:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You want to help wikipedia gain a better reputation? Then try to be a bit nicer. 69.179.121.92 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you need to get off your highhorse and stop thinking your God.

I've taken this character out again, after consulting List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes (he's in episode 3). The bad guys in that series are all either based on animals, or from outer space; there are no parodies of CZ creatures such as bigfoot or whatever. Therefore Mothmonsterman is pretty definitely not based on Mothman. And I can't believe I checked that just for one sentence... Totnesmartin 20:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to put in my two cents, I think there is definitely a relationship, even if the creators did not intend it. The episode clearly deals with tabloid-type characters (Shake's entire rant is tabloid-esque) as well as literary characters like Dracula. It's really not hard to believe from a show that has taken on: Wolfman (The Remonster), Ouija (Video Ouija), Telekinesis (Meat Zone), Poltergeists (The Clowning), Urban Legends (The Broodwich), as well as references like the onion/spider monster "Willy Nelson" that lives in their attic (The Shaving?). ATHF has a remarkable number of science fiction references and I believe this one in particular ought to be represented. -Andrew Logan, 18 May 2007

HP Lovecraft

How can things written before the sighting of the Mothman be referances to the Mothman?--Atechi 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good point...--Wolfluv1 (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture off-topic tag

Several items listed in the Popular Culture section are not focused on the main topic of the article. The Mothman article is about "a strange creature sighted many times in the Charleston and Point Pleasant areas of West Virginia between November 1966 and November 1967." Some of the items listed in this section reference creatures, characters, and entities that are moth-like, but are not related specifically to the "creature" the article is written about. A good way to deal with this issue without losing the interesting information already listed here would be to create a new article about moth-like creatures, and to create a disambiguation article. --ndyguy 01:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag was removed by (19:25, 13 August 2006 Treybien) with no significant change to the section and no reasoning left in the talk page. The tag was reinserted. ndyguy 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A reminder, the article is not about creatures that look like or are called Mothman. It is about "a strange creature sighted many times in the Charleston and Point Pleasant areas of West Virginia between November 1966 and November 1967." ndyguy 00:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Mothman/Killer Moth

The character of "Killer Moth" was featured in Batman comic books of the period, but not in the TV series.

Repeated information

the section first sightings is largely a different telling of the facts in history.

Invader Zim

Dib's code name for the paranormal research group "The Swollen Eyeball" is "Agent Mothman" -n8lewis

Who is Dib? What is The Swollen Eyeball? Totnesmartin 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First Sightings

The entire first sightings section is a mess and seems to repeat a lot of what was above. This should probably be merged to the history section of the article, removing all the redundant information. It also is totally uncited. Titanium Dragon 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

Most of this is not original research, and is from Keel's book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saintjimmy777 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Self promotion

Removed this book plug:

• A.B. Colvin, a local photojournalist and documentary film maker who claims to have seen the creature in 1966 and 1973, has produced a book and 32-hour DVD news series on Mothman called The Mothman's Photographer, with over 40 eyewitnesses and experts. Colvin's sister took a snapshot of him in 1973 that shows something looking like a Garuda or Thunderbird in the background. Colvin took a picture of an anomalous figure in a crop circle in 1979 that he alleges might be a spectral image of either his deceased father (whose Navy yearbook proves was at the site of the Philadelphia Experiment in 1943), of Indrid Cold, a 'spaceman' who reportedly contacted local resident Woody Derenberger, or of Duncan Cameron or Aleister Crowley, both connected to the Montauk/Philadelphia experiments involving time travel . While researching various forms of Buddhist philosophy and various Native tribes, Colvin seems to have reached the conclusion that both the Garuda of the Far East and the Thunderbird of the Native Americans are synonymous with Mothman, and that the Mothman was fulfilling a pre-ordained, archetypal role that involves stopping heinous crimes at pivotal moments in mankind's existence by sending visions, dreams, and messages to ordinary humans. Colvin presents testimonies from Charleston witnesses who separately saw Mothman, the Dover Demon, the Virgin Mary, aliens, black panthers, plasma figures, "intelligent" globes of light, and the Flatwoods monster in virtually the same spot, lending credence to his Mothman "shape-shifting" theory .

Don't know if AB Colvin AKA User:Mothphotog is a genuine researcher or not, but plugging his own book in a WP article isn't really on. If it's a good enough book, someone else can put a brief summary of it in. Totnesmartin 19:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Self promotion (pt2)

I have removed the following book plug. It was posted by someone with Coleman's exact IP address. This person has changed many pages all over wikipedia, inserting pro-Coleman claims and putting Coleman into the bios of famous figures. All references lead back to Coleman's own work. This can be proven by checking Coleman's address on posts to yahoo lists like mothmanlives. It wouldn't be so bad if Coleman inserted his own research in a halfway objective way, but he repeatedly removes modifiers that other people have placed on his assertions. For example, Coleman takes out the word "claims" in any sentence containing "Loren claims," in an apparent effort to make his opinion seem like gospel. Check the Jan. 2 and 3 edits to the analysis section of Mothman, follow up on that IP address, and you will find Coleman inserting himself into the history of recently deceased figures like Robert Anton Wilson. This seems to explain Coleman's obsession with obituaries:

• Cryptozoologist and author Loren Coleman, who claims to have been a friend and associate of John A. Keel since the 1960s, as well as a researcher of Mothman and the related phenomena dating back to 1960, takes a more down-to-earth approach. When Sony/Screen Gems were in the pre-production phase for their movie based on Keel's book, they allegedly encouraged Coleman to finish his forthcoming book, 2002's Mothman and Other Curious Encounters. In that work, Coleman alleges to have organized and placed into context the history, eyewitness accounts, and news stories to support his cryptozoological point of view of the Mothman series of sightings. According to Coleman, the word "Mothman" was coined by a copyeditor in Ohio who was a fan of the television "Batman" series, thus undermining the individual early avian descriptions given by eyewitnesses. Coleman found evidence for reports of large unknown birds in the Point Pleasant area dating back over 100 years.

Loren Coleman claims that there is a sinister, psychological post-Keelian nature to the phenomena. He imagines that this is related to a more human than supernatural factor. He has compiled a list of over eighty people that he claims have died because they have seen, researched, or had some connection to Mothman (such as the wife of the director of the 2002 motion picture, who also worked on a Mothman film) . Coleman feels that the influence of Keel has diminished the (supposed) cryptozoological realities that underlie the initial reports, even though Keel was using cryptozoologist Ivan T. Sanderson (as well as Coleman) as his zoological advisors on the reports. Coleman now claims that he considers mundane biological explanations as a skeptical distraction from the cryptozoological nature of the real Mothman backstory. However throughout the years, it can be shown that he has consistently claimed that Mothman was a large owl or other mundane flying cryptid .

I have reinstated the Colvin material because it is an accurate portrayal of what is written in the introduction to Colvin's book sold on Amazon. Gibleisha 17 Jan. 2007

so you took out stuff about the well known Coleman, and put in stuff about the obscure Colvin - who, incidentally, also tries to stick his name into mothman/flying thing related articles. Colvin's book seems to be about his pet theories, and his claim to have a photo of Mothman[1]. Totnesmartin 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gibleisha 20:37 26 Jan. 2007 (UTC)

Colvin is not listed under "Thunderbird." That page, too, is dominated by Coleman and his friends. I see no evidence for what you are saying, aside from someone having a similar moniker as Colvin. Colvin is not represented on any cryptozoology pages. Certainly the root of the problem is that Coleman is going all over wikipedia putting himself in various categories, far outside of his chosen field. Sometimes this pisses off real researchers who reasonably specialize on their areas, who see Coleman as a provocateur butting his nose into a million different subjects with an aim to sensationally exploit. Colvin's series is based almost entirely on interviews with eyewitnesses. Coleman's are built from media stories. Most of Colvin's theories were brought up by Keel and others years ago, so they are not his "pet" theories. A pet theory would be Coleman saying that Mothman is just a regular bird that happens to put death curses on people. Gibleisha 20:37 26 Jan. 2007 (UTC)

Gibleisha 20:13 31 Jan. 2007 (UTC) Totnesmartin (Bizarro Martin), you have proven here that your stated morals and intentions are well...shifting. You claim to be going after people who might be placing their own research into wikipedia (these people seem to be, by and large, non-materialists), yet when given absolute, irrevocable proof that your hero Loren Coleman is placing his own research here, you change your rules and decide that "popularity" is more important. Then you reinstate the material proven to have been written by Coleman, which clearly violates wikipedia policy. Therefore, you are violating wikipedia policy. Please stay off the Mothman page if you can't come up with a set of rules that goes along with what the rest of us have agreed upon. Please stop dictating what sort of proof others' must have, because you certainly aren't living up to the standards yourself. Your actions are giving the "wikipedia paranormal project" a bad name.

1. That's "Martin Bizarro", mate. In that order.

1. Loren Coleman is not my hero. provide evidence that I consider him so.
2. I've nothing against material or non-material explanations - thay both belong in the article. I first read the Mothman Prphecies in 1983, and I have a copy now (waves copy at monitor).
3. Let's stop edit warring about Coleman and Colvin's stuff. the poiint I was trying to make was about people putting in things about themselves, not about who is right. If I wrote a book, I wouldn't write it up in Wikipedia.
4. Why does your edit history start[2] just after mothphotog's ends [3]? I hope you're not him under a different name; that would be against wikipedia policy. Totnesmartin 15:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mothman sightings in Mexico

I just found out oabout this, but before the hurricane hit Mexicos coast, they found in Tapachula a strange dead creature in the streets. They describe it as whiteish, with the face like a bat, a small mouth like a pirana, wings, and tentacles for fingers. They say that it was analised, but they didnt find out what it was and when they where gonna send it to mexico city for analysis, the hurricane came. That sounds like the mothman, or coincidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HeatGuyRed (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Source? Names of witnesses? Totnesmartin 10:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bones

I took this out (an anon IP had put it in):

a recent "skull" or "bones" were found in Point Pleasent, WV. No one is really sure what to think of this. They aren't sure. They can't identify the skull as any animal they have ever seen. More information is expected soon from investigators.

No source was given. It it turns out to be true then it can go back in the article. Totnesmartin 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Garuda

In the intro, Mothman is compared to the Garuda. However, the Garuda is gigantic, capable of blotting out the sun, and with a wingspan of miles. Can this comparison stand, or should it go? Totnesmartin 14:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you weren't going to get into an editing war. If you and the person who is helping you edit out the Garuda do some research, you will find that not all Garudas are considered to be giant, however the Garuda is consistently shown to be a human/bird hybrid like the Mothman (regardless of size). The thunderbird, which Loren Coleman loves to portray as being the explanation for Mothman, is ALSO depicted as a giant bird as large as the sky. If you are going to take out Garuda, you must take out Thunderbird. You must also take Batman out, because Batman certainly can't be Mothman. What is really sad here is that you guys don't know much about the subject. The famous Fatima sightings, which hold many similarities to the under-reported aspects of the Mothman episodes (angelic beings with globes of light and prophecies, trance states, etc.), also included an episode where something extremely large SEEMED to blot out the sky. Clearly you can't say that large flying things that APPEAR to blot out the sky are not part of this phenomenon. Please do some homework before you start hacking away. Please put Garuda back or I will take Thunderbird and Batman out. Respectfully, Mothphotog 23:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all "you guys really don't know much about the subject" is close to a personal attack - not just on me, but on other editors on this article. I'd knock that off if I were you. See WP:NPA.

• Re Batman. obviously Mothman and Batman are nothing alike. Nobody is saying they are. Mothman is said to be named after the "Killer Moth" character.
• Should we also include the angel Gabriel's gigantic size when he appeared to Mohammed[4]? If Gabriel, thunderbirds and garudas were gigantic (or appeared to be), then Mothman is not one of them, because it did not appear so. Incidentally, I can't see what the Fatima connection is, apart from the vague prophecies in Keel's book by Princess Moon Owl and her curious friends. What winged humanoid was witnessed at Fatima?
• And finally, no-one is helping me. I'm working alone. If I want help, I'll ask for it (as I did elsewhere the other day). Check my contributions list to see where I've solicited help with this article. Totnesmartin 11:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the research, I should have said that it SEEMS to be lacking based on some of the editing choices, and the fact that one person seemed to take up where another started. I guess I must have been wrong. My humblest apologies. Once something gets pointed out, sometimes everyone starts looking for it in almost copycat fashion, and I'm probably as gullible as anyone. Please know that I do pay attention to the rules once I know what they are.

The key point here is that the real expert on Mothman, John Keel, named his Mothman book after the Garuda, but the title was later changed by a NY publisher. That is where the Mothman name really supplanted Garuda. The Garuda seems to be an acceptable description for Mothman because Keel and Eugenia Macer-Story, who is second in line as it were, as well as Colvin, all believe Mothman is a Garuda. The point about Fatima is that the two episodes share distinct types of incidents. That is just one example of many as to why these phenomena relate. No need to go there, though, since I am obviously dealing with people who have been studying this since this for a long time. Glad we are all on the same page now.

The other point I wanted to make is that there are no modern day witnesses in India or SE Asia that claim the Garuda they saw is large enough to blot out the sun. That is something taken from an ancient text that may have meaning to impart upon the story (particularly as it relates to how the mind can be unusually affected by strong electromagnetic fields in a given area), but shouldn't be used as a yardstick. Mothphotog 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I also apologise for anything I've said which might have offended you.

I just learned some things I didn't know before. If the Garuda theory is expounded by Macer-Story (why doesn't the article mention her?) as well, then let's have all that in a Garuda section (or subsection). To honest, the whole article could do with sorting out from top to bottom. The information is there but it's not a pretty sight as Wikipedia articles go.

Re mythological Garuda - I got my information about that from the Garuda article, which is solely about the mythical aspect of it. If you can provide some information from Macier-Story, then please put it in. I'll try to arrange the article better if I remember. Gimme a prod if I forget. Totnesmartin 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Where near Point Pleasant?

Does anyone know where the TNT Factory and "Igloos" are in relation to Point Pleasant? I am working on a project and needed some aerial photo's of the place(using google maps) but wasn't able to figure out exactly where those locations were based on the article. TheDragonMaster 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this [5] there are two white patches outside the town - presumably one of these is the TNT area. Totnesmartin 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, try asking here. Totnesmartin 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2005

The intro states that the most recent sighting was in 2005, but this is neither mentioned elsewhere in the article nor does it have a reference. Can anyone help with this? Or should I just remove it? Totnesmartin 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue?

I'm fairly new here and not sure how to properly address potential copyright issues, but many paragraphs of text in this article are word-for-word identical to those in the Mothman entry at http://www.skepticworld.com/cryptozoology/mothman.asp. I don't know how to tell who's copying whom, but it looks like one article was cut-and-pasted from the other.

Suggestions on how to deal with this?

Tribolumen 16:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

you mean this?[6]. Looks curiously familiar... I'll rewrite it. Totnesmartin 16:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fortean Times links

What was wrong with those links? the articles are relevant, interesting and not simply spam. Totnesmartin 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Indrid Cold

The movie's page has a link to Indrid Cold, which redirects here, but this page has no information at all on Indrid Cold. Should something be added? I haven't read the book and I barely remember the movie, so I'm unsure if Indrid Cold is an important aspect of the mythos or not. Tredanse 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is only about the Mothman creature itself, and doesn't cover the surrounding events, of which Indrid Cold was a (fairly important) part. There does need to be an article (Point Pleasant phenomana) or something like that so Indid Cold can get redirected there. I'll mull over this and try to have an article up in a day or two. Totnesmartin 08:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

James Earlson?

Many locals refer to the monster as Tooden which is the pet name of James Earlson, a mass murderer who slaughtered 36 men on July 25, 1902.

This is suspicious. ... -- Toytoy 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This section was added by 68.201.70.122 on 18:42, May 22, 2007. -- Toytoy 15:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)