Classical criminology is based on the freedom to choose actions. No excuses, no alibis, and no mitigations to reverse “victimhood” in favor of the perpetrator. Good, bad, and so forth, behavior is self-motivated, premeditated, and sometimes with malice. Such is a matter of creativity or lack thereof. People are adept at deception, even to the point of deceiving themselves.  A con job is always in the works. The intent is to gain an advantage for personal, amatively salacious reasons. Freewill is the core psychodynamic realm of thinking, whereby one plots and schemes subsequent interactions with the world. Allegations conjured by “mental health” corporate privateers (aka PIMP – Psychological Industrial Medical Pharmaceutical Complex) promote the manufacturing of varied excuses for illicit behaviors. So-called “mental health” or “mental illness” is hugely profitable and enhances career promotion. Everyone has psychodynamic concerns, large and small, and potentially require some dimensional mentorship framework.

     All that aside for the moment, in the domains of the pseudosciences (e.g., criminology, psychology, sociology, theology, etc.) sometimes referred to as the “social studies arena”, there are diverse adventures in metaphysics. These various disciplines of philosophy are often confused with the real sciences. The latter include astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics, to name a few. In the real world of the criminology practitioner, that of the law enforcement officer, science comes to the forefront in something mysteriously called - evidence. Truth wanders the byways of human interactivity, leaving traces in search of discovery. For that, scientific validation is essential to proof. Responding to the crime scene, the archeological dig, the sightings of UFOs or Bigfoot, and so on, demand scientific substantiation. Evidentiary authenticity is seldom found in opinion, gossip, rumor, or other chatter. Reliability in the credibility of the evidence.

     Unfortunately, the truth gets lost in egocentric flagellation in a culture bent on easy answers, oversimplification, and superficially convenient viewpoints. The persistent and unanswered question about the various realms of what is occasionally called “anomalous mental phenomenon” (AMP) provoke discussions around why people believe weird things. Some would replace weird with stupid, but to that end, belief systems are relevant to investigative processes. In addition, the follow-up might be, why do people behave in anti-social ways? The term anti-social here does not reference any psychiatric theoretical constructs. In the “social studies arena”, many play the role of the wannabe scientist. Yet, real science remains skeptical.    

     Meanwhile, in the hunt for truth, it cannot be allowed to decay due to widespread stupidity. On the contrary, the certainty of genuine veracity is necessary regardless of how many surveys, interviews, and observations are conducted in the “social studies arena” (aka pseudoscience). Evidence, particularly in forensic science applications of law enforcement, demands revelation.  In the search for the efficacy of evidentiary substantiation for AMP experiences, diverse voices echo across the surreal landscape of infotainment media. Again, all viewpoints, absent the materiality of scientific validation, blur the discourse of ascended intellectual vitality. Individuation in maturely profound exposition redundantly confronts the ever-lurking presence of contrived communal consensus. Whether divinely inspired, benignly ignored, or malevolently intended, competent conversation is typically challenging nearly everywhere. Personal transformation on the part of most people remains woefully deficient.

     In one episode of a gathering of skeptical convention goers, the guest speaker spends the first 20 minutes discussing his expertise. First, a keen observer notices the attire for the occasion likely chosen by the speaker. Some might suggest that one dress appropriately (i.e., professionally) for the occasion when you are the guest speaker. When a middle-aged person dresses like a casually attired high school student, testimony will not likely be taken seriously. There are endless studies on “dress how you want to be addressed”. Secondly, it is important to get to the point quickly. You are wasting others’ time and energies the more you pontificate about yourself. Naturally, while it is important from an investigative standpoint, such self-promotion does not contribute to the overall analysis of the realms of AMP. A bio sketch in a brochure or handout would suffice as a background explanation. Accuracy summons the necessity of testing evidence.

     Thirdly, in assessing AMP, get to the central core of the matter. Is there provability, and what does the evidence show to date. An awakened prominence for well-defined philosophical perspectives focuses on serious skepticism. At some point, out from underneath the psychic microscope, thoughts willfully emerge from one or more personalities within. Harnessing that power provides the basis for profound introspection, which should lend to a viable analysis. Psychically speaking, maybe a team effort transcends the unreal to the real through internal collaboration. As such, the metaphysical conjecture strives to invite cooperation with the consistency of attendant evidentiary necessities. In a major national business publication, one writer reports on the efforts of researchers to delve further into “mental phenomena”. A new study from the past year addresses matters relative to “ghostly experiences”.

     So-called reality TV, which most people realize is not about reality, right? Of the myriad dramatizations of alleged AMP experiences, the sleight-of-hand depictions are about money making, not about truth detection. Similarly, as to the aforementioned skeptical portrayals, a correlation is drawn. Boasting one’s relevance is unnecessary. Take a subtle cue from veteran law enforcement officers or military special forces as examples of the “quiet professional”. How credible are they if one must boast about their credentials, etc.? Child-like antics rob the efficacy of the pretense of credible investigative processes. Advocates should strive for sincere authenticity when hosting a channel promoted as a “skeptical convention” and purportedly debunking the “CSI effect” across many spectrums. Get to the point. What does the evidence say about the balancing scales of effective reasoning? Melodramatic entertainment is unnecessary. Showmanship is not relevant, along with any other contrived manipulations.

     Yet, in the post-20th century arrival into the 21st century, mythic salesmanship appears at an all-time high among viewers. Belief systems slant toward the three P’s used here. These include the paranormal, the parapsychic, and planetary (e.g., aliens). Surveys suggest over 70% of the U.S. population assert such beliefs. As to this point, that’s all a matter of opinion, and real evidence remains elusive as always. Regarding one of these spectral inclinations, in comparing two alleged “investigative” television series dealing with the various realms of AMP (i.e., cryptids), one defaults primarily to opinion, and the other strives toward scientific authenticity. Observing episode comparisons, the former leans heavily on non-scientists, who readily offer their opinions quite freely. Unfortunately, an immediate rebuttal to such conjecture is not countered. As to the latter programming, the show compares both sides of an AMP issue. In the process, real scientists are brought in to discuss the various phenomena.

     Seemingly, a valid attempt is made to address scientific credibility and evidentiary sufficiency matters. More often than not, in this particular show, initial claims of various anomalous sightings, for example, are countered by scientific evidence. Returning to the former alleged “reality show”, one long promoted by a “history-oriented” channel dating back to 2007, rhetorical conjecture relies heavily on one of the lowest forms of evidence. That is eyewitness testimony absent concrete forensically analyzed scientific substantiation. Occasionally, where a real scientist might be invited to offer an opinion or perform a microscopic analysis, the results are too frequently inconclusive. But the show must continue; advertisers are waiting to promote another “scam” product people can’t possibly live without. All sound very bogus.

     With incessant commercials, the ad revenue is more important than the show’s investigation. Everyone in the production looks so “serious” and “alarmed” by the incident, like a sasquatch attack. Of course, to make it all seem so authentic, the producers must bring in a cryptozoologist. While shows may claim they pursue scientific methodology and invite real scientists to participate, that alone does not confirm the viability of proof beyond doubt. As to the “quest for monsters” from the mentioned show, which began in 2007, an episode involving Canadian Sasquatch slants towards a tentative confirmation. However, once again, profound, irrefutable evidentiary confirmation remains nonexistent. In particular, the opinions of cryptozoologists do not count, as testimony in a court of law is subject to scientific validation challenges. In a trial, objections would fly right and left around the courtroom. Once again, opinion, gossip, and rumor do not equate to viable evidence. Scrutiny of every asserting is essential to viability.

     Furthermore, the opening scenes above provide a narration that claims the intent to ensure substantive scientific analysis. Such antics may attempt to fake the viability for audience appeal. To say you use science infers that your actions produce legitimate results or contain some validity. However, as the story tale unfolds, the slant appears to go toward non-scientific conjecture, particularly that of the philosophies maintained by cryptozoology. Also, the property owners and clientele likewise are not skilled investigators. Maybe there’s a commercial angle to promote the business interest involved. Does the alleged “science” used in a “quest for monsters” production prove anything substantial? Questions should be raised when the investigative processes, such as looking through a microscope, produce no hard-core proof. What about using real-world skilled law enforcement investigators? Credentialed expertise is important.

     What are the purposes for what is being perpetrated? Subjective validation for the satiation of confirmation bias, in the reassurance of immediate gratification, is an underlying personal factor. In modern America, being an “expert” no longer requires “expertise”. If you hold something out to be true , what do you mean, and how do you know? You’re an investigator, right? Okay, where did you earn your skills? Meanwhile, during the storytelling process, the standard template is to build suspense and then cut to a commercial. That tells the real story since the inane and incessant commercialization of everything is more important than the fact-laden pursuit of the truth. Consuming fat-drenched food, swilling it down with liquid poisons, or increasing indebtedness by buying more stuff is more vital than intellectual transformation. Every effort goes into assessing the value of the evidentiary artifacts alleged at each juncture of the encounter.

     Upon interviewing an alleged witness of a “Bigfoot burglary” at a remote rental cabin, what questions should unfold as the plot thickens? A simple equation is often employed by law enforcement personnel and can be expanded exponentially. And yet, such interrogatories did not unfold with any sense of precision or focus. That’s because it’s part of the gambit. For real-world practitioners, it’s the usual “suspects” of who, what, where, when, why, and how. An especially good focus is who reported the incident and who last had access? Paying close attention to the attendant bodily kinesics is also vital. However, caution is warranted. No one has cornered the market on being able to read a person “like a book”. No matter how many years a tuber alleges they worked for some three-letter agency, reading “body language” is an imprecise art form. Such relies heavily on experience, knowledge, evolved nature, and many other factors.

     Studying people is undoubtedly important, and assessing overall behaviors might lend some clues. This, of course, invites further analysis. Relatedly, as to the forgoing investigative equation, the effort is calculated to be a derivative of the basic construct for scientific methodology. More importantly, what does the evidence show? For instance, a ransacked cabin, seemingly tossed about randomly, means what? So far in the story, nothing has been stolen. Was the burglar angry at the cabin, the people, life in general, or just frustrated? Perhaps the intruder, reportedly a Bigfoot of some type, was weary of bad press coverage. Following that, what are the odds that a reportedly sentient creature would vandalize a potentially habitable abode? For what purpose would a crime of criminal mischief be perpetrated? Who or what stands to gain? In the classical school of criminology framework, perpetrators premediate a “cost-benefit” analysis. Typically, this relates to gain minus risk plus environmental opportunities.

     However, such TV shows are not about solving anything. Once the case is solved, that’s the end of the show. As such, the mysterious nature of things must continue. With production comes time constraints. There is only enough script time for a comprehensive, in-depth analysis. Facts, reality, logical deduction, and testable data become secondary to the value of the visual presentation. Opinions, gossip, and rumor are the stuff of spinning tales that promote all manner of conjecture.

Regarding such matters, some might speculate as to the intentions of the alleged victims. On one level, are they projecting a reality they would like to create? In conjunction with that, are claimants “co-conspirators” with the movie makers? Also, what about the so-called “experts”. When a cryptozoologist is called in as a consultant, how does that alter the interpersonal dynamics? Seemingly, an appeal to “authority” expresses legitimacy.

     And, showtime is endless in the production value of one presumed reality series after another. Pretentious acting conjures some replication of endless appeals to “authoritative” points of view. This “expert” or that “expert” is called in to testify about the veracity concerning the attendant issues. The gambits seek to capitalize on viewer susceptibility in more ways than one, not necessarily demonstrating substantive proof of anything. A recent episode in a similar ongoing television production purports to solve historical mysteries. Cleverly contrived, the showmanship depicts various “unknown expeditions” across the globe.  A reminder flashes to the forefront of consciousness. Again, the question arises, what is the truth, and who do you trust? The answer is nothing and no one. Alleged reality TV, a case in point expressing the variety of anomalous mental phenomena, pretentiously masquerades as various “documentaries”. However, the traditional concept behind a documentary is fact-finding in revealing the truth. Subsequently, the truthfulness is revealed at some point in a timeline based on substantial evidentiary authenticity.

     As to interrogatories that may be asked within a law enforcement investigative context, how do you know, and what do you mean? Defining the preliminary hypothesis of the elemental construct is important for any assertion. Making stuff up to fit the preconceived narrative is deadly to the diversity of intellectual competence. Conjecture can be fun and exciting and eventually devasting and destructive. As one research institute points out, truth decomposes in the modern context. Myth, magic, and poorly constructed metaphors unfold with lightning speed and crucify the truth for subjective validation. Blurs interfere with the vitality of the facts, as cover stories elicit emotional reactivity. As though a stage play, the visual realms of social media, including news media and television storytelling, become sagas of stage-managed acting. As for the younglings attempting some kind of tick-tocking selfie, the acting is of poor quality.

     Also, will someone with limited life experiences, little longevity, and no educational achievement offer a profound intellectual perspective? In most broadcast genres, you have limited creativity, with simplistic two-dimensional child-like thinking. Cinematography may be quite extraordinary. Exotic locales, skilled camera work, sweeping cinematic cascades, etc., do not prove or disprove the particular case. Even when the threat of “danger” to the host actor or key players is tossed in. Seriously, does anyone think these reality shows put any actors in danger? Is the host in danger with a camera crew, bodyguards, and likely paramedics, and a helicopter nearby? Make-believe has become the unintellectual reality that entertains the public. Widely misunderstood concepts based on magical thinking encourage foolish generalizations.

     Nonetheless, the conjecture continues in deleterious intentional efforts to dumb down an entire society. Fortunately for the con artists, whether in the “social studies arena” or infotainment industry, most people fail to apply scientific methodology. For those who think they are exceedingly clever and smarter than the rest, the motivations are “snake oil sales” of sinister concoctions. Mass marketing is not about reality, as it is more about selling non-realty. In another comparable television enterprise, dismissing higher notions of intellectual advancement, a show allegedly investigates the “unexplained”. The production follows a similar format to sensational shows of a similar bent. Call it fake news, disinformation, or redundant hoax reality TV, the formula remains boringly redundant. As one analysis of the show concludes, the superficiality continues, and the foolish similarity is repeated repeatedly. With a prominent movie star as the host, the alleged attempts to “explain” paranormal phenomena fail to conclude anything.

     Slick and well-produced, nothing new with startling revelations is demonstrated convincingly about much of anything. The same old topics are presented with a backdrop of skilled cinematography. And yet, where is the conclusive evidence? In one episode, supposedly “hunting” elusive cryptids, viewers are set up from the start. Tantalizing tidbits of unsubstantiated folklore, myth, and legend are proposed as intriguing possibilities. Within the first 20 minutes, alleged “experts” are interviewed for their “expertise” in cryptozoology. On-screen, under their name, the descriptor read: “Cryptozoologist”. An inquiry might question what college courses one took for such a degree. For example, reviewing the curriculum at one university offering degrees in cryptozoology, not a single science course is required. Again, real science involves domains of biology, chemistry, and physics. In the case of “creature studies”, science would likely also include the fields of archaeology and paleontology.

     Suffice it to say that if someone says they are a “cryptozoologist”, an assessment of their educational credentials ought to follow. The opinion is not evidence, and neither is rumors and gossip. Likewise, eyewitness testimony falls into the same framework. Extraordinary claims require substantially definitive evidentiary artifacts. It is the kind of relevance that can withstand measurement, testing, and debate from all sides of the controversy. As suggested in the forgoing, degree requirements typically include many philosophy courses in metaphysics. This does not mean an investigator with a legitimate science degree is precluded from being a “cryptozoologist”. However, for reality TV, wonderment continues. As to the non-reality of reality TV, a healthy sense of skepticism is necessary for every investigation.