Blog of the Dead

Necessities Poll

2007-04-19T01:40:00.000-07:00

Once again I'm proud of our readers for making wise decisions in a zombie crisis. We all know that the most critical period for survival in the event of an outbreak is the first hour or two, while gaining your bearings and beginning to enact your survival plan. It was that period that our most recent poll tested.

A full 46% (393) of our readers chose weapons as the most important necessity to be secured for zombie survival. This seems to me to be the right answer. After all, what good is food if you can't even protect yourself long enough to eat it? What good is water if you get eaten before you can drink it? What good is group numbers if no one in that group is capable of defending themselves (or anyone else in the group for that matter) against zombies? Frankly I'm disappointed that only 46% chose this option.

Coming in second in the poll was water (20% - 170). This seems fairly reasonable to me since if we take threats in order of their immanence, water should be second. After death by zombie, you're most likely to die of thirst next. You'll certainly die of thirst long before starvation.

In third we had group numbers (17% - 142). To me this one could easily have been above water, so it makes sense that it was barely nudged out by water. After all, group numbers is really another tool (along with weapons) for surviving the most immanent threat to life - zombies.

In fourth place was transportation (10% - 85). This is an interesting one. If you find yourself in a city you're simply not going to survive if you stay there, no matter how many weapons you have. I'm sure for these 10% that is what tipped the scales. But how do you plan to get to that transportation in the first place if you don't have any weapons? Further, what if you don't live in the city? Why concern yourself with transportation above everything else?

The fifth most chosen answer was food at 6% (50). This just seems silly...absolutely silly. A person can survive more than a month with no food. Granted that time will be knocked down significantly under high stress survival situations, but the point still stands - food should not be considered a necessity in the early stages of zombie survival. Concentrate on living in the short term before you concentrate on surviving in the long term.

In last place, surprisingly, was night vision aids (1% - 7). To me this just seems utterly absurd! Why in God's name would anyone choose food over being able to see in the dark when a hoard of zombies is on the loose? In my opinion this could have come in as high as 2nd or 3rd and at the very worst 4th. Remember that we should prioritize necessities by order of the eminence of the threat that they protect against. If that is the case, then night vision should come before even water. A person can go a couple days without water (although, admittedly it will suck), but night falls for about a third of every day! When it's dark out and there are zombies around I assure you you'll be aggressively bartering your canteen for a pair of night vision goggles or a flashlight!

Well, there's my traditional assessment of the poll results. Feel free to rip me to shreds for my idiocy.

You gotta read this email!

2006-06-04T14:17:00.000-07:00

So I decided to check my email account that I never check and lo and behold - look what I found! Some guy named Harry Hall from the UK decided to take it upon himself to put this "conspiracy theorist" in his place. Harry, it turns out, is concerned at my (along with the other contributors to this blog's, apparently - as well as its readers') lack of cognitive power. So I figured I should pass the message on to all of you other zombie enthusiasts out there. So here it is, in an email Mr. Hall has entitled "Your unbelievably vast stupidity":

"You entirely missed the point when you based your entire website on one book. Brooks ripped the piss out of the "survival handbook" genre while keeping a perfectly straight face, and people like you, who believe conspiracy theories despite lack of evidence (and evidence against in plentiful supply), simply refuse to believe the truth and get sucked in by the most stupid idea in existence. Visit the website below for proof that he wrote the book as a joke. Maybe, if you'd studied medicine at university like I have, you'd have realised that it is a physical impossibility for a virus to affect cerebal activity in any other way than hallucingogenics and shutting it down permanently.

The theorem portrayed is that it "melts" the front lobe of the brain while still maintaining base functionality; a theoretical possibility never seen or proven. However, this would destroy any possibility of the virus transmitting its "urge to spread" (which it doesn't have; it has no wish to spread, it simply wants to feed) to a higher brain function: oh yeah -- they've all been destroyed.

Ultimately, the disease breaks the fundamental rule of all diseases: adverse affects to the body are simply side-effects of the feeding of the virus. This would mean that the disease would die out (if it is a virus, there has to be a zombie somewhere in the world at any one time, as viruses cannot survive without an organism to feed off) as it kills too quickly; a
24-hour disease epidemic is impossible, as the virus would not have time to spread. Oh yeah -- and don't be an idiot, reanimation after death as a "biologically dead but somehow mystically functioning creature" is impossible.

If i was to sum all this up, I would do it by saying: it isn't a biological theory. Why? because the word biological includes the word LOGIC. Which is exactly what the theory lacks.

The link is to an interview with Max Brooks; he acknowledges it's a joke. Bad luck. Better luck with the next stupid conspiracy.

http://suicidegirls.com/words/Max+Brooks/

Harry, UK"

What can I say? I feel debunked. I've already emailed Mr. Hall back to thank him for correcting the error of my ways. Perhaps you all should do the same. His email address is: harriieee@hotmail.com

I'm sure he'd love to hear from any and all of you.

The Test Has Arrived!!!

2006-05-05T18:08:00.000-07:00

Alright folks, I've finally finished my Zombie Survival Test. Just go here.

Now, I'm sure that there is going to be plenty of controversy over it, so if you have a problem with the questions and/or answers, please feel free to either comment or email me. I'll be happy to defend each and every one. Hope you all enjoy it!

***UPDATE***

I have deleted the account this test was under and thus the test itself. If the blog ever gets up and running again a new test will be created.

Zombie Survival Test

2006-04-27T02:25:00.000-07:00

Some guy who goes by "ci8db4uok" made a little quiz called "The Zombie Scenario Survival Test". I'm going to be honest - I'm unimpressed. While I did perform well enough to be considered a survivor (at 78%), I feel that a sufficient argument can be made for every one of my answers over what his quiz may have been expecting.

The bottom line is this - many of the questions on this quiz are simply too ambiguous to reasonably expect anyone to score 100%, no matter how skilled in zombie survival. So here's what I'm going to do. I am going to consult with the other contributors to this blog to create our own zombie survival test with more objective questions. I will then put the link to the test permanently on the site for all to test themselves.

Expect it within the week!

Situation in Pittsburgh all too common

2006-04-25T15:08:00.000-07:00

In October of last year, The Onion reported a fascinating story that unfortunately didn't receive the full media attention it deserved. Apparently the Zombie Preparedness Institute performed a study in Pittsburgh revealing that a complete zombie takeover would happen in a maximum of 10 days!

This should not come as a surprise to those of us who research this problem. It only underscores the fact that PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS should be the primary objective for average civilians since the only way to prevent nightmarish scenarios like this one from obtaining is for city, state, and world governments to recognize and deal with the problem - something they've been entirely unwilling to do.

Poor evacuation routes and an ignorant citizenry are listed as the primary factors leading to the takeover. In the absense of governmental agencies willing to fix the evacuation route problem, the only chance we have for even a partial cure is to combat ignorance of the zombie problem. Knowledge is power - if we understand the threat zombies pose we will have a far higher possibility of understanding how to overcome that threat.

Recent Poll Results

2006-04-24T14:54:00.000-07:00

Here are the most recent poll results. Again, I'm pretty impressed by our readers' collective knowledge of zombie survival principles.

"What is the ideal size for a survival party during the beginning stages of a zombie apocalypse?"

1-2 people - 5% (14 votes)
3-5 people - 48% (142 votes)
6-10 people - 31% (92 votes)
11-15 people - 4% (13 votes)
16-20 people - 1% (4 votes)
21 or more people - 10% (29 votes)

In the interest of disclosure I chose the "6-10 people" option. A full 79% (234) of you chose between 3 and 10 people. This is very good because at least three people are needed to provide security from each necessary direction, but at 10 the group is still small enough to be efficient.

The problem with larger groups of 11 or more (especially 21 or more), which sadly a full 15% (46) of you chose, is that they are less mobile, highly detectable, harder to transport, harder to provide basic resources for and are far more prone to power struggles. Each of these factors dramatically decreases the chances of short term (much less long term!) survival for the group as a whole.

Thanks to everyone who participated in our poll, and I hope to have more great participation in our next one.

Gettin' the blog back together!

2006-04-24T14:20:00.000-07:00

It's a miracle. It seems that after an eight month haitus the zombie bloggers are blogging again. This is partially because we're addicted to zombie survival and partially because the demand for survival experts has been shown to be high. So I'm going to kick off the renewed blog by creating a new poll and posting what I consider to be the three primary principles for survival in the event of a zombie apocalypse. Any discussion or arguments for more principles or refining of my own principles will be welcome.

Doesn't this sound opposite?

2005-07-17T02:15:00.000-07:00

This week the Beeb carried the headline, "The disease that makes people zombies".

Naturally I was excited to read the article, thinking some new and exciting Solanum research was about to be reported.

Au Contraire. The article claims, "This is an infection that carries nightmarish qualities, reducing many of its victims to a zombie-like state before they go into a coma and die."

Now, I agree that Solanum certainly brings about nightmarish qualities - but isn't the zombie-like state supposed to come AFTER they go into a coma and die?

Virtual Zombie Survival

2005-07-16T00:50:00.000-07:00

Training for a large scale breakout of zombies is an extremely difficult thing to do. This scale of cataclysm has never taken place, and so when it does it's difficult to know exactly what to expect. I am pleased to see that there are a number of virtual training options surfacing. One of note is Urban Dead. It's still in the beginning stages, but it looks like it has a lot of potential. If you decide you could use a little zombie training look for me, my name is Father McGruder.

Zombie hunting pro's?

2005-07-11T17:20:00.000-07:00

Alright these guys are clearly amateurs. Don’t they realize that fire is very dangerous and really should only be used to destroy piles of already eliminated zombies? The picture is also very questionable as to its effectiveness at killing zombies. Did they lure the zombies into the car and then ignite it? Which of course is clearly such a complicated way of combating the undead. These guys would be more of a liability than an ally in the event of a zombie attack.

Bad Wardrobe

2005-07-10T18:36:00.000-07:00

You know, for being purported professional zombie hunters these guys over at "Zombieology - Human Re-Animation Containment Specialists" aren't dressing very properly for their profession. Look at these suits. They could easily tear, making it easy for zombie saliva to get through when bit. Step into some leather, boys - this isn't a game.

Zombie Dog

2005-07-07T18:19:00.000-07:00

I found this picture of my dog recently and it made me think. If my dog was wandering around a bunch of zombies, would they eat him or think of him as a zombie. Then that led me to think. How do zombies recognize other zombies. The film Shaun of the Dead made a pass that all you had to do to fool a zombie was to walk slowly and moan. Resident Evil on the other hand works on the assumption that it's all a virus and the virus knows what other things have the virus in it. Do they just smell the living blood coursing through our vains? Obviously not all zombies have eyes so there's got to be something that attracts zombies to people. If that is so, and it is some kind of scent or noise or visual cue, could there be a possibility of producing something that could make us virtually invisible to zombies? Could there be something that makes a zombie think that we are a zombie and pass us right by?

Impressed with the choices

2005-07-07T17:45:00.000-07:00

I was impressed by people’s choices on our latest poll. 53% of you chose a weapon that does not require ammo. Guns are often given too much credit when it comes to zombie killing. Someone could be an excellent marksman, but than become easily overwhelmed by zombies in close quarter situations. A person needs to realize that the zombies who pose the greatest threat are those that are able to make it within reaching distance. Hopefully your marksmanship skills will give you the ability to keep zombies at a safe distance, but the worse case scenario is what you need to be prepared for.

I chose the sword, and would choose a specific sword if possible. The katana used by the Japanese Samurai. In skilled hands this would be an excellent choice for close quarter combat. With the quick powerful moves used in kenjutsu or the more modern kendo, a person could make quick work any zombie within blade reach. Additionally training yourself in a martial art would increase your reflexes and awareness while out of battle as well. The majority of zombie bites after a large-scale breakout result from people being caught off guard by a zombie stumbling out of some dark hiding spot.

Unfortunately mastering these arts takes time. I would recommend starting now while the threat of dealing with zombies in close quarters is not as immediate. Preparation will be the key to survival.

Latest Poll Results

2005-07-07T15:04:00.000-07:00

It's time to give the results of the latest poll. Thank you all, once again, for participating.

This poll was fairly evenly spread out among the answers, each answer receiving at least 1 vote. So here they are:

12 gauge - 00-buck = 25%
Chainsaw = 21%
Sword = 18%
Baseball bat = 14%
12 gauge - slugs = 11%
Pistol of your choice = 7%
.22 Long-rifle (pistol or rifle form) = 4%

I thought the pistols would finish higher than they did. So that was one surprise to me. Chainsaw made a late run, almost making it to the top.

I'll let you all know - I chose the baseball bat for several reasons.
1. Baseball bats make for easy destruction of the brain when giving a full swing.
2. You don't have to worry about running out of ammo.
3. More stopping/knockdown power than any gun could hope to give you.
4. There's no worry of your weapon getting stuck in the zombie as there would be with a chainsaw or sword.
5. It's easy to be mobile with a bat (this is an advantage over the chainsaw, mostly).
6. It's easy to strike while on the move (this is an advantage over any of the guns).

I'd like to hear everyone else's arguments for their weapons of choice, so please feel free to add comments.

A new poll will be up hopefully by the end of the day. Again, thanks to all who participated.

A New Perspective on the Fourth of July

2005-07-03T22:45:00.000-07:00

Most people think of fireworks as being a celebration of the 4th of July. But have you ever thought that - especially for those of us who consider protection from zombies a matter of grave importance - the 4th of July should be a celebration of fireworks?

Zombies, of course, take pause (unless they're stars in "Land of the Dead") to stare at fireworks making it safe for the living to kill them. This holiday thus has twice the significance for me. I love my country and I love to kill zombies. How much better can a holiday get?

So on the fourth while you're staring at the fireworks please be sure to take pause and reflect on the wonderful source of protection said fireworks provide from the undead.

Solanum as Prions

2005-07-01T15:12:00.000-07:00

Sean Michael Ragan of the University of Texas at Austin has published an exciting new paper in the Journal of Zombie Science (6: 2005, 1519-1523) entitled "Etiology of Romero-Fulci Disease: The Case for Prions".

Ragan makes his case by arguing, contra Brooks, that Solanum is not, in fact, a virus but a disease caused by Prions and is thus more similar to Mad Cow Disease than AIDS.

I should note here that Ragan wants to throw out the "Solanum hypothesis" altogether since it is seen as such an inadequate explanation of the pertinent facts of RFD. I contend that even if Ragan is correct he would be wrong in throwing out the term "Solanum" purely because it isn't a virus. The term "Solanum" (correct me if I'm wrong on my history here, but I don't think I am) originally refered to a genus of plant that contains potatos and eggplants. It then was applied to that disease which brings about zombification, but does not contain anything in its definition that necessitates its being only applied to viruses. If this is the case then whether the disease is a mutation of ebola or an as-of-yet-undiscovered Prion is entirely irrelevant. The term Solanum can and should be used to reference the disease itself, not the organism which causes it. If Ragan is correct in his assessment, then Solanum should become the new name of that Prion.

Anyone interested in the technical side of zombological research should study this paper with vigor. If proven true this paper represents the biggest breakthrough in zombological research in probably 30 years.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

2005-06-30T11:24:00.000-07:00

An interesting question was posed by a reader named Derek. He says, "i would like to know if i am welcome in Libby MT if and when this zombie outbreak occurs?"

This is, of course, a major area of contention in zombie survival circles. Since it is such a heated topic I figured I'd make an actual post out of my response instead of keeping it in the comments section.

A lot of would-be survivors out there like to say "Trust noone, help even less" when attempting to survive zombies. I disagree. I believe if you're in a reasonably sized group that contains at least 6 or 8 good marksmen rescue attempts should be made whenever possible. There are several reasons I believe this.

1. A large number of live, healthy humans will be needed to repopulate once the apocalypse has ended.
2. One more live human = one more shooter.
3. No rescue attempt will be made if there's serious risk to our safety anyway, so why not make a rescue attempt whenever reasonably safe (obviously you're never totally safe, so reasonably will do)?
4. If the rescued individual has already been bit when he is rescued we will have no qualms shooting him/her in the head so as to prevent zombification.

Numbers three and four are key since they guarantee the survival of the survivors.

In short, my answer is: Yes - anyone is welcome to join our group of survivors and we will do whatever is needed to rescue who needs to be rescued while still maintaining our own safety.

Zombie Outbreaks and Public Policy

2005-06-29T10:30:00.000-07:00

After reading Candace's latest blog entry I got to wondering some things:

How do we - as experts in the zombie survival arena - influence public opinion in order to bring about the fortification needed when the zombie apocalypse occurs?

When we succeed in our battle with public opinion do we try to pass bills authorizing fortification of cities or do we attempt to bypass the lawmakers and go straight to FEMA? Should the Department of Homeland Security be involved?

I support fortification just as much as the next guy and I think these are issues that need to be dealt with sooner rather than later. Bloggers Dylan and Ryan were at one point preparing a presentation for the city council to wall the city of Libby, MT. I would be interested to know what progress they've made in that area and how easy/difficult it has been to garner public support.

Voodoo Zombies

2005-06-28T20:54:00.000-07:00

If you've been reading here for a little while than I'm sure you've occasionally heard references to "Voodoo Zombies." For the most part we focus our discussion on the form of zombism that produces the flesh eating horrors of George Romero fame. However for those interested in learning more about the Haitian variety check out this site. It's very different from what we are familiar with. The types of zombies created by the techniques of the "bokor" do not seem as dangerous as the zombies which we devote ourselves to informing the public about. Still voodoo zombie or not I would recommend keeping your distance, and shoot first and ask questions later.

Fortify, Fortify, Fortify

2005-06-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

Hello from Europe everyone!

I am sitting in an internet cafe in Salzburg and figured I'd take a few moments to pass on one of the great reminders that Europe has to offer regarding zombies, FORTIFY. Today I visitted Hohensalzburg Fortress (pictured below), and let me tell you, there aren't going to be any zombies getting in there. We would do well to heed their example.

NEW LINKS!!!

2005-06-28T10:33:00.000-07:00

Oh, the excitement! There is a new section of links over there for all of you to check out. Key to zombie survival is having the right weapons. I've gone ahead and posted some good weapons links over there so all of you can get started on your stockpiles. Stay tuned for upcoming links sections on survival (wilderness, zombie, etc.), gear (leather clothing, night vision, etc.), and probably a couple other things depending on how ambitious I am. Enjoy, folks.

Land of the Dead - Some Brief Notes

2005-06-27T21:24:00.000-07:00

Seven observations about Land of the Dead.

1. Dennis Hopper is awesome - zombies creep him out.
2. It frustrates me that dead creatures are perceived to be capable of evolving (i.e. get smarter).
3. A new aspect has officially arrived on the scene in zombie movies - humor. Thank God for a modern audience who requires more than mere gore to be entertained.
4. Once again - this movie proves that no matter how safe you feel in a city, if there's zombies around you're not. Get the crap out even if you're rich.
5. An armed society is a safe society - if the people in the building would have all had guns the zombies, as opposed to the humans, would have been overrun.
6. IF ZOMBIES ATTACK NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER....NEVER BE ALONE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!!!
7. Last, but most certainly not least - Operarate only in the daytime. Night time is for defensive perimeters. Daytime is when we have our advantage over zombies - EYES THAT ARE NOT ROTTING. Please people....attempt to use all 5 senses - don't sacrifice perhaps your most important sense in surviving a zombie attack for the sake of distracting zombies with fireworks! That's just ludicrous.

Aight....those are the important observations that I got. Obviously there's more...they just aren't very important.

Zombie Dogs

2005-06-27T13:19:00.000-07:00

Most of us here are aware of the potential risk zombies bring against the human race and our survival on this planet. For those of you out there that insist on turning a blind eye to that threat consider recent experiments with dogs performed by U.S. Scientists .

Zombie Vaccination = Absurdity

2005-06-24T12:27:00.000-07:00

Reader WWinkler commented on the last poll by once again citing the Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency. I'm serious folks...Pecos is a retard. In the "true" story he recounts, he claims a zombie vaccination was available at the time of its occurance. As my colleague, Matt, and I have already shown (here and here), this Pecos guy is a nutbag. The idea of a vaccination presumes the truth of his theory that zombies are not truly dead. This, of course, is ridiculous as we have already demonstrated in the aforementioned posts. If the zombie is already dead then this is an obvious absurdity since there is no vaccine for death! The best we could hope for is some vaccine that would go to the brain and destroy it thus causing the reanimated corpse to deanimate. Even then the only way the vaccine could work would be if it was injected directly into the brain itself, since there would be no bloodflow to carry the vaccine through the body and to the brain. Pecos' ideas, again, are found to be wildly implausible. I have a feeling this Pecos guy is going to continue to be a thorn in the side of legitimate zombological research as long as the general public continues to give him credit merely because his name has the letters "D" and "R" in front of it.

Zombie Survival Poll Results

2005-06-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

And now the moment I know you've all been waiting for. Over the last week or so we've had a poll up (that's still up and will be coming down ASAP) that asked the following question:

In the event of a zombie outbreak where would you retreat to?

The results are in:

A small, deserted island - 31%
A small, sparsely populated town - 31%
An offshore oil rig - 25%
Alcatraz - 13%
A large city - 0%

First, I'd like to point out that I'm proud that our audience is zombie-informed enough to not have a single person choose "A large city". Next, I'll point out that my view is that a small, sparsely populated town is the way to go. This is obviously the subject of some debate. And lastly I'd like to thank everyone who participated in our poll and hope you'll continue to participate in the future.

After the Apocalypse is Over.....

2005-06-19T13:03:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I don't advocate the "I'm going to take over the world" mindset. However, if any of you are fond of it a perfect time to implement your evil plan would be in the state of anarchy immediately following the zombie apocalypse. It's always easier to rise to power without law enforcement to stop you. If you are successful in rising to power be sure you don't do anything stupid to inhibit your rise to and sustaining of power.

Again, I don't advocate it and I intend to be the hero you and your legions are battling against since I will be a co-survivor of the apocalypse.

Bloggers Go Missing

2005-06-18T11:17:00.000-07:00

Ok, so they're not really missing. Contributors Ryan and Candace will be in Europe for the next three weeks. So if you're waiting for them to post don't hold your breath.

I Might Be a Zombie

2005-06-18T08:58:00.000-07:00

Folks, if lack of brain functionality is a prerequisite for zombiehood I am well on my way to zombification.

Shopping for Zombies?

2005-06-17T10:18:00.000-07:00

Very good points about the brains, Matt. I guess that means when Christmas comes around don't bother doing your zombie shopping at the new version of Amazon.com.

Zombie Myths?

2005-06-17T01:02:00.000-07:00

I will definitely have to concur with Wheelz on this issue. In observation of a zombie it is obvious that one thing they lack is simple muscle coordination. A zombie can barely walk in a straight line. Dr. Hugo Peco's suggestion would require the very muscles that require the blood to be the ones pumping the blood. Additionally there would be a great deal of pooling of blood in the heart itself. Pressure would begin to build up very quickly around the heart itself because the valves that regulate blood flow through the heart would not be functioning. This would result in either the blood stagnating, or the bursting of a blood vessel somewhere in the body, causing massive blood loss, and inevitably death.

There are many other serious problems with this theory, but the Dr. does not even attempt to make any explanation for his classification of reanimation as a zombie myth. Additionally he does not make an attempt to explain the reasoning behind any of his other myth classifications. For instance on the same page sited by Wheelz Dr. Hugo makes a claim regarding the consumption of brains by zombies: "well-fed zombies can afford to be discriminating. They will generally eat the more nutritious brains and bone marrow and leave the rest of the corpse untouched. However, a hungry zombie will leave only the bones." Notice that he says the "more nutritious brains." Though he may just be making a reference to brains as being more nutritious than other body parts so those more educated in the nutrition of various body parts can understand which body part he refers to here, he his most likely referring to the nutritional needs of the zombie. Now if the zombie is merely a person in a coma, but still living as Dr. Hugo claims than there may be some validity to this point. However if nutrition is the zombies concern, there are far more nutritious options for the zombie i.e. fruits, vegetables, lean meats(not that fatty stuff found on the typical human), grains, pasta, and a healthy dose of vitamins. In fact a zombie would more likely become a model citizen in terms of diet if we use Dr. Hugo's logic.

The reality is that in terms of diet no one really knows why zombies eat anything. They do not gain any nutritional value from what they eat. Their entire digestive system is shut down. It is actually not beneficial for the zombie to eat anything. What the zombie has eaten will continue to pile up in its stomach until it bursts. However I do agree that zombie’s showing a preference for brains is a myth. A zombie really has no preference in what part of the body it chooses. Generally soft tissues are the first to go. Brains are not generally consumed by the zombie because they are much more difficult body part to access. The Zombie Survival Guide is a great reference for information like this.

I am personally not impressed with Dr. Hugo. His logic is very lacking, and the "observations" he cites are questionable to say the least. Though there are many popular misconceptions about zombies I believe the Dr. is merely attempting to garner publicity by making outrageous claims concerning widely accepted facts about zombies. If Dr. Hugo was able to produce more evidence, or at the very least publish more extensively some of his own research I would be more willing to consider his theories. As it stands however, the man is insane.

Truly Undead?

2005-06-16T23:50:00.000-07:00

Dr. Hugo Pecos makes a pretty controversial claim - one that I wholeheartedly disagree with. He says, "despite appearances to the contrary, a person infected with the zombie virus never actually dies before awakening as a zombie."

He buttresses the claim by pointing out that though the zombie no longer has a heartbeat the muscles now handle the circulation. Where does Hugo come up with this information? From his own "studies"? Here's the deal, Hugo - there's a reason why zombie movies continually show the zombies as having died before reanimation and that is because they actually do die.

Modern zombological research generally rejects Zombus Caribbeanus Vivus as a legitimate zombie. That reason is because the zombie is not ACTUALLY dead. Every other type of known zombie is physically dead - especially sans the frontal lobe. Perhaps I'll attempt to contact the good doctor to find out his definition of dead.

To Kill A Zombie

2005-06-16T23:14:00.000-07:00

Alright, perhaps my strict anti-shot stance was a little unwarranted. As I read through all of the comments about my original post I noticed a few things that I felt deserved comment.

First, I do not advocate using anything other than a .22 long rifle unless the situation can be considered life threatening (or life threatening for someone you intend to rescue). Thus the point of using a shotgun is obviously due to the fact that you're in close quarters and need knockdown power, or if it is all you have.

If it is all you have and you need to strike from a distance you will be greatful for the slugs you have since anything other than a slug at a distance will merely alert the zombie to your presence. Jon's point about slug penetration I felt was a good one.

I think after reviewing the other ideas I'll amend my position to say this: Carry a lot of .22 ammo - use it unless your life is threatened. If you must use a shotgun alternate your 00-Buck and your slugs. Also....carry at least one 30+ caliber pistol.

Shotgun continued

2005-06-16T19:20:00.000-07:00

This post is a response to Wheelz post about what type of ammo to load for shotguns.

I think Ryan had some very good points about what the benefits of using shot as opposed to slug would be. One thing to consider however is the extent to which the brain of a zombie must be destroyed before it is immobilized. I believe the Zombie Survival Guide makes a point that for a .22 to be effective the bullet must enter the skull of the zombie and than ricochet around inside thus destroying a greater amount of brain mass. However if the bullet was to pass through the skull there may not be enough damage done to immobilize the zombie. This would also apply to the use of shot. One would have to be close enough to the zombie for the shot to penetrate the skull cavity. It would be unwise though to hope to kill multiple zombies from a distance by depending on the spread of the shot and it's ability to penetrate the skull at these longer distances.

I also believe that your situation is a better dictator of what type of ammo that is used. For instance if you are forced into a defensive position in doors, with a significant number of zombies heading your way, you will want whatever ammo has better overall stopping power. Also remember that stopping power and killing power are two different things. In such a defensive situation you are not going to want to kill the zombies, but to clear a path so you can escape as quickly as possible. Also keeping in mind the physiological impact being in such a defensive situation has upon a person, they might want to consider something that will knock the zombies down, and not require as much accuracy. I believe this would make shot a better choice. In close quarters shot will knock down a zombie just as well as a slug.

I'm not familiar with the penetrating power of the slug when it comes to humans either, but it may not be wise to depend on your zombies to make nice orderly lines when they are coming after you. However I do think that using shot in offensive room clearing may be a better choice. In this type of situation you are more in control of what’s going on, and will have more opportunity to make better shots, and will be shooting to kill. You will hopefully be meeting the zombie on your own terms. In the case of rooms where there is a large number of zombies and you would be in close quarter combat, it may be more effective to consider explosive devices, or completely burn down the property depending on it’s strategic value after the zombies have been eliminated.

In conclusion, there are benefits of both slug and shot, but the shotgun will be used primarily in close quarters, and when used for defense it's probably more beneficial to have shot. I think it is always unwise to go completely with one and not the other so loading two shot to one slug ration would be the best bet.

Zombie Classification

2005-06-16T09:07:00.000-07:00

A good little overview of the history of zombological research can be found on Zombierama. Here they list nine of the ten species of zombie known (or hypothesized, in a few cases) to exist. They did, however, forget the tenth zombie type - Zombus Socratus. This is, of course a philosophical zombie that is used as a device in the study of what is known as the mind/body problem. The formal definition of this last type of zombie is: A being that behaves like us and may share our functional organization and even, perhaps, our neurophysiological makeup without conscious experiences or qualia. Do not fear this tenth species - they are usually entirely harmless. In fact you won't even know one exists unless it happens to be a philosopher, which is rare indeed. The problem we run into is summarized by Todd C. Moody in his paper Conversations With Zombies. He points out that if there are zombie philosophers, they would be able to make no sense. This of course makes them nearly impossible to distinguish from ordinary human philosophers. That's all I've got on this species. So if you were ever wondering what all ten species of zombies are - there you have them. Take note.

Shotgun Question

2005-06-15T20:51:00.000-07:00

Zombieology asks an interesting question in the poll on their web site: Which do you load? Slug, Buckshot, or Both? I find this to be a very good question for all of those interested in the defense against the undead. I'll give my opinion here and if anyone else wants to weigh in that'd be just peachy. Slugs should be the only shotgun ammo loaded. First of all it's simpler. There's no weighing out of the shot to load, thus cutting down on time and allowing for more ammo to be created. Secondly, and most importantly, shot is used primarily to be able to hit a wide area of target - birds are the classic example. This is because you could never hit a bird with a slug. The disadvantage to shot is that having numerous projectiles will cause a decrease in Knockdown Power. When fighting the undead KP is the bottom line. The need to hit the wide area is not there as it is with birds since hitting a human moving at approximately 3 mph is so easy (even with a slug) that a 4 year old could do it. At this point shot only keeps 1 of its advantages - a couple of the shot pellets could potentially stray and penetrate the skull even when taking a safe body shot. However I contend that this advantage is too small to tip the scales since if I'm using a shotgun against zombies it's because I'm in close quarters and am looking for knockdown power - a kill is the last thing I'm concerned about. I'll kill the crippled zombie later on with my .22 that I have near infinite ammo for. Bottom line = power. Therefore the options of buckshot or even some of both are ruled out in favor of strictly loading slugs.

This assessment, of course, assumes the zombies we are dealing with are traditional 2-4 mph zombies. This issue is hottly debated. In the event that the zombies are fast (i.e. the remake of the Dawn of the Dead) I recommend double-0 Buck to retain as much KP as possible while still allowing for some forgiveness of aim.

Cambodian Outbreak

2005-06-15T18:42:00.000-07:00

I thought you all might be interested in this item on the Beeb a couple months back. Apparently they claim it was spread by a mosquito. While the article does not identify the culprit as Solanum I think we all know the likelihood. It is identified as a parasite (a new strain of Malaria) as opposed to a virus. The claim is that the hearts of the victims actually restart and the reanimation only lasts for a couple hours. The questions are numerous: Is this a true zombie outbreak as the heading on the article claims? If not the issue dies, but if so then what's with the symptoms? Are the Cambodian gov't and possibly the UN (and maybe even Condi Rice) trying to cover up the actual truth of the case and the devastating results of a true Solanum outbreak? Comments?

All About the Undead

2005-06-13T23:49:00.000-07:00

This blog will focus almost exclusively on zombies. However discussion of other topics pertaining to the undead (like vampires, mummies, etc.) will also be tolerated, especially when the subject matter intersects with zombies. For anyone interested in zombie history, biology, survival, movies, etc. this is the place to be.