Bill Nye, The Bow Tie Guy

Okay, "Bill Nye, The Bow Tie Guy" is kind of an ad hom, but ya know what? Sometimes, some days, it's okay to be immature and make fun of his stupid bow tie. Which positively screams sexual repression. But anyway.

I'll ask, once again, why it is that whenever there is a panel about UFOs or the paranormal, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and other mysteries, there always has to be at least one skeptic. Why oh why? Do NOT tell me it's because of "balance" because you damn well know, just as well as the rest of us, that's not true. Part of it is because of ratings; not thinking it's enough to have an interesting, and fairly truthful discussion on the UFO or whatever the Fortean event of the day is, they want a brawl. A fight. They want things to get ugly. They know UFO witnesses everywhere will tune in, but so will the smug skeptics. So double the ratings. Points for them, and nothing, not a damn thing, in way of UFO accuracy, gets said.

The producers of these programs care little, if at all, for anything close to a responsible discussion. They want ratings, buzz, money. Having on gnarly snarly skeptoids like McGaha, Shermer, and Bill Nye, guarantees that the program, the station, the host, and the products they shill, will all get continued exposure for a few weeks afterwards within both worlds: skepti-ville and UFO Land.

It's no point really, because the smug psychos that call themselves "skeptics" are already patting each other on the back over at places like the JREF. (James Randi forum.) They think Bill did a fantastic job, and the "idiots" (meaning rest of the panel) came across as, well, idiots.

I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir. Can't help it. But it's one thing to be skeptical about ET in space, or that it was ETs that landed in Roswell. Hell, I'm skeptical of that myself. Which is an important point, but tell that to a rabid skeptoid. Ya can't.

No, it's not that Billy Nye and other members of his cult (CSI) don't accept that ET is here, or was here, or even could be here. It's his smug, rude 'tude. He didn't address anything asked of him, he went off on tangents, he used ridiculous and insulting examples to make what he thought was some kind of point, and he expected -- snapped at Larry King in fact -- for others to keep quiet while he went on, but didn't behave in kind. You could literally see him swallowing back the words squirming to get out of his mouth: "You're all fucking liars! AND lunatics! SHUT UP!"

Let's take a look, just for fun and because I'm off for the summer, at what went down. Frankie Rowe, who's been telling her story for years, was on again. Others were too, about tales of aliens their fathers told them. Now why would these older, mainstream women tell such whoppers? Only a few reasons: one, they're insane. Pathological liars, mentally ill, crazy. Two, they're telling the truth.

Bill Nye, like all skeptoids, can't quite come out and say "You're nuts, you crazy bat, shut UP!" so instead, skeptoids like him say things like, when asked by King if he thinks they're lying, that "they're inaccurate." Excuse me? WTF?! "Inaccurate?" Come, grow a pair and just say you think they're lying already. Let's be logical here, Bill. They're talking about something their fathers told them!

What would be more "accurate" and far more honest, is to say you believe their story, but that's not proof. To say that, their fathers were telling the truth as they knew it, but maybe there was much more going on and that's what their fathers thought happened. Possibly.

But here's something else. Instead of working so damn hard at "proving" (ha!) ET, UFOs, aliens, etc. don't exist in a literal sense, sit back, listen, look at the data, and, if you can't bring yourself to say you "believe" at least say, you don't know what happened at Roswell. And if you don't know, what are you doing on a panel about Roswell or any other UFO event?

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere. Because it's not about what happened, it's about doing whatever frantic dance it takes doing to distract, to spread disinfo, to sprinkle about thousands of little chaos glitters into the mix, so that honest discussions never take place.

A New BF Thread On JREF: "Did The Skeptics Kill Bigfoot?"

Well, ahem, they certainly think quite a bit of themselves, don't they little mister?!
Read the latest -- I believe this now makes 19, maybe 20, after all, who can keep up? thread about how Bigfoot doesn't exist -- here.

From The Outlandish To The Simple

Yes, we're all still working away trying to figure out what UFOs are, and who or what is behind them. Or, in them.
We have to get rid of the usual debris; the usual qualifiers skeptibunkies give when talking about UFOs: yes, many UFO sightings are cases of misidentifications: stars,planets and other natural phenomena; military or otherwise high tech human made craft, or weather balloons, there are the hoaxers and the unstable and deluded who think that just about every mundane object is an extraterrestrial craft.

Still leaves us with a large body of genuine unidentified craft. Objects. Machines. Presumably with some kind of sentient being either inside of them, or at least responsible for their flying around.

Convoluted explanations, like insisting that all of the previously mentioned reasons are the reasons, and the only reasons, don't explain anything. It's just stubborn ignorance.

Some researchers suggest it's a sort of symbiotic dance between our psyche and "them."
I don't reject that entirely, but it's not the only explanation. If we've learned anything, there is no one fits all answer to the UFO question.

Some witnesses and experiencers take a literal, fundamental approach involving religions and dogma; interpretations and systems surrounding God, gods, Gods, Satan, Baby Jesus. (A look at many of the recent articles on UFO Digest will show you that.)

The government pretending that they're UFOs to cover up covert activity; much of it illegal, say, with UADs.(Unexplained Animal Deaths, as in cattle mutilations) is another common explanation. I don't discount that either for some of the events.
This is not to say some of the above can be actually true in some cases for some things. (For example, UADs. I'm of the opinion it's not aliens responsible for these cruel deaths, it's government/private corporations.)

But, while some of the above are likely in some cases, it doesn't explain it all.

What's left: ET. Actual beings from other planets, either within or without, our solar system. Or, from both within and without our solar system.

All the questions that arise out of this idea, like why would anyone want to come here, how could they travel such a long way, and so on, are usually spouted by the skeptoid to dismiss the idea aliens are here. Or, would even think to come here. Some like to throw in they don't doubt aliens exist, just not around here. More disingenuous dismissal.

Since no one has a clue what they're about, how can we presume to know why they'd do anything? We can only apply what we know about us, as humans. Why would we want to go and study "primitive" tribes? Why are we going out in space?

Add to this the fact that the body of evidence about flying saucers and beings throughout history, including prehistory, and there is only one conclusion: there is definitely a there out there. Or, here.

The simplest answer? They're here. They've been here for awhile. There's more than one kind. Different species, or variety, or races or whatever we want to call them, have different agendas, ranging from supreme indifference to interference, for good or bad.

And, some of them may or may not be, as I mentioned earlier, able to interact with us not just technologically, but on that spiritual/psychological level.

But simply put, aliens exist, flying saucers exist, and that's the end of that.

I realize I have no proof; no one does. Unless there really is a body somewhere hidden away in some ultra top secret bunker belonging to some government. Still, if they do, none of us know that, which means we can't prove it.

Really, all I have is opinion. A strong opinion, which doesn't make it fact. Do I dare come out and say "belief?" Okay, sure. I said it. I "believe" they're here, if that makes one feel better. As long as you and I both understand beliefs are capable of being changed. So don't get comfortable and think my belief is a dogma, an unshakable thing. It isn't. You can't use that to smugly dismiss me as some kind of nutcase. Won't work. You know: the old "beliefs in UFOs are just a new kind of religion to replace a spiritual void and emotional dissatisfaction with mainstream religion." There are those who do buy into this "belief" for those reasons, but I don't own that.(For one thing, I don't expect the aliens to save us from a damn thing, heal the planet, stop war and famine and poverty, or cure cancer.)

Between the things I've seen, the experiences I've had, and the reasons given here, I "believe" aliens exist. Seems like the most reasonable possibility.

A Classic: Zen and the Art of Debunkery

The Book of Thoth has permission to repost this classic article on debunkery by Daniel Drasin. Like BOT says, it's a classic, and I remember reading this some time ago and giving a huge "right on!" ---- so follow the link and have a read.

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1782.html

A skeptic on Sheldrake

This person -- blog author of Pharyngula -- really, really doesn't like Rupert Sheldrake. Hat tip to The Daily Grail.

JREF Bigfoot Links

Two new links to the JREF (James Randi Forum) on dissing Bigfoot: one on the BBC and Yeti, one on Grassman on MonsterQuest. That makes, I do believe, 18 threads on that forum about how Bigfoot doesn't exist.

A Quote From Torchwood

I love the BBC show Torchwood. For emotional impact, it succeeds X-Files. That's not to say X-Files still isn't the best, but it's not a contest. Anyway, like this quote:

Gwen: But hold on, if no one can see it when the lift's coming up, there's a great big bloody hole in the floor. Don't people fall in?
Jack: That is so Welsh.
Gwen: What is?
Jack: I show you something fantastic; you find fault.

Amazing Randi on “Geller in Turkey”

I’m disappointed; Randi didn’t heed my plea to leave Uri alone already.

It’s not that I’m particularly defending Geller. Like those who attack Scientologists with a vengeance (all the current mass hysteria “anonymous” anti-Scientiology pomposity) there’s something jarring and a little scary about those who attack others with such a . .. . well, pettiness, to be sure, but it goes beyond that. Positively pathological, in Randi’s case.

In Randi's latest SWIFT issue, he can’t resist a slam against Uri, just as an appetizer. He quotes from an interview Geller gave:

Do you feel injured if someone calls you a charlatan?" – Interviewer
“Yes...." – Geller

And Randi comments:

That brings up a good question. Do bank robbers get their feelings hurt if someone calls a bank robber a bank robber?

I just love it when skeptics get all hyperbolic and all, don’t you?

Then Randi launches into more I Really Really Really Hate Uri Geller attacks. He calls Uri a lair because Uri says he doesn’t know where his “powers” come from. Any person who’s had psychic, mediumistic, etc. things happen don’t know where, or even why, it happens. But according to Randi, we’re “liars.”

Randi comments that Geller says people in Turkey are more open to these kinds of experiences. (I imagine this includes UFOs, certainly the Turkish researcher Farah Yurdozu would agree)
but Randi denies this:

Umm, not all Turks, Mr. Geller. Most are well-educated enough to see through the flummery you bring to their TV screens, and they regard you as the clown you are. You’re a conjuror, nothing more, and your pretenses are getting more transparent every day, especially when you make those ridiculous claims that have been so thoroughly demolished, years ago.

Well, unless Randi’s conducted some kind of survey with all kinds of fancy statistical data on pretty bar graphs, we really don’t know that either; it all remains a matter of personal opinion.

(Randi goes on to say that Geller’s claims he was a CIA spy, etc. have been debunked. Maybe Geller’s full of it, maybe he’s partially full of it, who knows. Maybe Geller and others are unwitting dupes in some bizarre global mind control operation. )

Again, my point is, not that Geller, Scientologists, are above reproach, or even for real. I’m far more fascinated with the fanatical and thuggish vehemence of people like James Randi, than I am with individuals like Geller.

Past Lives and the Skeptic (on Paranormalia)

Paranormalia has an item up about rabid skepticism on reincarnation cases: Past Lives and the Skeptic.

Randi, Dahling, Give It Up Already!

Randi, Dahling, Give It Up Already!

That cranky pathological skeptibunkie Amazing Randi and psychic spoon bender Uri Geller have been at each other for years. They’ve sued, they’ve fought, they’ve accused each other of all kinds of things. And they’re still at it.

This time it’s Randi in this latest round. In his newsletter Randi once again annoys Uri and pokes at him. Christ almighty, doesn’t he have anything else to do?

Anyway, here Randi proudly recounts the famous Johnny Carson Tonight Show episode where Uri failed. (I’ve seen Uri not fail, including a very interesting experience with myself and a guy I was dating at the time, when Geller was on the Tom Snyder program. But I digress . . .)

In short, Uri failed due to Randi’s premeditated efforts, along with the support of the Tonight show’s producers. (Carson was a magician himself and a skeptic.)

Before we get to that however, note Randi’s paranoid claim of what (allegedly) always happened to him before Geller appeared on TV:

I explained to Fred that I’d just received one of the “hang up” calls that frequently preceded a Geller appearance, the sort of calls that seemed to be determining whether I was – as hoped – in New Jersey, and not waiting around the corner in a faraway TV studio to jump out and surprise Uri. I also knew that Geller would abort any appearance if I were there, and I saw a way of making it impossible – by remote control – for him to pull his usual tricks.

Then Randi directs the show’s staff to help set-up Geller:

I also saw the opportunity of showing that anyone who was simply instructed by an expert could avoid allowing trickery to be used. I asked to speak to Paul – the prop man on the show whose last name now escapes me – and by phone I told him exactly what to do with the props so that Geller would be foiled.

The thing about Geller is his long, colorful, interesting and weird life. The road that led him from there to here is full of “high strangeness” and it’s a moot point if he’s really psychic, or a charlatan, etc. As usual, the pathological skepticism mentality refuses to look at anything in context, any history, any background, any “big picture” stuff. Geller’s life is full of intrigue, mind control, government ops, UFOs, and all kinds of juicy Fortean stuff that leaves one -- anyone truly curious and thinking that is -- to go “WTF?!” This doesn’t say that Geller is a medium or not full of crap; in fact, I think a lot of the time he is certainly full of crap. In a good hearted way. Heh.

As usual, all that has been missed by the bull headed world view of the randibots, and Geller’s weird and odd journey is utterly ignored.

Sources:
Hat tip to the Daily Grail
http://www.dailygrail.com/

JREF
http://www.randi.org/joom/swift/swift/swift-may-23-2008.html

Hoaxing the Ghost Hunters

Whatever for, dahlings? Why? New thread on JREF; poster wants ideas, so he can set up "illusions" and hoaxes at the local cemetary during the area's Ghost Hunter's group outing to the same place.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114333

Magnetic Man vs. Amazing Randi!

The parapsychology articles and blog blog has an article about the infamous "Challenge", Randi, and Magnet Man, more correctly known as Miroslaw Magola.


http://www.mind-energy.net/


http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/289-The-true-story-about-Mr.-
James-Randi-and-me,-Miroslaw-MAGOLA,-the-Magnetic-Man.html

“

There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. “She sings beautifully.” “He is a good man.” “I love you.” These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life.” ~ William D. Phillips, Nobel Laureate.

I saw this quote over at The Daily Grail today and liked it. Thought it was fitting for here.

http://www.dailygrail.com/

Blogsquatcher: Skeptify Me

One of my favorite Bigfoot blogs, Blogsquatcher, has a good article on skeptics: Skeptify Me.
In commenting about the writer of a piece on the Ohio Bigfoot conference, blogsquatcher guy writes:

If my opinion of his dirty deed were somehow brought to his attention, he would no doubt say, "that's not what I think, that's what skeptics think." Right. But this article is presented from a skeptics point of view. The way things are worded tells you that. You only have to look at how he uses the word "believers" to describe bigfoot researchers. The word "believer" is wrapped up in religious overtones, and suggests, in our modern world, an uncritical, naive mindset.

Semantics, the way we frame things, the words we use has everything to do with where we're at, and where we wish others were at. Anyway, I'm beginning to feel a rant coming on, so I'll leave you now, but encourage you to take a look at Blogsquatcher's piece.

Sheldrake and Dogs That Know

On the Skeptico blog, a good item on Dr. Sheldrake's experiments on dogs that know when their owners are coming home. And, as an added bonus, the e-mail exchanges between Skeptico blog host Alex Tsakiris and James Randi.