THE MAGONIA BLOG: THE STRIEBER ENIGMA

Expected review of Strieber; comments left, including one by Strieber himself who remarks that if riches were to be had from exploring and sharing one's anomalous experiences, he wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy or lose his home, etc.

I have a couple of thoughts on the skeptoid's responses to experiencers of the strange. Those of us who experience a variety of weirdness are somehow fabricators, because of the variety of strangeness. Ghosts and UFOs and entities and telepathy and ....? It's all too much. Therefore, it's all crap. It doesn't seem to occur to them that there might be clues to the enigma in all that seeming variety of experience.

The second thought: that some of these memories, experiences and travels through one's own anomalous journey might be, at times, manipulated by humans. Yep, I do indeed mean sinister forces. It often seems beyond possibility for debunkers to consider that there is an orchestrated manipulation of phenomena by psychotic and sociopathic humans. THE MAGONIA BLOG: THE STRIEBER ENIGMA

Phantoms and Monsters: Paranormal Phenomena, Bigfoot, Mothman, UFOs and Other Unexplained Anomalies

Phantoms and Monsters: Paranormal Phenomena, Bigfoot, Mothman, UFOs and Other Unexplained Anomalies

Bigfoot Evidence: Dr. Melba Ketchum Explains Her Bigfoot Sighting, Says It's Not a Big Deal [Bigfoot DNA]

Wow: Bigfoot Evidence: Dr. Melba Ketchum Explains Her Bigfoot Sighting, Says It's Not a Big Deal [Bigfoot DNA]

My sighting is not a big deal. I saw one silhouetted between me and a white gooseneck trailer in bright moonlight at about 25 yds. It was about 10 feet tall as it walked by. I saw eyeshine from 1 nearby. I was alone at the time. I don't ever take cameras in case it scares them off. Not trying to prove anything here and do not care if I am believed or not. The DNA takes care of that for me. I should not have even brought it up. Any investigation on my part is purely to satisfy my curiousity (which got me into this in the first place), for my enjoyment and edification and no other reason.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Skeptoid Woo Smackdown! "Radford vs Browne" JREF

Radford vs Browne - JREF Forum
According to this thread on the JREF, debunker Benjamin Radford, having "debunked" (cough) the chupacabra is now going after medium Sylvia Browne. As if that hasn't been done before.

There's links and such on the JREF thread. Radford's all over it, what with Facebook and all.

Holy Freaking Moley! It's "The Debunking Handbook"

Holy Moley! Here's a book manifesto on debunking methods that reminds me of mind control technique books, which they're discussing on the JREF:  The Debunking Handbook - JREF Forum . Chock full of tips and tactics for the skeptibunkie to use in their debunking crusades. Seriously dahlings, I'm seeing more and more parallels to religious, even cult like, behaviors and methods coming out of skepti-world.

New JREF Thread: "Time to junk the term "UFO"? "

New thread showcasing the skeptic penchant for getting tweaky over semantics; this time it's a call to arms regarding UFOs: Time to junk the term "UFO"? OP "Gawdzilla" writes:

I propose we use the NYIO instead of UFO. "Not Yet Identified Objects" is more accurate, I believe. We could also use IBIASFO?

NYIO? How do you pronounce that anyway? Parsing something skeptics and debunkers don't believe in anyway -- like the elevenity-million Bigfoot threads they have over there -- is an amusing mystery. To be fair, there have been the occasional calls to change UFO to something else (like UAP: unidentified aerial phenomena) by some UFO researchers. That too seems silly to me for a lot of reasons but we're talking about skeptoids so I'll move on.

Whether that thing in the sky is called a UFO, "NYIO", UAP, or whatever, it's still something unknown. Sweet baby basil Jesus, it's a UFO, get over it. If it turns out to be a blimp, Venus or military craft, fine. Until then, it remains a mystery. Interpretations, one being the assumption that "It has to be alien since we don't have that technology" will continue whether the UFO is now called a UAP or "NYIO" or whatever sporty combination of letters you want to throw together.

There's the disingenuous dishonest meme put out by skeptibunnies that "UFO means "alien spaceship" and the two ideas are interchangeable. This skeptic guerrilla tactic is repeated in the current thread. It's true that some, as I pointed out, believe that we don't have the technology for some of what's seen up there, and so, it has to be aliens. But not all believe that. And here's what's being missed by most all skeptics, as well as some within UFOlogy: some of those high tech and strange almost eerie UFOs may not be alien, which means they're ours. Human made. If so, that is still extremely intriguing and brings up many important questions. For example:

• Which governments are involved? Is it just ours, or in partnership with others?
• If so, why?
• Who's paying for this? What's the taxpayer (that'd be us) role in this?
• What's the purpose of this object?
• How does the object affect the environment?
• What's it doing, if anything, to us?
• We see these objects and oftentimes, never see them again. Why?
• Why are triangles still being seen, after all these decades? Wouldn't the time frame for figuring out the usefulness of the technology, and putting it into action, have passed long ago?
• Are there rogue or shadow government agencies responsible? If so, that opens up an entirely new set of questions, including ones about accountability.
  
• What of the partnership between government factions and private industry?
• Authorities remain mum on these objects, yet the affects of the UFOs impact the citizenry. What other affects of the UFOs on citizens are there, and what are the agencies responsible doing with that data?

OP Gawdzilla and other posters use terms like "lunatics," "nuts," "people of the woo persuasion," "nutters," "Believers" (with a capital B), "creduloids," and "idiots" referring to those outside the cult of entrenched skepticism and anyone who holds the idea of ETs or EBEs as quite likely. To be expected, of course -- I'm not surprised.

Dreaming of Skeptics

I had a dream the other night involving beeping, a subject I've written about before in context of anomalous experiences. Here's the dream; I'm posting it here because of the funny appearance of skeptics. For the rest of the post, with links, go to The Orange Orb.

There's a large, beautiful and intricate crop circle. We're all amazed and wonder at how it came to be. It literally appeared, not over night, but over a few minutes. One moment we were looking over at the large field where there was no crop circle. Turned our attention elsewhere for a few moments. Turned back, and there, was the crop circle. Huge and intricate.


Then a group of skeptics come along. They're loud and arguing and demand that we listen to them. The crop circle is a fake! They shout at us. And to prove it was a fake made by man to fool us, they throw little pods of dirt on the crop circle. These pods, the debunkers smugly tell us, contain a chemical that "exposes" the fakery, and bright yellow squares will show up within the crop circle. The yellow squares are proof the circle is a fake. So they thrown the pods on the circle, and stand back, big stupid grins on their faces, waiting for the proof that will reveal how fake the crop circle is.


We wait and watch. At first, the yellow squares begin to pop up. The debunkers are overcome with joy. Ha! they say. But a few moments later, the yellow turns red, then other colors, then "over rides" the crop circle. In other words, the "proof" the skeptics have shown us hasn't proved a thing. In fact, the "real" crop circle takes over, obliterating the debunker pods.


The skeptics are mad and embarrassed. Most of all, they're baffled. Confused. They can't understand that the crop circles are real and have an as yet unexplained source that transcends prosaic explanations.

Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point - Science Journalist Ben Radford “Believes” Psychic Detective

Oh I do love this! They'll stop at nothing, those little debunkers. It's astounding, but not new, to see the convolutions they'll go through to "prove" psychics are fakes. Skeptiko – Science at the Tipping Point Science Journalist Ben Radford “Believes” Psychic Detective

JREF Thread: "UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here?"

Did you know there was a "Woo-Infrastructure?" I know, either did I! But there is. And what's more, they/we think it's still 1975, because stories about Bigfoot and UFOs are still going strong. This is news that both "amazes and saddens"as the OP commented. Read the whole thread here: UFOs? Bigfoot? Is it 1975 in here? - JREF Forum Which by the way, makes about the 400th thread about Bigfoot over there. I lost count long ago, but as you'll see, skeptics can't stay away from Bigfoot!

Ghost Hunting Theories: LAUGH: Ghost Hunting Dialogue

I thought this was a nice companion to the previous posts here about "dudes and their equipment"
Ghost Hunting Theories: LAUGH: Ghost Hunting Dialogue

Oh Lord Here We Go (Again)

 It's almost 2012, and yet, this kind of crap still pops up now and then. . .

Throughout my years and adventures on-line, I've encountered some very odd responses from people of the male gender. I've been accused of being a lesbian. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but, it was said as if it were some sort of insult or crime that I committed. It also didn't make sense because I've never said anything about being gay; in fact, the opposite, often referring to my husband. Which shows these critics read only what they want to and not really think. A completely illogical thing to say about me.

I've had men email me or comment on line that I hate men. I have never said I hate men, and I don't hate men. Jesus Christ fuck, I'm married to one. For over thirty years. If I were gay or hated men I don't think I'd be married to the same man for thirty-five years.

I was accused on-line by a man (anonymous, naturally, who frequented a Yahoo group I was a member of) of "wanting to be thought of as a man," and that I "write like a man." Not sure how to respond to that one; if I "write like a man" that implies I'm doing a good job, you know, coming off like a guy, but then in doing so I've pissed off some men, who are offended I'd pretend to be one of them. And, of course, it assumes that a woman can't be intelligent. Oh, she can write about all these subjects and be smart but as long as she keeps a girly vibe. Oy.

The list goes on and it's all so damn silly but it still, after all these years, crops up now and again. The latest, from someone who contacted me not long ago with praises for this blog. Someone who I just asked the other day if he has his own blog, for he has a good take on skeptics. He's been very nice in sending me links to stories I might find interesting. For that I am appreciative, as I've let him know.

But he's found something I wrote today somewhat insulting to the male gender, and wonders if I "dislike men." Truly, at first I thought he might be a little facetious:
Mark said...

Do you have some dislike of men? What is it about dudes with machines that cracks you up?

October 20, 2011 4:27 PM
Regan Lee said...

I hope you're not serious...

No offense meant. Just an observation on the propensity of men -- some men -- on a lot of these shows, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc. who lug around a lot of equipment to "prove" ghosts exist.

But Mark is offended, or at least bothered. And note where I bolded and italicized; the plot thickens. He responds:

October 20, 2011 4:46 PM
Mark said...

Why wouldn't I be serious? You said something that struck me as odd and sounded like you had some dislike of men - in addition to some other things that you said in the past that sounded like they could have meant the same thing, from my perspective. I just wanted some clarification as to whether or not you had some problem or dislike of men and what it was about dudes lugging around a lot of machines that you would find funny. I was not accusing you of anything, but I did want to know if I was interpreting things properly.

This is what I wrote in my ghost hunters post that caused offense:

Sure, it's formula and a lot chest banging. Dudes with machines; always cracks me up.

I realize it's a bit gender specific, after all, women lug around machines and tools as well and are perfectly able. Dude, my grandmother was literally a Rosie the Riveter. Worked in the Portland shipyards. My mother was a pilot. I was making a flip remark about men -- for they are mostly men who are the hosts on these ghost shows -- who seem to spend a lot of time with machines in order to find ghosts. It's funny to me, sometimes. And a bit annoying. I think ghost hunters, men or women, would do better to use their skills in other areas at times. As I said in my post.

The use of equipment is debatable and many women would side with the use of machines as well. And I'm not against the use of equipment; it's useful. Sometimes it's overused, in my opinion.

But what do I know? Clearly I'm blinded by my hatred of men to think clearly.

A P.S. : you know, what if I did hate men? So what? I'm entitled to my opinion. Lots of misogynists out there who hate women. Doesn't do any good to argue with the shameful bastards, just gets into some very ugly territory. But they have the right to their opinion. (Hmm, well, almost. There's opinion based on personal histories, and then there's lying and even violence.)  That'd be  interesting... but don't get ideas. Because I don't "have some dislike of men," as commentator Mark put it.

How Ghost Hunters Chills the Spine | Magazine

Rick Paulas for Wired Magazine: How Ghost Hunters Chills the Spine | Magazine.

Make no mistake, ghosts don't exist. How do I know? Because Rick Paulas tells us so:

There is no such thing as ghosts.

I am so glad he's cleared that up. All this time, all these years. all those experiences, the photographs, the voices, the objects moving through the air, the equipment failure, the hot spots, the cold spots, the smells, the orbs, the electronic manifestations, the ectoplasm ... and I was wrong. "Ghosts don't exist." So ... simple.


There's a spiffy chart too, with the Ghost Hunter formula neatly layed out. It's also terribly snarky, with explanations under the label "the truth."

True, most of the ghost shows have a similar format. As Paulas writes:

Ghost Hunters have a certain rhythm. Members of the Atlantic Paranormal Society enter a rickety building. They interview the owners, set up some high tech cameras, and then spend the night asking a ghost to “give us a sign.”

Ghost Adventures and many other ghost shows do the same. I get irritated at the amount of ghost hunting equipment and choosing off of ghosts: so ridiculous and disrespectful, as well as irresponsible. But all those shows exist for one reason: profit for the network and producers. As long as Ghost Hunters, etc. bring in money and ratings no one cares about the particulars. That doesn't mean that ghosts don't exist.

Sure, it's formula and a lot chest banging. Dudes with machines; always cracks me up. Some shows are more subdued, like Paranormal State, but that show depresses me, and I don't care for the overtly Christian perspective of the show. On the other hand, PS brings in mediums a lot, like Chip Coffey, which is good. More ghost hunting shows need to do that (and they are, just not enough in my opinion.)

Don't believe in ghosts, one's opinion. But stating as if it's fact they don't exist is both ignorant and arrogant. That kind of self satisfied skeptoid stance isn't any different than the religious zealot who insists their dogma is the only truth.

Related link:
My Ghost TV article for Binnall of America

Psychic Sally Sues | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

Greg Taylor at The Daily Grail on Psychic Sally, and the skepoitds who attack: Psychic Sally Sues | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History. This episode seems to be about lazy newspaper writers and fanatical "skeptics" rather than exploring mediumship. (Thanks to Lesley for link.)

Science vs. Spirituality: Deepak Chopra And Leonard Mlodinow Discuss 'War Of The Worldviews'

"The debate between science and spirituality is framed as a knock down fight for truth with winner take all. But does it have to be that way? Deepak Chopra is a physician and one of the most highly regarded spiritual teachers in the world; and Leonard Mlodinow teaches at Cal Tech and co-authored, along with Stephen Hawking, "The Grand Design." Chopra and Mlodinow wrote "War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality" to help start an intelligent and civil conversation about this very hot subject. In this hour long video, Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow debate science and spirituality moderated by Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, Senior Religion Editor for The Huffington Post."

Science vs. Spirituality: Deepak Chopra And Leonard Mlodinow Discuss 'War Of The Worldviews'

On Cryptomundo: Some “Skeptics” Don’t Get It

Loren Coleman responds to a skeptibunkie's attacks: Cryptomundo Some “Skeptics” Don’t Get It

“Bobby The Paranormal Skeptic,” (a/k/a Bobby Nelson, above) writing for “The Bent Spoon Magazine,” penned a decidedly distasteful column entitled “Loren Coleman’s Cheap Attempt to get Hits on 9/11…” I certainly don’t view the universe the same way this guy does. Besides, he’s dead wrong about his facts.

Bobby posts these beginning passages:

Over at Cryptomundo, a website dedicated to all things cryptid related, owner and operator Loren Coleman wrote a post titled “9/11’s Forgotten Fatality: Robert Steele.”

Coleman shamelessly plugging his book, The Copycat Effect, pastes a paragraph about a man who was killed by an alligator attack in Florida.

Consider the unknown: Leveling with skeptics | New Crystal Mind

Consider the unknown: Leveling with skeptics | New Crystal Mind

You may find this scenario familiar: speaking among friends or colleagues about a particular subject, someone new to the group expresses their complete doubt over its authenticity or legitimacy. They may try to categorize your discussion as that of “fringe” science or research, saying the term with a condescending attitude. In this situation I would advise you to be open to criticism but firm in your beliefs; impress upon the skeptic the existing scientific data to back up the claim. I’d also implore you to ask the skeptic to take the following steps if they want to get a better understanding of paranormal and fringe sciences.

(thnaks to Lesley Gunter at The Debris Field for link)

A Message to James Van Praagh

The official letter from the James Randi Foundation, written by JREF president D.J. Grothe, to James Van Praagh, inviting him to "the Challenge..."

A Message to James Van Praagh

UFO Media Matters: Top Skeptic Goes Ghost busting

Joseph Capp at Media Matters shares his thoughts about skeptic Michael Shermer's stint on Paranormal Challenge: UFO Media Matters: Top Skeptic Goes Ghost busting. (See related post here.)

Beyond Belief and Randi's Million Dollar Challenge | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

Greg Taylor at The Daily Grail has a very good article on why the "million dollar challenge" is ridiculous, as well as the JREF's scientific rigged test:

Beyond Belief and Randi's Million Dollar Challenge | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

Firstly: there is something very wrong with an organisation that is supposedly dedicated to raising the public understanding of science and skepticism deliberately obfuscating the fact that its well-known challenge is no real scientific test of the topic and thus says *nothing* about the existence or non-existence of the paranormal. Now when you raise that point, Randi and others will be quick to say that "we never claim that, it's just a one-off challenge". But the MDC is always promoted as the be-all-and-end-all of tests - "if you're psychic, you'd obviously just go and take Randi's money". For example, this is the way in which it is reported in the media: 

Read the rest at The Daily Grail!

Skeptic Shermer on Paranormal Challenge

I don't know why I watch these kinds of shows; like a lot of Bigfoot programs, many ghost hunting shows seem to feature mainly men who do a lot of shouting and clanking around with equipment. In ghost hunting circles, the shouting has a term: "provoking." Intentionally calling out spirits who are causing problems and kicking their misty little asses.

Anyway. one of these shows is Ghost Adventures, on the Travel channel. The host, Zak Bagans, has another show called Paranormal Challenge, where teams of ghost hunters investiaate the same haunted locale while Zak and a few judges watch them on cameras. Last night's episode had, as judges, non-skeptics, but also one skepti-bunkie: the one and only Michael Shermer. !

I hate to say this, but Shermer was surprisingly low key, non-combative, and barely scoffed at all. At one point he acknowledged he had no explanation for how a light turned itself on (no power in the place, lights were dead. Gone. Black. Out.) and he was open about how objective the ghost hunters were being. He did do some skeptic stuff though; before the teams went out into the dark dank halls of the now abandoned Linda Vista hospital in East L.A., Shermer gave some "background" of the place to each team. He told one team there was a child spirit about and gave them her name. The other team was told there was the ghost of a man named George who liked to hit people. The reasons for this, Shermer explained (and unbeknownst to the teams) was to check for "confirmation bias" and "expectation." Makes some sense. On the other hand, what's to say a spirit, as spirits are wont to do, wouldn't just have a field day with that and play it for all it could get? I think that would have worked much better if mediums were involved.

From Lisa Shiel:"Be Skeptical of Skeptics"

From author and Bigfoot researcher Lisa Shiel:Be Skeptical of Skeptics who makes excellent points about skeptibunkies:

They set out to prove that a phenomenon cannot exist, rather than examining the evidence to reach a conclusion. If one sets out to debunk a phenomenon, then one has reached a conclusion beforehand and therefore cannot examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If you’ve already decided the idea is ludicrous, then you have lost all objectivity before you’ve even begun your investigation. Although these folks liked to call themselves skeptics, I prefer to call them pseudo-skeptics. ~ (Shiel)

In particular, Shiel refers to Joe Nickell's article The Truth Behind Modern Cryptozoological Myths which I commented on here last week.

Thanks to Lesley at The Debris Field for link.

Bigfoot Lunch Club, Bigfoot News and Research: Joe Nickell Promotes his Patterson Debunking Book

Paranormal investigator skeptic Joe Nickell is busy busy busy: Bigfoot Lunch Club, Bigfoot News and Research: Joe Nickell Promotes his Patterson Debunking Book

New Blog Name

As you might have noticed, the name of this blog is different. Never was satisfied with the original title: Snarly Skepticism ... (and Unoffical JREF Watch). Same blog, new title: SkeptiWatch.

Skeptic Radford: "Why Chupacabras Are Everywhere"

Stating the obvious, and not saying very much at all: Why Chupacabras Are Everywhere

He's right on one thing: language does change, and meanings are ascribed, (and change as well) depending on many factors, including cultures, subcultures, the folk, etc.

Radford points out the obvious: that odd hairless animals, unidentifiable for the time being, have become the new chupacabra, something I've been pointing out for quite awhile. No doubt the majority of those who see these creatures (often killing them on sight) are unaware of the blood sucking, spiny backed alien looking creature but who knows, maybe some are familiar with that story.

One thing Radford can't let go of, in typical skeptic terrier-mode, is his insistence the "original" chupacabra came from a movie, not something else:

Later research, published in my book "Tracking the Chupacabra: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction, and Folklore," revealed that this original chupacabra report described a monster in a science fiction film, not anything in real life. Thus the whole origin of the monster is based on an eyewitness’s mistake.

Skeptoid Blog: "Bad UFOS"

One of the more loathsome and misogynistic skepti-bunkies, Robert Sheaffer, has a blog: Bad UFOs. So does the title imply that UFOs exist, but they're "bad?" (Those naughty UFOs!) Or that UFOs exist, but some are "bad?"

Joe Nickell Solves Mysteries!

The ever disingenuous Joe Nickell, self-described "paranormal investigator" debunker, has discovered answers to all myths of a crypto nature in the following article by Ed Grabianowski: Paranormal Investigator Joe Nickell Reveals the Truth Behind Modern Cryptozoological Myths. (All of them? Impressive.)

Regarding Bigfoot, Nickell combines finding patterns in sightings data, his theories, and the usual skeptic based psychology: us humans love to make stuff up. We create myth and don't want to solve mysteries -- well, you know the routine.

"Bigfoot is our stupid cousin from the past."

That's humans for you, projecting our fears and dreams onto made up entities. As far as ET goes:

"The alien is the future version of ourselves."

Which alien version would that be? Reptilian? Bug eyed gray? Gigantic praying mantises? Good looking long haired blond Nordic Space Brothers and Sisters? Lizard Men? Hairy dwarf? I don't know about you, but that's a future self I want nothing to do with. (Well, maybe the good looking Space Sister but I don't look good as a blond. And I prefer the swarthy types to Nordic guys.)

Nickell looked at "convergent iconography" which led him to the conclusion we've simply created Bigfoot and aliens out of our own heads; the two are modern living myths. We did the same with Santa Claus and Jesus:

"The same convergent iconography can be seen in artists' depictions of Jesus Christ and Santa Clause."

There is some truth in the idea that we shape our gods and heroes and they ultimately morph into a sort of set version dependant on the culture. To suggest to a religious person however that Jesus, the BVM, or angels are just in their head, based on agreed upon cultural imagery is both insulting and missing the point. And while I am not a Christian or believe in any sort of monotheistic god that watches over us like a somewhat authoritarian parent, using Jesus Christ and Santa Clause in the same sentence subliminally suggests they are one and the same in terms of fantasy.

Grabianowski asks Nickell about cryptids that don't look anything like human beings. Using "data mapping" once again, Nickell finds that reports of water monsters coincided with otter activity. People mistaking otters for a sea serpent: "It really happens," (I love that) Nickell says. Of course it "really happens" people mistake things all the time. Not every weird light in the sky is a UFO, not all strange creatures in the forest are Sasquatch and so on.

Nickell distances himself from combative skeptics and says he treats witnesses with respect; they're not liars or insane, just mistaken.

The article ends with a dismissal of paranormal programming which is "like wrestling" Nickell says. I'll agree with much of that sentiment, to a point. All TV is "like wrestling" when you think of it. For his arguments on how he's treated by producers as a skeptic, UFO researchers and other paranormal investigators can cite the same. It's about ratings, and whatever angle the show wants to present. Researchers and skeptics both can be damned; it's not about the individual ghost hunters, UFO investigators or cryptid chasers, it's about the producers, the station owners and their own agendas. Skeptic, paranormal investigator, or witness: they're all just the talent. Fodder for the program.

For some reason, most programs that deal with fringe topics believe that having skeptics on is "balance." To me it's just annoying. But it's not balance they want; it is, indeed, "like wrestling." There's an innate belief that conflict and tension is necessary for entertainment. Like wrestling.

Comment from a fan

Received this a few days ago, thought it was nice. Thank you for the kind words:

I want to give you accolades for your snarly skepticism website. I LOVE it. I Wish I found it earlier. I have been somewhat depressed about the fact that so many people on our side want to "play nice" and have "polite conversation" with pseudo-skeptics. I mean, these people want to destroy us. It seems like every day a new libelous statement hits the internet about someone on our side, and most people on our side would rather "reach out" to these evil people, or at best ignore the pseudo-skeptics. You don't reach out to such people and you don't ignore them and hope that they go away - you go to battle with them. We're in a battle for our existence, here, and it is encouraging to see somebody else, unlike most on our side, who has more of a "FUCK YOU!" type of attitude when dealing with the pseudo-skeptics. ~ Mark Stublarec

A weekend spent with people who don’t believe, anything | The Sierra Vista Herald

You know I mostly love this article about the recent The Amazing Meeting 9 (annual James Randi fanclub mega skeptic meeting) in Vegas: A weekend spent with people who don’t believe, anything | The Sierra Vista Herald by attendee Matt Hickman, who seems to be a skeptic himself on some things.

So I went to the international skeptics convention in Las Vegas last weekend looking for freedom from existential oppression and enlightenment divorced from superstition.

Mostly what I found instead was a UFO convention where no one believed Earth has ever been visited, an alternative medicine convention where everyone thinks homeopathy is a scam, and a religious conference where no one believes in anything supernatural.

Saddest of all, I found a movement that refuses to move because it’s so busy standing up against everything, it can’t stand for anything.

At Skeptiko Blog: Science at the Tipping Point Blog Archive 134. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake on the Persistence of Richard Wiseman’s Deception

Great audio interview with Alex Tsakiris and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake on the blatant deceptions of Richard Wiseman: 134. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake on the Persistence of Richard Wiseman’s Deception.

Alex Tsakiris: When someone hears you say Richard Wiseman’s portrayal of your research is deceptive, well, it sounds so horrible. But in this case, the deception is so obvious, the misinformation so outrageous, that it’s hard to understand how he assumed he could get away with it. But then again, of course he’s going to get away with it. He’s gotten away with it for years.
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake: Yes, it’s outrageous. Wiseman’s research on psychic pets was entirely parasitic on my research. He portrays himself as this kind of heroic debunking figure who goes in and exposes people who fool themselves about their dogs and so forth. But, in fact, his own tests show an even bigger effect than I’d observed. Incredibly, he then appeared on TV and made press releases, wrote a scientific paper in a scientific journal, claiming to have refuted the effect we both demonstrated. It is completely outrageous, but as you say, he’s got away with it before. He’s been exposed before, but that seems completely irrelevant to him.

Imbrogno: Just a Baby Kraken

Uber skeptoid feels very proud of himself for revealing that Imbrogno lied about his degrees:UFO Magazine - UFO Magazine Blog - A Phil-a-buster He who released the Kraken is gloating, comments right and left.. including two by me.

I really hope this is the last I'll say on this, but I'll watch where this goes. While it's naturally disappointing to find that Imbrogno lied about his background, I also find it intriguing to watch how news of his exaggerations and lies unfolded. Waiting for any chance to pounce and devour, said uber-toid did so, almost channeling the spirit of Imbrogno while staring, once again, at Imbrogno's MIT shirt in photo after photo. Said channeled spirit told the debunker to go forth and reveal the truth, which he's done on many a forum. This wasn't done for any idealistic or altruistic reason or wrapped snugly in the vibe of truth; simply one more item brought to the Skepti World for the show and tell segment. It's all kooksville to them, all of it (as the skeptic who outed Imbrogno proves at his blog, opening with a rant against the contactees, as if that has anything to do with Imbrogno.) Look! The contactees were lairs, frauds! Look! Imbrogno's ideas about the phenomenon are wacky! Look, Imbrogno lied about his education! That proves it's all bunk!

Really, show's over.

Meanwhile UFO sightings and UFO witnesses and UFO stuff of a thousand different manifestations -- good, bad, ugly, beautiful, honest, dishonest, scary, benign, and oh so much more -- continue. But you know, who cares about any of that stuff? I mean, seriously? Not the debunkers. They're rational after all.

(If you weren't sure, that last was sarcasm.)

No prizes awarded here for any great truth telling. Truth had nothing to do with this latest whirlpool in UFO Land. Or Skepti World. No one's won anything. No one's lost much either. The fact of things Imbrogno brought to us exist. Details may have been fudged; but diligent research is a part of the UFO journey; whatever grime may cover some of what Imbrogno has contributed can be washed off. His ideas on things still stand as highly interesting and, by the way, they are not unique. Call them Djinns, demons, "the Devil," ultra terrestrials, or any number of labels, the esoteric theories of energies manifesting as "other" and manipulating the human experience has been around for a very long time.

From a Skeptic:"Frankly, atheists, skeptics, you’re embarrassing as fuck "|

Pretty overall great post on the drama-scandal in skeptworld from a skeptic at Ryawesome:Frankly, atheists, skeptics, you’re embarrassing as fuck | ryawesome.

What skeptoid drama-scandal is that you may ask? The disgusting and bizarrely over-the-top-can't-shut-the-fuck-up-about-it reaction uber-athesist Richard Dawkins had to skeptic Rebecca Watson's personal and subjective experience on an elevator while in Ireland attending a skeptic conference. This is part of what she posted about that experience:

"All of you except for the one man who didn’t really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because at the bar later that night, actually at four in the morning, we were at the hotel bar. Four am, I said, ‘I’ve had enough guys, I’m exhausted, going to bed.’
“So I walked to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to by hotel room for coffee?’
“Just a word to the wise here, guys, don’t do that. I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable. But I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman in a foreign country at four am in a hotel elevator with you, just you. Don’t invite my back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner. But everyone else seemed to really get it, and thank you for getting it.”

Richard Dawkins protested. A lot. Snarkily, sarcastically, rudely, smugly and yep, I'll pull the sexist card. For why else would someone, anyone, particularly a man, rant, rave and protest so damn much about one woman's personal experience? After a whole bunch of revolting responses from Dawkins, he then ups the "Wow, really???!!! Really????!!" factor with the following comment. Puzzled by the criticism he's received -- and using uber-skeptid tactic #205 (insisting he hasn't yet received a reasonable response on why his rantings are so noxious; until he does, he'll rant on) -- he utterly dismisses Watson's feelings on her experience:

"But my point is that the ‘slightly bad thing’ suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad."

On the one hand, I don't care much because they're all, well, you know... skeptics. On the other, it's a disgusting mess and a sad disgusting mess that reeks of misogyny.

But the post on the Ryawesome blog is terrific in pointing out the sheer hyperbole of so many uber-skeptoids.

And yes, I do find the whole thing ironic, given that all of the above individuals are skeptics.

New JREF BF Thread: "Why bigfoot?"

I haven't been keeping track of late of the newer Bigfoot threads on the JREF, but I was curious about this one: Why bigfoot? - JREF Forum.
Why indeed.

There are responses to the OP's question, including skeptoid armchair psychology (our need for thrills and quests and the like.) Then there's the basic flat out chutzpah statements that anyone "claiming" to see a Bigfoot is obviously a liar, because they need to feel like they've put something over on the rest of us. As JREF member "Deacondark" posted:

... Claiming to have seen one accomplishes two goals: You get the wonderful feeling of "getting one over" on people, and if it happens to be highly educated, intellectual types, all the better. And: You become part of an "elite club". How many times have you heard a footer say "you can never understand until you see one yourself" They love the feeling that they have seen something few have witnessed. I believe this is enough impetus to cause them to believe they have seen something that they really have not.

From The Daily Grail:Dawkins Being a Dick

A hugely flaccid wimp mean-spirited dick at that. In a bizarre fit of nothing more than basic dickish sexism and misogyny, Dawkins has the skeptoid world in one giant sized mess of a what no doubt is an all at once sad infuriating intellectually sexual political discussion debate fight amongst themselves. Greg Taylor at TDG commented:

I'm not going to get into the entire debate...the comment threads at Pharyngula alone are on the larger side of a thousand - so if interested, follow the links and get reading.

And he's right, no sense in saying much of anything about this, because it speaks for itself, and all one has to do is post the news. But, as Taylor wrote, if you are interested, there are links to click so one can follow the sordid mess:
Dawkins Being a Dick | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

LA Paranormal - “All a skeptic is, is someone who hasn’t yet been...

LA Paranormal - “All a skeptic is, is someone who hasn’t yet been...

Women Of Esoterica: To and Fro from TDG on "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia:"

Link at Women of Esoterica to continued defense of skepticism and Wikipedia's anti-fringe stance:
To and Fro from TDG on "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia:"

Wikipedia and Fringe Topics | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

The Daily Grail's Greg Taylor writes about skepticism, Wikipedia, and their evil ways... excellent piece. Thanks to The Anomalist for link.

Taylor points out the numerous errors in uber skeptic Martin Gardner's editing disingenuous mangling of Taylor's Wikipedia entry on Leonara Piper. On speaking of Garnder's mistakes, Taylor writes:

They can only be chalked up to either or both (a) almost complete ignorance of the primary sources, or (b) intentionally misleading readers. Note that the below list doesn't even include the numerous instances of loaded language, innuendo, and omissions of important facts (some of which you will see if you read my entire essay). These are simply the things that he got wrong.

Taylor lists many of Gardner's mistakes, a few below:

Gardner...

• Says that Richard Hodgson died in 1909. He passed away in 1905.
• Says writer George Pellew died in 1881. He died in 1892.
• Says Hodgson hired detectives to shadow Mrs. Piper and her husband after death of George Pellew in 1892. Hodgson hired the detectives years earlier.
• Says Piper’s trances “never occurred spontaneously”. Primary source explicitly says they did.

Wikipedia and Fringe Topics | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

Guru Sai Baba in critical condition - JREF Forum

Example of the uber skeptic world view. They showed the same lack of class when Dr. John Mack was killed and so on . . .

Guru Sai Baba in critical condition - JREF Forum

Clarke's three laws

Clarke's three laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

John Kass: Chupacabras don't exist? Really? Just look at your tax bill. - chicagotribune.com

John Kass also points out, as have I (and what's obvious to anyone who contrasts the two) that the Species creature doesn't fit in with el chupacabras, contrary to what paranormal investigator skeptibunkie Benjamin Radford has theorized.
John Kass: Chupacabras don't exist? Really? Just look at your tax bill. - chicagotribune.com

Skeptic Benjamin Radford "Solves" Chupacabra Mystery

Skeptic Radford says he's solved the mystery of the chupacabra; I posted about this on my blog Animal Forteana. After that big news hit the Fortean-Cyrptid World, Radford announced he's offering a reward for anyone who can show proof of earlier accounts of chupie sightings. Here's what I posted about both items on Animal Forteana:

About fifteen years ago, I was working on my final folklore project in graduate school, focusing on cataloging the ways animals appear in paranormal, UFO, and Fortean narratives. Sometimes animals appeared as mundane entities as “witnesses”, other times, the animals were themselves supernatural or “others.” Here’s a small bit about the Chupacabra from the paper, tentatively titled My Alien Lizard Lover: Animal Motifs in UFO and Fortean Narratives:

The Chupacabra (goat sucker) is the creature of legend unto itself. Described as three to four feet tall, with large, “wrap around eyes (not unlike the eyes of the gray aliens) with a spiny ridge on its back, the Chupacabras has been a part of of lore in the Latino community for a few years, originating from Puerto Rico, which has folkloric traditions of vampire type creatures who attack animal and humans alike. Chupacabra punctures its victims; rabbits, goats, chickens, and other small creatures, in the neck, draining the victim of all blood. Recently the stories have included attacks on humans. In the past two or three years, stories of Chupacabras have made their into Latino ethnic beliefs in the United States, as well as crossing over into non-Latino (Anglo, etc.) groups. Cooper’s Dictionary of Symbolic and Mythologic Animals gives this definition this definition of the goat sucker birds:

An evil and ill omened nocturnal, and therefore allied to the powers of darkness: said to drain milk from cows and goats.. Goatsuckers can embody the souls of people unable to account for crimes committed while in human form; their cries are said to be the wailing of the ghost expiating the sins.” (Cooper; 1992: 114) Cooper does not give any cultural reference for this however. But the parallels to the term Chupacabras and the concept of a creature draining an animal of fluid, as well as its avenging nature, are obvious.

Many personal experience narratives combine the presence of Chupacabras with UFOs and extraterrestrials. “A lot of Mexicans believe in extra extraterrestrials, so that’s what they think they are” (Arizona Daily Star, Sunday, May 11, 1996) “Others think the Goat Sucker may have come from outer space of is the mutant progeny of some mad gene-splicing scheme.” (Dudley Althaus, Register-Guard, May 14, 1996)

Tensions within the narratives of Chupacabra include the fear expressed by telling these stories, and the satiric songs and cartoons that have become an industry.

Elizabeth Casals, in her article “Chupacabra Weekend” (UFO Magazine) writes of her search for personal narratives in Mexico about the Chupacabras. No one would admit that they believed such lore, but Casals did find “souvenir stalls, their shelves pile high with plaster piggy bans and cowhide wallets. And racks of T-shirts. Several styles of Chupacabras shirts caught my eye: particularly the one that read “Beware - the Chupacabra will get you.” (Casals, 1996:30) Obviously tourism is good for the Chupacabras business, whether or not the lore is believed by locals. She did find a woodcarver who had carved an image of the Chupacabra.

People within this tradtion are usually reluctant to talk about the Chupacabras and are afraid of being ridiculed. A superstitious belief that they will invite the Chupacabras into their lives by discussing the creature may be the motivation for keeping silent on the Chupacabras, particularly towards outsiders. Yet, as happens so often in folklore, there are contradictions. Humor,, satric songs, and cartoonish images often the fear an and unease about the unknown. The Chupacabra is an unknown, and is believed to be causing damage to people's pets as well as humans. By creating a story that this Chupacabra is, indeed a creature, and, that the creature is a “pet” of the aliens, some order has been made out of he chaos of harmful, unexplained vents. The Chupacabra has been given a place and a definition.

The paper is over sixteen years old, and of course, I was writing within the context of approved-by-academia and the confines of my subject area, folklore. (I also notice in looking this over that a lot is lacking as to citations, style, and so on. ) Which, as I commented on the C-Influcence blog, required a particular mind-set regarding one’s philosophical treatment of paranormal-UFO events:

I loved the academic realm of folklore as a discipline, but, had a few major problems with it at the same time. I am not an academic, and , when in college, decided to not follow that path. I’m simply not wired that way; can’t deal with authorities, politics, 9 to 5 job milieu. . . but that aside, I found a huge problem in folklore studies -- as an academic pursuit - that seemed ironically contradictory. On the one hand, collecting stories while remaining nonjudgmental was encouraged. At the same time, it seemed to me folklore couldn’t decide what it wanted to be. Professors wanted conclusions, they wanted a psychological analysis. Well, I’d say, I’m not a psychologist, I’m not a psychology student, I’m not even taking any psychology classes. While I could give a sort of every-woman’s, educated take on, say, UFO narratives using psychology (Jung, etc.) it wouldn’t really be worth much. If not psychology, sociology, if not that, science, they wanted something. Pointing out that folklore, while utilizing those areas in some ways, is not those things, -- well, we just went around.

 To the above, I will add that the aknowledgement of these things as possible, let alone real, was simply not an option.

At the time, Chupacabras was big news in both the marginalized and fringe cultures of paranormal studies, as well as the mainstream news. Usual explanations from the latter group for Chupacabras included “cultural or sociological anxiety”, good old superstitions, and a sudden misunderstanding of predators and their affects on domestic and livestock, ranch and farm animals. As these stories do, Chupacabra faded away a bit, and for reasons I haven’t yet figured out, morphed into a new kind of Chupacabra: the canine type animal reported as a Chupacabra reported  throughout the United States.

Skeptic Benjamin Radford, in his recent and supposed solving of the chupacabras mystery, writes that one of the early Chupacabra witnesses, Madelyne Tolentino, had seen the movie Species a few weeks before her sighting of the Chupacabras, which Radford found “suspicious.”:

To me, that was the smoking gun," he said. "It can't be a coincidence that this Chupacabra that's now popping up around the world just happens to look exactly like the monster in this sci-fi film."

As usual with the kinder, gentler skeptic, the new tactic is not to accuse the witness of being mentally ill or a liar, just... “confused.”:

But Radford said he doesn't think Tolentino is a liar or hoaxer, just that she confused something she saw in a movie with something she saw in real life. 

There are similarities; but there are also differences. Like breasts, numerous tendrils upon the head, and the height of the entity, which is quite tall.

This same explanation -- of imagined creatures from an entertainment venue -- was offered by skeptics when Barney and Betty Hill described their encounters. An Outer Limits episode: "The Bellero Shield" aired on February 10th, 1964, a couple of weeks before the HIlls experienced their UFO sighting and abduction. Again, there are similarities to the aliens in the television episode, but differences as well, including height. Contrast the Outer Limits creature with drawings of what the Hills saw made by both the Hills and other artists.  Googling or otherwise searching out these images, and comparing and contrasting them for yourself will reveal that there are as many differences as there are similairites. (For a related article on imagery, see my Betty Hill's "The Supervisor": A Visceral Reaction, for UFO Digest.)

I’m not attempting to thoroughly analyze the merits of either case; but the point is, imagery within popular culture is often used to “explain” mysterious encounters. It’s silly to state images don’t influence us on many levels, every day, far more than we know. That is a whole other topic. At the same time, to throw about images from movies and television and use them to “solve” mysteries is just too simplistic.

I find it ironic that images and symbols are influencing us -- speaking to us --- every moment of every day and often in insidious and spooky ways, manipulated by the powers that be, and yet we remain ignorant of all that. At best, if we notice it at all, we label it “conspiracy theory” and move on. But the skeptics, and not a few UFO researchers, are quick to point to images as the cause for what’s perceived during paranormal or UFO encounters. This easy explanation takes care of everything in one fits all theory, and we no longer have to deal with the pesky supernatural, Fortean or UFO event.



Inexplicita left this comment on the above post:

Ms. Casals search was doomed to fail from the start. There is no "Chupacabras lore" in Mexico - the phenomenon kicked off in May 1996 in Veracruz. However, there is a certain amount of background information (and a long history of mutilations) in Puerto Rico, although those early waves of the 1950s and mid-1970s never featured a visible protagonist.

---

Not content to have "solved" the Chupacabra mystery, Radford is now looking for witness accounts prior to the 1990s. Article begins:

As reported here on Discovery News and elsewhere, the origin of the mysterious vampire beast el chupacabra can be traced back to an eyewitness who saw the 1995 film Species, which featured an identical monster.

As I commented in my previous post no it can't, and no it doesn't.

But, Radford, one of the new, improved, benign forms of skeptics, (who, like Joe Nickel, present themselves as "paranormal investigators" not skeptics) offers a reward for anyone providing proof of earlier sightings:

I'll offer a public $250 reward (plus a signed copy of my book Tracking the Chupacabra) for the first verifiable written evidence of a blood-sucking monster called the chupacabra (or chupacabras) that dates before 1990. It must be a published, dated reference; I can be contacted via Discovery News.

Well, at least he hasn't offered up the owl as an explanation for the mystery.

Are Chupacabra Recollections Real? : Discovery News
Thanks to The Anomalist for link.

Looking for work? Become a JREF 'Field Coordinator'

Job opportunity from the JREF, which "seeks an energetic and detail-oriented Field Cooridinator ready to implement new and innovative outreach strategies..."

The new JREF Field Coordinator will be expected to, among other tasks: "Recruit and mobilize volunteers and other skeptic activists across the country," (I love that: "skeptic activists")"Work with communications staff to coordinate national advocacy campaigns" and maintain a skepti presence on social networking sites: "Assist communications staff with constituent messaging and management of the JREF’s digital outreach, including website, blog, and social networking profiles."


Job Posting: JREF Field Coordinator

James Carlson 'Responds', Again

James Carlson still doesn't understand I'm female; we've had past exchanges in which I've set him straight, but alas, he remains obsessed with his agenda and so, doesn't have time for particulars as to the gender of the person he addresses.

Below, he responds to my post from October of 2010 here on SS in which I question the continued apathy concerning man-made UFOs.

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

In reference to Robert Hastings, he says a lot of things, many of which can't stand up to careful examination. His and Robert Salas' claims for the past 15 years regarding a centerpiece of his "UFOs and Nukes" lectures is one of those cases. His discussions of Robert Salas' claims involving asserted experiences during the alleged UFO events at Echo Flight and Oscar Flight in March 1967 fail to take into account the widely known facts of Salas' very poor credibility and his numerous, proven lies to the public regarding this matter. There were no UFOs involved at Echo Flight at all, and the incident at Oscar Flight never even happened. The men who have spread these lies, primarily Robert Salas and Robert Hastings, have done so for their own benefit, and they have proven to be both dishonest and wrong on numerous occasions in numerous ways. I would recommend that if you are truly interested in knowing what actually occurred at Malmstrom AFB in March 1967 you go to the following URLs, where you can download at no cost the book and supporting articles discussing the case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26641522/Americans-Credulous-by-James-Carlson

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42303580/Echo-Flights-of-Fantasy-Anatomy-of-a-UFO-Hoax-by-James-Carlson

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49495918/The-Bunny-s-Retort-by-James-Carlson

I would also recommend that you examine the numerous interviews and articles at the Reality Uncovered website: http://www.realityuncovered.net/ -- seven of the top nine articles all discuss the events at Echo Flight in March 1967, and include interviews with both the commander and the deputy commander at Echo Flight on March 16, 1967 when the missiles were taken offline by an electronic noise pulse.

A lot of information regarding this incident can also be found at the Reality Uncovered forum, in particular the Echo Flight Incident thread: http://www.realityuncovered.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1688&sid=fb3fd24f098c0f3bc35595ea1b41a146.

Tim Hebert, an ex-USAF missileer himself, has also written some enlightening articles regarding the case on his blog at: http://timhebert.blogspot.com/.

Dr. David Clarke, for many years an accepted expert regarding the British military forces' investigations of the UFO phenomenon for many years, has also discussed this case in the context of the "UFO and Nukes" connection asserted by author Robert Hastings. You can read his article on the subject at http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/11/flat-earth-nukes.html.

The lies currently being spread by Robert Hastings and Robert Salas have not merely been shown to be full of irresponsible interpretations of the actual events, they have been repeatedly proven to be lies contrary to both witness testimony and documented evidence. There is no doubt whatsoever that they created this case for their own benefit, and that none of the "incidents" they have described actually took place. There were no UFOs involved -- it is a lie, another silly UFO hoax, and nothing more.

Witnesses that both men have presented to the public have actually come forward to dispute the claims these men have made. They insist that their statements were taken out of context and distorted purposely in order to suggest the presence of UFOs where no such presence could otherwise be established. Salas and Hastings have perpetrated a UFO hoax of the worst sort, and have attempted to destroy the reputations and career service of better men than themselves, all to sell their books and enable them to charge outrageous prices for their public speaking tours, lectures, and videos.

As for other possible UFO cases, while I may personally doubt that alien spacecraft were involved, I really have no educated opinion to offer. Frankly, I don't know very much about other cases, and would never, for that reason, venture to put forth my own opinions as more viable than another's.

Thank you,
James Carlson
jtcarl@yahoo.com
Albuquerque, NM

Posted by James Carlson to Snarly Skepticism . . . (and Unofficial JREF Watch) at March 23, 2011 6:44 PM

Carlson didn't address any of my questions concerning man-made UFOs: military-industrial complex uber global Dr. Evil machines patrolling our skies, and the continued covert activities of our government, and effects upon citizens. Which includes myself, you dear reader, and even Carlson.

The Legend of the Chupacabra: Mystery Solved? - ABC News

At my animal Fortean blog, I posted about skeptic, er, excuse me, "paranormal investigator" Benjamin Radford, who's "solved" the mystery of the chupacabra. All by himself.
Animal Forteana: The Legend of the Chupacabra: Mystery Solved? - ABC News

Blog Find: UFOs - scientific research

Pauline Wilson, a contributor to this blog:UFOs - scientific research left a comment on my post at The C-Influence. Intrigued, I followed her link to her blog, here it is. Very interesting.

Daktari Impossible

Gary Haden, of Speculative Realms, has a new blog:Daktari Impossible described as:

"Impossible Juxtapositions: Madness versus Reason, Skeptic versus Believer. Which is which? YOU decide."

The first post discusses Mothman :The Interesting Juxtaposition: Is Mothman the Answer to Our Economic Woes? one of my favorite subjects. (As I blog about on my Mothman Flutterings blog from time to time.)

Snarly Skepticism: SN Slang Word Throw Up

This is what my Google alert delivered to my email today:Snarly Skepticism. Okay then.

Owl Synchronicity on JREF

I've been chronicling my owl synchronicites on Orange Orb and Animal Forteana. (Just listed one on the Orb yesterday.) Going over to the old JREF today, I see listed at the top a thread about owls listed in the 'social issues and general topics' section:  Live Owl and her little baby owls!!! 

A virtuous intolerance : Pharyngula

Skeptic, biologist, associate professor at University of Minnesota PZ Myers slams woo: A virtuous intolerance : Pharyngula. Taking a tactic from the skeptoid manifesto, presenting themselves as righteous, alturistic, and deserving of the same moral praises we give to bigots, Myers compares Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK government's John Beddington's "vigorous response to creeping woo" as well as all debunkers and skeptic's fascist intolerance of "woo" to civil rights activists. Oh, pleeeeeeaaaaaasssssssseeeeeeeeeee...

"I really would urge you to be grossly intolerant," he said. "We should not tolerate what is potentially something that can seriously undermine our ability to address important problems."

Now don't get stupid and think that this means I promote creationism, Christianity in schools, or the belief that Earth is five thousand years old.

I wrote about this in 2006:

The Usual Purple Tinged Hyperbole About UFOs

Wandering through the kingdom of anti-UFOism on the internet, I recently came across a few sites with the same message; so-called ‘name calling’ is just as bad as using racial slurs. Labeling the anti-UFOists, skeptics and or debunkers as any of the following: skeptoid, skepti-bunkie, Skepti-bunkie, New Thug, etc. is on the same level as being called any of the heinous names for an ethnic, cultural or racial group. (Also, using such labels as say, New Thugs or skeptibunkies, supports their opinion that the “name caller” is emotionally and psychologically deficient in some way.) The obvious -- that these offended complainers use terms like woo, kook, lunatics, true believers, ‘bleevers, etc. -- well, no need to point that out, so I won’t.

What does need to be pointed out is that this belief that being labeled just what one is, based on observation of their behavior (er, if you’re bashing ufos and ufo experiencers/witnesses/researchers, doesn’t that make you a debunker/skeptic/thug? Answer: yes, yes it does) is hardly “name calling.” A note to the thin skinned: ‘Skepti-bunkie’ is nowhere near the level of being called a f****** moronic idiot or other foul names. Neither is it anywhere close to being called a racist name. What those who are complaining about such silliness need to get is that it is completely disingenuous to pretend one is affronted by these labels, that they are on a par with victims of racial and ethnic slurs. That pompous opinion doesn’t set well with me; being pc has nothing to do with it. It’s insulting and it’s a lie to suggest that being called a ‘skeptibunkie’ is the same as being called an ugly name for someone’s race or ethnicity.


This pretense of being offended by, say, being referred to as a “skeptibunkie” or some other label is just another tactic used by anti-UFOists. Meanwhile, those of us who’ve experienced UFOs in various ways are called mentally ill, intellectually challenged, spiritually needy, liars, drunks, drug users, attention getters, drama queens, and more. Those all are worse than being called a thug, skeptibunkie, or Pelicanist. (Pelicanist is a term coined by UFO researcher Jerome Clark.) Let’s see: mentally ill drug user who’s a liar, or skeptical thug? Hmm, I’ll take ‘skeptical thug’ for eight hundred Alex.

The anti-UFO activists can be offended all he or she likes, sniff and sneer at being mocked, take offense at being called a New Thug, even though that is the behavior so often being exhibited these days (golly gee, what else do you call demands for the cultural cleansing of UFOlogy by non-UFOists?) But they do not get to be so damn arrogant and full of their own importance regarding their Crusade to Rid the World of Woo. (And UFOs -- anything outside of the most hard core nuts and bolts theories -- are considered woo to the skeptibunkie.) It is not honest or accurate for them to align themselves with those that are victims of bigotry, prejudice and hateful epithets. They’re not that important, and neither is their cause.

Speculative Realms: Female Abductee Madonna Complex: A Gender-Identified Blame Game

My response on Gary Haden's Speculative Realms to the Matt Graeber article on alien abductions:
Speculative Realms: Female Abductee Madonna Complex: A Gender-Identified Blame Game

Douglas Adams and the cult of 42 | Books | The Guardian

Douglas Adams and the cult of 42 | Books | The Guardian

Joe Nickell from TAM3: Pages from the Casebook of a Paranormal Investigator

Would Joe Nickell please stop self-identifying as a "paranormal investigator" ?! -- please?
Joe Nickell from TAM3: Pages from the Casebook of a Paranormal Investigator

Greg Taylor on Daryl Bem's Psi Research

Daily Grail's Greg Taylor's excellent comments on Daryl Bem's psi research, which is to be published soon in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The fact that a recognized scientific journal has reviewed, and accepted, such an article has many uber-skeptics frothing at the mouth in horror. Eugene, Oregon's very own pathological skeptic, Dr. Ray Hyman of the University of Oregon, just down the road from me and my alma mater, has made his views clear. Quoting from Taylor's piece, Hyman says:

“It’s craziness, pure craziness. I can’t believe a major journal is allowing this work in,” Ray Hyman, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University Oregon and longtime critic of ESP research, said. “I think it’s just an embarrassment for the entire field.”

Hyman has a thing about psi; he was a "co-evaluator" of the Stargate Project, and rejected the research of partner professor Jessica Utts about that project. Both came away from the study of the project with very different conclusions: Utts, that psi exists, Hyman, who rejected such ideas.

The Future of Psi | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

Out of Context Science

Found on Boing Boing: Out of Context Science,
a fun thing. Takes quotes from scientific materials.What a great idea; reminds me of those delightful quotes from newspapers and other printed matter the New Yorker used to sprinkle about in their magazine. Now you're lucky to find just one. Examples from Out of Context Science:

"Dogs that were less interested in the ambiguous bowls were judged to be more pessimistic."

New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked.

It seems that really active black holes are rare but not anti-social.

As Boing Boing remarked, it's nice that Out of Context Science gives citations for the quotes.

Greg Taylor: The Debunker: A Pseudo-Skeptic By Any Other Nature

Enjoyed the episode of Ancient Aliens last night, and in particular, Graham Hancock. In looking for more on Hancock I found the following article on pathological uber-skepticsm by Greg Taylor, who manages the stellar The Daily Grail, responsible for Dark Lore, and more. The Official Hancock Website Forum: The Debunker: A Pseudo-Skeptic By Any Other Name. I think this is recent, from this month (November 2010) but not sure.  An excerpt:

The modern conception of science, which the debunker holds so dear, is based upon a particular branch of science which has become dominant over the past four centuries. To grossly simplify historical developments, the physics of Newton and the philosophy of Descartes combined with other factors during the 'Enlightenment', to give central importance of one strand of science - modern science, as we know it. This science is basically physicalism - "the belief that reality is reducible to certain kinds of physical entities"2 (and if you want illustration of this, ask a group of physicists and chemists whether psychology is a science). With this newly dominant science came 'the scientific method'. Many people are surprised to learn that the scientific method is not a gift from god which determines whether something is 'scientific' - it is actually one method of gaining results, amongst a number of possible others (put forward throughout history, from the Gnostics through to Karl Popper). The fact cannot be overstated - the modern scientific method which the pseudo-skeptic virtually deifies, is simply one particular method of revealing information about one particular type of knowledge.

Taylor goes on to discuss Thomas Kuhn and "changing paradigms." As to the debunker mind-set, Taylor writes:

So what is the underlying reason for the debunkers position? Why do they feel the need to "portray science not as an open-minded process of discovery, but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery" 14? The obvious conclusion is that behind this behaviour lies a large amount of insecurity. In particular, anxiety that a carefully constructed world-view, which helps them to make sense of the world and also often bestows upon them a position of power, may be dismantled at any moment. 

Much more, visit the site and read the entire article for yourself.

Frame 352: Endless PG Debate; Yeah, But There's Just One Thing . . .

I posted a few idle thoughts on the endless debate of the P-G film on the JREF on my blog Frame 352.
Frame 352: Endless PG Debate; Yeah, But There's Just One Thing . . .

New Uber-Skeptic Blog: "Bad UFO"

Oh dear, misogynistic uber-skeptic Robert Sheaffer, has a new blog: Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe.

On UFO Magazine's Blog: "Reactionary Skeptibunkies Move Reactionary Bowels Regards UFO/Nuke Initiative

Not surprising, in fact, expected, that he uber-skeptics, scofftics, skeptibunkies and pathological-rationalists are busy at attacking the recent round of UFO news regarding UFOs and nukes.

On UFO Magazine's blog you can read what Robert Hastings has to say about skeptoid Benjamin Radford's attack. (thanks to Alfred Lehmberg for posting this.)

At the conclusion of Hasting's piece, he asks us to "keep an eye out. . ." by the usual suspects on this issue:

I am asking persons who read this to keep an eye out for me and to report any other articles critical of the UFO-Nukes Connection press conference posted by CSI members Benjamin Radford, Kendrick Frazier, James Oberg, James McGaha, and others. Please notify me at ufohastings@aol.com. Thank you.

Hastings points out that CSI, formerly known as Committee for the Scientific Investigations of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), has ties with our government's nuclear weapons programs:

Benjamin Radford neglected to mention that he is the managing editor for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, published by the "UFO-skeptical" group CSI. Radford also failed to mention that the executive editor of the magazine, Kendrick Frazier, worked as a PR Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories--one of the US government's largest nuclear weapons labs--for more than 20 years although, with rare exceptions, he seemed shy about acknowledging that fact.    
Moreover, a leading CSI member, James Oberg, once worked with classified nukes-related secrets while in the Air Force and once privately chastised another former USAF officer, Dr. Bob Jacobs, for leaking information pertaining to the nukes-related Big Sur UFO incident. As I have written elsewhere:    
“Many years ago, I discovered that Kendrick Frazier was in fact employed—beginning in the early 1980s—as a Public Relations Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Yes, the same Sandia Labs that has been instrumental to the success of America’s nuclear weapons program since the late 1940s, through its ‘ordinance engineering’ of components for bomb and missile warhead systems.    
Interestingly, Skeptical Inquirer's publisher's statement, or ‘masthead’, which appears at the beginning of each issue, never once mentioned Frazier's employment at the highly-secretive, government-funded laboratory. Instead, the magazine merely listed, and continues to list, his profession as "science writer"—a reference to his having written several books and articles on various scientific subjects. Also curious is the fact that various online biographies on Frazier—including one written by himself—also fail to mention his two-decade tenure at Sandia Labs. An odd omission indeed.    
Consequently, here is the situation: In what is arguably the most dramatic nuclear weapons-related UFO incident ever revealed [Big Sur], two former U.S. Air Force officers insist that one of our experimental nuclear warheads was actually shot down by a flying saucer. And who is responsible for publishing the first debunking article about the Big Sur incident, in which it is claimed that the UFO encounter never happened? Why, a PR guy working for the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program!    

There's more; which you can read about on UFO Magazine's blog.

It's always a wonder to me why it is that these individuals, who put themselves out there as rational, clear thinking, and skeptical, are so willfully ignorant of the UFO phenomena, while at the same time so willingly dismissive of anything related to UFO events.

We see things in the skies that are odd, at best. Forget ET for the moment, that's interpretation, personal belief. But the fact remains: there are unexplained objects in our skies. They emit mists and substances, they're small, they're huge, they operate in the open and yet secretively right in front of us. They're flying over populated areas, they're freaking people out. They're disrupting systems. (On this, on many levels, from the literal to the esoteric.)

And so, we ask: what are they, what are they doing, and why isn't anyone we put in control doing anything about them?

Those are rational responses.

So here's a point: if these UFOs are not ET, and if they are "just" us, meaning military/black ops/classified/private industry stuff, then the above questions remain. What are they, why are they, and what are they doing?!

An object I saw in my community, on a very good video taken by the witness (and seen by several others) ejected a mist of who knows what onto the apartment buildings below. And, it camouflaged itself; unless you were looking very carefully, you never would have known it was there. Okay, so it was ours. What the hell is our government/private industry doing to us? Maybe it's benign, maybe it isn't, but we won't find out if we don't investigate. I'm not comfortable with weird objects in the skies above me doing things that I don't know about, and, according to the uber-skeptoids of the world, am not supposed to question, because doing so means I'm irrational and lack critical thinking skills.

The Search For Bigfoot: Kitakaze and his "Accusations"

Bigfoot researcher Melissa Hovey writes about the on-going anti-Bigfoot actions of uber-skeptoid "kitakaze" who, among other things, and according to Hovey, has been cyber harassing Hovey: The Search For Bigfoot: Kitakaze and his "Accusations"

I remember thinking, when I first saw kitakaze's post on the JREF ("Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy: Pitch to Discovery Channel" ) how pathological, in a surreal and ludicrous way, his "quest" appeared to me. [The post is now in some kind of scofftic limbo; the JREF has placed the thread in a moderator's only spot, "due to nature of several reports" and "moved it [thread] to a section that only the Moderating Team can access whilst we deal with the reports."] As I've asked to many times: just what is it about Bigfoot that gets these skeptoids into such a compulsive dither? There are literally dozens of separate threads on the JREF devoted to Bigfoot, many of the posters over there, most especially this kitakze character, also go to Bigfoot forums to ostensibly engage in Bigfoot discussions. The reality is of course that it's most often simply thuggish, trollish behavior; the intent is never to seriously discuss anything except how deluded Bigfoot "believers" are.

As to the tactics Melissa talks about, I can only say I've observed and experienced this kind of behavior myself through the years from individuals who call themselves "skeptics."

I'm Speecheless: Billy Ray and UFOs

I don't know what to say, except the non-poetic and unimaginative "what the fuck?!" -- I mean ... it's ... uh ... um... you can't make this up... Billy Ray Cyrus is going to host his own show on UFOs. Yes, UFOs! AND, he's gonna debunk 'em! Hold me back, please. . . I can't take it. The world's gone mad. But we knew that already.

Anyway, Lesley Gunter says it well on her Grey Matters column for BoA:Redneck Ufology & The Best Hair on TV

...what exactly gives them any expertise as Ufologists or skeptics? Are they going to have real experts on or are we suppose to rely on their opinion? Seriously, it is totally ridiculous. What the fuck was SyFy thinking? Were they trying to make UFOs into an even bigger joke than the rest of the media already treats them as? What is next - ghost hunting with Heidi Montag or maybe Bigfoot hunting with Celine Dion?

I love that; "Bigfoot hunting with Celine Dion."  In the deep woods of her beloved Canada, searching for the elusive Sasquatch. Maybe she can wear these while she's out there: (hat tip by the way also to Lesley, who posted about these psychotic and disturbing er, "shoes" on her  Totally Girlie Blog.)

What is Killing the Seals on JREF Paranormal Thread Section

Now why is this thread on the JREF (James Randi Educational Forum), which is a skeptical (actually a uber-skeptoid pathological rationalist front) organization, appearing in the "General Skepticism and Paranormal" category?! (I had posted about this on my blog Octopus Confessional; that post appears at the end of this post.)

The thread is What is Killing the Seals?, about the horrible "corkscrew" deaths of seals. Does the poster think this is simply not happening, despite the horrific photographs? At no point does anyone quoted in any of the news items suggest anything remotely paranormal, although the cause is a mystery. A mystery does not equate supernatural, or tin foil hat wearing conspiracy loon.

I find this disturbing because, the obvious fact that it's a skeptic organization to begin with aside, placing a thread about the very real deaths of animals in a so-called "woo" category trivializes and marginalizes this tragedy. Animal deaths due to humankind's actions are too often not considered seriously enough; actions like this perpetuate the mind set that it's not all that serious an issue.

The forum has other categories; social issues, etc. that have nothing to do with the paranormal. This thread could have been placed in one of those, but instead, for whatever reasons, the OP felt it merited inclusion in the paranormal section.

---

This is a tragic mystery; unsolved "corkscrew" deaths of seals in the waters off Canada and Scotland. Scientists are working hard to discover what it is that is causing these horrible deaths, and, why there are seals who've been killed in this way found so far apart (Canada, Scotland) that seemingly don't share a connection.

WARNING: IF YOU VISIT THE LINK PROVIDED IN THE FOLLOWING, THERE IS A GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPH THAT READERS MAY FIND VERY DISTURBING AND HEART WRENCHING.

In Norfolk, along the coast at Blakeney, Morston and Wells, 20 cases have been reported over the past year, with six during July. A handful of seal deaths go back to 2008.
Other have been found in Canada.
The fact that the carcasses have been found in areas so far apart from each other has baffled scientists and there are several working theories to explain the deaths.

A website blogger in Norfolk suggested that tidal turbines may have killed the seals but as there are no turbines near the site of the grim discoveries in Scotland, this theory has been scrapped.
The leading theory is that the seals have ended up in some kind of engine. The lacerations cannot have been inflicted by a traditional propeller which causes a distinctive 'chop' wound.
Scientists now think the seals must have been rotated against a blade inside some kind of cowling or a duct.
Many sea vessels now use propellers known as bow thrusters, which some people have thought may have caused the injuries.
However, research into this explanation is inconclusive as many more carcasses would be washing ashore around the world if this were the case.
Scientists are trying to work out whether similar machinery is located in the waters off Norfolk and St Andrews, as well as the Canadian site.
At the moment, all scientists can do is try to rule out theories in the hope of solving the mystery.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303721/Corkscrew-deaths-seals-British-coast-baffling-scientists.html#ixzz0wtUeEGTU
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303721/Corkscrew-deaths-seals-British-coast-baffling-scientists.html#ixzz0wtU5ivrz

My first thought, that came through on a gut feeling level, was that these deaths have something to do with underground/undersea bases, as well as more horrific and graphic signs from the planet to the rest of us that something global is very, very wrong, on numerous levels, and we will continue to experience these signs, and their aftermaths, until we collectively wake up . . .  but whatever it is that's causing these deaths, I pray they find the cause, and the solution to prevent further deaths, very soon.

New Forum Category on JREF: "Skeptoid"

The James Randi Education Forum has a new category: "skeptoid." Very cute. I'm not linking over there, but you know how to get there!

"The rise of the new agnostics"

The rise of the new agnostics, Ron Rosenbaum with Slate Magazine. Thanks to The Daily Grail for the link. 

Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved. And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Thomas Aquinas, who tried to prove by logic the possibility of creation "ex nihilo" (from nothing). His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of "uncaused causation" to be created in the first place.

This is—or should be—grade-school stuff, but many of the New Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs. I'm thinking in particular here of the ones who like to call themselves "the brights." (Or have they given up on that comically unfortunate term?) The "brights" seem like rather dim bulbs when it comes to this question. It's amazing how the New Atheists boastfully stride over this pons asinorum as if it weren't there.

From America.gov: "Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation"

Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation, from America.gov. It's deeply, darkly, insidious and yet it's also comedic in a "You don't really buy into this?" kind of way.

Conspiracy theories exist in the realm of myth, where imaginations run wild, fears trump facts, and evidence is ignored. As a superpower, the United States is often cast as a villain in these dramas.

You can check out the "truth" about such things as: 9/11, Health, Military, Latin America, Outer Space. Not much space is given to any of these topics, just a paragraph or two that tells you, everything is all right, you see, people just naturally don't understand and are anxious:

in the 20th century, aliens in “flying saucers“ became a focus of fears and anxiety, ... We project onto imaginary aliens some of our deepest fears ... we could be victimized, enslaved or exterminated by a technologically superior civilization. .. imaginary aliens represent the ultimate unknowable, feared “other.”

Interesting how they've chosen to frame UFOs, aliens and humanity in a fear based context.

JREF Message Board: Glitch After All

As I thought; all is back up now.

JREF Message Board: A Glitch Or A Ban?

Hmmm, since last night, I have been unable to read any of the sections on the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF) message boards. Clicking on the link to "enter forum" takes me to . . . a blank page. As of this posting, it is still happening.

I found this over there, which has been up since 2006:

href="http://www.randi.org/forum/">The JREF is subject to much "spamming" from the homeopathic community, strange mystics, and others. As a result, we have had to limit access to this message board. Create new subjects for discussion, if you wish. Thanks for your interest and participation! -Randi


Everyone is able to read the forum topics. However, in order to post, you will need to register. Simply click on the "register" link and follow the instructions. An administrator will review all registrants for authorization. Be sure to read the rules of conduct when registering.

With "click here to enter forum"  links above and below.

But clicking on those links just takes me to a blank page.

So we'll have to wait and see if this is just a glitch, they're doing maintenance or what.