Ken Kovacs: The Threat of Literalism

 (cross posted at my blog UFO Mary.)

Very good and interesting article by Ken Kovacs.  And for those of us who are anti-skeptoid, this goes for those debunkites as well. I don't share the author's religious views -- ie, that JC is the "fullest revelation of God the world has ever known" -- but that's beside the point.

The Threat of Literalism - Catonsville, MD Patch: James Hollis, Jungian analyst and writer, suggests that literalism is actually a form of religious blasphemy because it seeks to concretize (nail down, define) and absolutize the core experience of the Holy, of God – a God, if God, who cannot be controlled or defined; a God, as theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) insisted, who was Wholly Other, a God who remains ultimately a mystery. And a mystery is not the same thing as a puzzle (which can be solved); a mystery is always enigmatic and is therefore inherently unknowable.

It gets down to the following, which really touches on the gist of these "literalists" including anti-paranormal/ufo skeptoids:

Hollis, whose writings I admire and enormously respect, even argues that literalism is a kind of psychopathology in need of deep healing (redemption?). From his many years as a psychotherapist he has come to see that a way to gauge mental health and emotional maturity is the degree to which one is able to tolerate what he calls the triple A’s – ambiguity, ambivalence, and anxiety. The ability to hold these in tension – and not escape into literalism and fundamentalism, into strategies of avoidance – is a way to test our psychic strength. I can certainly resonate with this. The literalists (of all varieties) I have known and know (and love) have difficulty tolerating ambiguity, ambivalence, and anxiety. They use their faith or their political ideology to bolster themselves against, hide themselves from the triple A’s that define the human condition.

Skepticism in the humanities? - JREF Forum

Not content with debunking ghosts, UFOs and Bigfoot there is now Skepticism in the humanities? - JREF Forum.

One skeptibunkie, bless their little heart, comments that "... history is more of a science than a humanity."

Truly, we are doomed.

Thomas Sheridan Arts - Articles: Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

At Thomas Sheridan Arts - Articles: Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)? an excellent piece pondering the inarguable fact of the skeptic zealot. Example from article:

Matters not how solid the evidence you present them with is, nor how flimsy their own state-sanctioned 'hard science' which they smugly offer up as their rebuttal; they are driven by a messianic compulsion to root out unscientific 'idiots' with all the zeal and fanaticism similar to that of a Dominican or Jesuit charging through southern France in the twelfth century seeking out 'heretics' for the burning. Irony does not even come into their myopic worldview—unless of course a government, corporate or university press office states this. Then it becomes an undisputed fact. Thanks to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christoper Hitchens, these Internet-bound warriors of rationality see 'Creationists' and 'hidden Christians' around every corner and seek to root them out and expose them as part and parcel of their own peculiar secular witch hunt mentality. ~ Thomas Sheridan

Game of Thrones society realism - JREF Forum

Related to the post below, a current thread at the JREF:Game of Thrones society realism - JREF Forum. I watch Game of Thrones because it's entertainment. It has dragons -- how "realistic" would I expect the show to be?

The Daily Grail: The "Danger" of Harry Potter and Fantasy

Came across this article on The Daily Grail. It's from November of 2012. Very good piece on the sheer fanaticism of skeptoids.The "Danger" of Harry Potter and Fantasy... | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History.

The article analyzes the late Paul Kurtz's criticism of readers of all ages who enjoy reading fantasy, like Harry Potter novels. While Kurtz attacks those readers, calls for solidarity around science minded books, and insists the happy acceptance of such novels like the Potter series is a bad thing, he forgets the severe religious backlash when the Potter books came out. Fantasy book series are still attacked by some religious parents. Good piece on how the skeptoids behave as the very fanatics they attack.

For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia - NYTimes.com

For Scientists, an Exploding World of Pseudo-Academia - NYTimes.com: The scientists who were recruited to appear at a conference called Entomology-2013 thought they had been selected to make a presentation to the leading professional association of scientists who study insects.

But they found out the hard way that they were wrong. The prestigious, academically sanctioned conference they had in mind has a slightly different name: Entomology 2013 (without the hyphen). The one they had signed up for featured speakers who were recruited by e-mail, not vetted by leading academics. Those who agreed to appear were later charged a hefty fee for the privilege, and pretty much anyone who paid got a spot on the podium that could be used to pad a résumé.

“I think we were duped,” one of the scientists wrote in an e-mail to the Entomological Society.

Michael Shermer on some ... ET show

Yesterday I turned on the television hoping to find some para-tainment program to calm that positively thrilling feeling of folding and putting away the clean laundry. Stumbled on some kind of show to do with aliens, but don't recall what it was. I think it was on the H2 (History channel 2) but not sure. The date was fairly recent; from this year.

Talk was of ancient aliens, and skeptics were giving their two cents, Michael Shermer being one of them. Now, one can have any opinion they care to about the ancient alien theory or anything at all to do with UFOs, ET, aliens, but you do not  get to say "This is the way it is."


So, Shermer is almost angry, stating that there is "absolutely no evidence" (paraphrasing) of alien intervention/interference. None. No evidence. "Pulling things in from here and there and everywhere to make up an ancient alien theory." (paraphrasing.) Well, "pulling things in from here, there..." does not make something untrue or invalid by that action alone. And those seemingly random unconnected things, which I assume Shermer was insinuating they were and therefore, invalid, does indeed make a pattern. The point is, Shermer, like all skeptoids, confuse evidence with proof. There is a massive heaping pile of evidence. Anyone who still chooses to say otherwise is either lying outright, or truly ignorant. The issue isn't the "lack" of evidence, it's how one interprets that evidence.


The second ridiculous thing Shermer said was that "There is no proof aliens are here, have been here..none. Because it didn't happen. It couldn't happen." (paraphrasing.) Now, that's pretty astounding actually. How does he know? He doesn't, of course. Granted, most of us don't, but at least those that say otherwise have directly experienced something -- non-human entities, weird creatures, reptilians, just for starters -- and have a lot more to stand on than Shermer's opinion on the subject.


Why shows continue to have sketpoids on I'm not sure. Producers will tell you it's part of the need for balance and fairness, which is untrue, given the producers own agendas in twisting the topics to where they want them to go. If anything, it's simply action -- the battle between skeptoid debunker and "believer" as entertainment. More "excitement" equals more ratings.

Skeptic's Take on "the American Medjugorje"

Not sure what the point is, except, any chance to smear so-called "woo" well, a skepti-bunny is going to take it. So turns out Theresa Lopez, who began having visions of the BVM, was not such a stellar character. I think the author thinks that by pointing this out, the entire BVM apparition phenomena is now de-mystified. Oy.The American Medjugorje

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: When it's convenient...

So, here's an example of skeptoid tactics. Shamelessly using one example from an individual or group to denigrate another, while ignoring that the first individual or group used has been the subject of the Skeptoid's Crusade in the past. In the following passage,  skeptoid guerrilla Susan Gerbic notes that a Priceline.com commercial upset many for "making light of the Native American belief of smudging." I haven't seen the commercial so don't know if that's true, but smudging as a cleansing ritual is not limited to Native American traditions. The point is, skeptoids bash all religions, spiritual systems, and beliefs, Native American included. So it's simply a matter of convenience to make the comparison:

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: All Summed Up - Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: In June 2012, Mrs. Caputo appeared in a commercial for Priceline.com, in which she portrayed herself "connecting" with the late Priceline Negotiator character previously played by William Shatner.(9)However, this commercial has sparked controversy, since the commercial appears to make light of the Native American belief of smudging.(10)JREF President DJ Grothe released a press release calling out Priceline.com, stating, "It is difficult to watch the show and not feel heartbroken for those who are desperate to hear from the departed... and even more so if they are being manipulated by a charlatan." Grothe urges Priceline.com to "invite... your new representative" to take the James Randi Million Dollar challenge and prove her credentials.(11)

There is also a thuggish tone to all of their guerrilla tactics. The intimidation factor: "Take the challenge! Or else!" is thrown at those they reject.

Robert McLuhan on 'Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia' |

Greg Taylor at The Daily Grail has excellent comments on McLuhan's article at Paranormalia on the skeptic crusade: Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History. Taylor has been writing, and very eloquently, about the so-called skeptics and their agendas, for some time.

And here's the link to McLuhan's Paranormalia article. "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" is a real thing, led by Susan Gerbic, who gathers willing debunkers to "edit" entries on Wikipedia.

Comments left at Paranormalia are worth reading as well.

Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe - by Robert Sheaffer: UFO Sightings Debunker Claims UFOs Are Not Real!

Yes he's loathsome, misogynistic and an uber debunker, but I had to laugh at the title. "Debunker" claims UFOs are "not real." Well dahlings, duh. He's a debunker. Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe - by Robert Sheaffer: UFO Sightings Debunker Claims UFOs Are Not Real! So here we go, before we've even started -- that so very tired meme that "UFOs aren't real." This from a "critical thinker."

Why Sheaffer would agree to be on a "pro UFO" program with a bad reputation, even among pro-UFO people, as he described them, is a mystery. Any opportunity to attempt to convert I suppose. This particular interview, which I have not listened to (and doubt I will) involved a religious debate. Sheaffer comments that religions contradict each other; clearly he's never seen an episode of Ancient Aliens. And this made me laugh, where he remarks on how hard it is to find people to argue with:

"And I learned some interesting things: in trying to set up a longer future debate on a different internet radio channel, there was a difficulty in finding a UFO proponent willing to debate me!"

But he holds out hope, for:

"But I also understand that the indomitable Flying Saucer physicist, Stanton T. Friedman, is unafraid to debate. So we will probably see such a debate in the coming weeks. "

He's giddy because, as he writes,

"Friedman has said so many absurd things over the years that I will greatly enjoy making him eat them."

Oh, we so really very much doubt that!

James Randi: Let Survival of the Fittest "Act Itself Out" On Those With Low IQ and "Mental Aberrations" | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

Greg Taylor at The Daily Grail on chilling comments -- which means, chilling mind-set -- of Randi. James Randi: Let Survival of the Fittest "Act Itself Out" On Those With Low IQ and "Mental Aberrations" | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

This is no frivolous and cheeky let's have fun bashing skeptoids, this is damn serious stuff. Important stuff to know about where one of the "leaders" of the so-called Skeptical Movement religion are really coming from. And it isn't "rational" at all.

What Ockham really said - Boing Boing

Excellent. What he really said, and what has been really misinterpreted:What Ockham really said - Boing Boing And to make it even better, this is by Jacques Vallee.

Tonight's Coast to Coast: Evidence for the Paranormal

Tonight's C2C:

Evidence for the Paranormal - Shows - Coast to Coast AM: Date: 01-14-13
Host: George Noory
Guests: James D. Stein

George Noory returns to chat with Professor of Mathematics at California State University Long Beach, Dr. James D. Stein (book link), about why 57% of Americans believe in psychic phenomena such as ESP and telepathy, yet scientists have still not proven it exists. He'll cover the various ways scientists have attempted to study the supernatural, as well as the many rational reasons why certain phenomena must exist.

Skeptics vs. Believers: Not of the same source

New post at my Orange Orb blog on the oft repeated idea that "skeptics" and "believers", at the farthest ends of the continuum, are really the same. Not so fast there little misters and missys:

Kevin Randle's recent piece about the wildly out out of proportion responses of Phillip Klass to UFOs (Phillip Klass and the FBI) got my mind going on a tangent about the often stated and accepted "fact" concerning skeptics/debunkers and "believers." We've all said it; that "believers/bleevers/woos" vs. "skeptics/debunkers/'bunkies" have, at their core, the same reason for their fanatical beliefs. For their stubborn, pathological clinging to their position. At some point, both sides are really doing the same thing for the same reasons. Just a part of human nature. (While I'm mainly discussing UFOs here the same applies to Bigfoot witnesses and Bigfoot "skeptics.") Not so fast. The usual disclaimers aside about the truly unbalanced, the reason for the "believers" insistence is not for the same reasons of the debunker, or even the so-called skeptic. For many a witness their encounter was goddamn intense and life changing. If the witness chooses to be open about their experience, and is repeatedly accused of being a liar (at best) or insane (at worst) and everything in between, the witness, depending on his or her personality, is not going to give up. But the relentless harassment (often verging on the illegal) coming from the faux skeptics is enough to drive anyone into varying states of anger, frustration and confusion. You can only bang your head against a wall so much before you get to the point of either shutting down --going away, never to discuss your experiences again, at least not openly-- or becoming a loud squeaky wheel that will persist. The so-called "believer" has something solid to stand behind: their experience. What that experience was, why it was, and all of the rest surrounding paranormal, Fortean phenomena, is something else. But the fact of the experience is true. It happened. The skeptics (term used loosely) have nothing. Just their pathological and nasty knee jerk responses. The vulnerabilities of witnesses are not respected, but considered toys for their sneering amusement. They, like religious fanatics, often arrogantly present themselves as warriors in the great crusade against a perceived irrationally. But that's not based on anything. Least of all the witness of the UFO, or a Sasquatch, or even the more unbelievable things seen between our worlds.

Dancing 'round the teapot --- again

Naturally enough, the skeptic-debunkoid world has been attempting to debunk the 1950 Paul Trent UFO photos. That's to be expected. And sometimes those who pretend to be inside the gates of UFO Land like to stir things up, which is confusing. Until we remember that the Trickster element is firmly at home with this kind of thing. With the James Randi/Oberg/Nye/Mcgaha types, it's no surprise. We know exactly where those bunkies stand. Not quite so clear with some others. No matter though, as long as a few things are kept in mind:

• The afore mentioned overall Trickster element
• Some people love to stir things up simply because they can
• Oh, a bunch of other stuff I don't care about; the usual about egos and cruelty and meanness and downright illegal behaviors that thrives in the muckier side of UFO research.

This is all leading up to the recent flurry of little pieces once again teasing us with disingenuous items presenting as really-deep-research exposing the Trent photos as hoaxed images. Maybe. Could be. Maybe they're weren't. Were they? We'll see. Possibly.

Yes, it's like that. Oy.

Here some links, you can Google the rest and so on.

Personally, from all that I've read -- and observing on the periphery the Trent family at the McMinnville UFO fests -- I think the photos are genuine. And if they're not, well, then they're not. Such is life in UFO Land. But so far, no one has proven them to be fakes. Speculations about "city folk vs. poor farm folk" and such, while amusing in its dated classist way, isn't earth shattering news.

Most recent:
The Orange Orb: Revisiting the Tempest in a Teapot: McMinnville UFO Photos Faked. Again.
Simple Farm Folk vs. The City Slickers
And so...

They were at it years ago:
The Trent Trickster Three
A "Lost" Trent Farm Photo Surfaces?
The Trent Tempest

Frame 352: Why is (almost) Everyone Giving Dr. Melba Ketchum a Hard Time?

Dr. Melba Ketchum is trying to do something about the evidence she has. She's getting it tested all over the place, it's quite a collection of evidence, and the results are interesting. Yet science isn't having much of it. Nor, it turns out, are some in Bigfoot world. Excerpt from my post at my bigfoot blog:

Frame 352: Why is (almost) Everyone Giving Dr. Melba Ketchum a Hard Time?: According to Ketchum, one scientist threatened to sue her and her team if they used his findings; that's how angry he was over the subject of her research -- and how afraid he remains of being associated in any way with Bigfoot research.

Then there's the infamous "peer reviewed" journal citation that gives any researcher the cred they need to be accepted in mainstream science and academia. It's a crazy loop: you have to be accepted by the very types of individuals who think you're nuts to be doing this kind of research in the first place, so you're not going to be accepted. Not having been accepted, your research is nothing. If her research isn't accepted into an accepted scientific journal, she's out. So is the star of this thing: Bigfoot.

Virginia woman sues over 'fortune-teller' label

This is from 2010, but the case is on-going, and of course they're going at it over on the JREF. Virginia woman sues over 'fortune-teller' label | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

What's interesting is the assumption Patricia Moore-King, the psychic, is full of crap. Not by the skeptoids; that's a given they'd think that. But the judge cites other fake psychics:

"Fortune-tellers have fleeced people in the past," the judge said. "... For all we know she's been involved in chicanery elsewhere in the United States and doesn't want her background checked."

Here's where things are now: Court to hear arguments in case of Va. psychic:

Moore-King, who operates as “Psychic Sophie,” claims county zoning and licensing regulations for fortune tellers violate her constitutional rights to free exercise of religion, speech and equal protection. The zoning law relegates Moore-King’s business to areas populated by trailer parks, towing lots, lumber yards and utility service buildings.

The judge called her website "deceptive" but I couldn't find anything deceptive about it. This is the opening paragraphs from Sophie's page:

People have asked me, what kind of psychic are you? I have to laugh when I hear this question, as part of the answer lay in over-coming commonly held misconceptions. Psychics do not know all things at all times. We know some things, sometimes, other things at other times, and often, we have no idea why certain things come at certain times, they just do. We probably don’t know what someone had for breakfast, unless they’re wearing some of it, and we often forget where we parked our car. Most of us dress in jeans, not loud caftans, some wear a baseball cap or beret, not a sparkly turban, and if we wear make-up at all, it isn’t usually applied with a spatula or spray-gun. Sometimes, we aren’t all here, figuratively speaking; so no surprise if we appear a bit eccentric. If I get a glazed look to my eyes, it won’t be from staring into a crystal ball. Usually, I look away from my clients and focus on a corner. This is because I am getting information and don’t want distraction, and not because I have suddenly gone mad or decided to study the intricacies of carpeting or crown molding. Would you laugh if I said I KNOW what brought you here? All joking aside, it doesn’t take a psychic to figure out that many people, who seek the services of a psychic, are motivated by a desire to find one who is legitimate and accurate. I possess these traits, but I confess I have a different motivation where it concerns my clients. My level of psychic accuracy is important, to be sure, but accuracy in and of itself is really a small part of a much bigger whole. It is what one does with the information presented that really counts, and this is what motivates me.

I don't find anything "deceptive" there.

Classification of a thread: 'Where does the skeptical community stand on transsexualism?'

Wondering why this thread: Where does the skeptical community stand on transsexualism? - JREF Forum is in the "General Skepticism and Paranormal" category? How very odd.

For the record, I don't give a damn who does what with their sexuality (abuse to non-consenting others being the deal breaker) and I support all manner of sexual rights: gay, bisexual, pansexual, monosexual, transsexual, etc. You do what you have to do. You do what you want to do; that's a legitimate right when it comes to sex (again, excluding the non-consensual.) As the song says, "Nobody's business if I do." But again, I ask you, what is this doing in the "paranormal" section? Oh those curious little skeptics!

JREF asks: 'KVAL TV News 13 worst at paranormal promotion?'

New thread at James Randi discussion forum:KVAL TV News 13 worst at paranormal promotion? - JREF Forum. Reason I'm so interested is because KVAL is right here in my town of Eugene. Just about three miles or so from here in fact. Heh. I even used to know one of the producers at that station. In fact, my sighting of the "orange orb" UFO -- complete with missing time -- occurred all those years ago at the bottom of the road leading up to that station.

Anyway. Seems the OP is irritated at KVAL for being "the worst" as far as promoting paranormal claims.  KVAL promotes Oregon psychic Laurie McQuary. I don't know anything of McQuary either way, but that's beside the point. I love it when the uber skeptoids get up in arms about stuff like this from the media; the MSM is full of it, whether the subject is a psychic, the war (any way, pick one), the economy, you name it. Expecting "truth" and balance from the empty headed smiling made up Barbies and Kens on the "news" is naive.


McQuary is in the Portland area, here's a link.

[Merged] Rebecca Watson's article in Slate - Page 26 - JREF Forum

Now I'm not one to support a skepti-bunny, but I tell you, skeptic Rebecca Watson is still taking a lot of shit for her personal opinions/feelings on misogynist behavior from other skeptics. This fact has really, and I mean really, pissed off a whole lot of people. [Merged] Rebecca Watson's article in Slate - Page 26 - JREF Forum

The usual skeptic tactics have been brought out: nit-picking, combative, ridiculous demands for "citations" and "proof" -- this in a philosophical/political/personal opinion milieu, mind you.

But what is both ironic and very disturbing is that pure good old sexism, in all its arrogant, stupid, fearful, throw-back responses, is alive in the skeptic world as elsewhere. Yes, all those intellectual, superior, better educated, smarter than the rest of us, and above all, critically thinking men (and not a few women among them), are as sexist as the rest of the world.

Sigh.

JREF: BF and Other Cryptid Hoaxes

More on the JREF thread I posted here the other day, on BF witnesses being "talked into" seeing Bigfoot.

Bigfoot doesn't exist, and witnesses who say they've seen one are liars. Skeptoids posting away at the James Randi forum just come right out and say it: liars. As if that's not bemusing enough, there's the suggestion a group of skeptibunkies get together and hoax stuff. For example, this post from "AlaskaBushPilot":

Does the BFRO (and other BF researchers) talk people into seeing Bigfoot? - JREF Forum

What would be a fun experiment is having a group of us set out with an entirely new animal to claim sightings for. It needs to fly, and not be real large, but have something unique that is good for marketing, like a hominid head or whatever, and it needs to be discovered around nuclear power plants or chemical dumps where a DNA mutation story can be weaved.

Notice that this is referred to as an "experiment" to give it validity and give it that science-y vibe.

However, "Nightwalker" makes a good point about BF witnesses telling stories of their encounters, as well as the hoaxers, as "folklore" and suggests forum members discuss BF because:

We’re all here drawn like moths to the flame by the Bigfoot phenomenon. Same as the believers. Let us aim for scepticism rather than cynicism…

I disagree with NW's point that BF stories, while indeed folklore, are not true, but at least the poster seems fairly rational. This fine point concerning folklore, etc. is lost among many however.

It always gets down to this for me when it comes to BF accounts. If you're going to be so pathologically bald faced and call someone a liar, well, ... first of all, let's hope said BF witness isn't the kind to haul off and slug ya. Do these skeptibunkies truly believe, in their little hearts, that everybody who's seen a BF -- put another way, a damn weird and strange creature the likes of which they've never seen before and have no name for, hence, "Bigfoot" --- are simply lying?

Paranormalia: Ghosts in the Media

Paranormalia

When Randi's Prize was published two years ago the press lady recommended it be timed to coincide with Halloween. To me, having pretensions to seriousness, that seemed a bit cheesy. However on reflection it made sense. It didn't help much in the end, but the principle was sound. Halloween is the one time of year when the chatterati allow themselves to talk about the paranormal without feeling guilty or embarrassed - an excuse for intellectual slumming.

So it's no surprise to see Roger Clarke's A Natural History of Ghosts getting a the sort of coverage I'd love to have had - a big spread on the news pages of the Sunday Times, in addition to a review in the supplement, and a long BBC radio discussion yesterday, among others. But of course to achieve that, Clarke had to make the kind of concession that I would not have been capable of, writing about ghosts in a detached way, as a slight and amusing curiosity. Like other books I've seen - Peter Lamont's on Daniel Home, for instance - it's artfully constructed to entertain readers but without frightening them into thinking that ghosts might be more than some curious hallucinatory episode or cultural belief.

JREF Asks: Can You Be Talked Into Seeing Bigfoot?

(cross posted at Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch) As some readers of this blog and my other blogs -- like SkeptiWatch-- might know, I've been intrigued by the excess of Bigfoot threads on the James Randi forum. I've lost literal count ages ago, but it's something like 400 separate threads discussing Bigfoot. Okay, so it's not 400. But it's a flipping lot. At last count it was around 35. Here's the latest: Does the BFRO (and other BF researchers) talk people into seeing Bigfoot? - JREF Forum

I've never seen a Bigfoot, but if I were to see one, I'd be pretty damn sure that I did, indeed, see one, and that no one "talked me into it." Maybe it's because of my life long experiences with UFOs and other paranormal phenomena that keeps me so damn interested in witness accounts of their Bigfoot encounters. As with UFOs and ghosts, when you see something that is so absolutely there, and so absolutely not "normal", you damn well know it. No one has to talk me into anything.

The OP at the forum makes use of the expected debunker-skeptoid arsenal: accusations of BF witnesses feeling special because they've seen Bigfoot and you haven't. (The same tactic is used to marginalize UFO witnesses.) Leading the witness; as in:

"...say you heard a noise you couldn't ID out in the woods. You mention it to a friend, who says, dude, maybe it was a Bigfoot, you should contact the BFRO (or whatever Bigfoot org. is handiest). So you do, and they ask you all kinds of leading Qs until you start to feel really special, like you're one of the witnesses or whatevr they call them, that's it, the KNOWERS. You are now a KNOWER and think maybe that's really what it was. You now feel very special.

(Er, "...witnesses or whatever they call them" ???)

While it's true there are those that think every unusual sound is a "Squatch" or UFOs by definition mean "aliens from outer space" but really, let's move on from that given and get to the actual phenomena.

And that's the latest from the good ol' JREF.

Psychologist dives into seances and ‘contacting the dead’ | Vancouver Sun

"...instead of debunking the mystery, we should be humbled by it.” ~ Dr. Leonard George.

Lovely and very interesting article on Dr George becoming a medium.

Oh Dear: 'Philip Coppens' Falsehood about Imhotep's Alleged Admission of Alien Pyramid-Building Help'

It just gets so surreal. "Lies" as defined by the skeptibunkie... oh how very interesting! Philip Coppens' Falsehood about Imhotep's Alleged Admission of Alien Pyramid-Building Help - JasonColavito.com

Chris White Re-bunks: 'Debunking Ancient Aliens Debunked..Debunked. My Response to Philip Coppens'

As I replied to Terry the Censor's comment in the post below, one thing skeptoids are known for is their "rabid terrier like tenacity." That ending paragraphs of White's re-bunking illustrates this pathological wont of the skeptibunkie. Italics are Coppens comments, bold are White's, mine in blue:

Finally, I would like to tackle the section on Ezekiel, but quite frankly, this section was incomprehensible to me. I do not understand what his argument is, apart from the obvious fact we are clearly and obviously wrong.t.

Ok, I have nothing to say if you don’t. ( In other words, as long as Coppens or whoever the object of debunkery is keeps quiet, all is good.)

PS. It is now entirely possible that this reply will be used to create another reply, in the vain hope of trying to elicit from me another reply, so that the debate goes on endlessly, with loads of blablabla. (Coppens is correct of course.) As far as I am concerned, the debate ends here. The very reason why this reply was created, was because people wanted me to reply and hear my opinion on the documentary, so I did. In truth, I feel I have written more than 4100 words that I could have written about far more important topics than Mr. White’s documentary.

I would not have written this if the arguments you put forward didn’t deserve to be addressed. (Ah. Well, there it is.)

Debunking Ancient Aliens Debunked..Debunked. My Response to Philip Coppens | Nowhere To Run with Chris White

Phillip Coppens Debunks the Debunker

Ah, those debunkers. They didn't really think they could get away with it, did they? :)

Phillip Coppens debunks the debunkers.

“Ancient Aliens Debunked” is a YouTube released, 190 minutes long documentary by Chris White. In the documentary, he tackles 16 topics that in his opinion form the backbone of the Ancient Alien Hypothesis, which White claims he conclusively refutes, which in his opinion conclusively proves that the evidence presented in the series Ancient Aliens is factually incorrect and worse, he claims, sets out to deceive.
He concludes: “The main thing I want to stress is that I’m not trying to suggest that, while Ancient Aliens got a few claims wrong, there’s room for truth in their main theory. That, in light of this information, is not a tenable position. You have just witnessed the unmistakable symptoms of the entire theory being wrong.”

This is a heavy claim to make! In short, he argues that in his opinion the series has failed to show we were visited by ancient aliens and implies we should therefore forget all about it! So it is now up to television series to prove or disprove scientific theories? Wow! It’s a heavy burden to place on any television series! Far more importantly, it would leave the likes of Carl Sagan flabbergasted, as he felt there was good evidence to look into a number of ancient contact scenarios, especially the story of Oannes – which for some reason, White does not include in this documentary. Why?

Chris White, in typical debunker skeptoid guerrilla tactics, tries the usual. Coppens doesn't let him get away with it, addressing many points in White's documentary. Like this one:

When he goes after Tsoukalos for not knowing that the material at Puma Punku is andesite, while Tsoukalos says diorite, White doesn’t seem to realize there is no true difference between those two, or deliberately chooses to ignore or reference that! Yes, Tsoukalos is wrong, but it is truly a tiny error. The two rocks are equivalents, but are given different names because of the manner in which they were created. But when it comes to hardness, there is no difference. White fails to point that even though Tsoukalos is indeed in error, this error does not change the debate. But wait, instead, White pretends the error does change the debate. It does not. [Bolding mine for emphasis]

Binnall of America: A Few Favorite Skeptic Threads

My new Trickster's Realm is now available at Binnall of America: A Few Favorite Skeptic Threads

'Legal Ramifications of Shooting a Kid in a Bigfoot Suit' - JREF Forum

Yet another Bigfoot related thread on the ol' JREF:Legal Ramifications of Shooting a Kid in a Bigfoot Suit - JREF Forum. Besides the expected parsing of fantasy Bigfoot hunting, is this sexist comment from "Mike" :

Kid's asking for it. It's like wearing a mini-skirt to a biker bar.

Point is, ass clowns who call themselves "Bigfoot investigators" out to shoot themselves a Sasquatch are nothing of the kind, and idiots who dress up like BF, while not "deserving" to get shot, are surely being highly irresponsible and taking great risks.

Hunters are protected in this country; if you get shot or killed during hunting season, it is always the victim's fault, never the hunter's. That aside, going out to kill a Bigfoot is a despicable action, and going outdoors dressed in a BF costume is beyond stupid.

Travis and I see a chupacabra…. | Two Different Girls

A skeptic takes a very reasonable, and true skeptical view, on the witnessing of an odd thing. (I take a mild nit picking issue with her comment "... I certainly do not believe we saw a chupacabra" because of the morphing history of the word, and motif, of "chupacabra.")

Travis and I see a chupacabra…. | Two Different Girls

 The problem with this is that whenever we tell anyone what we have seen, and most of our friends are skeptics, they say “Well, it was just a dog with mange”. We don’t hear, “It might have been a dog with mange.” We don’t hear “Do you think it was a dog with mange?” We get “It was a dog with mange.”

No, it was not a dog with mange, unless it was a Great Dane with mange that was half kangaroo.

Travis and I learned a great lesson, which is to treat people reporting an unusual sighting with respect and not to “tell” them what they’ve seen. There is a lot of weird stuff out there.

---

How to Argue on the Internet Without Becoming a Troll

This is so very good. I've been guilty of doing some of these in the past but yes, very good to know! How to Argue on the Internet Without Becoming a Troll

Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

Oh dear. See, told you folks -- and some say I'm paranoid. Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia

ROBERT SHEAFFER’S BOGUS CLAIMS ON NAT GEO’S “SECRET HISTORY OF UFOs”: INCOMPETENCE OR DISINFORMATION?

ROBERT SHEAFFER’S BOGUS CLAIMS ON NAT GEO’S “SECRET HISTORY OF UFOs”: INCOMPETENCE OR DISINFORMATION?

Frank Warren asks "...incompetence or disinformation" and I'm of the mind that these "skeptics" know better. They know exactly what they're doing. Disinfo for sure. Anyway, very good piece on UFO Chronicles.

The Science Delusion | Fortean Bureau of Investigation | Features | Fortean Times UK

From April Fortean Times: interview with Rupert Sheldrake.The Science Delusion | Fortean Bureau of Investigation | Features | Fortean Times UK

Paranormal Investigator is to Skeptic is to...

Debunker uber-skeptic Joe Nickel calls himself a "paranormal investigator." Disingenuous, of course, and he is no more a paranormal investigator than I'm a size 2 blonde than can jog in high heels. Technically, if one wants to get semantical, he is a "paranormal investigator." ("The world's only professional paranormal investigator" as he calls himself, according to a recent Coast to Coast appearance.) He investigates. (arguable, but okay) and what he investigates is the paranormal. As well as other anomalous, Fortean events. So if one wants to buy into the folksy mild mannered good guy routine of Joe Nickel and allow him the strict definition of paranormal investigator, have fun playing. I don't have the patience for the nonsense.

Frame 352: Debunker Radford: Could Escaped Animals Account for Bigfoot Sightings? | LiveScience

He didn't, did he? Yep, he did! Frame 352: Debunker Radford: Could Escaped Animals Account for Bigfoot Sightings? | LiveScience

New Loch Ness Photo: a disappointing reaction from the skeptical community : Hayley is a ghost

Not bad for a skeptic, on the latest Loch Ness photo:New Loch Ness Photo: a disappointing reaction from the skeptical community | Hayley is a ghost

The UFO Proletariat: CSI Skeptic Robert Sheaffer Doubts the U.S. Government Uses the Media to Debunk UFOs

Via Robert Hastings at UFO Chronicles:The UFO Proletariat: CSI Skeptic Robert Sheaffer Doubts the U.S. Government Uses the Media to Debunk UFOs

From Pharyngula: "Did Ancient Aliens visit the earth and guide human evolution?"

The big question.Did Ancient Aliens visit the earth and guide human evolution? – Pharyngula And answered, in the first succint paragraph:

No.

PZ Meyers, author of the article sneers and does all the usual skeptoid things concerning aliens, ET, UFOs, etc. It's also an in your face smug-fest of how correct the bunkers are, and how not just wrong alien astronaut researchers are, but how damn hysterically funny they are in their mentally deranged state.

Best of all, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos is called "notorious."

Really, no point to this except, well, there they go again.

Divinorum Psychonauticus: The Zealots of Doubt, or why skeptics are the new cranks

Such a very excellent piece: Divinorum Psychonauticus: The Zealots of Doubt, or why skeptics are the new cranks So much is quote worthy, but I'll choose this one:

The thing is, those open to the mysteries include all sorts of high level pols and deep thinkers, but the few skinny little shitheads who know nothing about the topic just get to mouth the popular reactionary opinion like an invisible throng of supporters is continually applauding them. They get on TV because, in the end, the TV suits want this weird shit couched in doubt... only Ancient Aliens rises above, realizing that dismissive 'experts' just sound as outgunned as celibacy-advocating virgins at a Haight Ashbury acid test.

On many UFO, ghost, paranormal programs the skeptics make the usual appearance. Panel shows are great at that. Even if the majority of panelists are witnesses to UFOs or what have you, there's at least one so-called skeptic. The reason for this, producers say, is "balance." The real reason is just as Erich comments; that, "...in the end, the TV suits want this weird shit couched in doubt..." And the pathological debunkers happily oblige.

Bigfoot Evidence: Skeptic Norman Carlson Is Offering $10,000 For A Bigfoot Specimen

Another over the top publicity stump for the skeptioid movement:Bigfoot Evidence: Skeptic Norman Carlson Is Offering $10,000 For A Bigfoot Specimen

BBC NEWS - 'Pilot fatigue' caused Air Canada jet dive

This link: BBC NEWS - 'Pilot fatigue' caused Air Canada jet dive was posted on the JREF under the heading "There's a lesson for you UFOlogists here..." No, there isn't. There's a lesson for the corporate and bureaucratic greed that demands pilots -- who are astoundingly underpaid for the work they do -- fly when exhausted. Ah, but the OP uses this story to marginalize the idea that pilots are trained observers.

Michael Prescott's Blog: Pep talk

Michael Prescott suggests that the pathological "skepticism" of debunkers/skeptoids is magical thinking. You know I love this article!Michael Prescott's Blog: Pep talk The comments that follow are interesting to read, including one where the poster "maintains" and "affirms" and "believes" a long list of -isms that are not religious, but anti-religious/spiritual/metaphysical. There is a place where the lines do blur. . .

Quiz Results: How Much do you know about Skepticism?

Perfect score for me! Although, very easy and only 10 questions. Quiz Results

Bigfoot Lunch Club: ISU Professors Argue About Sasquatch Funding, Critical Professor Invokes the "Easter Bunny Argument"

As blogger Guy Edwards notes, it is very odd Dr. Jeff Meldrum is not mentioned in this academic squabble:Bigfoot Lunch Club: ISU Professors Argue About Sasquatch Funding, Critical Professor Invokes the "Easter Bunny Argument" by Martin Hackworth. (Note Forteam name-game language of last name.)It is truly amazing how the majority of the scientific culture continues to frame Bigfoot as, well, in Hackworth's own words, "silly."

In a truly astounding loop of "logic" Hackworth explains why researching Bigfoot is silly and unscientific:

I also stated (no insinuation) rather plainly that the scientific pursuit of Bigfoot, sans any compelling evidence, is foolish. Perhaps the insulation, to which he refers, rests in the notion that if I think that the scientific aspirations of Bigfoot, et. al., are scientifically dubious, I also think that those who hold these notions, by extension, could be dubious as scientists.

Russell Targ on Coast to Coast AM

Physicist Russell Targ is the guest tonight on:Home - Coast to Coast AM

UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

From UFO Chronicles: UFO Debunkers: Irrational, Uninformed and Ignorant

Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena by George P. Hansen

James Randi is at it again, with the familiar skeptic meme that magicians are really in the know when it comes to exposing woo for the sham trickery it is. The logic in that perspective seems to be "since it can be faked on stage it's all fake." Scientists can learn much from this factoid, according to Randi, since magicians are trained to spot tom foolery and fakers, while scientists are not. Randi would have us believe the majority of magicians are on his side. However, George Hansen points out that not all stage magicians follow  the Randi party line:Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena by George P. Hansen (Much thanks to The Daily Grail for links.)

"When Skeptics Attack for the Sake of Attacking"

A skeptic attacks a skeptic for giving skeptics a bad name. In this case, Ryan Dube takes Myron Getman to task for ridiculous -- and hypocritical -- attacks on Loren Coleman. Apparently the fact that Loren Coleman exists annoys the hell out of Getman. Who, by the way, likes to call himself "The Mad Skeptic." When Skeptics Attack for the Sake of Attacking | Top Secret Writers

From A Different Perspective: Philip Klass, Travis Walton and Steve Pierce, Part Two

Kevin Randle with more on what Klass was capable of, what some of us wouldn't put past him, what he might have done, and what the skeptoids are frothing at... now, to be fair, Randle is always the professional and isn't striking a thumbing your nose at it all stance like I am. He's level headed and fair. Me, well, you all know what I think when it comes to skeptibunkies. A Different Perspective: Philip Klass, Travis Walton and Steve Pierce, Part Two

New BF Thread on JREF:Relict Hominoid Inquiry, an online bigfoot journal

Okay, the total number of threads about Bigfoot on the James Randi discussion forum numbers oh, I'd say 3,000 or so. All right, so not maybe that many. But there are a lot. Here's their latest: Relict Hominoid Inquiry, an online bigfoot journal - JREF Forum

From Bigfoot Lunch Club: Skeptic Assumes Too Much in Cryptomundo Attack

Bigfoot Lunch Club: Skeptic Assumes Too Much in Cryptomundo Attack

Full Disclosure: Bigfoot Lunch Club is a contributor to Cryptomundo and we have the highest regard for skeptics. Skepticism, in our mind, requires discipline and rigor. We even have a few favorite skeptics we follow, Sharon Hill of Doubtful News and Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com. These are two skeptics that are very good at articulating arguments and they do their research.

Then there are those who don't do their homework. This brings me to Myron Getman of The Mad Skeptic and Bobby Nelson from The Bent Spoon Magazine. Recently, Myron created a truly funny post that could have been respected as satire, had it not ventured into unfounded assumptions. The gist of Myron's argument is, "...Coleman and Craig Woolheater's favorite tactics to generate traffic -- SEO tactics and, more specifically, the use of keywords." Myron bases this assumption on his previous experience as an SEO writer.

A Different Perspective: Billy Cox and Philip Klass

Famed UFO researcher Kevin Randle writes about the late skeptic   uber-debunker Philip Klass, and there are those who don't like what Randle has to say one bit: A Different Perspective: Billy Cox and Philip Klass

Billy Cox, over at the Herald-Tribune has written a short piece called, “Klass act, no principles,” In it he suggests that Steve Pierce, a buddy of Travis Walton, he of Fire in the Sky and abduction fame (see here at the 2011 Roswell Festival), had been offered, by Klass, ten thousand dollars to say that they had hoaxed the whole thing.

My first reaction was to reject this idea because, even for Klass, it seemed a bit excessive. And then I thought back to the long article I had posted here about Klass and his attacks on witnesses and researchers and his attempts to make their lives miserable. For a full analysis, see my September 11, 2011 blog entry about Klass’ letter writing campaign.

Those not liking what Randle has to say -- which is basically offering his opinion that he wouldn't put it past Klass (nor would I) -- are the usual suspects, and won't put up with such blasphemous musings.

Cox's article ( A Different Perspective: Billy Cox and Philip Klass) has generated much rallying to the skeptoid cause on several sites and blogs. Why, the very idea that Klass might have done such things in the crusade against UFOs! Cox relates one encounter with Klass which illustrates the late debunkers tactics very well, and, as Cox writes, in a "creepy" way:

The next day, I met Klass at a deli for lunch. He repeated his assertion that Strieber was plagued with frontal lobe epilepsy. Then he lowered his voice, drawing yet another reporter into his sage confidence, and said he wanted to go off the record. “Whitley Strieber is a troubled man,” he said. He produced a sad smile, like some wise old avuncular Yoda. “Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries to take his own life.” Goosebumps.

JREF Thread: "Should Bigfoot Be Shot?"

A JREF thread posing the question: "Should Bigfoot Be Shot?" Many are against shooting a BF, but some are all for it. But the following is disturbing for not only the pro-kill belief, but the "it's okay to "wound" a possible human" stance:
Should Bigfoot be shot? Hypothetical... - JREF Forum:

I'd shoot to cripple, not to kill. Chances are it's a human; no felony charges involved if you don't kill them. And on the (very) off chance that it is the Boss of the Woods, a crippled one still proves the existence of the species.

Then there's this comment from notorious skeptoid (ain't no such thing as a Bigfoot!) "Parnassus":

Anyone who takes a shot at a "bigfoot" should be sent to jail, and have his hunting privileges permanently removed. I'd never hunt with anyone who had some idea that bigfoot was real.

Slightly confusing: he thinks shooting Bigfoot merits jail time (agreed!) yet he wouldn't go hunting with "anyone who had some idea that bigfoot was real."

Other posts include disgusting accounts of moose killing and photos of animal skins.

Banning Natural Medicine in Educational Institutions

Modern Book Burning: Banning Natural Medicine in Educational Institutions | Gaia Health

(And some say athesism/skepticism isn't a religion...)

An Australian group of doctors and modern medical researchers call themselves Friends of Science in Medicine. They have set themselves up as the arbiters of what may or may not be taught, and what modes of treatment insurance companies may cover. To this end, they are calling for the end of alternative medicine training in universities.

Their attacks include any and all alternatives: traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathic, and aromatherapy. What all of these therapies have in common is that they’re a threat to the chosen modality of the FOSM: often deadly conventional medicine based on Big Pharma’s toxic drugs and invasive treatments.

If they were truly confident in their field, it’s hard to believe that they’d have the slightest concern about the teaching of alternatives. Instead, they’re using jackbooted methods in an attempt to destroy the competition.

Article provides link to protest the would-be censors.

Humanists seek Army designation | JournalNow.com

I don't consider myself quite a Humanist, if only because of their complete lack (usually) of interest or "belief" in anything supernatural/metaphysical...but it's a good start in doing away with the dichotomy of god-baby-jesus vs. utter nothingness: Humanists seek Army designation | JournalNow.com

Soldiers who don't believe in God can go to war with "atheist" stamped on their dog tags, but humanists and others with various secular beliefs are still officially invisible in the Army.

Maj. Ray Bradley is currently to be the first humanist recognized as a "distinctive faith group leader" by the Army. In the meantime, he can't be designated as a humanist on his official records or dog tags, although he can be classified as an atheist.

The distinction may not seem like a large one to those unfamiliar with humanism, but Bradley, based at Fort Bragg, says it's the equivalent of being told that "Christian" is an acceptable designation, but not "Catholic."

"Humanism is a philosophy that guides a person," Bradley said. "It's more than just a stamp of what you're not."

Humanism's core beliefs range from the assertion that knowledge of the world is derived from observation and rational analysis to the conviction that working to help others also promotes individual happiness.

Practical Mediumship/ Open Lines - Shows - Coast to Coast AM

Practical Mediumship/ Open Lines - Shows - Coast to Coast AM

In the first half, George Noory hosts Dr. Ian Rubenstein, who will share the story of how he went from a skeptical doctor to studying mediumship and his attemps to combine the two practices. Open Lines will follow.

"Heated Debate" on Magonia

My post below received two comments from people who have their noses out of joint for writing about debunkers.  Who, me, attacking skeptoids? How dare I? It's "cheap and ridiculous" as one wrote. (tres patronizing dahlings!) You all know me over here dahlings and you know I think that's funny, and you also know I will not respond (not directly anyway :) to such remarks. However. The article that I was commenting on in the post below has generated a lot of comments:

Peter Rogerson's review of Whitley Strieber's latest book has stimulated more hits than anything else published on this blog except our obituary of Hilary Evans, and far more comments (17 as I write this, including one from the man himself) than anything else we've published.

So many comments that a new page has been appointed for an on-going debate concerning Strieber. I don't plan on commenting over there, even if such wise and articulate men like Tyler Kokjohn and red pill junkie (The Daily Grail) are. But if you're interested, take a look and maybe join in the discussion.

Red Lights | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

The Daily Grail brings us a very good clip: previews of the movie Red Lights, starring Robert de Niro and Sigourney Weaver. Skeptics, scientists, psychics -- promises to be good. As one reader commented, let's hope they don't end the movie with some contrived explanation. Don't know where the film will go but it looks like a well made film with great actors, suspense and paranormal drama. (Also posted over there on he same entry are some Ghost Adventure clips with skeptic Shermer: priceless!)Red Lights | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History: See video

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 investigate 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