Revisiting a Classic: The Goblin Universe, and A Word About Sceptics

Revisiting the classic book The Goblin Universe, by Ted Holiday, and an introduction by Colin Wilson. This book is one of those musts for anyone interested in Fortean phenomena.

In the introduction, Wilson refers to Professor James Hyslop, who had this to say about skeptics:

I regard the existence of discarnate spirits as scientifically proved, and I no longer refer to the sceptic as having any right to speak on the subject. Any man who does not accept the existence of discarnate spirits and the proof of it is either ignorant or a moral coward. I give him short shrift, and do not propose to argue with him on the supposition that he knows nothing about the subject.

And, as Wilson writes in the same introduction:

The real problem, I would suggest, is not lack of evidence, but lack of an overall theory to explain the evidence.

---

McMinnville, Oregon UFO here

Insidious Round About Book Banning: Where is the JREF?

In a weirdly under reported story . . .

seems a law was passed in January: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which makes it illegal to sell vintage children's books. Vintage being anything printed before 1985. The reason for this is the lead content in printer's ink; fears about harm to children (supposedly) was the cause for the law. I fear that there's far more than some concern over children's health at work here, and I've been writing about it over at Octopus Confessional, American Chronicle, Vintage UFO, and Women of Esoterica.

This isn't a conspiracy, this is fact, and now and then an item about this pops up in print, for example, in my local paper today. The item was from the Washington Post, and appeared in today's paper -- April 19 -- but when I went to look up the article on-line, found that it was from March. Among all the other strangeness concerning this story, why is a three week old item published, instead of newer, more relavant articles about this story?

All over the U.S., booksellers, libraries, etc. are ridding their shelves of books, either putting them in storage or sadly, burning the books. Book sellers found a loophole; supposedly it's okay to sell the books if it's made clear they are collectibles, and are sold to adults who are collectors of vintage children's literature.

So I wondered what the skekptoids at the JREF had to say about this. I rarely look at the other sections on the forum; sticking to the "General Skepticism and the Paranormal" category. Curious, I explored the "History, literature and the arts," section, then the Social Issues and Current Events section, and didn't find any thread on this topic. That's not to say there isn't one, just that I didn't find one. They're too busy discussing ways to manipulate your poor deluded friends and loved ones into coming over to the skeptoid side.

Pink RayGun, a skeptic blog, did post about this, and even alluded to feelings twinges of conspiracies just below the surface.

Skepti Manipulators, and Proud of It!

One of the scarier things I've read over at JREF, as well as ironic, is The Skeptical Manipulation, by Brian Govatos for the SWIFT newsletter. The piece is scary for its cult like adherence to the skeptoid doctrine that skeptics must, in the name of right thinking, "manipulate" until the skeptibunkie way is the way for all. Ironic, for uber-skeptics never, ever, recognize that this very perception, this way of seeing the world, is the same as any other form of fundamentalism, of a zealotry so strong it's frightening. It's also kind of amusing; I mean, I just never can get over the fact they're so damn serious about this stuff!

Govatos begins by telling us we all like it when others come around to our way of thinking. When others also like the brands, products, foods, movies, books and so on that we like, we are pleased. We try to get the other person to become a Mac person. But here's where we part ways; while what Govatos says is true to a point, it's a matter of degree. Sure, I like it when someone realizes that Macs are better than PCs, or musicals aren't stupid, but I really don't care. I'm too old to care. I have other things to do than worry about whether or not my friends or family use a PC or not, can get into Samurai films, or what have you. I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone; I say my piece, and go about my way.

He then jumps from that idea to one of manipulation -- we all manipulate, he tells us, and that's okay. I agree we all manipulate, and we all know some are excellent at manipulation, but not everyone is a manipulator, not consciously anyway, and not everyone is out to intentionally manipulate others. I'm not. Hell no. Like I said, I'm too old for such stupid games, and have other things to do. I put myself out there, "Here it is!" and you can like it or not.

It's this innate belief of the skeptoid mind set -- that everyone is out to manipulate -- that boggles my mind. What's more, Govatos is proud of the fact he manipulates, and in this article, tells you how to manipulate the poor deluded souls in your life to get them to think rationally.

I think of my own family; some are extremely, almost fundamentally religious and I don't understand it, don't much like it, but I'm not going to argue about it. In fact, I tried that a few times, and didn't like it one bit. I figure it's their business, and as long as nothing crazy is going on, like living on a compound and marrying off children to perverts, it's not my business.

Govatos is proud to be a manipulator, and wants you to be proud to be one too:

Iʼve been fairly successful at this conversion business, you should know. How? Itʼs simple; I employ manipulation. Does that sound dirty? It shouldn't; we manipulate each other all day, every day, and we certainly donʼt make any apologies for doing so. Sometimes it's as simple as letting a friend drive my car. In the driverʼs seat, they can easily have their own "A-Ha!" experience. Maybe they utterly hated my brand of car yesterday, but if they can feel it and experience it for themselves, and recognize that it's better; game over.

The difference is, I don't see things like this as a "game," and I don't give a damn if my friend likes Hondas or not. And letting someone drive my car isn't "manipulating" them anyway; it's letting them drive the car and they can decide for themselves. If they still don't like driving a Honda after they've driven my car, what, am I supposed to make them drive more Hondas til they cry uncle?

In a deliciously ironic moment Govatos writes:

"Skeptical manipulation is an interesting notion because all it really means to do is manipulate people to think for themselves."

Sure, unless of course one entertains or believes any of the so-called kook stuff the skeptic finds so anethemic to their world of rationality.

So how do you manipulate the deluded? Govatos suggests you be "nice" for the IYF (in your face) tactics don't really seem to work; a dawning realization by many skeptoids these days. In fact, Govatos urges, be sympathetic:

I need you to do something that is going to feel absolutely yucky: Sympathize.

In other words, lie. After you've gained the trust of said relative, loved one or friend by being sympathetic, the harassment begins. Don't give up til they've seen the light of rationality. Bombard them with tracts, literature, links, information from Skeptoid World. Using astrology as an example, Govatos writes:

Fun though it may be, donʼt poke fun at the sucker for being part of this crime. Crime? Astrology?! Yes, crime. The crime against his life, the crime of making delusional decisions that affect his future. Heʼs been misled and misinformed. Continue finding ways to open the crack a little wider, so more light can shine on this topic. Donʼt give up on him until he has had his "A-HA!" moment in the driverʼs seat.

And while Govator uses astrology as an example, he says it could be anything at all; the technique is the same.

This is where it gets a little scary:

You should feel obligated to manipulate the bejesus out of those you care about in order to save them from harming themselves in any way. Does this sound a little like religious militance? Maybe a little, but Iʼm confident you can smell the difference. Iʼm not asking you to proselytize, Iʼm only asking that you help when you can.

Fanatics never think they're the ones to blame; they're the saved ones, saving others, don't you know. Govatos asks if we can "smell the difference" -- no, I can't.

If someone, after sharing their opinions and beliefs with me, didn't get the message that "thank you very much, but no thanks" and refuses to respect me, respect my home, my right to think and believe what I want, and continues to harass me -- no matter how nicely or "sympathetically" -- they're a creepy, thuggish bozo. Not someone I would want to know, not someone I would trust.

Seems like the one of the latest memes from Skeptoid World is "be nice, but don't let up -- ever."

Skeptoid Tactics: The Blogsquatcher on "Skeptify-ing"

Blogsquatcher has a good post on skeptoid techniques. This is something I've been commenting about for years. Sooooo many little techniques they use, including of course, the fact they use techniques. Their response to having been called out is to say something disingenuous like "Oh, well, if you mean by "technique" you mean critical thinking and logic, then, why, yes, we do have a "technique" if you will." Bleh.

I love Blogsquatcher's title: Skeptify me: Skeptics and their skepticky ways. In his piece, Blogsquatcher outlines tools the skeptibunkie uses when, er, "debating." For example, he writes:

Skeptics will use terms to name and devalue the position of their adversaries, to marginalize and ridicule them. I think of this as "naming and shaming," because once the position is named, you find yourself ashamed to be in that number.

Skeptoids call those who accept the reality, or even the possiblity, of such things like Bigfoot, as "believers" of course, as Blogsquatcher points out. Also Bigfooters, woos, you name it. Blogsquatcher says, of the term "believers" that it's wrong because, for most who've experienced the unusual, be it Bigfoot or UFOs, there is no "belief" involved:

...they like to call us "believers," implying that our acceptance of the fact that people see and experience bigfoot is an expression of faith, like religious faith. We believe in things unseen. The problem with that, of course, is that many believers have seen. It's what made them believers in the first place.

I don't believe in Bigfoot, Mothman, UFOs, aliens from space or ghosts. I don't pray to them. I don't expect them to save me, heal me, or anything else. I'm not sure that what we call "aliens" are literal ETs, for example. But I believe they exist, because I've either seen them, or, I consider the evidence strong enough to support their existence. All the while however, I realize I could be wrong. Although there's not a strong dichotomy there; right vs. wrong in the sense of real vs. unreal. There's a lot more in between, and that is what the skeptoids cannot, do not, and will not consider, let alone "believe."

Another tool is the "hoax" tool. Blogsquatcher comments on the technique the skeptoid uses to dismiss all UFO, Bigfoot and other paranormal, anomalous events. Since they can be hoaxed, and have been hoaxed, there are no UFOs, Bigfoot, etc. Seriously, does anyone think that kind of thinking on the skeptoid's part is logical and rational?

There is much, much more and I highly recommend his article. Since Blogsquatcher is a Bigfoot blog, his focus is on the skekptiod's tools in relation to Bigfoot, but what he says can be applied to any anomalous, Fortean context.

Shermer's Gorilla Suit Man

(also posted at my blog The Orange Orb.)

Michael Shermer, uber-skeptoid and professional debunker, did an experiment at the recent 2009 Science, Technology and Research Symposium in Charleston to show that Mothman (which he admits to knowing nothing about), Bigfoot (to which he says he does) and other paranormal/Fortean/esoteric/anomalous phenomena are figments of over-active imaginations, but more than that,illustrations of why we lie:

We already know that people lie; that happens all the time. ... The more interesting question is why do people fall for it," he said.

In other words, people who speak of witnessing UFOs or other strange events, are lying.

Sure, people lie about their experiences. They elaborate, embroider, exaggerate and outright lie. They hoax and they pull pranks. They're delusional and mentally ill, they're alcoholics and drug abusers. Some people. And for some people in that category, they present to the world tales of UFOs, strange creatures, aliens and visits to Venus.

Those aside, thousands upon thousands more people without that baggage -- and even with some of that baggage, does not automatically exclude the experience of such phenomena or cause it -- have encounters with the weird that cannot be explained by tired exercises into so-called rationality. Such as Shermer's. (Warning: ad hom ahead. "Smirking Shermer" as I like to call him. Come on, the man smirks for crying out loud. He's so taken with himself.)

Shermer instructs an audience to watch a video of basket ball players, watching for:

the number of times six young people passing basketballs, three of them in white shirts and three in black shirts. He asked the crowd to count how many times the three in white shirts passed the basketball to each other.

Afterward, Shermer had the crowd call out answers. Then he played the video again, telling everyone just to relax and not worry about counting passes this time. And to the amazement of many, about halfway through a person in a monkey suit walked from out-of-frame into the middle of the scene, paused, gave a friendly wave and then promptly walked off screen.

This proves, says Shermer, that people see what they want to see. Er, that means we don't want to see a man in a gorilla suit at the Lakers game?

What it says to me is this: when something weird and unexpected happens, especially in the midst of a mundane event, like a basketball game, we don't notice it. Which then means , that the weird, the unexpected, like say, a Mothman or a Bigfoot, even a UFO, goes right by us. It literally can be in front of our noses and we won't deal with the strangeness. In fact, when something highly unusual is going on, and the one or two people who do happen to be aware of it point it out to others, most people refuse to even look to see for themselves.

Shermer had his own out of body experience. Under laboratory conditions, don't you know. Which proves that no such thing as astral projection and OOBEs occur, since it can be recreated in the laboratory:

Shermer said he once had an out-of-body experience successfully recreated under laboratory conditions. It had nothing to do with his consciousness actually leaving his body.

This is another standard, and very tired meme of the uber-skeptic: that because something paranormal/anomalous can be recreated in the lab, it doesn't exist. Rather, it doesn't exist paranormally; of course it exists, they just recreated it! (The same is said of hoaxes, as the recent hoaxed UFO lights showed: to the skeptoid, UFO hoaxes "proves" that UFOs don't exist.)

Why do we insist upon "believing weird things" as Shermer so often phrases this conundrum of human existence? It has to do with evolution:

As for the reason people believe strange things, Shermer said it is rooted in humanity's evolutionary history and its psychological drive to connect invisible causes to the events around them. That movement in the grass may be the wind or it could be a predator.

Or fairies! It's fairies!

If we think of the movement in the grass as a predator, we're good ... Shermer concludes that if we think the worst: "better safe than sorry" then we believe that forces control the things we can't explain. Like a lion in the grass? Huh?

Shermer's presentation didn't prove a thing, but of course, the choir he preaches to think otherwise.

Soure: Science vs. ESP: Skeptic Ponders UFOs, Mothman

Tonight: Bill Nye on Coast to Coast

I know, I thought this was bizarre also but it's true; Bill Nye "the Science Guy" is on Coast to Coast right now. Oy.

The Skeptoid's Meme: "The Great UFO Hoax"

Article in Newsweek: The Great UFO Hoax. We know we're in trouble right away with the opening sentence:

If you prefer to keep a little magic in your life—by which I mean believing in the possibility of UFOs...

SIGH. One does not "believe" in UFOs, any more than one "believes" in a car, or a toaster. And do not respond with "We know what cars and toasters look like." Begley can't even get close to the serious consideration of the UFO phenomena; she uses the word "possibility." The point here however is the use of the meme that it's UFOs that are in question. UFOs are not in question. They exist. They've been filmed, photographed, and witnessed by millions of people all over the world. What they are is the question, not that they are. As long as the so-called skeptic insists on framing the UFO phenomena in this way, any authentic dialogue will never happen.

All right. Moving on. Begley continues with the story about two young skeptoids in training who hoaxed a UFO sighting. What Begley and the two young men ignore is the fact that, the lights they sent up in the night sky appeared as something unknown to any witnesses, and therefore, it's a UFO. And in fact, as Kevin Randle points out in his piece on his blog , A Different Perspective, witnesses described exactly what they saw:

The second witness was presented by the news media by way of his 911 call to the police, said, "I walked out of my house, it’s like these parachutes with these, uh, or balloons with these five lights flying over right now."

Seems to me that he hit the nail right on the head. No media types there to attempt to create the mystery for their broadcast. Just a witness seeing the five lights in the sky and suggesting balloons.

The local police, who offered a statement to KDTV said that the best guess was a prank with road side flares attached to helium balloons. Seems to me that the police nailed that as well.

Of course the hoaxers repeated the skeptoid meme that UFO researchers are out to make a quick buck. What ever are they thinking? For every show like a UFO Hunters, which, presumably, everyone makes some money from (and why shouldn't they?) there are thousands of UFO researchers who make very little, if any, money from their UFO interests. Even if they've written books, speak, appear on television, etc. very few make money, certainly not enough to count as a liveable income.

By the way, do Joe Nickell, Michael Shermer, James Oberg, McGaha, Bill Nye, and Randi make money from their skeptibunkie endeavours?

Okay, so the lights were a hoax. And this proves what? It serves as a reminder to be as careful as one can in field investigation; mindful advice for any researcher. It also proves that there are those more concerned with creating distractions from real investigation, research and exploration. For every hoax, there are thousands of non-hoaxes, with no answers. Easier to pull stunts like this within a smug self congratulatory attitude, instead of a brave and honest look into what's going on up there. The hoax, on the surface, may seem to be nothing more than a heads up to everyone to think critically and calm down. However, what really happens when these stunts are performed by the chronically skeptoid minded is that the UFO question has been solved. The meme has already been released: hoax UFO, therefore, all UFOs are hoaxes, duh. The desire and the honest investigation into all things UFO, from sightings to lights in the sky to abductions, will never be pursued because it's all just flares and fishing line; why bother? There's no there, there...and we can go about our business, while ignoring the crazy, shape-shifting, weird objects in teh sky right above our heads.

Most of all, it is the shameful and lazy idea prevalent in the skeptibunkie culture that hoaxes like this "proves' that there are no UFOs. In a reverse way, their efforts and insistence that what they do promotes "critical thinking" does nothing of the kind. For what kind of logic is it that says: "Since there are hoaxed UFO events, there are no UFOs." The mistake here isn't that some UFOs turn out to be IFOs (Identified Flying Objects) or objects with mundane explanations, or that people sometimes make assumptions (ET) and so on. It's the idea that all of UFO research is pointless. In their own words, the two hoaxers wrote:
Does this bring into question the validity of every other UFO case? We believe it does.
No, no it doesn't.

As Greg Bishop wrote on his blog UFO Mystic:

The data would suggest that the skeptics are correct, but the debate has been framed in the wrong context. Fundie skeptics nearly always lump all UFO cases together, as if anything unknown in the sky is representative of all cases throughout history, especially from the 20th century to the present. To this mindset, the lack of hard evidence for one is enough to throw the rest of the UFO reports out with the bathwater. This is a classic CSICOP ploy: Find the easiest case to debunk, and frame it as representative of all issues associated with it. at least by their definition. Believers, for the most part, ignore normal explanations because it detracts from their case for unidentifieds, and the “only answer,” which has to be extraterrestrials.

Hoaxes like this do not solve or answer a thing. They don't put UFO research to shame. They are distractions, time wasters; as well as reminders to be ever cautious, not a bad thing. But any smug feeling on the part of the "skekptic" that this hoax, or any hoax, somehow showed up UFO research in a bad way is misguided at best.