Shermer's Gorilla Suit Man

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

The Clowns in the "Sorry" State

A recent piece by Frank Warren inspired me to go off on one of my own favorite rants; that of the so-called “sorry state” of UFOlogy. As Warren says, underscoring Richard Dolan's point, the idea that there's a "state" of UFOlogy is inaccurate and misses the point. You can read Warren's piece here: What is The State of Ufology? Wrong Question!


I often rant against those who call for a “new UFOlogy.” What’s wrong with the old one? More to the point, what in the world makes those who want a “new” UFOlogy, a better or a different or a cleaner or a neater or a “more scientific” (oy) UFOlogy that anyone outside of UFOlogy cares?

Who says it’s “sorry?” Because we have the expected jokers around? The Raelians make the mainstream news, not the serious, interesting UFO cases that may also contain some evidence. (Other than anecdotal.) So?

What else do you expect from the mainstream media? They’ve always been cheesy, sleazy and exploitive, that’s what they do. I promise you, if we all got up some kind of serious, somber, clinical “New UFOlogical” whatever, no one would give a damn. We would, (some of us) but no one listens to us. And then there’s this: after a short time, it isn’t too long before this “new” UFOlogy will be perceived -- and possibly turn into -- a stodgy, rigid, snooty mini-infrastructure of scientism in its own right. Before that point thought, this "new" UFOlogy will be scrambling to be accepted by those they've decided long ago they need: mainstream science, academia, the media, politics. Wow, talk about idealism! But those institutions have turned their noses up at UFOlogy; a "new" UFOlogy will have to dance real fast and real well in order to be accepted. Which means, much of what makes UFOflogy the thing that it is will have to be discarded before this "new" state gets in the door. And at that point, of course, you don't have a real (authentic) UFOlogy, but you still have a very "sorry" state indeed. Irony!

Don't you find it ironic that a diverse,individual, subjective, elusive and contradictory phenomenon such as UFOs is persistenlty being forced into some kind of stable state where everyone agrees (pretty much) and the personal is silenced, or at least told to shush?

One thing wrong about screaming for a new UFOlogy or repairing its “state” is the belief we would do better without the clowns. First, we have to acknowledge that there is a clown like atmosphere to much of UFO and Fortean events, and it’s a natural part of the anomalous. There are many ways to deal with this, depending on the situation and where the clown antics fall on the UFOlogical clown scale. (New Age clowns, Contactee clowns, Bigfoot-UFO clowns, Abduction clowns, My Lizard Lover clowns, etc.)

We can ignore them. Call them on their stuff. Expose them for the lying clowns they are. But what if they’re not lying clowns? They could be clowns for a number of reasons, but not liars. At some point, it’s subjective. Trust comes in. Intuition. Meanwhile, we’re all distracted by trying to shove out these clowns, argue over who’s a clown and who isn’t, and the actual work isn’t getting done. We’ve been too busy chasing after those we’ve decided are clowns. Talk about a circus.

Then we get back to work, feeling smug and justified that we cleaned up the mess, only to realize more clowns have sneaked in. That’s the nature of the anomalous clown beast. You just can’t get rid of them. In fact, the harder you try, the more return. Like Sisyphus, once you roll that rock uphill, it just comes back.

The mainstream media and the pathological skeptics will never avert their attention from the clown side of things, for that would mean they have to admit there is something of value and truth to all this.

(Actually, the mainstream media at times slowly turns to the light; little bits of UFO reality get by and we experience a respite from little green men jokes by talking heads.)

We can learn from the clowns. Instead of chasing after them with brooms we can stop and just watch them for awhile. What are they up to, and why? Might turn out it was a waste of time, so what? Might turn out you learned something. Maybe that clown wasn’t just a lampshade on its head bore, but a true Fool leading you down a much neglected and magickical path. You could return from that journey with something of value to share with the “sorry state” of UFOlogy.


cut and paste if link doesn't work: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=46054

Around

On Tim Binnall’s site, BOA (Binnall of America) for my Trickster’s Realm column: Why Did I Lie? about my defensive response to alien abductions.

Be sure to read the other columns: Lesley's Grey Matters, Wrath of Joe, etc. and listen to the great, free, podcasts of Tim's interviews!

On UFO Digest: The Fortean Pinball Machine, about my theories on no theories, or, no theory about all those theories. Or maybe my theory is that it’s all very weird. Which isn’t a theory, it’s a given.

Sign up for the UFO Digest newsletter while you're there; it's free, and it's good.

Mavens and Wags: Terms of Enjeerment

Semantics is not “just semantics” it’s a purposeful method. We use terms and words for specific reasons: to trivialize, to support, to cast aspersions in covert ways, to bring light to ideas. The sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious ways we shade our meaning with words has everything to do with what we’re saying, and why we’re saying it.

I do it. You do it. We all do it. For example, the reason why there are so many terms for the umbrella “skeptic” is that there are dozens of variations of the meta label “skeptic.” A Pelicanist is not always a skeptic, a debunker isn’t always a skeptic. There are chronic skeptics; in the same small ballpark as the pathological skeptics, skeptoids, etc. but they’re not always one and the same. A lot of people who use these terms are aware of these different notes in the music of description, and so, we have fun using them, and know why we use them. But, I’m not here to discuss skeptics. Well, I am, kind of. Those who have all kinds of terms for UFO researchers.

In this context, rarely are the terms “ufo researcher,” UFO investigator,” used with a straightforward intent. Instead, there are terms like “would be UFO investigator,” or “self-styled UFO investigator” which immediately does what it’s intended to do: trivialize the individual researching UFOs. By modifying the term “UFO investigator” or “UFO researcher’ with words that cast doubt, the individual UFO investigator is immediately cast as non-credible, something rather shabby and seedy. Don’t trust him/her, is the message.

Some of those who use these terms have hard ideas about who is, and who isn’t, a valid researcher. They hoard data and keep information to themselves, releasing in secret the holy UFO papers to only those that pass the test. (Assuming they really have what they say they have.) Or, they refuse to make public their years of study and research because it will be “misinterpreted,” and “fought over,” and the “unwashed masses” will get ahold of such sacred data. No doubt. So what? It’s a given in the fields of UFO, crypto, and paranormal studies. As I’ve argued in the past, it’s not only a given, it’s an innate part of what makes Forteana (including UFOs) what it is. It wouldn’t exist otherwise. So let them at it, and the good ones will bring to light the good stuff, and the others will do what they do: provide entertainment, distract, distort and eventually go away. Even if they don’t, it doesn't matter. We can choose to ignore them or spend time arguing about them. Their inevitable presence does not justify the withholding of information.


There’s the term “bona fide” researcher. Exactly what determines a “bona fide” researcher is unclear, other than the obvious: whoever they decide it is. I assume a “bona fide researcher” is someone who’s published books by a “bone fide” publisher, and done extensive clinically inspired investigations into various UFO cases. All the while studiously avoiding any mention of paranormal, supernatural, mystical, or Bigfoot/cryptid phenomena, of course. As soon as you bring up the subject of paranormal Bigfoot, you’re no longer taken seriously. (And that’s from within the small world of UFO/Fortean research. Imagine what it’s like outside this peculiar world of esoteric studies.)

Watching the National Geographic disaster, er, program, on Roswell recently, (The Real Roswell) the narrator mentioned something about a researchers “UFO campaign” as if the researcher was up to no good, out to recruit unsuspecting citizens into a cabal of UFO studies.

There are terms like UFO enthusiasts, as if we’re all rabid NASCAR fans. UFO mavens, which on the surface sounds okay, since “maven” means expert. Maven is also something of a quaint word, invoking an image of something homey and old fashioned; harmless, maybe even sweetly goofy, but not to be taken seriously. Sometimes this is prefaced with “self styled ufo maven,” which of course is patronizing. Like the “self styled UFO researcher” the modifier “self styled” is used to cast doubt on the researcher’s character and credibility.

There’s “UFO devotee” which brings to mind some sort of religious nut, or at least a dopey cult member. It puts the entire UFO phenomena into a religious (therefore, not serious) context, for anyone spending much time at all studying UFOs is a nut. A religious fanatic, a cultist, a kook.

We have “UFO buff,” which is like the “UFO enthusiast.” And vaguely illicit, you can’t help juxtapose buff with nude and naked, no matter how subconsciously the imagery. That’s how it works. So you have sex crazed UFO researchers running around, and that’s no good. This despite the fact UFO lore is rife with tales of sexual unions with strange beings, breeding, kidnapping and capture, nightly bedroom visitations, examinations involving genitals, ova, sperm and other intrusive probings, hybrid babies, and phantom pregnancies.

We have “UFO hobbyists'” which could be put in the same category as “enthusiast,” “maven,” and “wag.” A bit old fashioned, and conjures up images of a harmless, but eccentric individual, tinkering away in their garage or den, spending hours on such silliness as UFOs. Replace UFOs with stamp collecting or cataloging your Star Trek figurine collection and we have an image of a nerdy, slightly antisocial misfit.

There’s “UFO wags” which is a bit like “UFO maven,” bringing to mind some old dotting absent minded eccentric blithering away in his (or her) overstuffed library of ancient UFO books.

Of course there’s ‘UFO believer,” which is worse than the vague ‘UFO devotee,” since it implies that one believes in UFOs.

Sometimes flying saucer is used instead of UFO. I use flying saucer myself a lot but for different reasons. Like Stanton Friedman, who uses the term freely, the use is a political statement; take back the flying saucer! For the smugly skeptical, the term “flying saucer” is used to further trivialize and marginalize. No one uses flying saucer anymore in a serious context, and like “maven,” it’s a bit old fashioned. It paints the UFO, er, flaying saucer researcher as a nut, chasing after little green men in astounding machines from outer space.

Other words are used as well, “woo” is the ever popular favorite to describe everything from a “believer” in UFOs to people who say they’ve seen a Sasquatch. There isn’t much hiding here; woo is self - explanatory; it’s clear the meaning is “you’re an idiot.”

There’s also the “true believer” to denote those who, presumably are fanatical about their experiences -- believing the messengers, or insisting they have the truth. And the even less polite “true ‘bleever.” While there are those individual who’ve had anomalous experiences insist what’s happened to them is “the truth,” and their own interpretation is presented as the truth, there are countless others (like myself) who know two things for sure: 1. Something really damn weird happened, and 2. I have no idea what that damn really weird thing was. The use of the terms “true believer” and “true ‘bleever” as well as “woo,” and “woo woo” etc. don’t address the phenomena; they simply reject the individual and the experience. They’d love for us to shut up and go away. If we can’t, or won’t, accept their explanations, then we’re, at best, “woos” and worse, “true ‘bleevers.” (And “willfully ignorant.” )

The lines blur; you have someone with anomalous experiences, and you have religious fanatics, whether they’re Christian fundies who want creationism taught in schools, or the some other brand of religious fascism. To the “skeptic” however, it’s all the same: crop circles, UFOs, ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. Use of these cute little phrases like “UFO fanatic” only shove the subject into the abyss, which, of course, is the intent.

Gordon Kaswell on Skepticism

It's skepti synchronicity! About a week ago I received the following email from Oregon UFO researcher Gordon Kaswell. With his permission, I've posted his thoughts on skepticism below:

This email is about something that keeps popping up in controversial science issues: Carl Sagan's famous dictum, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Just this evening, I heard a psychologist on the Discovery Channel use this phrase regarding the question of whether or not "Bigfoot" exists. (Hardcore skeptics of the "paranormal" love to atack those who maintain that the creature might actually be real. It's really not a paranormal question at all, by the way-- only a crypto-zoological one.)

But back to Sagan. His comment about "extraordinary claims" sounds reasonable. It seems to be saying that we must have very high standards in scientific inquiry.

And indeed we should have high standards. But not a double standard. There is really no way to objectively and quantitatively determine the "extraordinariness" of a scientific claim. Therefore, there is no way to objectively say how "extraordinary" the evidence must be before we accept the claim. "Extraordinariness" is essentially an emotional consideration, not a scientific one. If you've done good, careful, science, your results should be taken seriously. If those results overturn previously held beliefs, that's just fine. Indeed, that's how science is supposed to work. Thomas Kuhn's book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is an excellent discussion of how science advances in fits and starts, as new data and viewpoints are ignored, resisted, and ultimately embraced.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Another way to put this might be:

"Adjust your scientific standards to fit you emotional needs."

--Doesn't sound so reasonable now, does it?

More Skepticism Pieces

Seems that a lot of bloggers are writing about skepticism past few days; here’s something from the Doubtful blog: Poor Professional Manners. A lot of us have been blogging about skepticism and I’ve noticed we’ve been saying the same things, in one way or another:

Be nice

Skepticism is good and fine and of course, neccessary, however:

There are many who say they are skeptics, and they’re nothing of the kind. (And to make the distinction between true skeptics and the fundies, we use various descriptive labels to make those distincitons)It is those types we have an issue with

SKEPTO REVAMPO: SKEPTICISM GOES HOLLYWOOD

source:http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Dec-31-Tue-2002/photos/chicago.jpg

Recently
CSICOP changed its name. From the ponderous CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal ) to the sleek and bright CSI. Yes, “CSI.” Not the TV CSI, but CSI for Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. CSICOP, er, CSI, has gone Hollywood. Slicker, shorter, brighter, juxtaposed with the hipness and scientifically aligned TV program of the same name, skepticism has gone Tinsel Town.

Will this name change garner a lawsuit from CSI, the TV franchise? That would be delicious; after all, we all know CSI, er, the skeptic CSI, not CSI the TV show, would sue in a heartbeat if they were pissed off enough at someone. Speaking of
sue happy skeptics, The Amazing Randihas had his fun going after participants of the strange; (if they’re not going after him.)

“Name change reflects growth, focus on science and reason” assures the blurb from their website. (Did any of us have any doubt as to the purpose of CSICOP?) Of course, given the scurrilous history of CSCICP in that regard, it’s no wonder they want a name change. There was never anything of a ‘scientific” inquiry towards UFOs, the paranormal or Forteana, (the

sTARBABY scandal proves that.) In fact, many of CSICOP’s/CSI’s media skeptics do not have a science background.

The new CSCIOP is no longer solely concerned with debunking UFOs or ghosts. There’s a higher moral imperative:

“Today there are new challenges to science,” Kurtz writes in Skeptical Inquirer. “Yet powerful moral, theological, and political forces have opposed scientific research on a whole number of issues.”

While that may sound rational and reasonable (no sane person believes creationism mythologies should be taught in a science class) that’s a hell of a scary statement. The danger here is the potential of cultural cleansing by the chronic skeptics of all they deign to be “unscientific.” (See: Colin Bennett: Skepticism as Mystique: A Fortean Essay in Rationalist Panics and Skeptical Dementia, UFO Magazine vol 21, No.10 December 2006 ,George P. Hansen:CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview, Robert Anton Wilson:The New Inquisition)

This journey has been a long one for CSCIOP/CSI. In 1997, CSCICOP held its first

”Council” in Hollywood. Hollywood was chided for airing “pseudoscientific” programs “almost every month.”

"Recently there have been programs on prophecies, astrology, psychic powers, creationism, Noah's Ark, angels, and alien abductions," said the Council. All of them posed, in some way, as being based on scientific fact."

The Council also criticized the many talk shows devoted to the paranormal in which claims in favor of the paranormal are given a platform but the scientific viewpoint is rarely allowed.“

Back in 1997, CSICOP/CSI
bought media stock in its efforts to quash hokey documentaries on UFOs and Bigfoot:

"In its latest effort in the battle against fringe-science TV, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) and it's "media watch-dog" arm, the Council for Media Integrity (CMI), established the "Media Stock Fund." Aimed at providing leverage for CSICOP's response to the television industries lucrative commercial marketing of fringe science and psuedoscience, CMI is asking friends and supporters to help it aquire common stock in media conglomerate companies. The Media Stock Fund will allow CSICOP and the CMI to take part in shareholder meetings, where it can question the increasing infatuation with the paranormal in television programming."

"We are deliberately targeting each of the major television networks and well-known media conglomerates - Viacom (CBS), General Electric (NBC), NewsCorp (Fox), AOL/Time Warner (WB, Turner Broadcasting, CNN), and Disney (ABC)," says Paul Kurtz, chairman of CSICOP”

CSICOP/CSI has been working on joining the hoi poli and entertainment media for awhile now. Note the CMI:Council for Media Integrity, and the lack of the words "science" or "skeptic" within.

Other skeptic organizations have been been busily remaking themselves. The JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) forum has recently changed its look on its website and forum. I’m not sure how long ago it took place, but I noticed it a month or so ago. New look, new colors. Still serious though of course. Somber maroonish brown and bold black; veering on hip but still too classic to be considered at all edgy, it conveys what it's meant to convey: serious inquiry of non-serious things.

And now
Randi’s revised the infamous “Challenge.” (The challenge is an award of one million dollars to any claimant who demonstrates paranormal powers. No winners so far.)

The reason for the changes has to do in part with people flapping about the JREF offices, or laboratories, or wherever it is they test these hapless, optimistic entrants:

"We can't waste the hundreds of hours that we spend every year on the nutcases out there -- people who say they can fly by flapping their arms," says Randi. "We have three file drawers jam-packed with those collections.... There are over 300 claims that we have handled in detail."

This new Challenge will only take those with head shots. Meaning, JREF is going Hollywood as well, just like CSI. Applicants now have to have been on the news or have some other media oomph behind them before they’ll be allowed in to the Challenge. They’ll have to have press clippings and those press clippings have to be “backed up by academia.” Someone from a University (does the Community College count?) has to support the applicant’s claims.
Ah, but it can’t be just any moldy old academic.

"They have to get some academic to endorse their claims," says Randi. "And that academic is not the local chiropractor or some such thing."

Quite a Catch 22 there: really, what academic that “the Challenge” people would accept, would back a paranormal claim? As soon as one does such backing of such claims, such academic is kicked rudely to the curb by inhabitants of Randi Land. You can’t take those academics seriously! After all, they back claimants to “the Challenge!’

Randi and the JREF are nothing if not good citizens, altruistically protecting the rest of us from the evils of fake psychics. Which, in Randi World, includes all
psychics;

“Randi says he'll start actively investigating professional mind-readers and mediums for proof of criminal fraud, or opportunities for civil lawsuits. “

I see potential here for some sort of reality based SKEPTO program, in partnership with the sleek bright CSI (sceptic CSI, not TV CSI), where a strange hierarchy of skeptics, seers and paranormal claimants ar pitted against each other. Guest hosts Penn and Teller are sure to enjoy themselves when it comes to be their turn at mocking the weird. Maybe Donald Trump will add some cash to the Challenge’s coffers. (cue Billy Flynn singing ‘Razzle Dazzle”) Lights and music come one while the rainbow colored confetti swirls down among the skeptics, the audience, and the somewhat dazed cons tenants.

"We're going to pick people every year and hammer on them," says Wagg. "We're going to send certified mail, we're going to do advertising. We're going to pick a few people and say, we are actively challenging you. We may advertise in The New York Times.

Boy, sounds like fun.

Yes, they’re going for the glamour, the gold, the gusto for sure. Spending years sneering at those UFO book writers and TV psychics for making money off their stuff, the JREF and CSICOP (damn, I mean CSI) is now working towards doing the same thing.

It’s all just ‘Flim Flam.’

Razzle Dazzle
Artist: Richard Gere Lyrics
Song: Razzle Dazzle Lyrics
BAILIFF(Spoken)
Mr. Flynn, his honor is here

BILLY(Spoken)
Thank you. Just a moment.
You ready?

ROXIE(Spoken)
Oh Billy, I'm scared.

BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they;ll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle

BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle dazzle 'em
Give 'em a show that's so splendiferous

BILLY
Row after row will crow vociferous

BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em

BILLY
How can they hear the truth above the roar?

BILLY AND COMPANY
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

BILLY
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

BILLY AND COMPANY
Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

COMPANY(The same time as BILLY's)
Give 'em the old
Razzle Dazzle

BILLY
Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorceror you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talent
Razzle Dazzle 'em

BILLY AND COMPANY
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em

And they'll make you a star!