The 'Goalpost' Paradigm

 “Which way you ought to go depends on where you want to get to...” ~ Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

Skeptics, debunkers, and believers alike accuse each other of "moving the goalposts." In the context of how the term is used -- pieces in a game -- it's true. (Skeptibunkies do "move the goal posts" all the time when it comes to anomalous subjects. They assume much: why and how Bigfoot, psychics, UFOs, and so on should behave, without doing any of the research. And if they've done the research, they'd realize one can't assume a thing.)

But let's forget that. Why use a sports or game analogy at all? By using a verbal marker like "goalpost" we're keeping alive the idea that there are rules. Rules that must be followed - goalposts -- and, along with that the idea that, since a game is being played, there are winners and losers. It's a battle, a contest. A competition. It's a preconceived framework, with rules, boundaries, winners, losers. Anything outside of the game is rejected because, of course, it doesn't fit in with this particular game. You don't insert the rules of chess into Monopoly.

As long as we accept this idea of a game, with posts to be moved, or not, we stay stuck. It's not a game! Or, maybe, like Alice, it is a game in the very loosest of meanings.

The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday-but never jam today

It must come sometime to jam today, Alice objected

No it can't said the Queen It's jam every other day. Today isn't any other day, you know”  ~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

Why do we continue to force the unexplained into an established framework (the "game") when clearly, "it" meaning, the paranormal/Fortean/supernatural,  is playing by its own rules? If "it" is playing a game, it's one we don't know how to play. Insisting "it" play by our rules obviously isn't working.

Forget the "goalposts." Forget the game. At least, our game. I think if we stand back and watch for awhile as well as experiment, that would be both refreshing and revealing.

Just in Case, Rule Forty-Two

“Forty-two,” said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm. ~ Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I'll end with this little synchronicity. Earlier this afternoon I finished Minette Walter's The Scold's Bridle. One of the characters, a policeman, references Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Specifically, the idea of the question, the answer and of course, how 42 plays into that. While working on this post, I looked up quotes from Alice in Wonderland, and came across this:

“Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.” ~ Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

A Favorite UFO/Fortean Event: The Kentucky Goblins

A favorite anomalous event, one that remains a mystery more than fifty-five years later. That is the Kentucky, or Hopkinsville "goblins." Small, alien looking creatures terrified the Sutton family in Hopkinsville, Kentucky in 1955. Shots were fired, the sheriff notified. No one has resolved the mystery, though of course there are dozens of theories. And of course, the skepti-bunkies will tell you they've solved it long ago. (See debunker Joe Nickell's --"Mr. Owl" -- theory here.)

Were the Kentucky goblins aliens from outer space? Owls? Drunken, paranoid hallucinations? Elves? Inner earth entities? Two recent articles discuss this classic case.


Greg Newkirk at Who Forted? wonders if these beings haven't returned:Have the Kentucky Goblins Returned? Exclusive Photos! | Who Forted? Magazine Newkirk shares an email he received about strange creatures in the Kentucky/West Virginia area. Strange creatures that, the writer comments, seem to be coming from an "abandoned mine located on the edge of my property." Another email, more details, and... the strange path leading to the origin of a name. And, there are photos!

Newkirk asks the right questions. I empathize with his curiosity combined with skepticism. (I too have been contacted at times with tales of strange sightings and weird beings, but you always wonder if the person is honest, on crack, or what. The anomalous explorer wants it so much to be something to explore, and yet. . .) I think the first photo of the alleged being is outright fakery but really that's beside the point. In the true Fortean mileau, it doesn't matter.

Micah Hanks considers the Hopkinsville goblins as being of inner earth, and gives us more background on the original event:The Goblin's Grimoirie: Hopkinsville Reprised, or the Hollow Earth? Hanks references Newkirk's article and wonders if the beings weren't from innter earth after all.

Abandoned mines as homes for strange beings -- including Sasquatch -- a theory that has been discussed before. Wm. Micheal Mott wrote about beings living inside the earth in his classic Caverns, Cauldrons, and Concealed Creatures.

 

(Photo: Ivan T. Sanderson with goblin replica. Soure: http://www.johnkeel.com/?m=201204)

The Kentucky Hopkinsville goblins are often associated with UFOs; thought of to be aliens. There are similarities to the "greys" after all. (Assuming the greys are aliens as well.) But then we have other enticing ideas about what these "goblins" might be. Not from outer space, but inner earth. There's an idea these beings are aliens from space but also of the earth; entities of both realms. The Hopi tradition speaks of the ant people, who now live underground, but came from the skies originally. Descriptions of the ant people parallel the grays, and, the Kentucky goblins.

Here's an interesting explanation of the origin of the word "goblin" which contains a reference to mines:

Standard scholarship holds that English took goblin from the French gobelin. The problem with Goblin this is that, while Middle English had the word goblin as early as 1320, there is no record of the French word gobelin until the 16th century. Interestingly, a 12th century cleric called Ordericus Vitalis mentions Gobelinus as the name of a spirit which haunted the neighbourhood of Évreux. It is possible that gobelin evolved from the ancient Greek kobalos "rogue, knave", via the Medieval Latin cobalus. If so, it is related to the German kobold, and hence to the name of the metal cobalt.

German silver miners (that's German miners of silver, not miners of "German silver") named cobalt after the kobold, a "goblin or demon of the mines" as it was not only worthless but caused sickness. Nickel (a German name for "the devil") has a similar origin.
~ Source: Take Our Word for It.

Whether or not Greg Newkirk's contact was telling the truth or playing trickster, the idea itself is a valid one. Many traditions tell of entities that live inside the earth. It is possible the goblins seen that August night in 1955 in Kentucky were indeed inner earth dwellers.

Grass Roots Welcome Committee

The latest scandal in UFO Land -- Phil Imbrogno's lies about his academic and service background -- is still being discussed. I'm not supporting Imbrogno's lies, nor defending him for doing so. His ideas about things UFO -ish are still interesting, and, while not new, still worth exploring. I had respect for Imbrogno and am sorry this happened. But, it does seem clear it did happen. Which made me wonder: why would someone feel the need to lie about his or her background, when it comes to UFOlogy? Phil Imbrogno isn't the first person to have been exposed for lying about his credentials, and realistically speaking, he probably won't be the last. Yet, why do some people feel they need to lie, in the context of UFOs?

UFO culture is a grass roots culture. Anyone --- despite the UFO Police and snarky researchers who dismiss whatever, or whoever, they don't agree with -- can live in UFO Land. (Well, except scofftics.) Anyone. It doesnt' matter if you have degrees or not, or what those degrees are in. Degrees do not denote intelligence; oh, they point to a specific type and tell us the degreed person has focus and perseverance in order to receive that degree. Don't misunderstand me, I am not "anti degree" and I have one myself. [Sidebar: full disclosure in case anyone tries to out little ol' me: I have an Associate Degree in Early Childhood Ed, a Bachelor's in English lit with an emphasis on Folklore, a Certificate in Ethnic Studies and Folklore, and two years of grad school. ] Does this make any more or less qualified than anyone else? Nope. Not a damn bit. I'm intelligent if discussing Beat poetry or folkloric applications but a goddamn dummy when it comes to math, business or 12th century military history.

So why do some feel the need to lie or exaggerate in context of UFO research? I have a theory. Ahem.

It's the damn debunker skeptoids. As well as those within UFOlogy, many of whom are in the UFO Police camp, who drone on about being "scientific" and academic and all kinds of -ics. No, I'm not implying science is useless, of course it isn't. We need it all in UFOlogy. But because someone holds a degree in the sciences, or at the least, in academia, does not make them any more qualified in any way to research UFOs. Not one damn bit.

In this culture we place a lot of esteem onto those who have college degrees. We automatically think they're smarter and better than the rest of us. Studying UFOs is a fringe thing to do, a kooky, silly thing to do. You're not serious or smart if you consider UFOs to be anything more than a curiosity. (I know, some co-workers and acquaintances think I'm not as smart as they thought I was, once they find I'm "into" UFOs. Surely someone intelligent wouldn't waste their time...) Some think that having a degree gives a little bit of legitimacy to an illegitimate field.

But there's no need. No need to lie about your background, whatever it is. As long as you're using your head, are truthful and honest and following your own voice, you can't go wrong. Despite what some others might say to you about that, the research and the work will stand on its own. And that's all you need.

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

Update to Skepticism vs. All The Other Kinds of Skepticism

'Crazyhoarse,' author of his (or her) blog over on The Daily Grail, wrote a piece on skepticism/pathological skepticism. SKEPTOPATHS, SKEPTOPATHOLOGY and O'HARE. In particular, Crazyhoarse addresses vehement skepticism in relation to the O'Hare sighting.

Too Busy for Myself

Comment from
Rick over on TDG about my anti-skeptic piece on American Chronicle:

(Jesus in a Saucer)

American Chronicle's R. Lee discusses the new meme of skeptics to discredit the UFO phenomenon; label it as a religion. Look out, R. Lee, I bet they have a voodoo doll in your likeness.

LOL. As I told him, that explains all these mysterious aches and pains I’ve been having!

I forgot to mention, in my writing recap, my blog entry over on
The Daily Grail; it’s a response piece to Michael Prescott’s excellent piece on fanatical, bullying skeptic tactics:

More insights into pathological skepticism, or “chronic, cultural” skepticism, to use Colin Bennett’s terms. (See Bennett’s article Scepticism as Mystique, December UFO magazine, December 2006.)

This is from author Michael Prescott’s blog and his recent article
Bully for skepticism!


“Item: After the publishing house Macmillan announces acquisition of Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, which makes unorthodox claims about the origins and history of the solar system, famed astronomer Harlow Shapley lobbies the publisher to prevent the book's publication. He fails. According to philosopher David Stove, Shapley then arranges for "denunciations of the book, still before its appearance, by an astronomer, a geologist, and an archaeologist," none of whom have read it. Other reviews by "professors who boasted of never having read the book" follow, and Velikovsky is "rigorously excluded from access to learned journals for his replies." The anti-Velikovsky forces then compel the firing of the long-time Macmillan senior editor who bought the book, even though it has become a bestseller. They also get the Hayden Planetarium's director fired "because he proposed to take Velikovsky seriously enough to mount a display about the theory." Under intense and continuing pressure, Macmillan eventually transfers the book to rival Doubleday, "which, as it has no textbook division, is not susceptible to professorial blackmail."

As the above shows, the tactics of these chronic skeptics are unethical, though sadly typical. Why the Pelicanists, etc. seem to prefer to behave like Bette Davis on her best flamboyant drama queen melodrama days is an intriguing sociological question to ponder.

I’ve given up on the pondering part long ago; I’ll leave that to others who study the sociology of scientism. Still, I enjoy, and believe it’s a worthy act, to point out the actions that range from amusing to outrageous, of the “skeptoids.”

No matter how many times those of us who point out these behaviors and tactics state that it is the actions, not mere skepticism itself, that is the issue, it falls on deaf ears. Prescott writes:

“I’m not endorsing the validity of all the unconventional theories mentioned above. In particular, I think Velikosky and Reich are unlikely to have been correct. All that interests me, in citing these instances (and there are many others that could be added to the list), is this question: What are the powers of establishment science so afraid of? Why would people who are genuinely confident that they have reason on their side resort to character assassination, ostracism, threats, and even police action to enforce their opinions?

In other words, why do the self-styled defenders of reason, science, progress, and civilization so often act like bullies and thugs?

Excellent questions.

Irrational rationalists also resort to hyperbole and thin skinned, over the top silliness, as in comparing being called a “thug,” or a “skeptoid” to being called a racial or ethnic slur, as I wrote this September (The Usual Purple Tinged Hyperbole About UFOs

Rabid skepticism abhors the UFO-abduction phenomena of course, and doesn’t hold back when it comes to television. I found an interesting post at UFO Updates from 2001. Posted by John Velez, it discusses the PBS NOVA program on UFOs and abductions as written about by Terry Hansen in his excellent book, The Missing Times.

There are endless examples of course: The Amazing Randi and his on-going battles with Uri Geller, the sTarbaby scandal, Phillip Klass, etc.

Thuggish and dishonest tactics, as well as disingenuousness, have always been a part of scientism in general (they are scientism) as well as UFOlogy. No doubt much of it is intentional disinformation, the rest, picked up by the individual rabid skeptic, and, unaware he/she is being used, happily passes along such behaviors.

While this campaign of disinformation and witless acceptance by unsuspecting individuals can be said of many a UFOlogist, that’s another article for another day.

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!