Jeffrey J. Kripal

Last night's Coast to Coast was excellent. First of all, George Knapp was the host, and he is, as always,  an enjoyable host; smart, reads the material, asks great questions, really listens to the guests. The guest last night was author Jefferey J. Kripal of Rice University. Now, I haven't yet read any of his books, but I do remember when Monsters and Mystics came out, thinking: "I want to read this!" Now of course I am adding his works to my list of books I must read.

Anyone who references, as Kripal did last night, George P. Hansen's  important book The Trickster and the Paranormal with insight and respect demands to be read.

Paraphrasing, and probably badly, a couple of Kripal's points: the way the term paranormal came to replace the term supernatural, and his opinion (one I share) that the sciences for the most part are easier than humanities. Humanities get the bad rap (I studied folklore, I know) but you know, 1 + 1  = 2, and you're either "right" or "wrong" in deconstructing Joyce (depending on the whims of the prof) or defending your philosophical take on what-I-would-do-as-the-only-woman-in-the-class "moral" dilemma presented to us regarding saving family members during a tornado. (Me: I'm "morally bankrupt", according to the barley able to stand upright for more than five minutes philosophy professor. He was so old he knew Noah.)

Kripal isn't just about the humanities and comparative religions, but has had his own experiences that most academics do not discuss, and this includes UFOs. His take on that subject is one I've been harping on for years as well. We'll never get to the scientific answer, because there isn't any. Throwing the UFO realm at the hard sciences -- and those residents of UFO Land who believe UFOlogy should become more "scientific" -- so woefully miss the whole point.

Prof. Jeffrey Kripal of Rice University discussed comparative religions and various aspects of the paranormal. In a sense, the study of religion is more difficult than the sciences because religious experience is difficult to quantify, and challenges people's deepest values and world views, he noted. When people compare religions in a rigorous manner, they recognize that their own world view is filled with certain gaps, he revealed. The ancient Greeks used to send out scouts to foreign cities or countries to study religious spectacles, and they were often changed by what they'd seen. (Coast to Coast)

Anyway. Jeffrey Kripal. Try to listen to the archived interview if you can.

When Realms Begin to Blur: Pink Lights, White Orbs, UFOs and Other Worlds

I'm not sure where I'm going with this exactly but I was inspired to go off in this direction after reading Tessa Dick's post on her blog: Why I Distrust the Pink Light

For the non-religious ones involved in UFO studies, all that Bible stuff can be off putting. I put myself in that category; I am not a Christian, I don't believe in God, and yet, okay I'll say it, I am a New Age kind of gal. Just an old hippie who still believes in love and energies and consciousness...as I wrote recently on my blog UFO Mary, there are entities and energies afoot, and some are quite sentient and intelligent, some are neutral, others malevolent some benevolent. We've misinterpreted deities and beings and energies and entities and, yep, aliens, as "God" all these thousands of years. Created mega-systems of doctrines, dogma, laws and control around these misperceptions. (as well as wars over whose system is the correct system.) Maybe I'm talking about the trickster here, or partly so, but the fact is, there are all of the above, including good old inter-dimensional beings and creatures. The universe is teeming with these things, and right here on earth, we have a very busy, though almost completely unseen, realm of things co-habitating with us.

UFOs are mixed up in this, and as I commented at the start of this post, I'm not sure where I'm going with all this yet, but one idea came to me; that some UFO reports might have nothing to do with aliens ET in machines from another planet, and everything to do with spirits, or energies, or other beings but non-human and non-ET. Fairies, or, demons. Angels, or, ... whatever. But, maybe there is a connection, at times, between these things. Maybe they overlap. Maybe some of these things could be alien-ET and "other."


The Dancing Orb Dream Repeated
Years ago, I was experiencing a lot of intense paranormal and psychic activity, including UFO events. I was going through a lot an intense time on a personal level; incredible stress (which, to this day, I do not handle well), a move, returning to college in my forties, family issues and illness, going to counseling. I was also actively seeking out paranormal experiences using crystals, meditations, as well as actively pursuing UFO and related studies.

One night/early morning, I dreamt that I woke up in our bedroom. It was light. I noticed how nice everything looked, the light, the curtains. Everything was also very still. I turned and looked at Jim's back; he was still asleep. I noticed the white wall. Suddenly, he got up, and sat, with his back still to me, on the side of the bed. He was perfectly still. Which was very odd. I called out his name, no response. Very odd. He just sat there. It was so damn weird. A small, dime sized maybe, ball of bright white, opaque, light, was "dancing" across his back. Then the wall, then back to this back. I called out his name, no response, I touched him, nothing. Then I went back to sleep.

I woke up. I looked over at Jim; he sat up on the side of the bed. He just sat there. Didn't say anything. The orb of light came; dancing. On his back, on the wall, returned to Jim's back. I called out, I touched him, nothing. I was a little disconcerted about this; I just dreamt this! Finally, after a few minutes, Jim woke up. It was as if he was sleep 'sitting," --  I told Jim about this, and he, being who he is, believed me and had no trouble accepting it happened, but he had no memory of anything amiss as far as he was concerned. He didn't have any strange dreams, and couldn't explain at all why he was sitting motionless on the side of the bed for so long. He didn't remember doing that at all.

I couldn't get this weird incident out of my mind. The dream was a dream; it wasn't a matter of "I just thought I dreamt it." The light was not anything close to being a reflection of something, or any other mundane explanation.

This encounter left me so rattled and yet.. so joyous. I felt extremely excited about all this; that something special had happened. What, I had no idea, just that it was.


Context: UFOs and Other Weird Happenings
This wasn't a UFO sighting, or an encounter with ET. Yet I have an idea there's a connection with my UFO experiences -- mine, and Jim's -- and I'm don't know why I think this, it's just a feeling.  We were having a lot of UFO experiences at the time, some good, some creepy, some just "normal" meaning, usual lights in the sky stuff. I was also experiencing a lot of other activity; astral journeys, precognitive dreams, and so on, much of it intentionally created by my intent and focus, my work involving meditations, crystal work, and so on.

Did all these things collide, in a sense; the stress, the emotions, the combined UFO/paranormal experiences of both myself and Jim (past and present), as well as the simple fact of literal ETs in UFOs about?

The Reeves Case
Tessa's post also got me thinking about the Reeves case, an Oregon UFO/cryptid encounter, circa 1966 (See my The Toldeo Donuts, on the UFO Magazine blog) 
and  The Big Study; their brief recap, and Peter Rogerson's One Measures a Circle ) in where the lights seen by members of the Reeves family and witnesses were described as having pink hues. From Mrs. Reeves account of lights in her bedroom:

... a rosy glow so bright you could read a newspaper in it … I happened to turn towards the door leading into the living room and I saw this thing like a cloud just hanging there. It was water-melon coloured and you could see through it … It was just a kind  of hazy mass for a couple of seconds, and then it disappeared.”

Strange beings seen in a meadow; and nights of unusual lights, described as pink and rose colored, inside and outside of the Reeves home. A very weird case that after more than forty years has not revealed any answers.

Was this event a supernatural one? Or UFO caused? Or, both?

That area of Oregon (Newport region) is still a hot bed of UFO activity. The Navy has a strong presence there, and now, the NOAA has moved in. UFOs were seen in the area shortly  preceding the Reeves experiences. Were the Reeves lights military induced; some kind of mind control-social engineering- fake UFO display? Or a military experiment involving true UFOs? What of the strange beings seen by Cathy Reeves and her friends? Aliens or inter-dimensional visitors, supernatural entities, or naval Dr. Evil experiments? The esoteric speculations are endless, and a lot of fun to indulge in. That is not a marginalization and certainly not a trivialization of those events, however.

Related post: (my post on UFO Digest from 2007)
 UFO Digest: When Entities Collide: Ghosts, Aliens, MIBS, and Entities and the Trickster Faires.

Stalking the Trickster on Hidden Experience

Mike Clelland of Hidden Experience blog brings us an interview with researcher Chris O'Brien on his new book Stalking the Trickster about the trickster in a paranormal/UFO context.

I've been a fan of O'Brien's for years, having read his three books on the strange happenings in Colordao's San Luis Valley. I haven't read Trickster yet but it's at the top of my list. (I hear that O'Brien in his book refers to an article I wrote but he cited the wrong source, not me; heh... trickster!)

From what I've heard O'Brien say about trickster here and other places, I like where he's going with sort of reframing the idea of Trickster in a Fortean context. Without having read the book I can't make any comments really... just have to wait.

Anyway, take a listen!

An Orange Orb Blip

Something slightly odd and startling happened the other day. It was around 5:30 in the afternoon. I was relaxing on the sofa, not asleep but just in that semi-drowsy, pleasant light trance state. I had a short little dream -- a dreamlet, you could call it -- but I was awake on some level at the same time.

I “dreamt” I had a strong urge to go outside and look at the sky full of stars. (this is something I do almost every evening) and I walk out onto the path to the sidewalk, and scan the dark sky. I hear a voice inside my head, or more like a telepathic nudge, to turn around and look towards the south. I do, and see, very high up, a bright orange light, which is rotating. As far away as it is, and as small as it is -- like a large, bright star -- I can tell it’s revolving. When I see this orange “star” I’m very scared, and I can feel my stomach drop with cold dread.

I wake up abruptly, feeling very uneasy. With the sighting of the orange object I again am aware of a telepathic message; this one tells me that I know exactly what it is I saw years ago, and to stop playing games. I assume it meant stop playing games with myself, but I had a sense it might have meant with it as well, whatever “it” is.

I’m not sure why I feel it’s important to keep track of episodes like this, but I’m sure one of the many purposes doing this serves is that is simply makes me feel better. No closer to any mystery but I don’t think that’s the point any more. Acknowledging these weird little moments and adding them to the collection of pieces gives the illusion of work, of study. It’s calming somehow. It’s also empowering; once you call it, reclaim the name of something, it’s power diminishes.

And maybe, as has been said by Forteans and esoteric explorers, the Trickster or whatever you want to call it is alerted to our interest and responds. When we start noticing “it,” “it” starts to notice us back.

George Hansen on Paratopia -- and Nancy Birnes!

Good for Jeremy and Jeff at Paratopia for inviting George Hansen back on. I haven't listened to the interview yet; in fact, have it on now, so can't comment yet on the content. But, while the 'trickster' aspect seems obvious to me, and I've been pushing Hansen on UFO and esoteric studies all along, it seems there are those that either don't agree with these ideas (as well as anti-structure, liminality, marginalization, etc.) or feel it's too academic. Other writers that are good to read along these lines include Daniel Pinchbeck and Patrick Harpur.

Also, tonight at 9pm Eastern time, Paratopia interviews UFO Magazine editor Nancy Birnes. I'm looking forward to this one!

Book: "UFOs, Time Slips, Other Realms and the Science of Fairies"

A nice review of the bookBlows Against The Empire-The ET Hypothesis Comes Under Attack In...
UFOs, Time Slips, Other Realms and the Science of Fairies, by Edwin Sidney Hartland; additional material by Tim Beckley, Sean Casteel, Brent Raynes and Tim R. Swartz, on UFO Digest by Sean Casteel. The book sounds intriguing and I'm ordering it right away. The book deals with the issue of ET vs. "fairy" or rather, terrestrial entities we assume or interpret as ET. As Casteel writes:

... there is another interpretation, one which, while it is taken quite seriously by premiere UFO researchers like Jacques Vallee, remains a definite minority point of view: What if what we are witnessing and experiencing actually originates on Earth and has been here throughout mankind's struggle to understand the strange environment he finds himself thrust into? Are the diminutive gray aliens so frequently claimed to have visited hapless mortals as they lay abed really just a variation on millennia of old folklore about fairies, changelings, elves and other forms of wee people?

That is the primary thrust of this 2008 release from Global Communications, called "UFOs, Time Slips, Other Realms and the Science of Fairies." The bulk of the book is a reprint of a much older book by Edwin Sidney Hartland, in which he offers a wonderful overview of the folklore of fairies and other mysterious creatures that frequently cross over from their shadowy dimension to enter ours.

This is Vallee territory (among others) as well of course, and I don't disagree. But I acknowledge I have a bias for the reality of ET as well, and I don't see why the explanation needs to be an either/or one. Isn't it possible there are at least two concurrent reasons for phenomena like this, one being literal extraterrestrials from outer space (whether from our own solar system or beyond)? It's also possible one manipulates the other for our benefit -- in order to deceive, which is one characteristic of the phenomena. There's also a symbiotic relationship between us and "them," -- all of "them" -- whoever "they" are, of course.

Looking forward to reading this book.

Around the Orb

Trickster's Realm: Bigfoot and the "Kill/No Kill" Controversery
My new Trickster's Realm will be up tomorrow on Binnall of America. In this TR, I comment on the "Kill/No Kill" debate concerning Bigfoot. I take issue with both cryptid researcher Ken Gerhard, as well as Tim Binnall, who both suppoort a kill. Tim, to his credit, is happy to publish my thoughts on this issue, even though we disagree.

That said, the interview with Ken Gerhard was great, very interesting. As I write in the article, I was surprised that Gerhard supports the "paranormal" Bigfoot theory.


White Bigfoot and High Strangeness: The Conser Lake Creature

More Bigfoot stuff: I post a section from my book The Ghost in Conser Lake on Frame 352. You can also read it on Nick Redfern's Crypto Squad USA and the Oregon section on the L.O.W.F.I. site.

Paratopia: The Trickster and the Paranormal; George P. Hansen Guest
This was another good interview with one of my favorite authors on esoterica, Fortean stuff; George P. Hansen, author of The Trickster and the Paranormal. I've been quoting him for years, and I'm working on something now that I'll put up later here on the Orb. You can listen to the interview here; look for "episode 8."

The Other Blogs
Check out Women Of Esoterica, there's good stuff from several writers over there to keep you busy.

In The Green Room: Yes, Yes, Yes! But . . .

I have a new blog entry on the UFO Magazine blog, The Green Room: Yes, Yes, Yes! But . . .

George P. Hansen: Return of the Trickster

Podcast with George P. Hansen, author of The Trickster and the Paranormal. See: Return of the Trickster.

Psi, the paranormal, and the supernatural are fundamentally linked to destructuring, change, transition, disorder, marginality, the ephemeral, fluidity, ambiguity, and blurring of boundaries. In contrast, the phenomena are repressed or excluded with order, structure, routine, stasis, regularity, precision, rigidity, and clear demarcation.

Understanding the role and nature of the Trickster is fundamental to understanding the paranormal.

I'll second that!

From Trickster and Paranormal Blog

Excellent post by George P. Hansen's blog Trickster and the Paranormal, on the name change of CSICOP to CSI. (I've written on this myself, but Hansen does a much better job explaining the anthro/sociological reasons of the whys . . . )

The Trickster and the Paranormal

George P. Hansen has new posts at his Paranormal Trickster blog.

And, you're welcome to join the Yahoo group The Trickster and the Paranormal, inspired by Hansen's book of the same name.

Zetetic Scholar on-line

You can order some issues of Zetetic Scholar from George Hansen's website:
Trickster and the Paranormal.

Tim Binnall, Brad Steiger, and Trickster

Tim Binnall’s season two finale interview with Brad Steiger was inspiring, reminding me of what I consider to be the crucial points of esoteric research and phenomena. (Including UFOs.)

Steiger stressed that at the core of all these anomalous events (always keeping in mind this includes UFOs) is the Trickster element. (Steiger isn’t the only researcher that believes this; see George P. Hansen’s The Trickster and the Paranormal.)

Another point Steiger made was that no one has the answer, (which should seem obvious) and yet so many come out and insist that that is exactly what they have.

There was also the point made that younger researchers sometimes are ignorant of the older, previous researchers that have gone before and set the way for others; Steiger himself, Keel, Sanderson, Fodor, etc. Young ghost busters tromping through haunted houses with high tech equipment, or UFO “researchers” who read one or two books and think they know it all. I’d add to this that it isn’t just young people, nor all young people, but that this attitude is found among all age groups. There are calls to ignore the history and focus on the now, which is a disservice to all research. (At the same time, you don’t want to get stuck in the past.)

The chronic skeptics, in all their varieties, point to the fact that after so many years -- whether it’s sixty years or a thousand -- we haven't found any answers. That’s true, if one means, by “answer,” the final one size fits all solution to the UFO question. We haven't found “the answer.” The point is, we very likely won’t. That’s unacceptable for some. For others, it’s a non-issue, since we heavily suspect we’ll never find the “answer” and anyway, that’s beside the point.

(Painting: section of Boticelli's Adoration of the Magi 1475)


The persistently skeptical also tell us us that much of UFO and anomalous phenomena seems silly and downright pointless. Conflicting information given by “aliens,” their general behavior, the elusive nature; it’s too uselessly complex and nonsensical.

But that’s what makes it fun; and it’s what the Trickster does; confuse and play cruel jokes. Maybe it makes sense to itself; tough if we can’t get it. Or maybe it knows we can’t get it, and that’s why it delights in doing what it does. Maybe it’s nothing personal at all and we’re personifying; it just is what it is, and we are what we are. No matter, for the Trickster is still at it, regardless of what we think about it.

None of this means there really aren’t Martians living beneath the surface of Mars, or that there are bases on the back side of the Moon. (Maybe.) If any of that is so, that’s only a fraction of the Big Paranormal Picture. A lot more is still to come.

And actually, I suspect that it is really very “simple” in a way: as Steiger called it, we live parallel to a “shadow” world/reality. They do their thing, we do ours. Sometimes, more often than some of us would acknowledge, we meet each other, We find ourselves plunked into their world, or we meet up with “visitors” from theirs. The boundaries between the two aren’t all that firm, as much as some of us like to pretend it is. Indeed, one of the main functions of the Trickster is crossing boundaries.

So thanks to Tim Binnall for all his great work in bringing us (and for free) solid interviews with all kinds of UFO and esoteric researchers, including Brad Steiger.


Resources:
Binnall of America
Brad and Sherry Steiger
The Trickster and the Paranormal

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.

The Trent Tempest

image source:UFO Casebook

Another UFO tempest in a teapot: here's the last item (hopefully) on the so-called "lost" Trent photo: The Trent Tempest on UFO Digest.

“Mock Them As Barflies From Venus and Mars”

Alfred Lehmberg, of An Alien View blog, has written another great piece, this one on the perception by chronic skeptics who spend large units of time sneering at abductees. No understanding, just the lowest and easiest form of attack. I also saw this piece as a metaphor for other issues, including non-UFO ones.

“Forget that the saucers still fly in your skies; forget the abducted, and pretend that their cries... are musings of idiots, cretinous loons who scratch at your wallet then howl at your moon. But it's you, not *abductees*, "out to lunch" here today! It is YOU, and not them, sopped in naiveté!”

What is so often missed in all this craziness and high strangeness, is what it does to all of us, and why. I don’t pretend to know the “why,” and often am unaware of it doing anything at all to me. We need these experiences, whether it’s us that’s having them, or someone else. Among other things, these abductees, and encounters with entities, and all the rest of it, are gifts. Not just for the individual experiencer, but everyone. These “gifts” are not often appreciated, wanted, or even good ones -- give it back! But they are gifts, of a kind, reminding us that it’s not just us solid citizens out here doing the hard core reality thing.

These events have been going on for thousands of years, and we’ve been trying to figure them out -- or suppress them -- for just as long. Doesn’t seem we’ve gotten anywhere, and insisting that those that experience the anomalous are money hungry, emotionally needy, lying fruitcakes with mental diseases is getting a bit tired.

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!