"Aliens are Real"

We see this often; the statement on social media and throughout the internet that "aliens are real." I agree with that, aliens are real, and I won't argue that with the debunker crowd. (Just like I don't argue my case with them on ghosts, UFOs, etc.)

But, the question is, not are aliens real, but what do we mean by "aliens?"
Exchange the word "alien" for "God" and it's the same idea. I believe in "God" but, as I've discovered through the years, my idea of "God" is very different from the majority's, at least in our culture.  My Christian friends definitely disagree with me on this conception of "God." (Yes, I'm an old hippie flower child, believing that "god" is all, everywhere, within and without, consciousness and star stuff. A bearded man in the sky who sent his son, who was also him, what?! -- no.)

So we throw the words around -- alien, God, -- and assume we're on the same page. Oh dahlings, we are so not!

For that matter, I'll even throw in UFOs, for our definitions of that seeming obvious term has different meanings for different people. (Debunkers and skeptics often like to be cute and insist that when using the term "UFO" 'everyone knows we're really talking about aliens from space.' Bless their disingenuous hearts.)

"Aliens are real," sure. But that belief, that opinion, doesn't stop there with the acknowledgement that "they" exist. We really have two questions -- what are aliens -- and, which ones are talking about -- in what context?

Were the "aliens" listening in on our conversations -- invisible yet very distinct  presence felt by many -- aliens from outer space? Another planet? Or an energy? Something co-existing with us here on earth? Something mystical/spiritual, like angels? Djinn? Even something co-created, even unconsciously, by us via our intense discussions of the subject? A sort of UFO tulpa?

What of the beings seen by landed ships and inside craft?

The list of weird unexplained beings that are non-human but described as "alien" is a long one, as well as a varied. We can't simply put the idea of "alien" into one category, acknowledge its existence, then feel as if we've solved something.

Just trying to define terms is exhausting in the land of the weird, and we realize how complex the "thing" (UFO, alien, er, "God") really is.

The Mentally Deranged Card

We expect the pathological skeptics to label anyone who insists they've had a UFO or anomalous experience mentally ill. The infrastructure does pretty well in that regard as well. General culture, mainstream media. And if therapy is sought and you're not fortunate or savvy enough to get yourself a Jungian therapist --  who might understand, even if interpreting the experiences as non-literal but nonetheless profound --  you might find yourself not only so labeled, but prescribed meds or worse.

I expect that crap from those groups, so when the Dr. Posners of the skeptic world pontificate, I'm not surprised. I do find it surprising  when I come across it within the filmy walls of UFO Land. (And not a little misogynistic, for it seems that the labels are more quickly applied when it's female experiencers that are the subjects.) Emma Woods has been called many things by some within UFO Land. The vitriol is astounding. Among the things she's been accused of: being "unstable," mentally ill, emotionally unbalanced. And much worse. A visit to just about any UFO forum will prove that. One forum and podcast in particular that I will not link to, that likes to promote itself as being of the highest caliber of metal is notorious for such insults.

Neither Jacobs, the UFO researcher and author who happily used Emma Woods as one of his subjects, nor those attacking Woods are shrinks. And even if they are, armchair psychoanalyzing is just that; hardly a diagnosis that's worth taking seriously. What often accompanies such easily thrown out labeling is a heap of nastiness with a topping of misogyny. Positive sneering, and a weirdly gleeful sneering at that.

Recently, Leah Haley came out with her perspectives on the alien abduction phenomena. Her current take is that there is no such thing as literal alien abduction. After years of experiences and her own research, she's decided the alien abduction scenario is a staged event, controlled by humans. Mind control. MILABS. This is her opinion. She's entitled, certainly, and it's highly interesting. She could even be right. (Wow, how about that!) I have no idea if she is or not. I have long suspected humans are involved in what we loosely call "alien abductions." The point here isn't if Haley is right or not; but the reactions her announcement has invoked. An example from the above mentioned forum:

What would I call it?....uhhh.....errrr...nutsy monkey-batshit koo koo?
Ya know, I normally like cutting edge people and ideas, but this isn't one of them. This is mental dysfunction of the kind that doesn't let you process your sensory input without it going through a "I'm Nucking Futz" filter.

From the same message board:

But, I think she may be suffering from a mental illness.

Calling Haley mentally ill because she thinks human created mind control is the cause for abductions doesn't even make sense. I understand not agreeing with that opinion, but deciding it's a mental aberration? The U.S. alone has a long history of mind control experiments; why is the idea of mind control with an alien/outer space theme so outrageous for some to accept as a possibility?

If one is mentally ill, then they need support and compassion. So why the threats, insults, and stupid jokes at the expense of those UFO witnesses whose opinions you might find yourself in disagreement with? It's not as if those witnesses are being "mentally ill" on purpose.

What is the purpose of rejecting witnesses with sometimes glib, sometimes nasty (and not a little threatening) statements that they're lunatics? I've answered my own question: by stating (almost always with a false authority) that witnesses are mentally ill, the rest of us don't have to consider what they have to tell us. Nothing to think about here, move on.

But of course, neither Woods nor Haley are mentally ill. Not in the sense their critics mean. Vulnerable, anxious,obsessive possibly, even paranoid, -- all those are on a scale from "a little bit," to "hell fucking yes!" Who wouldn't be some of those things, at some times, given missing time, screen memories, encounters of non-human entities, sightings of strange objects, and other anomalous events?

There is also a bit of irony here; those inside UFO Land who otherwise align themselves with experiencers/"believers"/witnesses have no problem accepting UFOs and aliens exist -- which skeptics, etc. would easily call them "mentally ill" -- but bring up mind control, or MILABS, or "obsess" over being manipulated, used and sexually harassed, and you're mentally ill. Aliens: sane. Tell your truth: insane.

It doesn't work that way. None of us knows what's going on, and we can only listen and share. Sometimes it's hard to listen, and certainly it's hard to share. Attacking others as being sick in the head because one has a hard time listening makes it even more difficult than it already is for others to tell their stories.

Personal interpretations are open to debate. We all have our buffers and our beliefs.

I Can't Take It Files: Billy Ray and UFOs

I don't know what to say, except the non-poetic and unimaginative "what the fuck?!" -- I mean ... it's ... uh ... um... you can't make this up... Billy Ray Cyrus is going to host his own show on UFOs. Yes, UFOs! AND, he's gonna debunk 'em! Hold me back, please. . . I can't take it. The world's gone mad. But we knew that already.

Anyway, Lesley Gunter says it well on her Grey Matters column for BoA:Redneck Ufology & The Best Hair on TV

...what exactly gives them any expertise as Ufologists or skeptics? Are they going to have real experts on or are we suppose to rely on their opinion? Seriously, it is totally ridiculous. What the fuck was SyFy thinking? Were they trying to make UFOs into an even bigger joke than the rest of the media already treats them as? What is next - ghost hunting with Heidi Montag or maybe Bigfoot hunting with Celine Dion?

I love that; "Bigfoot hunting with Celine Dion."  In the deep woods of her beloved Canada, searching for the elusive Sasquatch. Maybe she can wear these while she's out there: (hat tip by the way also to Lesley, who posted about these psychotic and disturbing er, "shoes" on her  Totally Girlie Blog.)

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

Things

Snarly Skepticism
Lots going on at Snarly Skepticism. I had to change the comment settings after getting a few nasty comments (ah yes, the ad homs and the skeptic!) so sorry about that, but there's three, four at least new items up there.

Vintage U.F.O.
I have something about creepy clowns on Vintage U.F.O., which fits in a bit with my Trickster's Realm column on Binnall, which will be up sometime on Monday. That column is about "MIBs, Clowns and Helicopters," inspired mostly by Tim Beckley's The UFO Silencers, but also Chris O'Brien's Mysterious Valley books.

James Rich, Artist
I've been shamelessly promoting my husband's work everywhere. He's finally finished taking images of his paintings and finding a good art hosting site at Yessy.com. He has literally hundreds of paintings, so be sure to check it out regularly; he's putting up images daily.

Lulu.com: E-Books
So are, I only have one little thing up there; a collection of articles on the Trent UFO case and the McMinnville, UFO Festival. I'll more things up there in the weeks to come. You can see what's available on my Lulu Storefront.

Catastrophes and UFOs: It's Not a Contest

Recent catastrophes; earthquakes in China, cyclones in Myanmar,tornadoes in the U.S., have caused some to once again demonize UFOs, or at least, those who choose to explore the mystery of UFOs.

Why the two would have anything to do with each other is beyond me, but the supposed thinking of those who use these tragedies to support their peevish anti-UFO stance makes sense to them, obviously.

Skeptics of many varieties (including, paradoxically, those who acknowledge there are UFOs) don’t like most UFO researchers. That aside, they don’t like UFOs much either. They're always pissed off at them, because UFOS aren’t doing anything. The UFO phenomena’s continued behavior of remaining elusive is maddening, torturous in its contradictory, slippery manifestations. And yet, for all the years the UFOs have been around (centuries, really) for all the evidence, they haven't done anything. At least not in a grand, showy way; pulling off some mind blowing trick like turning mountains into ice cream sundaes or finally delivering those flying cars.

They haven’t fixed anything, saved anyone, cured any diseases, solved any of the world’s problems. They didn’t prevent the recent tragedies, or past disasters. They didn’t warn us. They haven’t stopped war. Racism, ageism, sexism, classism still exist, relgious hatreds and wars continue, people live in poverty. The aliens and UFOs haven't fixed any of it.

This makes some people downright mad. Instead of getting mad at a god, God, Jesus - they’re mad at UFOs. And they're madder still at people who study UFOs. The message seems to be that it’s somehow all our fault that tragedies happen. And if it isn’t our fault, exactly, and/or the UFOs, we’re still guilty by association just for seriously thinking about the subject.

I get the feeling these brands of skeptics (and beware; many of them insist they are not skeptics at all and are, in fact, in with the in crowd of UFO researchers) have a whole lot of expectations on what UFOs should do, and what they shouldn’t do. Which is ludicrous. They accuse us of being like children; frivolous children who chase after the fleeting, fragile UFO, when it’s they that are stuck in magical thinking.

Sure, I “believe” in aliens. Rather, I believe they exist. I believe aliens from other planets, as well as other entities, are all around us. I don’t believe in them, however. I don't pray to them or expect them to do anything.

I don’t believe every UFO is from outer space, piloted by ET.
I don’t believe ET, aliens, entities, Mothman, Bigfoot, or Lizard Man are going to save us, cure us, fix us, heal the planet, or teach me how to parallel park.

I don’t think only some should study UFOs, and others shouldn’t, and I don’t think anyone should, or, shouldn't, just because I said so. Or because anyone else said so.

I don’t care who’s who, or why, or what they do in their private life, (naturally there are some boundaries here, Christ people, use your common sense) if they party too much, or not enough, -- they “get to” delve into the mysteries of life as much as anyone. In fact, god knows, we need more people getting deep into this stuff!

Using the very real horrors of this world to bash UFO or Fortean research is dishonest. It’s disingenuous. It’s lazy. It distracts from both the world’s cruel realities, as well as anomalous research.

The two aren’t in a contest with each other; don’t make it one. Don’t pit one phenomena against the other as some sort of moral barometer of any given individual.

Around The Orb

New template, and new name, on my skeptic’s blog. It’s now Snarly Skepticism, and has some neat things, like the Bigfoot Threads on JREF and Still Counting on the menu on your right. (At last count I think it was thirteen.)

I’ve been having too much fun at Vintage U.F.O. -- lots of clips and things up right now. Nothing terribly insightful but fun. You might have noticed I made a slight change to that blog too; from Vintage UFO to Vintage U.F.O.

As always, I’ll plug Women Of Esoterica and Frame 352: The Stranger Side of Sasquatch.

---

Still reading Andrew Colvin’s Mothman Photographer’s II, which I’m enjoying very much. This isn’t to say I always agree with Colvin on some things; he has some very firm opinions. I won’t mention names but he doesn’t like a couple of people in the field I do find interesting, and likes someone I had a very nasty private exchange with, who frequents a well known UFO list. But his experiences and take on things is worth looking at; and the book has a lot of stuff by John Keel, which is great. I still think, after all this time, much of what Keel has to say about things makes sense. (So there’s an example of an “old” researcher whose contributions may be “old” but they’re hardly without value.) If nothing else, the book is fascinating for its mind boggling world of synchronicities and complicated connections from one seemingly mundane thing to a paranormal, UFO, global Illuminati thing. You can see how this stuff could drive someone mad . . .

---

The Contactees continue to fascinate me, and I’m just beginning to explore the idea of the time of their contacts. We think of the Contactee era has happening mainly in the 1950s and 1960s. But eras don’t exist in vacuums; any period in history overlaps with what went before, and what follows. Some of the Contactees experienced visitations earlier than what we typically think of as the ‘Contactee era.” What that could mean, I don’t know.

---

I’m so busy with my own blogging and writing, and “real” life, that I don’t acknowledge all the others who do great work -- and for free, which shows I’m not the only one obsessed. All the individual bloggers, listed on my links list, but also forums and places like Book of Thoth, or Binnall of America, or UFO Digest, or Stuart Miller's Alien Worlds. And Greenwald’s Blackvault. The Anomalist as well, even though they’re a publisher, and do make some money; but it’s not as if they’re all buying villas in Italy. All those places give the rest of us daily news and links to the realm of the weird, which is pretty neat.

And of course all those individual bloggers; that’s why it annoys me so much when people start writing about how others are wasting time, or should shut up because they’re not saying the “right things” about UFOs. Or worse, when they get downright insulting. No, you shut up. Neener neener. So there. Feh!

---

Have a good week!

I Know, It’s A Waste Of Time . . .

But I do wish the following would forever disappear from the culture:

“Do you believe in UFOs?”

"Are UFOs real?"

“Do you believe you’ve seen what you thought was a UFO?”

“Aunt Millie said she’s seen a UFO; do you believe her?”

“Do you believe UFOs exist?”

You get the picture.

I know, I know, it’s “only” semantics (a phrase that drives me wild) and it’s a ridiculous battle. No chance at all of ever winning, or even coming close.

Still, every now and then I just have to rant about the use of UFO as an: idol, an idea, a concept, a entity, an alien -- make that an outer space alien -- a mirage, a hallucination, a fantasy, a lie, a drug or alcohol induced event, a mental aberration, a religious figure, a God/

Instead of what it is: a weird object/craft/machine/light of unknown origin and purpose. Nothing to “believe” in at all. Do you “believe” in your microwave? The point some make that “we know what a microwave is; we don’t know what a UFO is” is a nonsensical response. Yes, yes, we know about microwaves, and we don’t know the whats, wheres, and whys of UFOs, but that’s what UFOs are. In that sense, we do know what UFOs are: we don’t know what they are. (heh.)

Putting all this other stuff onto an unexplainable light/thing/machine in the sky only reveals the issues of the individual doing the interpreting. Including the thuggish (or disingenuous, depending) response of the pathological skeptic who insists that “everyone knows when we say UFO we really mean aliens from space.” Speak for yourself there Mr. or Ms. Pelican Head.

I have ideas, theories even, as to what some UFOs are, but that doesn’t mean they are that.

I’ve seen several UFOs in my life. (Some with some high strangeness thrown in.) And while I won’t deny or try to explain away, nor rationalize in any way, that I’ve seen UFOs, -- because I have -- neither will I say I “believe” in them.

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.

More Skepti-ness: Randi’s “Challenge”

From the PsiPog.net blog, an entry on the author’s experiences with members of the JREF forum, (James Randi Educational Foundation) Randi himself, and an assistant.
Beware Pseudo-Skepticism I’m not at all surprised by what the author (who calls himself Peebrain) has to relate; it mirrors much of what I’ve personally experienced and observed through the years. And, as so many of us ask: why can’t people just be nice? Sheesh, such a prickly bunch. Far more important of course, and the real issue, is the lack of forthrightness on their part.

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

Skepticism vs. All The Other Kinds of Skeptoism

Hey, that’s it! Maybe. ‘Skepto’ to denote the rabid, pathological, fundie,mondo, irrational skepticism, and to separate it from normal, everyday, “real” skepticism.

While we do have skepti-bunkies, skeptoid, etc. that seems to offend those that wear those shoes (tough) and confuse some others.

I like Colin Bennett’s chronic and cultural skepticism terms, but that may be too esoteric.

Whatever term you use, and I’ll probably keep on using various forms of rabid-pathological-fundie myself, the point is: there is skepticism, and then there’s something else entirely hiding behind the goodly term of skepticism.

When it comes to UFOs, it’s not that I’m skeptical. As I’ve asked in the past, skeptical of what, exactly? That UFOs exist? Of course I’m not skeptical. That’d be stupid.

It’s illogical, and, well, pathological to hold yourself up proudly as a “skeptic’” and state that you “don’t believe UFOs exist.”

UFOs exist. People see them all the time. Whatever in the world is there to dispute, dahlings?

Personal interpretations of what those UFOs are, now, that’s a different matter. And stating, as fact, that they’re aliens from Mars, is not one bit skeptical. To be skeptical that UFOs are from other planets is a good and true thing.

This doesn't mean, however, that they couldn’t be from Mars. It’s possible. And in my opinion, it’s very likely they are. Or from somewhere. I suspect they are, and that’s my opinion. It’s not a fact, for no one knows. (Well, possibly “they” know, you know, “them” -- but they’re not telling.)

I’m very skeptical alien abductions are: A) carried out by aliens, and B) literal abduction events. I’m also equally skeptical alien abductions are merely road weariness or product of a sleep disorder.

As much as I respect and admire Stanton Friedman, and I do, I am skeptical of the veracity of MJ-12. I think he has been the ongoing target of a disinformation campaign, but I could be wrong. I hope I am. But the history of the source, or his leads, and of UFO disinfo itself, causes me to be skeptical.

Surprising as it may be to the anti-UFO “skeptic” there are skeptics within genuine UFOlogy as well. I remember many years ago, when I was involved in a local UFO study group. I voiced my opinion on abductions; how I think much of that is staged “MILAB’ stuff. I was almost run out of town on a rail. One person told me he didn’t want to be around me; he couldn’t bring himself to associate with someone like me who was “that paranoid.”

At a local UFO conference once, I was disinvited to speak, because I was too “negative.” My message? Beware the messenger. Too “negative” and they wanted to keep things upbeat. Christ, you would have thought I was talking about the Reptilian Overlords and vats of human body parts in Dulce from the way the conference facilitator carried on.

Anyway, I could go on and on, and I will at some point. Meantime, just know that there are those out there who are no mere skeptics, but a completely different breed altogether, wit no only a bias, but an agenda. There are levels and varieties to these types of course, from the hapless dupes who gladly grab onto the latest meme of anti-UFOism, to the intentional disinformation agents who put the latest anti-UFO meme out there for the dupes to pick up, gossip over, and pass along. There are the debunkers, and the pathological, the rabid, the irrational rationalists. There are the ones with the big egos who pride themselves on being educated and intelligent -- as they never fail to tell the rest of us , implying that many of us are not -- and carve out a niche for themselves as skeptics. Finally -- and this is based on my personal experience and observation -- those who are given to sarcasm and sneering ‘tudes, just for its own sake , seem to gravitate to the rabid skeptic side.

There are also those who I find particularly intriguing, though at the same time unctuous and nauseating, and that’s the mega-rabid anti-UFOist. So obsessed they are! They despise UFos, UFOlogy, UFO experiencers, UFO witnesses, UFO researchers, UFO “enthusiasts” so much, they write virtually daily on UFOlogy, and why it’s bad, evil, silly, stupid, dangerous, sad, pathetic, a waste of time. Why, they even lie at times! I know, it’s positively astonishing, isn’t it?

Well, I kind of went off there on a tangent, but nothing new there. Aside from my own brilliant insights into skepticism, there have been some very good entries on the topic by other bloggers as well lately. Greg Bishop, on UFO Mystic, and
Dustin of Odd Things. Dustin mentions Mac Tonnies; with a link to Wikipedia on Tonnies’ essay on Skepticism. Nick Redfern has also written something recently on UFO whistle blowers, and the need for skepticism.

One thing I’ve noticed about “skeptics” and UFO people -- and of course this is a generalization, based on nothing but observation - but it seems that the anti type of skeptic isn’t questioning. Unless, of course, they’re calling into question one’s sanity, character, and innate state of truthfulness. Compare that to the questioning of the UFO witness, or researcher. Most of us are doing nothing but questioning. The “true ‘bleevers” aside, most of us question quite a lot, while the fundie/rabid/pathological etc. “skeptic” does not. They believe there is nothing to question. They’re far from any honest, open “inquiry” they’re about denial, derision, and even a sort of cultural cleansing. Rid the world of “woo” -- in this case, flying saucer woo -- and let the questioning end, seems to be the goal.

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!