Seeing Animals In Hopes Of . . .

It's a UFO debunker cliche, that when witnesses report seeing strange craft or creatures, that "we see what we want to see." Implying that we want to see Bigfoot, flying saucers, or ghosts, so of course, we convince ourselves that we did indeed see such things.

Sure, Venus has been mistaken for a craft from outer space, and there are those who insist all weird flying objects are operated by ET from another planet.

I was reminded of this silly way of thinking about "seeing what we want to see" today. Years ago, I was walking down a hilly street. At the end of the block, I could have sworn I saw a cow standing there. Right in the middle of town, a brown and white cow. Just standing there. But that though lasted for about six seconds. I couldn't figure out what it was, but I knew it very probably wasn't a cow. Then I realized it was a car. A brown car that was parked at an odd angle, dappled by the sunlight. True, I didn't "want" to see a cow -- though that would have been pretty neat to see a cow in the road -- but I realized the chances of it being a cow were slim. Even while I didn't know what it was, I didn't convince myself it was a cow.

Today, driving on Lorane highway (about a mile from my orange orb sighting decades ago) we saw what at first were "tiny fawns." We knew of course they couldn't have been fawns, since they are never that small. And the chances of seeing many of them together were low as well. We both had the same thought: "teeny fawns" but quickly realized they weren't, because they couldn't have been. Even though we wanted to see fawn, or deer, as we often do see on that road, we knew these things we were seeing weren't. They were turkeys. We slowed down and watched as the flock crossed the road. There were at least fifteen of them.

The point is, we often expect to see something but realize quickly we're not seeing what we think we're seeing. Sometimes we don't know what we're seeing, but know what it isn't. So when we do see strange craft, or ghosts, or a Bigfoot, for example, the witness is more often correct in describing something out of the ordinary, and not mistaking something mundane for something anomalous.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

'Two Questions' comment on CSICOP

Comment on Ray's X-Ray Blog on the new look of good old CSICOP, now known as CSI. Yes, CSI. They've gone Hollywood, I tell you.

Sex and UFOs

Before you say "Hey, not you too, I just read at least two other blogs that wrote about this" I say:

You all heard it here first dahlings!

Sex and UFOs (Don't know why the image is broken, sorry for that.)

THE DANCE WITHIN THE BUBBLE

My UFO Philosophy Bubble Thing, Part I

Theories, ideas, musings, hypotheses, thoughts, anecdotal evidence, we’re all just trying to figure it out. Some are brave and fresh and daring; Nick Redfern’s book on Roswell Body Snatchers in the Desert, (with a review by Stanton Friedman) or the current discussion over Mac Tonnies theory on ‘cryptoterrestrials.’ Others are almost quaint; for example, the idea benevolent Space Brothers who are here to help us vibrate to a higher level, or, something.

Hundreds of theories. There’s no lack of theories on what UFOs are, and there’s a good handful of theories about UFOlogy itself.

So I’m going to jump right in and present little theory; the Bubble Theory. The bubble doesn't mean anything, it was just a quick and convenient way to graphically organize some thoughts. But in thinking about it, I found that the bubble is a good image. It ‘s reminiscent of the bubble in The Wizard of Oz: the one that was small at first, only to grow bigger . . . and bigger . . .until it “landed’ and the Good Witch appeared from within. The bubble is a sphere; many a UFO has been described as being sphere shaped. Planets are sphere shaped. The circle itself is a spiritual and holy symbol. the bubble fits, it’s simple yet elegant.

My little Bubble of UFO Philosophy contains two key points that I think many do not consider when it comes to UFO theories. One, there is an inherent Trickster energy in the paranormal and Fortean realm; and this includes UFOlogy. Two, the Infrastructure -- science, academia, politics/government, society,the media and to a lesser extent, religious institutions -- cannot, will not, treat UFOlogy with “respect” or seriousness. It can’t. Expectations of science taking the subject of UFOs seriously, of embracing the topic with good intent is ridiculous, Expecting any of the ‘departments’ within the Infrastructure to do so is futile. That’s why full disclosure will never happen, etc.

“The Trickster” is not a person, or some sort of comic book character. Rather, it’s an energy, it’s a force. It’s manifestation. “Trickster” simply is an easy to hold, easy to use symbol to express this idea.

The same with ‘Infrastructure.” It’s not an actual building (as one skeptic , in all seriousness, asked me eons ago on a forum) it’s an idea, another manifestation of systems at work. Individual journalists, scientists, academics, religious leaders, politicians, may very well be sincere in their attempts to discover the truth within the UFO phenomeana. But as a whole, and as a force that can be addressed within our culture (and the modern world in general) we can accurately say that this Infrastructure has been diligent in doing what it does; keeping the mundane world mundane, and keeping the anomalous world out. That’s what it does.

I think another thing that is often “wrong’ with UFOlogy is the expectation, or belief, that there is to be one explanation, one kind of witness, one kind of government response, one kind of research approach, etc.

Sometimes it seems that researchers shouldn’t change their minds in regards to theories, or are given the room to safely say they don’t know yet what to think of a thing; they’re still considering.

Surrounding these two key points are the things I think are vital to unraveling the UFO enigma. they’re not in any particular hierarchy, because we need all those things at the same time in order to gain a better insight into the phenomeana. It’s a juggling act all right but it’s necessary. Or, consider it more of a dance. (Hey! The Bubble Dance!) Not just the steps, but the dancers themselves. Some move up to the front, some move to the side or back, some are doing better than others, some, even if not as good as the rest of the troupe, are at least doing some innovative steps.

Also within the Bubble are the folk, the witnesses, the researchers, the skeptics. All of these things make up UFOlogy, and UFOLogy is a part of the UFO puzzle. It’s a symbiotic system. It's not just the 'study of UFOs,' it's also those who study UFOs.


I’ll post Part II at a later date, where I’ll define the terms within the bubble.

DO YOU SEE THEM? WELL, DO YOU?

It's obvious; these owls are hiding from skeptic Joe Nickell. (With thanks to the very fine Daily Grail.)