Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Woo-Woo vs. Poo Poo

From Dr. Chopra's tweets:

Dear Friends Michael Scermer professional skeptic , king of Poo Poo, has accepted to debate. Looking forward to educating him. Stay tuned

I like the idea of calling the debate Woo Woo Vs Poo Poo ! What do you think? ( Divine vs Diabolical ha ha)


You know that I am very much looking forward to it. :-)

King of Poo Poo came about due to Shermer calling Chopra a Master of Woo Woo. What else would you expect from Shermer?

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

That settles it!

LesleyinNM@DeepakChopra I very much enjoyed your short debate with Shermer! He is not a skeptic, he is a fundamentalist.

DeepakChopra @lesleyinnm you are right :)

See! If Dr. Chopra agrees with me then I can't possibly be wrong. :-)

BTW, you can read the Larry King Live transcript here.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Woo Begins in the Womb

Woo Begins in the Womb « Bruce M. Hood

While I don't disagree with the scientific findings in this post (that the longer your ring finger the more testosterone you have) I do disagree with Bruce Hood's opinion that more women believe in "woo." That is not my experience with woo-woos.

I don't follow ghost phenomena much, so I won't include that, but certainly in Cryptozooloy and Ufology you will find far more men than women involved.

Now I don't have any scientific methods that lead me to believe there are more male believers than female, but I do know that last time I checked 80% of my facebook friends were men, nearly all of them believers in "woo" and most of the people (easily 95%) that email me about their experiences are men. Needless to say because it is obvious, but most researchers in Cryptozoology and Ufology are men.

If I am out at a party where I don't know many people and it is found out that I write and blog about UFOs it is the men that are most interested, not the women. In fact, the women seem to consider it a "manly" topic, like scifi or rebuilding car engines. The few men that roll their eyes and walk off normally find me when nobody is around and admit that they have seen a UFO or they know someone (that they believe) that saw one.

Even my local UFO group, which is pretty evenly split, normally has at least 60% men.

This is what I think -- high testosterone probably doesn't make anyone less likely to believe in "woo," but it may make them less likely to admit it.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

With a rebel yell, they cried Maher, Maher, Maher

Just in case you needed it, Phil Plait gives more proof of the fundamentalism of the debunkie bots. If you dare to go against them on even one point you will be labeled a woo-woo. If you need that kind of treatment -- join a church. At least then you can be labeled something more exciting -- a sinner!
Skepticblog » With a rebel yell, they cried Maher, Maher, Maher

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The World's Greatest Hoaxes

In the 1960s, Barney and Betty Hill claimed they were pursued by a glowing UFO through parts of New Hampshire. This first reported incident of an alleged alien abduction in America. Even UFO buffs eventually found their increasingly outlandish claims hard to believe.
The World's Greatest Hoaxes | LiveScience

Does Benjamin Radford even know any "UFO buffs?" I know lots of them, probably hundreds, and I can't think of one that believes the Betty and Barney Hill story to be a hoax nor do I know of any evidence pointing to it being a hoax. Just because someone's story seems outlandish, it doesn't mean they are lying.

Friday, August 28, 2009

How to Talk to a UFOlogist (if you must)

UFOlogists claim that they have tens of thousands of UFO sightings, as if this is a good thing, but Shostak notes that this actually argues against UFOs being ET, because to date not one of these tens of thousands of sightings has materialized into concrete evidence that UFOs = ETIs. It’s counterintuitive, but more sightings equals less certainty because with so many saucers zipping around we would have captured one by now, and we haven’t.

Apparently the governments of the world share their secret knowledge with Shostak and he knows things the rest of us don't -- like we have never captured a spaceship.

He also knows that people who write fiction can't be taken seriously when they write non-fiction. Guess I will throw away all my Sagan books -- except the fiction.

Skepticblog » How to Talk to a UFOlogist (if you must)

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Noisy Nitwits

Don't think facebook is boring, you can meet just as many assclowns there as anywhere else on the internet! The following takes place on Bill Birnes' fb page.

The opening comment that started it all by Danielle:

All Of the UFO Hunters show are Science Fiction
So apparently she doesn't believe in Roswell, Rendlesham or any of the cases profiled on there because if she did it wouldn't be science fiction. One has to wonder if she has spent any time actually investigating anything, let alone seen a ufo herself.

To prove all of you wrong I have had 20 years of experience in the UFO Field and I am also a State Director for MUFON.


Oh, so she has spent time filling out MUFON reports. I guess that is something. I knew MUFON was hard up for members, but I had no idea how hard up.

I happen to have first hand knowledge that alot of the stuff that is shown on UFO hunter is Hyped for TV. That do it for rating and little to none is ever proven outside the show. All of you people who watch the show are all just observers not having any connection to the field.
What a genius! Who would have thought that TV hyped things?

And MUFON proves what with their investigations???

Observers, not trained professionals like little Miss Know-it-all.

Funny enough, I checked Miss know-it-all's friend list and she doesn't seem to be connected with anyone in the field, not even the head of MUFON, James Carrion. Doesn't that seem strange for a "state director?" Sadly MUFON did not have a list of state directors, but I am tempted to email James and ask if she really is one.

I have not seen anything on UFO Hunters that I would call real. The more that I am in the UFO Field tha more I become a skeptic. 95% of my cases that I deal with are just light in the sky. No proof. the other 5% that people are seening I believe are experimental Aircraft that our and other governments are testing. Not an ET craft. Don't get me wrong I don't think that we did it by ourselves I think we had ET help on the design of the aircrafts. but ET's are not flying them. My Beef is with the UFO Hunters show it's self people who know nothing about UFO watch it and believe everything that they tell them is real and true. It is just entertainment no fact to it. Now if Bill would get on there and take is ass to Area 51 and try and do some real investigations I might change my mind. Do some real investigative reporting!

Does that even make sense? There was ET help with aircraft design, but they are not flying around in our sky. So how the hell did we meet them to get aircraft designs if they aren't visiting earth???

Bill did take his ass (OMG! that is a curse word) to Area 51, strangely enough they wouldn't let him in. Imagine that!

Of course, that also made me do a quick google so that I could find miss know-it-all's own investigative reporting and was not the least surprised to find zero. She isn't even a person according to google, no mentions at all. It is why I am not mentioning her complete name here, why give her any mention on google?

To those that enjoy UFO Hunters, she write:

Kelly and Amanda. If you are watching the UFO Hunter Show and you like it then you have no idea what is going on in the real world of UFO.

As for Amanda get a clue you are as dumb as the rest of the sheep that is watching the show. Kelly what kind of connection do you have in the UFO Field? Other then watching the show. Are you will an orgainization that studies the subject. If so which one and what do you do in the orgainization.
And to that, I wrote:

Danielle has discovered the truth -- UFO Hunters is hyped for TV. What a f#2king revelation! Who knew that networks did such things? Someone give that girl a prize for her intellect that is soooooo superior to everyone else. All hail Danielle!

Someone call Bob White and tell him his artifact is fake -- quickly!

No need for anyone else to research Ufology -- Danielle has it covered. Woo hoo!
Nitwit wrote:

Lesley
Do me a favor try and broaden your vocabulary, using curse words in a post is very tacky. That shows me that you are indeed brainless and have nothing intelligent to say. It called class and you my dear have none!!!!
Funny enough, as I wrote that I said to myself -- I bet she attacks me on the so-called curse word, which is why I didn't spell it out. After years of experience with these trolls, I know that when they can't actually defend themselves they attack over stupid crap like that and she didn't disappoint me. Apparently ASS is not a curse word.

I couldn't help responding:

Oh Danielle, you have so hurt my feelings. Especially reading through your comments that are so perfectly constructed. Please tell me, where can I read your grand research papers? They must be thrilling!

Then again, you had already proved yourself a hypocrite to me by calling other people sheep, when you are the one that belongs to an organization. Do you just not like independently minded people or are they against the rules of MUFON?
I am sure there is more to come. She is too damn stupid to just give up. Damn, another curse word, whatever will Danielle think of me? More importantly, why does she think I would care?

Friday, April 17, 2009

Debunkery 101: Dan Aykroyd Hawks Plastic Skull Vodka and Claims to Have Seen UFOs


True believers are delighted that a celebrity has come out of the closet, and declared that he has seen UFO's. But a has-been actor who is reduced to hawking vodka packaged in a plastic skull doesn't exactly have a lot of credibility.

Only a UFO true believer would point to a UFO hoax as proof that there are real UFO's out there. The Ghostbusters star must be drinking from that cheap plastic skull of vodka, how else can we account for his twisted logic?

I'll buy Akroyd as a big screen ghostbuster, but I seriously doubt that he has seen any UFO's when he wasn't drunk or high.

Most of the UFO sightings are like the hoax that Akroyd alluded to: Two dudes attached flares to helium balloons and presto, instant UFO's.

Friends and neighbors the giant Pillsbury Dough Boy from Ghostbusters will come to your house selling Avon, before you see a real UFO.

Robert Paul Reyes is a NewsBlaze writer on Politics, Pop Culture and Pointless Pontificating. Contact him by writing to NewsBlaze.

Dan Aykroyd Hawks Plastic Skull Vodka and Claims to Have Seen UFOs

I have read a lot of really insulting articles, but this one has to make the top ten.

First, a comedic genius is called a has been actor. Yes, as though the only reason he isn't in dozens of movies anymore is because he is no longer A-list, not that he prefers to do other things or possibly has made enough money that he doesn't care to work his ass off doing movies.

Of course, next is the oldest debunkery rule in the book -- if someone claims to have seen something strange just accuse them of being drunk or high. Does he accuse Ronald Regan and Jimmy Carter of the same? No doubt he would if he thought it would stick.

Yes, another debunkery rule -- make sure to accuse someone of only caring about making money. He does plenty of that just in the title of the article, hawking plastic skull vodka. In the mind of the Debunklicans anyone who actually may be making some money is obviously lying about everything. Even if that money isn't being made from Ufology. Never mentioned is the fact that skeptics/debunkies make money spewing their De Bunk.

As someone who has seen strange things flying about while not being drunk or high -- I find this insulting. It is insulting mostly in it's common, dull and dumb assumptions made by someone who has obviously not investigated the subject. Someone who doesn't realize there are thousands of videos, photos and even military documented sightings of UFOs. Someone who really is so uninformed that he shouldn't be worth my time to comment on, but it is a dull rainy day.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

KNOWING, …or NOT?

So hurray! Along comes “Knowing” and gives the non-skeptical world a whole new reason to believe in precognition, clairvoyance and the supernatural. Not to mention another number conspiracy theory to freshen up any ancient Pythagorean, sacred geometric, alchemical or numerological hoodoo that may have been on the wane since “The Di Vinci Code” or “The Number 23.” In this movie it’s all neatly rolled into one little bundle. As a mentalist I can now use effects that utilize numbers and predictions and be assured of a whole new audience! All I can say is, “…Woooooooooooooooo!” Thank you mass media for another validation! We may grit their teeth at this fairytale, but falling for this yarn for anybody but us skeptics is not so preposterous when you see the way the writers and director pulled this all off. The acting is compelling, the story tight and the special effects utterly smashing - in more ways than one.

I wrote about this a couple weeks back in Grey Matters after seeing the film, but why is it that skeptics/debunkers and fundamentalist Christians both think the non-skeptical world or non-believers are going to take this seriously? I found it to be an entertaining fictional film that had me thinking about what ifs for about 10 minutes or so and then I went on with my life.

It is something that skeptics and fundamentalists Christians have in common -- anyone who doesn't think exactly like them will take such things seriously. Everyone other than them is mislead and dumb. Hogwash!

No wonder the aliens would rather save the rabbits. :-)

Continue reading --
Skepticblog » KNOWING, …or NOT?

FAQ ATTAQ!! Hate and Crap vs. Light and Love

• UFO Magazine: News For the Fews •

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Randi Backs Out of Challenge with Homeopath George Vithoulkas

As for homeopathic remedies, how would you judge that? If there was no physical evidence that they worked and yet the person feels better -- how could it be said that they didn't work? Even if they only work mentally, they still work.

Using myself as an example -- I know that acupuncture does not heal my back and neck problems. However, whenever I have it done it relaxes me so much that they feel better and I feel better overall.

Health and wellness is not just physical and almost any doctor will agree with that.

Randi Backs Out of Challenge with Homeopath George Vithoulkas

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Rupert Sheldrake and Scientific Fundamentalism

Such a great article, you can find it here.

Some quotes:

The same is true of controversies about telepathy. Sceptics like Rutherford, who accused me of "crimes against reason", rely on the claims of other skeptics, like Michael Shermer, who rely on yet other skeptics such as David Marks, who ignore any evidence that goes against their beliefs.
Their beliefs. That is true and it totally excludes them from being considered skeptics and tags them as debunkers.

Science is our best method for exploring what we do not understand. But for some people science has become a religion. They need authority and certainty, and want to believe that the fundamental answers are already known.

Scientific fundamentalism serves deep emotional needs, but it is counter-productive for the progress of science itself. It inhibits scientific exploration, gives science a bad name and puts young people off. Science advances through questioning dogmas, by considering new possibilities, and through open-minded enquiry.

That is also completely true.

Certain people need certainty because they are afraid of the unknown. If there is an unknown that means that they really have no control. They are afraid of having no control.

In fact, it does inhibit science as well. I know several people who have come up with great inventions and patents simply by not following "scientific laws." Yes, by trying something new. By trying something that others told them would never work.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

The BSCSI

Journalist Terry Hansen wrote:

"[The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal] is an organization of people who oppose what they contend is pseudo-science...CSICOP, contrary to its impressive-sounding title, does not sponsor scientific research. On the contrary, it's main function has been to oppose scientific research, especially in areas such as psychic phenomena and UFOs, two topics that, coincidentally or not, have been of demonstrated interest to the intelligence community over the decades. Instead, CSICOP devotes nearly all of its resources to influencing the American public via the mass media. As author Jerome Clark, editor of the International UFO Reporter, once pointed out, 'CSICOP's ability to influence media is legendary. It's Manual for Local, Regional and National Groups devotes 17 pages to 'Handling the Media' and 'Public Relations' and, tellingly, a mere three to 'Scientific Investigations'...' "
Yes! Exactly! These people try to appear as though they are scientists and that they are conducting actual scientific investigations when they are NOT! The only people that actually investigate UFO Sighting are Ufologists. Perhaps some of their investigation are not as scientific as some would like, but at least they are out there interviewing witnesses and investigating -- unlike CSI.

I have always suspected that CSI members have a hat and in that hat are all their silly theories, swamp gas, weather balloons, hedgehogs, Venus, owls and so on. When a case comes along that gets any attention they reach into that hat and pull out a theory rather than doing any actual investigation. Then they get on the phone to various media outlets and push that theory even though there was no real investigation. There are many times that I have noticed that CSI members are not even aware of the most basic facts of a case they may be commenting on and putting forth their theories on.

Robert Hastings writes:

The long-time and still-current Executive Editor of Skeptical Inquirer, Kendrick Frazier, worked for more than two decades as a PR Specialist at Sandia National Laboratories-although one will have to look high and low to find references to that employment in his magazine and even in his self-published online biography. Sandia Labs is one of the U.S. government's most important nuclear weapons labs.
Some snipping

So, who is routinely trying to debunk the reality of UFOs and the notion of a UFO cover-up in CSI's Skeptical Inquirer magazine? Why, a PR guy working for the U.S. government's nuclear weapons program! (Although he is strangely shy about publicly acknowledging where he picked up his paycheck for over 20 years, during the same period he was feverishly debunking UFOs, supposedly because of his "skepticism" about them!)
Why is a PR guy of any sort involved in debunking UFOs, but especially one working for the US Government? These people are NOT skeptics, they are debunkers and the entire situation reeks of a government sponsered disinformation program.

Another good question would be -- why does the media give these people the amount of attention that they do? I will guess there is less conspiracy there and mainly just pure lazyness of not taking the time to find out if these people actually deserve to be called scientific or skeptical.

Perhaps Ufology needs some PR people too? People that could point out the small amount of investigation CSI actually does and that they normally have no actual evidence for their claims. That is aside from them being a bit too cozy with the US government.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

"More BS from CSI on Big Sur"

An excellent article by Robert Hastings. I hope to get around to commenting on it later.
THE UFO CHRONICLES

Sunday, January 25, 2009

There must be a word or words

I am sick of the term believers. I use it myself, but only because I can't think of another word. You see I understand what it is suppose to mean, basically there is a group of people who believe there are strange objects flying around in our skies and that is it, but debunkers twist it. The debunker meaning is that we all believe that same things, we believe any UFO story that surfaces and even worse that there is some form of religious belief along with that.

We can't use UFO researcher because certain people think that only means people who do field research -- some are very snobby about that. Lately I have been trying to use UFO or Ufology community because I think that describes it better, a community can encompass many people of different beliefs. The problem with that is that it can also encompass debunkers and I am looking for a term to describe only those that aren't debunkers.

So if you have any ideas -- send them my way.

Of course, probably there isn't any words or terms we could come up with that the debunkers wouldn't twist to mean something different.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Holding onto hope (for now)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. When will the people learn that the President is just a puppet with no real power. Probably never. :<
That is a comment from my facebook status update where I wished everyone a happy inauguration day.

I can totally understand that sentiment (remember, I wasn't even going to vote up until the last moment) and yet I don't and I hope never to share it completely.

Possibly it is stupid of me, but I still believe that one man can change the world and that it is possible that not every President is a puppet.

Time may prove that commenter to be right, but can we at least give it some time? I will hold onto hope until proven wrong, even if it is foolish to do so. If you don't have hope what do you have? Nothing, you just become a grumpy cynical debunklican about everything and that doesn't sound like a very pleasant way to live.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Smells like RRR

So who are the UFO Destroyers?

Whitley Strieber is one, having made a fictional mockery of the phenomenon, and persisting in his quasi-religious take to he point that many interested persons have discarded UFOs as something that science might be able to decipher.

Then there’s a small group of confused and addled persons who sneak in and out of the UFO arena, venting their spleen because they have gone unrecognized by UFO cognoscenti.

Let’s call them Alfred, Regan, and Lesley.

They gather ideas from others, either stealing those ideas or bifurcating them with gossipy innuendo and a mental haze that puts their psychological well-being into question.

They are UFO Destroyers because they degrade the phenomenon with their ignorance and wholesale purloining of ideas that others generate about UFOs.
Where do I start with RRR's bifurcating post? They have divided into two groups those that are UFO destroyers and those that aren't. I suppose I would be a lot more insulted if 1) this came from someone I have the least amount of respect for 2) if they weren't almost as condescending to those that they deemed "not ufo destroyers."

Let me say first off -- I do not mind in the least being included in any group that Whitley Strieber is in. Fuck the group of media guys (what media?). Whitley Strieber has done more to get people thinking about ufos and aliens than the group of media guys could ever hope to.

I feel almost silly even commenting on it, but I will start with this accusation of stealing. I have stole nothing. I don't even know where they came up with that. I have always made it clear that I am not the originator of the theories I write about -- I am merely commenting on them. I have also never claimed to be a Ufologist or anything remotely like that. I am merely someone who has had some ufo related experiences and am very interested in the topic because of that.

I am not looking for recognition from UFO cognoscenti (whoever they may be in RRR's eyes), what good would that be? For what purpose? I think RRR thinks of things like that because it is what THEY or HE would like, but unlike them it doesn't motivate me. I know almost everyone and am friends with many. I only ever wanted to meet people interested in the same topics I am, so I am perfectly happy as is.

Gossipy innuendo? I have no clue wtf they are talking about and can't even comment on it except to say that their post strikes me as being gossipy innuendo.

Moving on from me to their next complaint --

And the final group of UFO Destroyers are those who hoax photos or generate sightings to give them a prominence that they could never achieve in a more credible arena.
Whenever I think about hoaxes, RRR is the first person(s) that comes to mind. You see, I remember their generated hoax. How Rich Reynolds or anyone writing on that blog has the nerve to accuse anyone else of hoaxing is beyond the amount of hypocrisy that I can stand.

Now that I have said all of that -- I will continue with my UFO destroying! Apparently I have been granted super powers beyond that of ordinary humans and I don't want to waste them.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Woo Who? Probably You.


To my knowledge nobody has yet used the word Woo or WooWoo (publicly) to describe me. Although, they have used terms to describe me that obviously basically mean the same thing in their mind. I am OK with that. I wouldn't find being called a Woo particularly offensive. Why? Because almost everyone is a Woo.

If you believe that it is possible and maybe more than possible that some UFOs are NOT 1) secret military crafts, or 2) hallucinations -- you are a Woo to certain people. Yes, I know that people within the Ufology community have their own (unique to the person) definition of Woo, but so do those in the debunking community, most think people in the UFO community are all Woos.

Also, throughout time many people have been considered Woos. Newton was considered a Woo by many people within the scientific community and had his research into alchemy been known -- he would have been consider not only a Woo, but likely driven out of the scientific community and most polite (church going) society completely.

I am certainly not comparing myself (or anyone in Ufology) to Newton, but pointing out that just because someone has a few seemingly "crack pot" ideas or theories does not mean that they deserve to be labeled and/or laughed at. Normally people with the most imaginative minds that are open to many different concepts are the ones that come up with the world changing ideas or inventions. It is rarely the conventional thinker. Now they may believe in or investigate some truly kooky theories, but within those kooky theories could be one small truth that they will discover and that one small thing may help them to crack something larger.

I would also add that this theory that the Woo-Woos are somehow keeping Ufology out of the mainstream is completely unproven and seems to be total bunk to me. Ufology IS in the mainstream, it is on TV almost every night of the week and these days newspapers and other media gladly report on it because it increases circulation and ratings. 99% of people I meet are believers that UFOs could be visitors from elsewhere. There doesn't seem to be widespread argument that UFOs don't exist. You could clear the entire Ufology field of woowoos, as well as hoaxers and scammers, but Ufology would still not be reported on as real science. Until someone gets a piece of something that can actually scientifically be studied the media will never consider Ufology to be a serious science. Of course, there are many more hoops than that, it would have to be proved that the material came from an unknown craft and there would have to be something really remarkable about it. Basically you would probably need the entire craft in order to truly convince those that don't want to believe.

Anyhow, those of you that still feel that need to separate yourselves from the woowoos that believe in alien abduction, contactees, Bob Lazar and whatever else is considered woowoo these days -- knock yourselves out. You are still a woo-woo to some, no matter how above the others you may wish to seem.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

What is a Debunklican?

It is description that popped into my mind after the Presidential election. Maybe I am not the first since it seems like an obvious connection. This is how I describe it in Grey Matters --

The debunkers remind me very much of the John McCain campaign. Rather than truly explain anything, they just slander the other side. Oh, they have their crazy theories like owls and swamp gas, but they never actually prove any of it and spend most of their time just pointing out how crazy the other side is. As though by just showing how wrong they think the other side is proves that they are right. In reality, it is just smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that they don't know anymore than anyone else.


and I end the article with this and still hope it is true --

This election gave me hope for another reason -- the Republicans followed their normal debunking method of winning, which is to say very little about what you know or plan to do and instead just point at the other guy and say how wrong, crazy and dangerous he is. It failed miserably. People have realized that merely pointing the finger at the other guy does not prove you are right. Hopefully, they will catch on to all such debunking, if they haven't already.
You can read the entire column here, but I think you get the basic idea.

Alien Debunkers