Some thoughts on why I simply cannot find the “debate” between “mainstream” archaologists and “pseudoarchaologists” interesting:

Here’s a thought-experiment:

  1. Global nuclear war occurs.
  2. Our current scientific/technological/(Semi)-rational civilization is severely disrupted (think: Threads or The Day After).
  3. The places which fair ‘better” in this scenario are comparatively isolated islands such as Vanuatu:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanuatu

It just so happens that those islands have something called “Cargo Cults”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

So, here’s my question:

Fast-foward say, 500-1000 years.  Do you think it would be possible to meaningfully learn anything about the history/culture/technology of our modern society, simply by attempting to ‘back-engineer” such things, from the practices of ‘cargo cults?”

Say, the activities of the “John Frum Movement” (their mock rifle drills, fake aircrafts, etc.)

I contend that the answer is “NO”.

AT MOST, you would (possibly) be able to “infer” some garble about a guy named “John Frum”, involved in an attempt to liberate “cargo” produced by the ancestors of the Vanatau islanders, from the “Yankee” military, or something along those lines.

SAME PROBLEM for pretty much anything having to do with “Atlantis” or “Lemuria” or wherever.

Just sayin’.

 

Some thoughts on the “Hu-brids” (“Human hybrid”) scenario:

What would be the point, exactly?

A great question is raised in that skeptic’s guide the paranormal book I’ve been reading recently:

Two animals are defined as being of the same species if
they interbreed in the wild and produce fertile young. The
offspring of rare interspecies matings are always infertile.
Given the almost certain sterility of the human–alien
crosses, would not that defeat the purpose of these breeding
programs? If the aliens are so advanced technically, why
have these experiments now been conducted for over half
a century with no apparent changes and no apparent out-
comes?
To procreate with an alien species would be truly extraor-
dinary biology. Never the less, the abductees are often
shown their hybrid babies. Again, there is a sad note of
longing to this aspect. Aliens are keen, it seems, to install
implants inside human bodies. Medical science has never
been able to locate one of these implants. Those who have
been implanted will usually refuse to be examined. Why?

Now, the above necessarily brings up several questions:

  1. Why would any Extraterrestrials want to “interbreed” with humans?  What do THEY gain?
  2. Why would they even bother mentioning the alien hybrid “offspring” to the human “parents?”  Wouldn’t this whole thing be more akin to (involuntary) “surrogate” pregnancy, with BDSM-rape overtones?

What would be the most probably the motive/evaluation, if EXACTLY this sort of abduction/forced pregnancy scenario were done — by HUMANS?

Say something involving rohypnol, and some guy with a van.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flunitrazepam

I submit — at absolute minimum — that EBEs (IF they are doing things like the “hybrid” program) should be held to exactly the same standards as you would hold a member of your own species.

More to the point: why “breed” (in the conventional sense), at all?

WHY NOT CLONING?

https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm055513.htm

Presumably, anything from “off-planet” would have at least as good of medical technology as the “state of the art” among humans.

 

Some thoughts on the legitimate limits of “debunking”:

http://whitecrowbooks.com/michaeltymn/entry/paid_debunkers_how_the_public_is_misinformed_by_the_media_and_academia_abou

In some cases, a dangerous (mis)application of “Occam’s Razor” could be used as a means to disguise a legitimate occurence.

A good example of this is the sort of “deductive reasoning” used by (some) UFO “skeptics”.  Quite simply, BOTH “sides” of the debate strike me as somewhat inane:

  1. Because it “could have been” an inversion layer does not automatically mean that it was an inversion layer, for example.  More to the point, it would make sense for (let’s say) “secret” military tests to be done in such a way that any inadvertent sightings could be explained away in exactly the way that genuine “skeptics” would.

In other words (and, somewhat ironically) exactly the same techniques used by “The Amazing Randi”, etc.  – could easily be used to explain away a genuine — albeit anomalous — occurence.

Now, what does this mean?

Quite simply: there is a fine line between “healthy” skepticism and outright gaslighting:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/gaslighting-know-it-and-identify-it-protect-yourself

The easiest way to “discredit” an inconvenient whistle-blower, inadvertent sighting, etc. — would be to “explain” how such an event could have been “faked” or “misinterpreted”.

The important thing here is: such an explanation requires the a priori assumption/implication that suck “trickery” DID occur.

So, for example: inconvenient evidence of actual psychokinesis could easily be “explained away’ by demonstrating that Uri Geller was a fraud.

Just some thoughts.  I’m not “advocating” either side here — just pointing out (in the interests of “balance”, primarily) that healthy ‘skepticism” could easily be used as a form of “disinformation”, in its own right.

 

 

Some thoughts on UFOs, and non-terrestrial life forms

  1. I really don’t think that an attempted Government ‘cover-up” is all that unlikely.  Given the nature of government, “leaks” would inevitably occur — especially given enough time.  However, another definitely possibility would be: deliberate “leaks” of (slightly) flawed information.  Another possibility for “hiding in plain sight” would be to assist in the creation of stuff explicitly marketed as “science fiction” — which contained tidbits of exactly the sort of information which “whistle-blowers” would be most likely to “leak”. 

That way, any “accidental” leaks which occurred could simply be pooh-poohed by means of (misapplying) Occam’s Razor: {“Y’know, that vaguely resembles a combination of a “Star Trek” episode, and a “twilight Zone” episode.  Interestingly enough, didn’t you say the guy making this claim self-identifies as a ‘fan” of those shows?”).

2. The “technology exchange” pact idea is amazingly unlikely:

For one thing, there’s a good chance that any sufficiently advanced technology would be misunderstood, and take way too long to reverse-engineer.

let’s do a thought-experiment: what would happen is (say) some guy showed up in an otherwise-isolated tribal village somewhere, and proceeded to ‘dazzle” the natives with his Smart-phone, or even a simple flashlight?

Then he leaves — but leaves the item(s) behind.

Is the local shaman going to be able to ‘reverse-engineer” the guy’s smart-hone, or ever figure out how the flashlight works?    Moreover, what about when the artifacts stop functioning (because they need to be ‘re-charged?”

The locals don’t have a compatible charging-device.  The have no knowledge of electricity, digital electronics, etc. 

For all they know, the (now non-functional) devices have become “broken”, in some totally mysterious way.  (That’s assuming they don’t misunderstand the devices via some form of “animism”, and conclude that the “spirits” of the devices have departed.)

At any rate; it is unlikely that ANYBODY from that milieu would EVER be able to even BEGIN to puzzle out even how to turn the things on — not because they’re stupid, but through simply IGNORANCE.

Now, transpose all of that to: a crashed extraterrestrial craft, in New Mexico, 1947.

Think about it.

 

 

Some thoughts on “psi”:

  1. The fact that “magic tricks” of various types can be used to “simulate” it necessarily means that genuine study is extremely difficult (verging on almost total impossibility.)

The first criterion of any good “study” would be to have at least one individual on staff whose sole function, organizationally is to point out ways that the phenomenon in question could be faked — and then design “tests” to ensure that those methodologies are impossible to do, during the “demonstration”.

For example: if the “test” is about spoon-bending/influencing mechanical watches, etc. — the “psychic” should be required to submit to exactly the sort of strip-search/cavity search to which prisoners are subjected, after visitation.

Moreover, the ‘test” should be administered with the “psychic” naked, in a setting other than their own home, on ‘stage”, a TV talk-show, etc.

Uri Geller’s total implosion on The Tonight Show should serve as a minimum standard in this regard.

2. IF true, the claim that “psi” is dependent on the emotional state of the “psychic” (and is thus, too “fickle” to function under such “unfavorable” circumstances), is both convenient and worrisome

It is “convenient” (for the would-be fraudster), both because it gives them an all-purpose “cop out” (useful for “explaining” why they fail rigorous tests, but “succeed” during TV appearances, etc.).

It is worrisome, because no other human skill is nearly this fickle and “mood”-dependent.

Think about it: if somebody stuck a gun to my head, and ordered me to make a blog entry — I might do worse at typing, but I would still exhibit some level of “performance” above a non-typist who was merely smashing the keyboard repeatedly, at random.

This is particularly problematic, in that many psychics/spiritualists/gurus/fraudsters make a big pretense about “aligning their vibrations”, or “calmness”, or whatever other new-age buzzwords they invoke.  If they are incapable of performing (even badly) under stress, then this really isn’t that much of an “ability”.

3. Most damningly; It is often claimed (by fraudsters) that the mere presence of skeptics is enough to prevent them from being able to “perform”.  Again, this indicates to me — IF we’re dealing with anything other than outright scam-artistry), that their “powers” are AMAZINGLY EASY TO “SHIELD” AGAINST.

The mere presence of a rational person is enough to “block” it?  GOOD.  Maybe — if “debunkers”/skeptics spread the word about these bullshit-artists, they’ll eventually be out of a “job”.  (When your “job” consists of preying on the ignorance, gullibility and desperation of your victims — then you are a scum-bag, pure and simple.

 

 

Jeane Dixon: because — ah, the hell with it:

Dixon reportedly predicted the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In the May 13, 1956, issue of Parade Magazine she wrote that the 1960 presidential election would be “dominated by labor and won by a Democrat” who would then go on to “[B]e assassinated or die in office though not necessarily in his first term.” She later admitted, “During the 1960 election, I saw Richard Nixon as the winner”,[10] and at the time made unequivocal predictions that JFK would fail to win the election.[11]

Dixon was the author of seven books, including her autobiography, a horoscope book for dogs and an astrological cookbook. She gained public awareness through the biographical volume, A Gift of Prophecy: The Phenomenal Jeane Dixon,[12] written by syndicated columnist Ruth Montgomery. Published in 1965, the book sold more than three million copies. She professed to be a devout Roman Catholic and she attributed her prophetic ability to God.[1] Another million seller, My Life and Prophecies, was credited “as told to Rene Noorbergen”, but Dixon was sued by Adele Fletcher, who claimed that her rejected manuscript was rewritten and published as that book. Fletcher was awarded five percent of the royalties by a jury.[2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Dixon

I honestly don’t know which part of the above is worse: a “horoscope book for dogs”, or an “astrological cookbook”.

I find both of them to be equally….execrable?

You would think that someone with her level o f”paranormal” abilities could have done something more impressive than….”a horoscope book for dogs”.

Just sayin’.

 

“Numerology”: because ACTUALLY LEARNING MATH would be hard

This has to be the most mind-numbingly stupid thing I have ever read:

This is the most important number and represents your
future, your potential and your ‘karmic lessons’. It is calcu-
lated by adding up all the numbers in your full birthdate.
I was born on 5 November 1951.
This is written 5/11/1951. The digits are added: 5 + 1 + 1
+ 1 + 9 + 5 + 1 = 23. The digits are added again and reduced
to a single number: 2 + 3 = 5. My birthdate number is five.
Checking the readings above: yes, that sounds like me.

http://www.lynnekelly.com.au/Lynne_Kelly/The_Skeptics_Guide.html

One thing I have definitely noticed about much of the “paranormal”, is a rather desperate desire to escape any sort of responsibility for, well, anything about oneself:

It’s NEVER your fault.  Instead, you should blame whatever-it is on:

ASTROLOGY: “The stars”

REINCARNATION: “‘Karma’ accruded from a previous life”

NUMEROLOGY: “the sum of the digits in your birthday!”

The whole thing is…..”buck-passing”, on, literally, a cosmic scale.