A Paranormal National disaster: Book review

I had such high hopes for Paranormal Nation: Why America Needs Ghosts, UFOs and Bigfoot, by Marc E. Fitch (2013). I found it in an academic library, it was hefty, and the topics covered were ripe for exploring: paranormal culture in America, tourism, television, popularity.

Alas, it turned out to be a bloated, credulous, rambling mess. This was a book that screamed for better research, a fact checker, a skeptical approach, and a good editor.

There are certainly many bits of good info in this book. Fitch, from his bio, writes fiction and works in the mental health field. But he clearly does not understand how science works or the value of a skeptical approach. He has obviously extended far beyond his realm of knowledge here. And, unfortunately went on and on about 150 pages too long.

His inspiration for the work, he notes, was Discovery Channel’s show The Haunting. This was a popular “reenactment” style paranormal television show of the kind that grew from 1998 onwards (the other two styles being “documentary style” and “reality-based”). At first, Fitch’s stance on paranormal reality was not revealed. His premise is that there has been renewed public interest in the paranormal at times of massive social change and uses examples such as the Salem witch craze, the rise of Spiritualism, the flap of flying saucers and Satanic Panic as connected to sweeping social change and scientific advances. He suggests all can be seen through the lens of social dissonance in reaction to science development. While he does remark that various factors came into play in these landmark cultural events, it seems that he stresses the importance of science in the equation. Oddly, he remarks that “proving” the paranormal would be “a moral and ethical bomb”. What “paranormal”? Ghosts? Alien visitation? Bigfoot? Religion? He’s lumped it all together in a premise that is not coherent. It’s all downhill from there.

While science gets mild cynical treatment, skeptics are represented as a straw man and outright mocked. First, he gives a pass to the well-known outrageous psychic, Eusapia Palladino. He calls her a “trickster” (and lauds Hansen’s book the Trickster and the Paranormal as one of the “best” books ever written on the paranormal, so he is invested in this concept) who presented a “great challenge to science”. Science is stuck within limits and boundaries of understanding so she did not fit into their framework. Not quite… 

Fitch is not well-versed on the problems of perception (he states that the explanation of Venus as a UFO is “ridiculous”), or how science works to limit subjectivity and the ability to be fooled. Revealingly, he describes science as a matter of faith in the existing paradigm, like a religion. Nope. Wrong.

Once he characterized the “skeptic” as the “lonely nerd” sitting by him or herself at the lunchroom table, “a bit of a downer”, I began to see him arrogant and ignorant, with an agenda. [Ironically, Fitch will no doubt think of me as a downer since I’m not giving praise for this book. You can judge whether that is fair or not.]

Besides the formatting problems that make this book a chore to read at times – it’s highly repetitive with concepts and phrasing reused even in the same paragraph, has extreme amounts of quotes which makes sections feel like a high school term paper, and with rambling philosophical portions interspersed with personal anecdotes – there are two huge flaws with the work that make it unsuitable: it is poorly sourced and obvious mistakes abound.

Poorly sourced

Get this instead

My first thought, since this book was from 2013, was that it would draw deeply from Bader, et al’s Paranormal America (January, 2011). This source has become a definitive work with regards to modern paranormal belief in the U.S. and was based on sound research and field work. Fitch does not acknowledge it at all. It’s as if he hadn’t known of it and tried to invent his own wheel without proper planning and tools. He does use a Gallop poll from 2011 so he should have known of Paranormal America’s release. This oversight raised a giant question on the soundness of the work. 

In two examples of misplaced trust in sources, first, his questionable conclusions about the War of the Worlds panic tale is taken from about.com. It’s been disputed whether there was mass panic over this radio broadcast. I disagree it should have been presented this way.

Second, he cites Jay Anson’s The Amityville Horror novel twice in reference to the idea that this famous haunting was related to a Native American burial ground. He states that burial grounds were regarded as sacred by European settlers and cites a blog about Native American paranormal belief as a source explaining that Native Americans are more powerful in their burial and sacred places because they have merged their essence with the land. That is, their soul became one with the land and the land is unhappy when desecrated. Where are the solid references on folklore or archeology? None. He didn’t look past the fictional account. He didn’t go to available primary sources in these fields. From what I’d heard, Hans Holzer was the originator of this concept. He’s not mentioned either.

Huge blunders

On page 15, Fitch names celebrity psychic John Edward as “John Edwards” multiple times. Such a mistake stands out to me as a lack of simple fact-checking. It gets worse.

Fitch states the “earliest paranormal-based nonfiction program was Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World” in 1980. This is just plain wrong! It was In Search of… in 1976. Maybe he should have checked my list of Paranormal TV shows. In Search of… was far more influential on a generation than Clarke’s show, giving American kids like me their first taste of the mysterious Loch Ness Monster and the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bigfoot. In Search of… is not even mentioned here! That egregious error was bad enough to want me to chuck the book out the window and conclude the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but then… he does something inconceivable. He compares UFO researcher Stanton Friedman to internationally influential scientist and communicator Carl Sagan. I slog through three pages of drivel such as “[Both were] men on a mission to change humanity for the better”, and how both were visionaries, urging us to embrace science. This is unforgivably absurd. I’ve tasted quite enough to know this meal is not worth finishing.

Yet, there was at least one more huge blunder I noticed as I scanned the rest of the text to the end. Fitch says that a surprise red panda fossil in Tennessee was revealed (“notably first reported”) by Cryptomundo “a site dedicated to the research and discovery of mysterious and unknown species”. He expands on this apparently momentous find referencing Huffington Post. (What this has to do with the paranormal, I can’t explain.) I don’t recall this event so I look it up – something the author might have reasonably done. It turns out that Loren Coleman of Cryptomundo was visiting the Tennessee fossil site in 2010 when he heard from the paleontologists that there was an as yet unpublicized find of a red panda skull. However, the animal, Pristinailurus bristoli, was known from the site prior to 2004 when it was named . So, while this 2010 skull was a neat find, it was not a new species discovered nor was it as remarkable as Fitch made it out to be. Lazy, misrepresented stuff like this kills credibility. 

By page 220 (of 368, not including notes and index), I stopped reading carefully, skipping the rehash of several topics which appeared over again and more rambling speculation about the state of today’s paranormal horizon. It was not worth my time. He’d lost me at Stanton Friedman. But you can’t say I didn’t give it a chance. I wanted it to be good. It simply wasn’t. Lesson: Even if the premise for the work is good, you had better be prepared to throughly research it. Or else, it’s a dud.

Trouble bubbles between paranormalists and skeptics

Yesterday, paranormal advocates and skeptical paranormal researchers clashed over an old but complex issue. Former television Ghost Hunter, Amy Bruni, posted on Facebook that she wished skeptics would go do something more productive than “constantly bash” what they (paranormalists) do. She thinks the skeptic “cause” is to take on people with harmless beliefs different from their own.

I admit I reacted badly to her call to “take a little look at yourself”  - it was inaccurate and poorly worded because she was on the defensive, reacting out of emotion. Then, she did clarify somewhat to tone down the harshness but her view was still off the mark.

There were very many threads of thought that could be spun off this kerfuffle, but I will make just two points as a self-identified practical skeptic who has studied paranormal topics for decades.

First, I have every right to call out any questionable claim that is being presented as fact. I’ve written about this topic before. A few years back, I was on good terms with some paranormally-inclined people until I pointed out problems with their positions. Then I was told to get off my high horse and go back to my cubicle or my “lonely room.” Speaking for myself, but assuming that others like me agree, my intent was not to be mean, I was digging for accuracy. I really want to know, not just believe because it’s comforting or fun. Rarely am I called out on what I say about the science or facts. Instead, “skeptic” is used as a slur and I’m told to shut up or go away. Proponents of fringe ideas are annoyed by skeptical probing: we ask for specifics, question assumptions, and are keenly aware of the lack of good quality evidence for their pet beliefs. Skeptics make believers feel uncomfortable. Well, pushing boundaries into the discomfort zone is how we learn. It can go both ways.

Second, there is no endeavor that should be given a pass from critical thought and commentary, especially those that are at odds with well-established existing knowledge. Skeptics are told that, if we are so keen on advancing science, instead of harassing ghost hunters, Bigfooters and UFO chasers, we should work on curing cancer, developing renewable energy, and cleaning up the environment. Well, many of us DO such work every day – my daily job is in environmental regulation. There is no justification for the “why don’t you go do something more productive” ploy. There will always be the argument for why X is more important than Y. There will always be another X, it’s subjective. Everyone has their own interests or causes they feel passionately about. Knowledge and expertise is personal and we can pursue what we like. The exact same argument applies to paranormalists so it’s not prudent to ever use it.

Finally, there are a few interesting parallels between serious skeptical advocates and serious paranormalists:

1. We love these subjects, we want to find out more.
2. We want to help people.
3. We think our task is important to society, not frivolous.
4. We don’t like rude, know-it-all jerks.
5. Our values in these areas are an integral part of who we are, how we define ourselves.

There is common ground. We rarely meet upon it.

Skeptics interested in paranormal topics might attempt to be more open to listening and understanding those who have had anomalous experiences. Those who espouse extraordinary claims would do well to up their evidence quality and get a grasp on what skepticism really is and why it’s important. Things might get interesting then. Imagine a situation where we could air our grievances without contempt and have a productive discussion. I’d like to be part of that conversation.

For more on the troubled relationship and communication fails between skeptics and paranormalists, check out my pieces from Sound Sciencey:

• Leave Us Alone, You’re Spoiling Things
• Burning the Mean and Disparaging Skeptic Straw Man
• Bigfoot Files: Science, Skepticism and the True Believers

Deliver me from another ridiculous “demons everywhere” story – Book Review

Tags

exorcism

A review of Deliver Us from Evil, R. Sarchie with L.C. Cool

I shall cut to the main point. I didn’t set out to read this one. I saw it in the library and it looked like a fast read. It’s important to understand what’s being put out there as “true” stories. As usual, it was the same faith-based nightmare fuel meant to scare people into being more pious and to show that the author’s religion is the one true faith.

Ralph Sarchie is a NYC cop but he has taken on a role to deal with demonic “perps” as well as the genuine human horrors he sees everyday. Demons are criminals, exorcism is the “spiritual equivalent of an arrest”.

A movie of the same name came out last summer. This BBC piece on why exorcisms are so fascinating notes the same fears appeared in many movies about exorcism – a vulnerable child is involved. This is a strong hook likely exaggerated EVEN MORE in a movie that I doubt bears any resemblance to real life.

Also a strong theme is the need to feel that the world has aspects of good and evil and that the former will triumph over the latter. That simple dichotomy, good vs evil, is what this book is all about. It is stories from one guy who, with the help of others including the crack(pot) demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren [red flag], does “the Work” (of the Lord). Pre-enlightenment diabolic drama set in modern crime-ridden times – that’s what this is.

Sarchie is deeply, DEEPLY steeped in religious belief. His traditional Catholic faith permeates everything. His life revolves around God. He states in the afterword that this book is for people of faith and those paranormal investigators that come across this stuff. It’s not for skeptics who don’t take his belief-based stories at face value. He’s right there. In my opinion, these stories make no sense except in terms of complicated social, economic and psychological problems that are all but impossible to fix in the short term. But the route he takes is to do an exorcism, then pray a lot, (the afflicted should go to church more,) come back for another exorcism and it will probably be OK as long as God is the center of everything.

Possession used to be uncommon, says Sarchie, now these scumbag entities are all over, in our houses and inside our bodies. Why? The occult.

This is such a old, tired, baseless and NAIVE argument. He strongly asserts that Satanists are friggin’ EVERYWHERE you look, trying to recruit kids into their coven. Wearing an occult symbol or reading a grimoire can open you up to demonic forces. The Ouija board is a wicked occult trap and should be outlawed. Non-religious meditation is an invitation to be taken over by evil. There is zero evidence for any of these claims which are based on fear.

The idea that Satanic forces are at work committing crimes is from the Satanic Panic era of the 80s and 90s when cops were taught to recognize work of Satanists. The trouble is, there was no evidence that such organized cults ever existed and carried out these atrocities. But every anomaly was interpreted to be related to this evil cult permeating our wholesome society. Nonsense. All of it.

There have always been occult interests in society (but there hadn’t always been one or more exorcism-themed movies every year to enhance the acceptance). I see Sarchie’s stories as typical anecdotes of people who have a underlying point to make (go to God and to church) and a drive to convince listeners. It’s also not difficult to understand that Sarchie truly does believe he’s encountered supernatural evil many times, even in his own home. That’s his worldview. It is… fantastic. I mean that in the sense of being like fantasy. He states that if you call yourself a Christian, then you must believe the devil is REAL. Really real, not just a metaphor for evil.

All the angels, hierarchies in Heaven, Bible stories, all real.

Satan’s minions? Real.

Poltergeists? Ghosts? Naw, probably demons.

He hates when paranormal investigators fool people into thinking they just have a pesky but harmless noisy ghost. Only a diabolical force can move heavy things. Human ghosts are weak. Parapsychologists and other science-minded people [sneer] are clueless — to “debunk” a devil means that he has succeeded in fooling you that he isn’t real. To deny the devil provides him with power. What a convenient dodge of scientific testing.

In Sarchie’s (or the co-writers) religious self-righteousness, he sometimes claims to know better than the priest. He identifies a serious problem that some priest don’t even believe in the devil. None of this modern Catholicism stuff, only old school tradition applies. However, in a very New Agey twist, Sarchie describes chakras as places of psychic energy in the body. Demons can enter through these.

He uses pieces of the true cross on these spots to annoy the demons into leaving the afflicted. (I couldn’t help but wish for a double blinded study of relics and holy water with controls in an encounter with someone who thinks he is possessed. No science allowed in the realm of the spiritual, though.)

Your aura shows if you are free of sin; he can see its color. A strong aura repels demons. There is no word on where he gets this information from. I’d not heard it before. But I’m wondering how he might explain why atheists don’t seem to get possessed very often…

Other than those outliers, this book is preachy from beginning to end. It contains contradictions and non sequiturs and, frankly, some stuff that is just made up: A woman’s heart disease was brought on by demons in the downstairs apartment! “Still skeptical?” he asks, let me tell you ANOTHER story that is not referenced or documented. This is hardly convincing unless you are already ensconced in the good vs evil belief system.

There is not just one reason or a few quibbles why I find the entire concept of demons, Satan and exorcism un-compelling — there are many and various solid reasons to consider myriad alternative explanations to “demons”, such as illness and psychological conditions. This child-like belief in God and the Devil manifest makes the complicated human life into a comic book, oversimplifying the very natural and difficult trials of modern existence. I feel those who condone exorcisms are more often harming the people they think they are helping. Such unshakeable commitment to a supernatural worldview that has been displaced by natural understanding centuries ago is a tragedy. But, he sure leads a dramatic life, one that I wouldn’t want. I certainly feel sympathy for his victims and even for him to take on other people’s emotional wreckage. I’d love for more support to be made available. However, that recognition does not make demonic possession genuine or justifiable.

The people undergoing the exorcisms in this book are restrained either by cloth ties or by volunteers. Sarchie states the demon must be given “no quarter”, “no mercy”, it must be “forced out”. Here’s where this shit gets dangerous. He briefly mentions the death of Anneliese Michel, as if the devils inside her caused her death instead of the very real torture she endured. He made NO mention of the fact that she was malnourished and dehydrated due to the “rites” of exorcism and her parents and the priest were charged with a crime. I don’t care what deity you subscribe to or not but this is a human being, not a supernatural entity of your imagination. Exorcism is unethical and wrong!

The book ends with DIY prayers. I kid you not.

I don’t recommend this book; I won’t be seeing the movie; I don’t believe in Satan and his associated fiends of Hell. Demons are a creation of the human mind and not “real”.

Or, the devil won with me. You decide. I don’t care. Life goes on, same as yesterday. You damned deluded exorcists — your hatred for the devil and your sanctimonious pomp and exaggeration ruins people’s lives.

Ask a Skeptic: What about ghost TV shows?

Tags

Ghost Adventures, paranormal TV

I’ve received the following email and was given permission to share it publicly to answer. Minor edits have been made for clarity.

My 13 year old daughter has me interested in TV shows like Ghost Adventures. I’m starting to have a healthy interest in the paranormal. I have always been a complete skeptic. I would say I still am a skeptic, but so many things are hard for me to explain in the field.

Why are there millions of people with their own paranormal stories – UFOs, ghosts sightings, Bigfoot, animal mutilation? Are all these people crazy, mistaken, have bad eyesight?

In Ghost Adventures, the three main hosts of the show seem believable as they investigate. But what seems so very believable are the witnesses. These are very common people, not actors. Their testimonials are truly believable. Are all these witnesses crazy too? They testify with great belief and conviction. Even professional actors could not be so believable.

Please email me back with your vast insight.

Thanks,
D.E.

Hi D.E.:

Thanks so much for writing to me. It’s flattering that you asked for my opinion on this. You say you are a “skeptic” and by thinking about this topic, you certainly are exhibiting some skeptical traits. But since there were a lot of juicy bits in your comments, let’s unpack them.

Spontaneous Weirdness: Murder Houses

I come across some interested bits and pieces in my daily travels. I figured I’d start sharing them. You know, learn something new everyday…

In Fortean Times 319: November 2014, Jan Bondeson describes how historic murder houses (in Victorian London) were often left without tenants as they developed a reputation for being haunted. No one would live there. A murder house may go through three phases: notoriety, rehabilitation and oblivion. All valuable houses reach the rehab stage and are reintegrated into the neighborhood while others are forgotten and just demolished. In contrast, notorious houses today may be desirable and fetch good prices. He opines why that might be: less local knowledge of the events especially to real estate purchasers from out-of-town, decline in religious or superstitious sentiment, and one thing he didn’t mention, the rise in paranormal or macabre interest and tourism that may actually prompt people to buy certain stigmatized properties.

Bondeson’s book, Murder Houses of London, chronicles these notorious places of murder.

Doubt and About: Poking at nonsense with a sharp stick

Tags

Doubtful News, Ghosts, paranormal investigation

I think that title is going to be my new tagline…

This sub blog (D & A) has become a semi-regular place for me to update what I’ve been doing for anyone who cares to follow. There are a few of you… thanks.

But occasionally I get too damn involved with other stuff to update my own site.

America’s most hyped haunts – Book Review

America’s Most Haunted: The Secrets of Famous Paranormal Places
By Theresa Argie and Eric Olsen (2014)

There are books that people will love that others will hate for entirely distinct reasons. This is one of those books.

I categorize America’s Most Haunted as a paranormal true believer’s travel guide to “must see” places that are totally overhyped and banking on any paranormal popularity they can get. The authors count down ten locations that they have researched. There is no introduction to the book so it is not clear how or why they picked these ten, but according to their accounts and those of several contributors familiar with the sites, these are “tried and true” places for paranormal activity.

The book also has no table of contents, index OR references. No references means I can not care less about the stories inside – they are worthless as nonfiction, OK as entertainment. In that respect, the stories succeed because they are entertaining but they are often absurd in what we are asked to accept as true. The book is far more well-written than typical local ghost story collections. However, being well crafted does not make the stories any more reliable.

I have a fundamental problem with “stories”. As a collection of anecdotes, the reader has no way to assess if they are verifiable or accurate to any degree. Yet, people make serious assumptions from stories. No doubt many readers will swallow these outrageous stories of “it happened to me” without a critical thought.

Two new videos

Tags

Bigfoot, Doubtful News, skeptics, TAM 2013

Recently posted are two videos from The Amazing Meeting 2013 (yes, 2013 but better late then never).

The first is me talking about the Doubtful News website and what it means to be an “honest broker”, a concept we can all utilize to present information.

The second is a presentation by Don Prothero then a panel discussion with Don, me, Daniel Loxton and Blake Smith. It’s about cryptozoology and their typical “abominable” standards for science and scholarship.

 

Sykes paper is a clarion call for higher standards for cryptozoology

Tags

bear, Bigfoot, Bryan Sykes, Cryptozoology, DNA, Yeti

The highly anticipated paper from B. Skyes regarding DNA testing of anomalous primates has been published and is, thankfully, freely accessible.

In 2012, the team from University of Oxford and the Museum of Zoology, Lausanne, put out a call for samples of suspected anomalous primates – Yeti, Bigfoot/Sasquatch, Almasty, orang pendek. The samples, if accepted, would be genetically tested using a cleaning method previously vetted in the Journal of Forensic Science that removes all traces of surface contaminants (most likely human) to get to the original DNA sequence. A specific portion of the DNA was used – the ribosomal mitochondrial DNA 12S fragment – for comparison to sequences in the worldwide genetic database GenBank.

A total of 57 samples were received. Two samples were actually not animal hair: one was plant material, the other was glass fiber. Those not trained in biology/zoology cannot always tell the difference between organic and inorganic matter or plant vs animal fibers, as we’d also seen from hunters collecting samples on the Spike TV show Million Dollar Bigfoot Bounty.
37 of the sample were selected for genetic analysis. 18 were from 8 U.S. states, including pairs from AZ, CA, MN, OR, TX. The rest were from WA, what is believed to be the prime habitat of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. 8 samples were anticipated to be the almasty from Russia. Three samples were collected in the Himalayan region of Asia and one came from Sumatra supposedly representing the orang pendek.

Let’s see what the results were.

Unfortunately, there were no anomalous primates in the lot. The sequences all matched 100%, there were no “unknowns”.

One was found to be human – from Texas. That only one matched with humans is a testament to the rigorous cleaning method that removed contamination. Sykes revealed his thinking about Melba Ketchum’s paper by noting that human contamination often “confounds the analysis of old material and may lead to misinterpretation of a sample as human or even as an unlikely and unknown human x mammalian hybrid” (Ketchum, et al.). Therefore, her claim of rigorous forensic procedures is shot down, again. Incidentally, Sykes et al. does not consider Ketchum’s paper as a “scientific publication” likely because it was self-published. The Sykes et al. study is regarded as the FIRST serious study regarding anomalous primate DNA – he cites two others that were joke papers. Recall that Ketchum cited these in her paper as genuine, revealing her professional ineptness. While the Sykes, et al. paper lists Ketchum as a reference, it is only to cite it as a poor study, not within the valid body of scientific literature, with misinterpreted results. [Burn.] The quality difference between the two papers is remarkable. The Sykes paper is readable and understandable with minimal jargon and a clear presentation of the data and conclusions. Ketchum’s paper was gobbledygook and, with this new commentary on it, albeit subtle, is another death-blow to any further serious scientific consideration.

All the U.S. samples turned out to be extant (already existing in that area) animals such as cow, horse, black bear, dog/wolf, sheep, raccoon, porcupine, or deer. There very clearly was nothing anomalous at all.

All the Russian samples, at least some of which were collected by Ketchum associate Igor Burtsev, also were disappointing. There were two anomalies, however. Samples of raccoon and American black bear were among the Russian samples indicating either a mistake in the location of the samples or individuals of these animals were imported to Russia at some point and their samples left behind.

Sadly, the orang pendek sample from Sumatra turned out to be from a Malaysian Tapir. This is not the first time tapirs have faked evidence for a Bigfoot creature. But I suspect this sample was very disappointing since the orang pendek is considered to be a plausible cryptid – likely a new species of primate. However, this test failed to provide support for that idea.

The Nepal sample turned out to be a native goat, a serow. However, the other two Himalayan samples were the most interesting of all.

Not one but two samples, those from Ladakh, India and Bhutan, matched a fossilized genetic sample of Ursus martimus, a polar bear of the Pleistocene era, 40,000 years old. Note: TWO samples! There was not a match with the modern species of polar bear. Thus, the study has discovered a new anomaly! This result is a boon to bear studies. Future research will continue to look for more evidence of the representative animal, hopefully a living one. The paper is clear, as was the documentary on this discovered which aired months ago, this previously unknown hybrid bear may contribute to the yeti legend. The look and behavior are reportedly different from the other native bears. Is the Yeti a bear? Well, the yeti is a very general term and its description varies across the huge expanse of the world where it is reported to exist. Even the orang pendek, more akin to an orang utan, is sometimes referred to as a “yeti”. Therefore, the “yeti” is likely not just one animal. It is feasible that this new bear constitutes one version of the yeti. Sykes has been open in stating that it does not mean a primate Yeti is not out there. It just means this result was not supportive of that idea.

Rendition of unknown bear that may represent the Yeti

The main thrust of this paper hits the gut of cryptozoology. As it is practiced today by amateur Bigfoot hunters and monster trackers, it is not science. This paper represents science. It’s a high bar. I’ve said as much before. To do science requires very specific training. One result of the Ketchum fiasco and the Sykes “success” has been to educate cryptid hunters about genetics and reliable tests that can give them the results they desire. This project was an excellent example of amateurs working with professionals – exactly what needs to be done to make real discoveries and come up with better answers than “It’s a squatch”.

I’ve always disputed the claim from paranormal researchers (including cryptozoology enthusiasts) that science ignores their work. Scientists had previously been involved in the founding of the field of cryptozoology but also studies in the psychical research and UFOs. They looked, there was nothing there and they moved on. (See my thesis on amateur research and investigation groups, ARIGs)

Now, the modern field of cryptozoology has been put on notice. You need to raise the standards; you need to stop wasting effort. Blurry pictures or another FLIR recording of a warm blob is not going to constitute worthwhile evidence. We best learn about nature through a scientific process. That means amateurs must work WITH the experts, not rail against them.

I was very pleased with the results of the Sykes, et al. study. I look forward to his book release on this topic as well.

Skeptically quoted in Fortean Times

One of my favorite weekend indulgences is reading Fortean Times outside on the patio with a nice beverage. About three times previously, I was tickled to find my name or website mentioned in the issue. April’s issue #313 carried the “40 years of The Exorcist” theme – WHAT FUN! Imagine my giddiness when I began reading the story from Bob Rickard on p. 46 about the Gary, Indiana family “plagued” by demons, when I discovered my name and website began paragraph 3. Rickard made the point that I thought the Indianapolis Star story was decidedly unskeptical. He notes that I turned out to be right (no surprise, sensationalism sells), the story went from eye-rolling to preposterous with many involved seeking personal publicity. All in all, Rickard emphasized that this story was more about reinforcing belief. Most paranormal, miracle and alt med stories in the news are like this. 

The article goes on to account for the entire run in the media of the Ammons family, the purchase of the house by Zak Bagins, ghost adventurer, and the priest becoming involved in media deals. It was a great piece. 

I really appreciate being included in Fortean Times as the skeptical voice. I rarely feel belitted or scoffed at (as the mostly non-believer) reading its pages. I love these stories. I might have a different conclusion but I appreciate the work that goes into writing them up. I was happy to contribute a piece on SlenderMan to the Forum section a while back that allowed me to be far more informed about the topic when the SlenderMan stuff recently exploded.

As a cryptozoology, occult, paranormal and Fortean phenomena enthusiast, I heartily recommend subscribing. No they aren’t paying me for this. I only endorse what I really like because I believe in supporting good content. FT is where I get some prime info from people who actually know what they are talking about.