Intellectual Superiority. How To Turn Believers Away From Skepticism In One Easy Step.

I recently wrote a post regarding the reasons why the Ouija board is still an object of trepidation for some in the "believers" camp of the paranormal community. I'd say it's probably one of the most negatively received things I've ever written. The type of negativity I received was along the lines of "Well Ouija boards are BS!" or "Ouija boards are a game nothing else!"

Well, yes. But that wasn't the point of the post. There is no question of how Ouija boards work, that the mechanism behind the moving planchette is the ideomotor effect.The fact is, there are other more interesting questions about the Ouija board than is it paranormal or not. Why does it still have an aura of mysticism? What can we do to dispell the ignorance surrounding the board? People posting comments such as those I mentioned above, clearly didn't read what I posted. They may well not be interested in such questions. That's fine, but why comment on something you couldn't be bothered to read?

The push back revealed a more worrying negativity, though. It's something that I come across frequently on the more "skeptical" sites my blog is linked to. "If people believe X, they must be stupid." I can't tell you how disappointing it is to read other skeptics commenting like this. As a skeptic we are often accused of an affectation of intellectual superiority and this is exactly why. It's especially disappointing when someone like Jon Donnis of the BadPsychics network takes this stance:

Jon, if you are not aware of him or his work, created the Bad Psychics site and blog. At one point the site was, in my opinion, one of the finest skeptical resources on the internet. I first came across it when a family member was scammed out of a large sum of money by a psychic featured in Jon's huge directory of paranormal fraudsters. At that point, I was unsure how psychics were using well-worn tricks to scam believers, but it wasn't until I spent hours reading the site and the suggested links that I could nail down my disbelief. I became informed thanks to Jon, and I'm sure many others could tell the same story.

I literally would not be writing this blog, if not for Jon and the Bad Psychics site. It was immeasurably influential to me and introduced me to skepticism and it's application to the paranormal. Nor, would I be studying physics, my love of science being a direct result of my introduction to skepticism.

I really don't think Jon would've gone to such effort if he just believed that those that came to his site to question psychics were "dumb" if they hadn't already made their mind up on the subject. He would not have set out to educate and inform unless he knew that misinformed and uninformed are not synonymous with just "dumb". The former can be changed with education and well presented and supported arguments, the latter cannot.

Ignorance can be dispelled.

As skeptics, or even skeptical believers, we can't ever lose sight of that. Maybe Jon has become somewhat jaded, maybe he was having an off day. Who knows. Also, Jon fails to delineate between ideas and those that accept those ideas. The idea of a spirit pushes a planchette around a wooden board may well be dumb, but one doesn't have to be dumb to accept it, maybe just lacking knowledge of a robust counter-argument to the idea.

 Let's face it, dismissing believers as "dumb" is thunderingly unproductive at best, arrogant and snobbish at worst.

One of the major points I was attempting to make in the aforementioned Ouija board post, which many people seemed to miss, possibly because I didn't explain it well, was that there are cultural reasons why Ouija board belief is widespread and difficult to overturn. I put this to Jon and he responded:

Firstly, the idea that we should we now class people who watch and believe in Most Haunted as an ethnic minority whose beliefs need to be respected is utter nonsense and something I've never argued. Ever. I don't think ANY IDEAS, should be protected from criticism. But we can debunk, disprove and even ridicule and rubbish these beliefs, without insulting and more importantly alienating those that hold them. Also, the post focused on a slightly deeper cultural influence than a ghost hunting TV show aired on an obscure UK digital channel twelve weeks a year. I think I'll sum up the tactic of augmentation that Jon has attempted to use here with an image:

Another point I'd raise is that from the above statement it seems apparant that Jon thinks critical thinking skills and common sense are both synonymous with each other and innate, whilst I don't think these two qualities are synonymous at all. Take many of the ideas progressed by science using methods ultimately founded on critical thinking, which are deeply non-intuitive and buck the notion of "common sense". For example, Newton's proof of the fact that objects of different masses free-fall at the same rate. That's a deeply non-intuitive idea.

Tackling Jon's other assertion, common sense may well be innate, or it may develop naturally, but critical thinking isn't and certainly doesn't. Critical thinking has to be taught. How would I evidence this? Well if critical thinking was innate the development of the scientific method and the scientific revolution would likely have occurred much sooner in our development as a race. Let's face it, we've no chance of teaching people to think critically whilst also calling them dumb!

Also, I've got to say, even though I think Jon was being somewhat flippant, the idea that neutering people who hold a certain belief will end that belief is absolutely stupid. You do know that belief in the paranormal isn't genetic, right Jon? Of course you do.

If someone, somewhere believes something that you can see is patently nonsense, something like a Ouija board or even a blatantly photoshopped mermaid picture, there are two routes available to you. You could adopt a position of intellectual superiority. You could laugh and sneer at believers, call them "dumb" or "stupid" or whatever. You could dismiss any attempt at discussion or debate about the phenomena in question as pandering to idiots. Unfortunately, there's then a danger that when you engage in your next debunking you'll simply come across as a poser who engages in skepticism to display your intelligence to an echo-chamber filled with people who agree with you. You can't be attempting to impart the usefulness of critical thinking to those you've already dismissed as "dumb" for not having prior knowledge of it, can you? There's also the downside in taking this approach, that you'll confirm the accusations of ardent believers that skeptics are close-minded naysayers. All you'll achieve is to make the job of those of us who tell believers that there is a great divide between a skeptic and a cynic,  have to work much harder in our attempts to dismiss ignorance and educate.

Alternatively, you could just try outreach instead.

You could adopt the mindset that believers aren't idiots, they are misinformed, and you can attempt to dispell that misinformation. You could attempt to make accurate information more readily available to believers Perhaps you could try to remember that you yourself were likely in that position at some point, then you stumbled across the site of someone like Jon Donnis and as a result of his passion and hard work the scales fell from your eyes.

The Real Dangers of the Ouija Board: Ignorance and Delusion.

 Steve Huff is upsetting folks again, so I'm going to take some time out of my busy day (that beer isn't going to drink itself you know) to rubbish his latest bullshit claim or despicable lack of respect for the dead. Let's see what Huff has said now (highlighting not added by me):

 Wait.... I wasn't expecting this, but I agree with much of that statement. What's going on? I agree with Steve Huff... What's the expression for such an event? Oh yeah...

Of course, I disagree with the specifics of why Huff believes the Ouija board is harmless, and we shouldn't give Huff too much credit, a broken clock is right twice a day after all. Huff believes that the devices he uses are much more powerful, and therefore more dangerous than the Ouija board as it opens "larger portals". Whilst I hold, that neither the Ouija board nor any other ITC or spirit communication device opens a "portal" of any kind. Further to this, there's no reason to believe any such portals exist in the first place.

This implication of "my portal is bigger than your portal" one-upmanship" isn't what has upset some in the paranormal community, however, it's the idea that Huff could suggest that Ouija boards pose no danger to users beyond the dangers of suggestibility. Here's an example of the furious reaction that suggesting the Ouija board isn't dangerous can illicit from Facebook page "The Paranormal Archives":

Hmmm... I'd actually agree with the opening statement: Demon communication is not an option. Demons don't exist. Also, there are some great reasons for owning a Ouija board even if you don't believe them to be a spirit communication device. How about to admire the craftsmanship of a particular talking board? Many of these boards are very aesthetically pleasing, is it any wonder that some people would want to collect such things? Or perhaps to admire the historical aspect? Or for the purposes of displaying the curious nature of the ideomotor effect? The board can certainly be an interesting curio. Or what about using the board for it original purposes, as a game or parlour trick?

The rage that implying a talking board is not a deadly spirit summoning device can cause is not restricted to social media of course. Take a look at some of the hilarious reviews that the sale of a pink ouija board designed for children (left) elicited on Amazon.com.

Many of the reviewers hit on a particular theme. The irresponsibility of allowing a child to use a Ouija board, the potential harm that could result from this. Let's be clear here: a Ouija board cannot hurt either a child or a vulnerable adult, or anyone else for that matter. What can hurt these individuals, is the ignorance, fear and superstition surrounding the talking board. The only antidote to this is educating people regarding the actual mechanism behind the movement of a planchette on the board.

The problem is that the only debates that are currently raging with regards to Ouija boards is "Are they dangerous are they not? Do they contact ghosts or demons?" The truth is that these debates are the equivalent of two bald men fighting over a comb. The debate is settled by the fact that there's a very rational mechanism behind the Ouija effect.

The only actual mystery behind the Ouija board is how an explanation can be so straight forward, confirmed and tested and widely known yet not be "common knowledge" amongst believers. The ideomotor effect isn't a new phenomenon,  William Benjamin Carpenter, a British physiologist, introduced this theory in 1852. As Scott G Eberle explains in a 2012 article for Psychology Today:

"The planchette may seem to drag our hands along as it selects letters that spell out words, but it happens that muscular action does not always arise out of deliberate will or volition, or in fact, even upon our awareness. Our keen expectations for a certain outcome will sometimes direct the movements of our arms and hands as the planchette glides easily on felt-covered feet. This happens at a level that lies below our conscious attention. “Dousing” sticks or “divining” rods which also appear to move strangely on their own work in exactly this way by amplifying muscle movements. Whether we’re looking for buried pipes or for answers, though, subtle unacknowledged suggestions, not spirits, guide our actions. Yes, we select the letters ourselves in this game; it’s just that sometimes we don’t quite know that we do it or how we do it."-Scott G Eberle, Psychology Today(2012)

 So why are many believers unaware of this rational explanation of the Ouija phenomena?

I believe one of the main reasons for this is the popularity of a Ouija board as a paranormal Mac Guffin (a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or another motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot.-Wikipedia) in popular culture. Think of the amount of horror films that use the concept of a protagonist using a Ouija board and inadvertently triggering a sequence of paranormal events. Whilst it's become something of a lazy cliche, one has to credit the incredible social influence of the movie The Exorcist in almost single-handedly creating such a powerful and widespread, and widely believed for that matter, trope. It wasn't the first movie to use the Ouija board in such a way, but it is by far the most influential and is responsible for much of the fear around the board.  Sorry Koko, you might have been in the first piece of film to show a Ouija board but that's what you get for being the star of a massively racist cartoon.

This trope doesn't just effect the movies. The Ouija effect is part of the cultural zeitgeist. Everyone and their Aunt in the paranormal community has a Ouija story, the board is often introduced to many more mundane haunted house or ghost tales as a Mac Guffin or often as the very denouncement to the tale itself. My Childhood was filled with many a boring tale of moving pint glasses and cold spots and ghostly voices ending with "...And then they found a Ouija board in the attic/cellar/outside lavatory..." guaranteed to elicit an "Oooooh" from many listening. In fact, many skeptics, myself included, held on to the mystique of the Ouija long after we've abandoned other supernatural beliefs.

So how does this pop-culture influence prevent believers from exposure to the truth, i.e: the non-supernatural explanation behind the Ouija board? It could be that the prevalence of the board in pop-culture and word of mouth tales means that many feel they don't actually have to do any actual research to learn everything they need to know about the board. Certainly any time it's mentioned on social media, believers come in droves to share diabolical warnings of demons, evil spirits and such nonsense, contacted through the board. Rarely is a dissenting skeptical or rational voice heard and often such opinions are drowned out or the comments are removed altogether. Again, as mentioned above, generally the only dissent is in the form of questioning the exact paranormal nature of the Ouija Board.

Youtube and various video hosting sites feature thousands of Ouija Board videos with comment sections dominated by credulous posts, many of which remark on what "rules" should be followed, what it's acceptable to do, what it's not acceptable to do. And of course, the dire warnings abound. Few commentators indicate what the source is for their information, many citing personal experience as their guide.

Even if a curious believer was to attempt to find more information about Ouija boards, a cursory Google search leads to more rules, guidelines and warnings. Try the question "Are Ouija boards safe?" for example. Not one of the sites from the first page features the word "ideomotor" once as the comparsion below shows.

















The significance of this is that a believer curious as to whether a Ouija Board is dangerous or not simply won't be exposed to the correct answer: "No, they rely on the ideomotor effect." unless they are already aware of the ideomotor effect to begin with. Of course, a more direct question like "How do Ouija Boards work" will yield more rational results, but having the mindset to pose this question likely means the believer is on the way to rejecting the phenomena anyway.

You may have noticed the most popular result for the ideomotor-less search request, Wiki-how. Not a paranormal site. Would you expect at least some rationality from a seemingly sensible site that people usually visit to learn how to unclog a drain or repair an iPad? If so, you'd be mistaken. The Wiki-how page is filled with the usual rubbish that propagates paranormal pages. Here's a quick sample:
















Is it any wonder that so much ignorance surrounds the Ouija board, when, for a better word, a mainstream site publishes such utter fucking horse-shit as "Sometimes, the spirit will end the session first. If it doesn't, you will need to move the pointer to the word GOODBYE. This is important. If you don't do this, you will leave the doorway to the spirit world open. Other spirits might use this to enter your house."? The page even has a question and answer section where visitors can request more nonsensical information.

Perhaps the mystique of the Ouija board remains partially because it gives some believers the opportunity to claim expertise. Pretending to have access to some arcane and forbidden knowledge, or some terrible secret gives some a sense of self-worth. They may even begin to believe this themselves. But a false sense of self-worth is not worth the propagation of ignorance. While these prognosticators issue their dire warnings of "Zozo" and other such rubbish the people who listen to them go misinformed, they spread this misinformation further.

In his Psychology Today article mentioned above Scott G. Eberle, Ph.D suggests an interesting experiment to demonstrate the ideomotor effect and expose how Ouija board works. It's very easy to do and stunningly effective if done correctly without the sitters knowledge:

"Try inviting the Ouija believer to wear a blindfold (I'd suggest having a test run before the blindfolding, then one with the blindfold and the board the right way up before flipping the board);(then quietly rotate the game a half turn. Then ask some mischievous questions of your own devising. (Be nice, now.) If your subject has memorized the position of the letters or the YES and NO answers (on purpose or not) I promise you amusing and instructive results."-Scott G. Eberle Ph.D, Psychology Today (2012)

 Every time you're at a social gathering and a Ouija board comes out, insist on trying this out. Let's get a few Ouija stories in circulation that show the Ouija board for what it truly is: a demonstration of a harmless physiological quirk. Let's change the discussion.

*I tried to find an example of this test performed by Penn and Teller for their show Bullshit a few years ago, unfortunately it appears to have disappeared from Youtube. Luckily Willie Kay posted a great alternative to the Bad Psychics FB page which is on the left. Thanks Willie.

I'm saying goodbye now, I don't want to leave a channel open.

Defending the Warrens: Distort, Ignore and Disregard.

I wrote a post back in January regarding the about to be released movie The Conjuring 2, the story line of which concerns "Paranormal Investigators" Ed and Lorraine Warren investigating the so-called Enfield Poltergeist case of the 1970's. The post  was in direct response to the comments of Guy Lyon Playfair, one of the main investigators on the Enfield case. Playfair was understandably aggrieved that the Warrens were presented as central to the case, when he states, that there only involvement was to turn up and tell Playfair what money was to be made from exploiting the supposed haunting. I won't repeat Playfair's comments as they are available in the above link, the post also links to the original source, so you can follow that if you're interested.

What I want to focus on is the reaction to the notion that filmakers involved in the making of the conjuring maybe *gasp* massively over-exaggerating the extent of the Warrens involvement with Enfield. As an example here's what an admin at website Paranormal Soup had to say about the issue:





Jim suggests that what I write should be disregarded because I use the word "Skeptic" in the title of my blog. That's a classic example of the genetic fallacy, Jim wants to disregard my argument because of it's source not due to its validity. Jim also states

" if the Warrens weren't involved with this case it will come out big time when the movie is released. Everyone will be interviewed includes existing family members involved in the haunting. So if this story is not related accurately, it will come out."

Psst.... Jim.... It HAS come out, and you've found a lame reason to disregard it.

Even if you want to brush what I've said under the rug because I'm a nasty Skeptic, if you'd actually read what I wrote you'd have to find a reason to disregard what Playfair has said too. He most certainly isn't a skeptic, what is his reason for casting aspersions on the Warrens?

Jim goes on to state:

"I do have to wonder though, why a Movie Studio would risk their reputation on a lie, if that were the case.

Jim, is this a joke? Have you ever read about the "artistic licence" film studies take with supposedly true stories? Ever heard of Braveheart? The film depicts William Wallace having sex with Isabelle of France, she was four at the time of Wallace's death. Was the film studio's reputation ruined by this distortion of the truth? No of course not. No one cared. No one's reputation suffered. The film was a huge success.

Several people have commented on the validity of the claim that the Warrens were majorly involved with the Enfield case resulting in Tony Spera(left), one of Ed and Lorraine's proteges and current curator of their Museum of the Occult, to post a lengthy defence on the museum's facebook page (reposted in full at the end of the post). Now I'd normally post a screen cap of that response but unfortunately, the post has been deleted. In fact, the museum's page is completely gone. What I can do, in the interest of fairness and in an effort not to misquote, is take sections of the response reproduced on Paranormal Soup and Google search them to confirm that Spera actually wrote them. If the post has been removed due to inaccuracies, as I believe may be the case, Spera may regret beginning it by requesting that all "friends of the Warrens" share it where ever possible!

Spera states:

"Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren were at the house, and conducted an investigation into the supernatural and preternatural phenomena that had been occurring in that small counsel house. I have in my possession, hours of audio recordings of Ed Warren interviewing Peggy, Janet, and Margaret Hodgeson, and in those tapes, audio of voices frequently responding to questions from Ed Warren, and even interrupting him at times. These voices would issue from thin air."

Great, and you can evidence this by just issuing the tapes surely? Why hasn't Spera done this?

He also states:

"There were two other investigators in the house, accompanying the Warrens, Paul Bartz ( since deceased ) and John Kenyhercz, alive and well, who will testify to this fact. John was witness to much phenomena; one incident involved a huge lump of excrement plopping ( materializing ) on the floor right in front of him. John also supplied to me dozens of photographic slides he had taken in the house."

 Again, where are these slides? And again, Why not just release them?

"This occurred in 1979..... In 1981 Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren returned to the house...."

This could be the reason Spera's post was removed, you see the Conjuring 2 isn't set in 1979 or 1981, it's set in 1977, the time of the original events surrounding the family. The film also clearly depicts the Warrens alongside lead investigator Maurice Grosse, portrayed by Simon McBurney (left). Spera does not mention Grosse as being with the Warrens during their 1979 investigation. But Grosse was still with the family until at least August of that year. He continues:

"Also, keep in mind that Ed Warren visited the house in 1979.
The British investigators supposedly were there in 1977 for more than a year. Did they solve anything or help the family in any way? Apparently not, as the phenomena was still occurring when Ed went to the house in 1979."

This is directly contradictory to the few interviews Janet Hodgson, the 11-year-old girl around which the haunting seem to be centred (or who was the main hoaxer depending on your stance), has given since 1978. She states that the paranormal events more or less ended in 1978 after an exorcism by a local priest:

"Janet reports that it was a priest’s visit to Green Street that resulted in the incidents ‘quietening down’ in autumn 1978, although the occurrences did not stop entirely, she says, with her mother continuing to hear noises in the house." Janet Hodgson, Daily Mail, 2012. 

That doesn't sync with Spera's defence of the Warrens at all, with him claiming that Janet was still levitating and emitting strange voices at this point.... there was even a case of shit materialising from thin air apparently:

 "...one incident involved a huge lump of excrement plopping ( materializing ) on the floor right in front of him."

Hmmm.... I wonder if it was bullshit?

Anyway, also contradictory is Janet's alleged reaction to meeting Lorraine Warren on the Conjuring 2 set last year, with Spera stating:

"Fast forward to October of 2015. Lorraine was invited to the set of " The Conjuring 2: Enfield Poltergeist "While on the set, Janet and Margaret Hodgeson arrived and were met by Lorriane. The two woman immediately began crying while hugging and kissing Lorraine. They both remarked that " Lorraine and her husband were the " Only ones that helped us ".... Let that sink in. " The Warren's were the ONLY ones that helped us "...."

Yet, despite this gratitude Janet has NEVER mentioned Ed or Lorraine in a single interview. Not Once, so she's certainly never publicly indicated any gratitude to the Warrens. As quoted above, she credits a local priest with ending the haunting effectively. Let THAT sink in Spera. Also, she told the Mail again in 2012 this that she was less than thrilled  with the idea of the film:

"I wasn't very happy to hear about the film," she said. "I didn't know anything about it. My dad has just died, and it really upset me to think of all this being raked over again."-Janet Hodgson, The Daily Mail, 2012. 

Hardly a ringing endorsement, and the only public comment she's made about the film.

*Inserted update* I've been pointed to the following promotional interview for the Conjuring 2 with Janet where she does indeed endorse the Warrens. This is quite literally the first time I've heard her mention them. She also thanks the filmmakers for giving her the chance to "tell her families story". According to the Express Janet is now also claiming that it was not the spirit of "Bill" that possessed her but a "creature".


This is quite a backtrack from the quotes above and the story she has previously told as the above quotes show, and this has the whiff of a cynical move by Warner Bros to protect the legitimacy of the film's claims. I include it (above) for clarity.

Spera also talks about the Warrens influence on the paranormal scene:

"There isn't a paranormal reality show, or reality star on television today, or in the past that doesn't owe a huge debt of gratitude to Ed and Lorraine Warren.They began the NESPR ( New England Society for Psychic Research ) way back in 1952, before most, if not all of these so-called " Demonologists " and ghost-hunters were ever conceived, or even a thought in their future parents mind. The Warrens were the grunts, the ones who laid the groundwork, and fought the battles and forged ahead, all in the quest to help others. Back in the late sixties, Ed was recognized as being one of only seven religious demonologists in the nation, six being clergy,and Ed as the only " lay " Demonologist. Today, if you check the internet, there are probably thousands of people calling themselves demonologists."

You'd have to be stunningly deluded to see that as anything but a criticism, not a compliment.  The Warrens led the way in bestowing themselves with bullshit, made up titles and qualifications. They pioneered shoddy investigation techniques and practices. They revolutionised the exploitation of the deluded and vulnerable. They fought to keep stone age beliefs from slipping into obscurity...

HOO-FUCKING- RAH

Of course, Jim of Ghost Study was more than convinced by Spera's statement, despite the fact that Spera hasn't offered a shred of evidence and the post (and page) has been quickly removed.

I'm sure Jim doesn't care what anyone else has to say about the Warrens. He wants to believe, that's fine. He can continue to drink the Kool-Aid, but he may want to ask Spera why that post was yanked.... Why go from asking for it to be circulated to the scorched earth approach of going as far as to completely remove the Warren's Museum page altogether?

I've got to say I think Jim approach of ignoring or disregarding legitimate criticism of the Warrens is far more convenient than attempting to defend them. As Spera demonstrates, the only way to actually mount a defence of Ed and Lorraine is obscure and manipulate the truth. Spera is forced to leap to the Warren's defence, as the curator of their bullshit museum they are his meal ticket

That post of Tony Spera's in full:

First, I would ask that everyone who reads this post shares it on their timeline. I ask this of those who are truly friends of Ed and Lorraine Warren.
The following is my response;

There have been articles floating around the internet claiming that Ed and Lorraine Warren never investigated the " Enfield Poltergeist " case.
The case is the basis for the upcoming New Line Cinema release of " The Conjuring 2; Enfield Poltergeist "

An interview between Dave Shrader and Guy Playfair has been floating around online, with Playfair disparaging Ed Warren and claiming that they never investigated the house or family.
I write this to counter that false claim. Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren were at the house, and conducted an investigation into the supernatural and preternatural phenomena that had been occurring in that small counsel house.

I have in my possession, hours of audio recordings of Ed Warren interviewing Peggy, Janet, and Margaret Hodgeson, and in those tapes, audio of voices frequently responding to questions from Ed Warren, and even interrupting him at times. These voices would issue from thin air.

Also, a voice known as the " Parrot woman " could be heard on the audio tapes.

There were two other investigators in the house, accompanying the Warrens, Paul Bartz ( since deceased ) and John Kenyhercz, alive and well, who will testify to this fact.
John was witness to much phenomena; one incident involved a huge lump of excrement plopping ( materializing ) on the floor right in front of him.
John also supplied to me dozens of photographic slides he had taken in the house.

This occurred in 1979.

Lorraine was witness to wallpaper peeling from the walls, and floating in the air, and covering an overhead light.

Ed and Lorraine had left the house and had gone to a local market to buy some groceries for the family, and while there witnessed a " doppelgänger " of Janet standing just outside of the store.
In 1981 Ed Warren and Lorraine Warren returned to the house, with their daughter, Judy ( my wife ).

While there, Judy witnessed phenomena herself.
( a purse that she placed on the floor beside her mysteriously moved several feet away from her ).

Fast forward to October of 2015. Lorraine was invited to the set of " The Conjuring 2: Enfield Poltergeist "
While on the set, Janet and Margaret Hodgeson arrived and were met by Lorriane. The two woman immediately began crying while hugging and kissing Lorraine. They both remarked that " Lorraine and her husband were the " Only ones that helped us "

Let that sink in. " The Warren's were the ONLY ones that helped us "

Lorraine and Ed Warren have been taking the stabs and the slings and arrows of skeptics, and naysayers, and non- believers, and jealous competitors for years.
This article is just one more stab.

When you are the pioneers, and on top of the occult realm, there will always be those who will try to knock you off that pedestal.
Ed and Lorraine would go out and buy the Hodgeson family food, because they were a needy family, and Ed and Lorraine felt extreme compassion for them.
Did the British in investigators do that? I don’t think so.

There isn't a paranormal reality show, or reality star on television today, or in the past that doesn't owe a huge debt of gratitude to Ed and Lorraine Warren.
They began the NESPR ( New England Society for Psychic Research ) way back in 1952, before most, if not all of these so-called " Demonologists " and ghost-hunters were ever conceived, or even a thought in their future parents mind.

The Warrens were the grunts, the ones who laid the groundwork, and fought the battles and forged ahead, all in the quest to help others.

Back in the late sixties, Ed was recognized as being one of only seven religious demonologists in the nation, six being clergy,and Ed as the only " lay " Demonologist.
Today, if you check the internet, there are probably thousands of people calling themselves demonologists.

Reading a book on demonology and investigating a few homes does not a demonologist make.
I knew Ed Warren since 1979. Other than his wife, Lorraine, I probably have spent more time with him than anyone else. I would accompany them on the majority of their lectures, and many cases, and visit Ed at his home.

He would talk about the " Enfield " case almost every time I was with him. Literally thousands of people have heard the spirit voices that would issue from thin air in that Enfield house ( Ed played those audio recordings at most of his lectures ).

Also, keep in mind that Ed Warren visited the house in 1979.
The British investigators supposedly were there in 1977 for more than a year.
Did they solve anything or help the family in any way?

Apparently not, as the phenomena was still occurring when Ed went to the house in 1979.

Remember what Janet and Margaret said upon seeing Lorraine on the Conjuring 2 set:
" The Warrens were the ONLY ones that helped us "
I have included pictures of Janet and Margaret standing with Lorraine on the Conjuring set.
Sincerely,

Tony Spera

The Difference Between Mental Illness and Possession? One Exists.

The Mirror takes us back to the dark ages again today (23/05/16), courtesy of Italian exorcist  Father Cipriano de Meo. Clearly the journos at the Mirror are tired of being called backwards, irresponsible, fear-mongering shit lords for promoting archaic notions of demonic possession and have decided to call in an "expert" to fight their corner...

Father Cipriano de Meo (left), is Dean of Exorcists and former president of the International Association of Exorcists, a Roman Catholic organization founded in 1990. In the article, he tells us prayer is the key to establishing what ails a presented person.

"The exorcist will typically say a prolonged prayer to the point where if the adversary [demon] is present, there's a reaction... he unsettling reactions of a possessed person to the prayer, seen by the adversary as an enemy ready to fight him, can include "facial expressions, threatening words or gestures and other things - but especially blasphemies against God and 

Our Lady.”

That's all fine and well, but what de Meo fails to realise is that individuals in families and communities with strong religious beliefs, including belief in Satan, possessions, and demons will very probably believe in those things also. There's no reason to believe that these individuals won't also assume their illness is spiritual in nature. This misattribution is compounded by those around them.

Is it any wonder that these individuals respond to religious provocation? They respond in a negative way because that is the role that is enforced upon them. Psychologists suggest the most likely medical explanation for so-called possession is dissociative identity disorder (DID), one approach to the disorder is to consider it as a syndrome consisting of role enactment created, maintained and legitimised by social reinforcement. This delusion is only compounded by family members and priests confirming it and enforcing it. Cultural interpretations and representations of possession also factor into the disorder. As Robert Todd Carroll, of the Skeptic's Dictionary points out in regards to a MSBC programme featuring several "exorcisms":

"All the participants shown being exorcized seem to have seen the movie "The Exorcist" or one of the sequels. They all fell into the role of husky-voiced Satan speaking from the depths, who was featured in the film. The similarities in speech and behavior among the "possessed" has led some psychologists such as Nicholas Spanos to conclude that both "exorcist" and "possessed" are engaged in learned role-playing."-Carroll (2015)

Schizophrenia is also commonly associated with so-called symptoms of possession, with studies also suggesting that religious delusions are held with more conviction than other forms of delusion:

"Studies which have evaluated the delusional themes of various religious/spiritual delusions report that the common themes are that of persecution (by malevolent spiritual entities), influence (being controlled by spiritual entities), and self-significance (delusions of sin/guilt or grandiose delusions). Studies also suggest that when the non-content dimensions (conviction, pervasiveness, preoccupation, action, inaction, and negative affect) of different types of delusions (persecutory, body/mind control, grandiose, thought broadcasting, religious, guilt, somatic, influence on others, jealousy, and other) are compared, findings suggest that religious delusions are held with more conviction and pervasiveness than other delusions."(Mohr S, et al, Pubmed, 2001)

Is this perhaps because other delusions aren't enforced by family members figures of religious authority such as priests, and the mass media.

On many occasions, it's clear that Priests and members of a local congregation are not acting in the best interests of sufferers of mental illness. Researchers document several cases where the actions of religious leaders have interrupted the ongoing treatment of a prediagnosed sufferer of mental illness. Take the case of a 28-year-old sufferer of schizophrenia from BMJ.

"Historically, many cases of demonic possession have masked major psychiatric disorder. Our aim is to increase awareness that symptoms of schizophrenia are still being classified as demonic possession by priests today... We report the case of a 28-year-old patient who had been diagnosed 5 years previously with paranoid schizophrenia (treated with clozapine, risperidone, ziprasidone and onlanzapine without a complete response) and was also receiving treatment in a first episode psychosis unit in Spain. The patient was led to believe by priests that her psychotic symptoms were due to the presence of a demon. This was surprising because some of the priests were from the Madrid archdiocese and knew the clinical situation of the patient; however, they believed that she was suffering from demonic possession, and she underwent multiple exorcisms, disrupting response to clinical treatment."

The authors continue:

"The patient had schizophrenia and at the time was receiving treatment at a first episode psychosis unit after a psychotic episode a year before... Some months later the patient contacted a clergyman via a website. The clergyman was a renowned expert on exorcisms and a frequent guest on TV programs on paranormal phenomena."

In this particular case, the patients' family were suspicious of the activity of the clergyman in question and ensured that she sought proper medical intervention.

"Family members began to express distrust about the exorcisms because the patient shouted, writhed and occasionally vomited during the sessions. As a result they contacted therapists in the unit for an opinion on meetings with the priest. We were very concerned about the patient's situation and also disappointed with the clerics’ reaction."

The authors conclude:

"...we are surprised that in 21st century and in Europe, there are still experts and clerics who believe that some types of schizophrenia are due to demonic possession. Our intention was to ask an expert cleric from the Madrid archdiocese to try to convince the patient that her symptoms were due to a mental disorder, in an effort to improve her insight. To our surprise, clerics assumed that the patient's psychotic symptoms were due to a malign presence." (Practicing Exorcism in Schzophrenia, Pozo, et all, 2011)

It's worryingly clear here that this wasn't just a case of one Preist or clergyman acting irresponsibly. A whole archdiocese purposely disregarded the opinion of medical professionals and encouraged a young woman to undergo a harmful and potentially deadly, religious ritual. In fact, the clinical report into the case details that the patient was repeatedly vomiting during the exorcisms, one of the reasons the family was so concerned. Likely, this course of action and religious intervention was decided on as a result of this young woman's reaction to religious provocation and that alone. To use such a mundane and explainable justification for overlooking the treatment and advice of medical science is utterly monstrous.

The Mirror article also quotes another unnamed representative of the Catholic Church:

 "Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.”

All fine and well, but cases such as the one documented above show that the Church doesn't actually have much respect for medical science, and as the organisation is yet to show how one can legitimately differentiate between mental illness and possession. The reasons for delineation can clearly be shown to be a factor of the mental illness itself. How about before ascertaining the presence of "the evil one" maybe ascertain there's an "evil one" at all!

Well apart from this guy. Have you seen Jack And Jill.... Brrrrr.... soulless....

Sandler aside, I'll conclude with one line from the paper I've cited above:

"We conclude that religious professionals should encourage appropriate psychiatric treatment and increase their knowledge of mental illnesses."

None of us should hold our breath, in fact, religious leaders seem to be becoming more steadfast in the existence of nonsense such as this.Coupled with the prevalence of such things being presented as "fact" in the news media and entertainment in general results in a devastating double punch of superstition and ignorance to the gut of the vulnerable and mentally ill.

Who is that shadowy black figure stalking Fox news and the Mail? Gasp... Reality!

Sometimes you find the stupidest paranormal stories in the most unexpected places: On 15th May WOW! FM's "Rick" reported on an alleged rise in exorcisms in Idaho, stating:

"Some may laugh… some may scoff… but facts are facts. Exorcism calls are on the rise here in Idaho."

I do indeed laugh and scoff, but if you're stating something is a fact you'd normally provide a source to back this up. Rick fails to do this, we aren't told where he's pulled the year-by-year figures for exorcisms from. He continues:

"It’s a common practice in third world countries. Here in the United States we seem to take a more scientific approach when the unexplained can’t be explained."

When the unexplained can't be explained? Surely the unexplained can't ever be explained as then by definition it wouldn't be unexplained. Also, I question why Rich isn't absolutely terrified and embarrassed that Idaho is following the example of third world countries. So where did Rick find this story to comment on it in the first place, tracking it down should at least lead to a citation of the source stating a rise in Exorcism in Idaho, right?

The story was first featured on Fox 9 news on, you may see this coming, Friday 13th. The piece cites two sources that allege exorcism is on the rise, "exorcism expert" and founder of Apparitions Paranormal Investigations Jeff Mason and Pastor Mike Freeman. It's Mason who seems to be making the claim that exorcisms are on the rise, not based on any actual figures or anything, just the fact that he's being asked to perform them more...

But Mason is a credible source, after all, he is a doctor.... erm... of clinical hypnosis. which isn't an accredited degree in the US or anywhere else, essentially it's a mail order qualification. It's hard to understand how this team actually came to Fox's attention, the team only has three members and their Facebook page has only ten likes!

Meanwhile, pastor Freeman discusses the popularity of exorcism in the Third World, a point that clearly resonates with Rick at least:

“You step into the Third World and it’s definitely a ‘We’re not in Kansas’ anymore moment. To assume our way of viewing reality as the only way is to limit ourselves.”

Is it me, or does this backwards idiot sound like he actually admires the third world for continuing to adhere to stone age superstitions? The pastor may be correct in stating there are many ways to view reality, to the left is how South Park view it, but those views don't alter it. Demons aren't real, possession isn't real. On the other hand mental illnesses and physical ailments which may cause stereotypical "possession like behaviour" are.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3103138/idaho-exorcism-rates-soar-as-population-booms/#g1URX7w3z6vlaPow.99

Of course, it's clear what's happened here: the news channel has gone out looking for a spooky story for Friday 13th and stumbled across Mason and his claims. Paranormal fluff aside there are serious implications here.

As always it's firmly my stance that publicizing nonsense like exorcism hurts the vulnerable, especially children and those with mental illness. This problem is, frankly, more worrying and pressing in Idaho, a state in which backward religious attitudes are killing children. An article published in the Guardian also on Friday 13th, shows the harm caused by protecting and propagating dark age superstition.

Alongside some stark and quite upsetting tales of abuse and neglect told by survivors of throwback religious cults, the article tells us Idaho is one of only six states in the US that offer a faith-based shield for felony crimes such as manslaughter.

The legislature states:

[N]o child whose parent or guardian chooses  for such child treatment by prayers through spiritual means alone in lieu of medical treat­ment, shall be deemed for that reason alone to be neglected or lack parental care necessary for his health and well being. . . .
           Idaho Code, Section 16-1602(28)(a)

In making its order under subsection (a) of this sec­tion, the court shall take into consideration any treatment being given the child by prayer through spiritual means alone, if the child or his parent, guardian or legal custodian are adherents of a bona fide religious denomination that relies exclusively on this form of treatment in lieu of medical treatment.
           Idaho Code, Section 16-1627(3) in Authorization of emergency medical treatment 

Peaceful Valley cemetery is Idaho burial ground of the  religious sect The Followers of Christ, which is full of the graves of young children and infants, many of whom died as a result of their parent's backward superstitious avoidance of medical intervention. Those parents are protected by this law.

A 2015 inquiry found the rate of mortality of children in Followers of Christ families from 2002 to 2011 was ten times greater than that of Idaho as a whole. This may only be the tip of the iceberg as Idaho law also allows religious sects to bury children on private land.

Critics of the faith-shield legislation, first adopted in the 1960's during the Nixon administration, fear that it may at some point also extend to deaths caused as a result of exorcism, although there is no president for this at the current time. It's easy to see how this could be extrapolated. Suddenly exorcism doesn't seem like harmless fluff, does it Rick?

There was more possession related bullshit featured in the good ol' Daily Fail today (18/05/16) which reports on a supposed "mass possession" in a school in Peru.

The following video accompanies the report, it is quite disturbing:

The paper reports:

"Disturbing footage has emerged of up to 80 students convulsing, screaming and fainting at Elsa Perea Flores School in northern Peru's Tarapoto. Experts are struggling to explain the hysteria that broke out at the school, which was reportedly built on a Mafia graveyard.... Franklin Steiner, a parapsychologist who investigates paranormal and psychic phenomena - said: 'It is known that years ago there were many victims of terrorism here. When this school was built, some say bones and dead bodies were found.' 

Locals believe this is a case of demonic interference, saying some children must have played games that invoke demons such as using a Ouija board. A Ouija board is marked with letters and numbers and some use it in the belief that they will be abe to communicate with souls of the dead.

As of yet, there has been no rational or official explanation for the phenomenon."

I'll offer a rational explanation, and it doesn't involve demons, tall dark figures or Mafia graveyards. How about mass hysteria? The phenomenon is explainable and fairly well understood, it's described here as "also known as mass psychogenic illness (MPI), is characterised by more than one person spontaneously developing hysterical physical and emotional symptoms, manifested out of false or exaggerated beliefs within their group." in relation to a similar outbreak in a Malaysian school, SMK Pengkalan Chepa 2.

Simon Wessley, a psychiatrist at Kings College describes the onset of the phenomena:

"Fainting, collapsing, funny neurological symptoms, but also more culturally bound conducts like possession, with djinns and spirits... schools are a natural habitat for mass outbreaks of conversion disorder, as they’re a fairly closed environment, populated by close-knit cliques. It usually begins with one person collapsing or exhibiting unusual physical symptoms, from there rumours spread and anxiety mushroom clouds itself through the hallways."

 Mass hysteria is more common and pronounced in communities within strong superstitious and supernatural beliefs, Robert Bartholomew, a sociologist who has also researched mass hysteria in Malaysia describes the phenomena further:

"Mass hysteria or collective delusions are defined as the spontaneous and rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population.... Outbreaks usually occur in small, tight-knit groups in enclosed surrounding such as schools, orphanages and factories."

Easy to see all those criteria met here, plus the concept of exaggerated or false beliefs which puts the Mails quotes from "locals"into some contrast, clearly the belief in demons and spirits is rife here and the speculation about Mafia burial grounds and the like is only going to fuel this ongoing outbreak.



Hey wait.... what did one of the girls say was stalking them?

"It was a tall man all dressed in black..."

Shit! That may be the first time any form of reality has featured in The Daily Mail.

Meridians, acupuncture, onions and Bullshit: Why putting onions in your sock won't cure anything.

I'm sure that anyone with a social media account is by now familiar with this form of click-bait headline:

"He/she did this. What happened next will amaze you."

I'm also sure, like me, most of you scroll right past these stories without too much thought. A colleague of mine clearly doesn't as she recently recommended a remedy to me which she had come across on the site Boredom Therapy. The stupidity of the post is staggering. Just take a look at the headline and the main photo.

"She Put Onions In Her Socks Before Going To Sleep. When You See Why, You’ll Realize It’s Brilliant."

Will I? Really? Will I? Yep, it's stupid alright. Let's see why....

The article begins:

"For years, people sick with colds or the flu have gone to bed with sliced onions in their socks and woke up feeling refreshed. This sounds absurd, but there is a reason for it.... There are more than 7,000 nerve endings on the bottom of your feet that connect to the rest of you body. These nerves have been a major focal point of Eastern medicine for thousands of years."

 "More than 7000..."? Technically that's correct, there are more than 7,000, there are actually MILLIONS of nerve endings in the feet and of course, they connect to other parts of the body. I don't argue that these areas of the body have been a focus of Eastern medicine, but this doesn't validate those practices.

The particular practice that the author of the piece seems to be referring to is that of reflexology. The manipulation of the feet in order of solve conditions ailing other areas of the body. You'll probably be unsurprised to learn that clinical studies have thus far shown reflexology to be no more effective than placebo. In 2010, Edzard Ernst conducted a systematic review of 23 clinical trials for medical journal Maturitas, he concluded:

"It is concluded that the best clinical evidence does not demonstrate convincingly reflexology to be an effective treatment for any medical condition." (Ernst et al, 2010)

As an aside, when alt-med supporters bang on about the effectiveness of ancient Eastern medicine the first thing I often ask them is why, if that is the case, modern western medicine is so in demand in the East?

Website "Healthy, Wild and Free" (no it's not that kind of website) attempt to explain the connection between the feet and your nervous system:

"They (nerve endings) are very powerful electrical circuits within the body and are often dormant because we wear shoes and don’t get accupuncture done to help the meridians or nerves in any way.... One of the coolest ways to open up these electrical pathways (meridians) and to help purify your internal organs without doing anything internal (diet related) is to cut up onions or garlic and put them in your socks (at the bottom part of your feet) while sleeping"

This is massively incorrect. The nervous system ISN'T an electrical circuit. Due to gaps between nerve cells called Synaptic clefts, an electrical signal doesn't run directly from a nerve ending to the target receptor. The health research board explains further:

"The arrival of a signal called an impulse triggers the release of special chemicals into the gap. These chemicals,neurotransmitters , diffuse across the gap locking into the receptor molecules in the target cell membrane, causing it to ‘switch on’.
It switches off when no more neurotransmitters are released and those that were previously released have been broken down by an enzyme in the gap. The broken down neurotransmitters are then reabsorbed into the synaptic knob.
Because the transmission between neurons is a chemical process, it is possible to alter signaling between nerve cells by using chemical substances."-Health Research Board (2013)


Further to that, this pretty much rules out any effect of placing an onion against the skin other than the job the nervous system is designed to do, i.e-passing the sensation to the brain. Meridians don't exist, we can be pretty sure of this as the practice of acupuncture, which also rests on the existence of meridians has never been shown to be more effective than placebo:

"Controlled clinical trials of actual acupuncture ( typically have three arms: a control group with no intervention or standard treatment, a sham-acupuncture group (needles are placed but in the “wrong” locations or not deep enough), and a real acupuncture group. Most of such trials, for any intervention including pain, nausea, addiction, and others, show no difference between the sham-acupuncture group and the true acupuncture group. They typically do show improved outcome in both acupuncture groups over the no-intervention group, but this is typical of all clinical trials and is clearly due to placebo-type effects." - Science Based Medicine

The fact that the sham-acupuncture group showed the same improvements as the real acupuncture shows that placement of the needles was irrelevant, hence either the whole body is a giant meridian, the researchers accidentally hit other meridians or that meridians don't exist.

Anyway, let's say I grant that these Eastern medicine techniques are more effective than placebo for a moment, which they aren't. Why would replacing the message element of reflexology with a root vegetable provide any benefit? Well, it's all due to the special properties of the humble onion you see:

"Onions, also a key ingredient in Eastern medicine, are naturally anti-bacterial. "

Shockingly, this claim actually has some basis in science. A study in 1997 by JH Kim, showed that onions did show limited antibacterial properties when placed in cultures of oral bacteria. This effect was however significantly reduced in the presence of alkaline and at temperatures of 37^0 C. The problem here being that temperature is pretty significant. It's the average body temperature of a human being.

Let's grant that the onion does have antibacterial qualities and that this holds in a sock, this effect is only going to apply in pretty much the area the onion is in contact with the skin being pretty much impermeable to any chemicals from the onion and the initial input to the nervous system being an electrical impulse triggering a chain of chemical processes. This makes the next claim made by article seem utterly ludicrous:

"Fans of this treatment claim that going to sleep with the onion on your feet releases your body’s toxins into the root vegetable, leaving you feeling healthy and refreshed in the morning."

Do they? Have they bothered to say, test this? Do they have any mechanism by which this could work? The skin is pretty impermeable to most chemicals, and there's no evidence of toxins being able to pass from the body to the environment via the skin. Couple this with the fact that the body already has a pretty good detoxification system: it's called the liver. Add in with the body's natural excretory system and it seems unnecessary to accessorize with salad vegetables to perform these tasks.

With all this in mind, let's return to the initial claim: Can this help with a cold or flu? The author of the piece simply hasn't justified this claim. Even if we accept that onions have the properties described, none of that applies to colds or flu: these are viruses, not bacteria or toxins! Viruses are infectious agents which replicate inside the cells of its host. How exactly would an onion in a sock draw viruses from cells in a host's lungs?

Let's see if any other sites can make some sense of these absurd claims. Alt-Med sales site "Healthy Bliss" just offers more nonsense on the topic:

"...with the body being so clean, the fumes from the onion could theoretically be absorbed through the skin and pass through the body more quickly, and perhaps eliminate internal bad bacteria or even parasites."

"Theorectically" I don't think the author of this piece has a damn clue what the word theory means (or how to spell it. It's "theoretically"), I'll offer a hint. It doesn't mean "Any old tripe that justifies something I want to believe..." Also "fumes"? No fumes pass through the skin. by the very definition of the word ("...any smokelike or vaporous exhalation from matter..." Dictionary.com), fumes are something that is inhaled or exhaled.

In fact some brave soul at the website conducted "an experiment" testing the healing power of the sock/onion treatment. Forget all that you know about the scientific method, blinding, controls, and methodologies. Forget that personal anecdote isn't evidence. And forget the fact that the point of an experiment is to remove bias and subjectivity and enjoy the stupid.

"After about 30 minutes with the Onion Socks on, I started to feel distinct quivers in my calves and a twitch on my left side at the rib cage. In another 10 minutes, my eyes started to tear as if I had just cut an onion, although a much milder sensation but clearly a distinct tearing."

"AS IF" she'd just cut an onion? AS IF? You have just cut an onion. It's in your fucking sock, you moron!

"5 minutes after that, my boyfriend told me he had the taste of onion in his mouth!"

That's remarkable! It's almost as if the senses of taste and smell are intrinsically linked and your boyfriend can smell onion... BECAUSE IT'S IN YOUR FUCKING SOCK!

She describes the results of the first night of the "experiment":

"I felt tired and weak, the first day for me to feel that way, but I did feel better. I don’t think it was the placebo effect as I am very open to trying something and saying it doesn’t work."

You can't switch off the placebo effect, even if you are aware of it. Also, it sounds distinctly like she's not sure that she felt better at all.

"And the real reason why I think it worked is because 90% of my hay fever and allergy symptoms disappeared overnight!! I went through the whole day with no itchy eyes and no itchy nose and I think I sneezed only 2 times the entire day!! Now, that is no placebo effect!"

Again, she's no idea about the placebo effect. Also, I doubt she checked the pollen count that day. That could explain why her allergy symptoms were absent. I doubt she attempted to control for any of the variables that could affect the outcome of the experiment. Either that or she forgot to tell us about it. What she doesn't forget to do is try and sell us her latest book.

"For Dummies" A more apt title I never read.

Frankly, the only thing you are going to get from put onions in your socks is... well... extremely smelly socks and inedible onions. Let's be logical. If you have a cold or the flu, a few days of rest will usually leave you feeling better regardless of what root vegatable you sleep with.

On an unrelated note, a few people are asking me where I get my amazing skeptical prowess from. I will now share my secret.The answer is quite simple, I sleep with a copy of Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world in my sock every night.