tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25606455812267086072024-03-05T23:53:18.133+00:00The Null Hypothesis.True until proven otherwise.
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.comBlogger183125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-45908223004718217642020-06-03T12:38:00.004+01:002021-08-06T23:00:57.159+01:00Steve McRae Served Restraining Order: My Thoughts. <div class="graf graf--p" name="3a36">
Over the past year, YouTuber Steve McRae, familiar to many atheists, agnostics and skeptics as the co-host of the popular Non-Sequitur Show, has engaged in a program of intense harassment against a female journalist. This culminated yesterday when McRae was served with a restraining order under the Violence Against Women act for his harassment of this woman. In this post, which is very much an opinion piece, I hope to explain to you why this case matters, and why the platforms that McRae used to engage in this vendetta need to seriously question their approach to dealing with cases of sustained harassment.<br />
<br />*Amendment: following a recent conversation on social media, I felt it only right to explain the role the VAWA played in McRae receiving his restraining order. The VAWA ensures that restraining orders are actionable in all 50 states of the US by applying <span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 34); color: #202122; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">the terms of </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); background-image: none; border: 0px; color: #6b4ba1; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;" title="Full Faith and Credit">full faith and credit</a><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 34); color: #202122; font-family: -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Lato, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">. This specifically applies to McRae’s case as he does not live in the victim’s state. </span><br />
<br />
I’ve watched this situation develop with concern for 10 months. At the end of last year, McRae had made around 50 hours of YouTube ‘content’ about this journalist across two YouTube channels, one of which has 14 thousand plus subscribers. <br />
<br />
One of the most concerning elements of McRae's activities, for me, was the fact that he seemed unable, or unwilling, to state what outcome he hoped to achieve by the intense focus on this journalist. He felt she had wronged him by making certain unfavourable comments about him on Twitter, but she had already apologised and he had rejected said apology.<br />
<br />
During one stream, he passed the comment that he would 'never stop.' Think about that as I relay what happened next.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of December 2019, I was in Bern, covering the launch of the CHEOPS telescope. During the 72 hour period that I was away, McRae made 12 hours of videos about this woman. The breaking point for many of his fans came later that month when he shared a video of this woman’s child and asked followers to comment on his medical status.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="9d81">
After this, perhaps taking the advice of friends or seeing how some long term fans reacted to exposing a sick child this way, he ceased making content about her. He continued to make passing references, but that was it. He continued, however, to run a closed FB group above her ‘misdemeanours’ as he saw them.<br />
<br />
Until last month.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="bfe9">
In May, McRae once again started talking about the journalist in question. His focus on her again became ‘obsessive’ in the opinion of many, including myself. He spoke about her on his own YouTube channels, other people’s channels, on Instagram, Twitter, and on podcasts. He even created a Reddit thread devoted to her. This was after he was removed from another negative thread because his behaviour was too extreme for even these critics of this journalist.<br />
<br />
In one of these appearances, McRae sat laughing as disgraced ex-president of American Atheists David Silverman made the following statement to the journalist in question whilst leering at the screen. "I want to harass her. Penis. Penis. PENIS." <br />
<br />
What an intellectual, right?<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="4f89">
If this wasn’t disgusting enough, and for many of you I’m certain it is, on the closed FB group, an associate of McRae’s with the screen name ‘Tina I’ll Cut You’ posted an image of this journalist’s home and surrounding area. The address was listed on the image. The image was accompanied with a chilling message: “She thinks she’s safe.”<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="8733">
Further to this, McRae’s Reddit thread became littered with postings of this journalist’s address. Mention was also made of her husband's place of work. Yet, McRae did nothing to remove them or the users posting them. This all came to a head last week when the journalist stated she intended to take legal action, criminal action.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="e12e">
As mentioned above; yesterday — June 02/06/20 — McRae was served with a restraining order awarded under the Violence Against Women act. This means that further harassment could be deemed a felony offence. The protection order covers activities in all 50 states.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="c684">
An hour after receiving these papers, McRae was on the closed FB group talking about the situation, and STILL referring to this journalist, just not by name.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="8f54">
Why am I telling you this; why does this matter?<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="96b0">
Firstly and most obviously, this is a clear case of a woman being harassed to a shocking degree. I can only guess about how unsafe this woman and her family felt knowing that her address had become freely available on the internet, known to people who had made comments about her feeling of safety — an implicit if not explicit threat, in my opinion.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="c636">
Secondly, this is a situation that deeply affects me as a journalist. We have all seen the treatment of journalists during the deepening crisis in the US. Media representatives have become victims of vicious rhetoric from the President of the United States, and populist politicians across the globe. Journalists have been attacked on the streets of London during pro-Brexit marches, on the streets of the US whilst covering a growing civil uprising. <br />
<br />
Journalists, I wager, have never been under such pressure and the harassment and stymieing of journalists is a serious and credible threat to our personal liberty and our ability to access correct and accurate information.<br />
<br />
Yes, this woman is an entertainment journalist and Vlogger, but that doesn't make her any less deserving of the protections offered to others in the profession. </div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="7b66">
<br />
That’s not to say that journalist should be above criticism, that is far from the case. There are many legitimate systems in place to bring action against a journalist who has acted irresponsibly. Intense harassment, implicit threats, doxxing, discussion of their personal and private lives are not, and never will be, these avenues.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="b8ed">
I seriously hope that this restraining order represents the end of this situation for this journalist and her family. But, I have deeper concerns. <br />
<br />
In particular, I don't believe that this journalist should have had to go to a judge to determine that these actions had to be halted. I would like to know why YouTube did not step in and stop this harassment earlier? I want to know why Patreon continues to allow this man to collect money from his followers, money that has been used to harass a woman and her family?<br />
<br />
<br />
At the end of last year, YouTube introduced measures specifically intended to deal with exactly this kind of harassment. Yet they did nothing to stop McRae using his channel with 14k subscribers to harass a journalist.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="ee5e">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="009e">
Around the same time, Patreon removed the account of the YouTuber Onision for the doxxing — revealing the personal information — of a fan. Yet, McRae has now been linked to the doxxing of several people. Yet, nothing has happened.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p" name="492b">
Is the fact that this man is now under a restraining order and faces criminal action if he violates it, which he arguably already has, enough for these two platforms to take some responsibility, accept their part in facilitating this harassment and remove his ability to do this again?<br />
<br />
<br />
I genuinely hope so, not just for this journalist, but for McRae himself, who seems determined to let a slight against him ten or so months ago lead him on a vendetta that has been detrimental to his own life. </div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-27984074745490965262019-10-03T10:30:00.000+01:002019-10-04T01:59:59.045+01:00Steve McRae and Rape apologetics<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>Twelve-minute introduction</b><br /><br />The first thing that I think I should be clear about is </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">that I don't believe merely platforming a rapist makes a person a rape apologist, nor does it constitute in itself rape apology.<br /><br />That is not my argument.</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /><br />Secondly, despite the fact that I believe that the things Steve Mcrae said in the fallout around his stream with Earl David Worden on July 6th can be interpreted as 'rape apologetics' I do not believe that this makes him a rape apologist for a few reasons.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />In a 2013 article (1), author Sarah Beaulieu urges that we shouldn't be too hasty to call a person a rape apologist. She argues that the title gets under her skin because m</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">ost people don’t apologize on behalf of rapists and most people don’t think that rape is actually okay. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">S.E Smith writes in 2019 (2) that rape apology narratives are far more common in culture than rape apologists are themselves. These narratives are often created by people and organisations that most certainly do not intend to push rape apology as legitimate discourse.</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">I do not think that Steve McRae thinks rape is OK. In fact, I've heard several statements from him that show he definitely doesn't think that. That said, I do believe that the things that Steve said in the aftermath of the aforementioned stream fall into the category of rape apology. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">Rationalwiki says: "Rape apology </span></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #252525;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">i</span><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">s an umbrella term for any arguments suggesting that </span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape">rape</a> is infrequent, misreported, over-reported, not that big a deal, or excusable in some circumstances."</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Debra Russell argues in a 2017 article that rape apologetics is anything that seeks to rationalise rape or to make light of it, she also includes efforts to suggest rape is misinterpreted--adding, another common trait of rape apologetics is the suggestion that the sex in question was actually consensual (4).<br /><br />The Good Lad Institute in the UK (11) is an organisation that helps young men understand gender issues and narratives. Daniel the managing director gave me key points that are common in such narratives to help define rape apologetics. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">The idea that </span><span style="font-size: large;">'false accusations are rife'</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">Victim blaming--including accusations that the victim lied.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">miscommunication and misunderstanding being the cause of rape</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;"> The idea that the rapist is 'Not a bad person' or that they are just misguided</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />Several of Steve McRae's comments suggest that the rape that Earl David Worden committed was misreported or 'not that big a deal' or worst, not rape at all. This is rape apologetics.<br /><br />On 7th July on Twitter, McRae suggests that a lack of Romeo and Juliet laws have 'fucked many good people' (a). In another thread, McRae gives the ages of Worden and his victim as 21 & 17 respectively. Both comments support the idea that Worden's is a statutory rape case-- which it explicitly is not (b). They were both 24 at the time of the assault.<br /><br />As this comes in direct response to people discussing Worden's conviction, it is not uncharitable to assume he is implying this all relates to Worden's case.<br /><br />As 'Romeo and Juliet' laws apply to consensual sex--Steve raising them in regards to Worden's conviction suggests the act was consensual. This is a clear misrepresentation of Worden's crime. Also, as 17 is above the age of consent in Texas anyway, R&J laws could never have applied to this case even were those ages correct.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"> In a September 6th conversation with Reds, Steve explicitly states that he believes that the victim consented to sex (x) in direct contradiction to her statement and bizarre in light of the fact that the victim did not point to Worden. He was made known to police after they appealed for information and six-week manhunt was conducted.<br /><br />Steve says in a 26th August twitter conversation that 'Worden has always maintained his innocence' and later in the same conversation that he 'believes his (meaning Worden's) rendition of the story' (e). </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />By stating that he believes Worden's story, Steve is also saying that he does not believe the testimony of the victim that convicted this violent rapist, as both accounts cannot be simultaneously true. Nor does he accept the evidence that convicted the man. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />One of the most common and insidious forms of rape apologetics is the implication or statement that a victim in a successful rape conviction is not telling the truth, either by deception or in error. This enforces the narrative that false allegations of rape are more widespread than they actually are.<br /><br />To see how this is damaging, in a 2019 paper (5a) discussing the change in rape narratives over time author Tanya Serisier points out that despite high profile rape cases and the #MeToo movement encouraging victims of sexual assault to come forward, the full stigma has not lifted. Practices of doubting and judging a women's testimony have not ceased, she argues, adding that victims that do speak out are seen as "tainted". <br /><br />This is why statements such as Steve's are harmful, regardless of intent.<br /><br />Another element of that earlier definition was the downplaying and making light. At several points in the discussion of the crime Worden committed, Mcrae refers to the topic as 'drama' (c). This intrinsically makes light of the information being brought forward--implying that it is somehow petty and beneath discussion.<br /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent;">Alledging that this information is only the concern of trolls on a 'witch hunt'-- again on 6th July (c)--simply compounds this. </span><br /><br /><span style="background-color: transparent;">In addition to this Mcrae attempts to stymie the entire discussion (g). By deleting links to Worden's history, thus actively protecting the reputation of a convicted rapist--defending him. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-size: large;">In a 2018 paper entitled 'Denying rape culture: A response to Luke Gittos' (5) J Stiebert makes the case that a selective view of the evidence is a major issue in the perpetuation of rape culture--one of the main issues with rape apologetics. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Steve does that every time he states that he 'knows the inside details' (g) or previously unreleased facts or has the records about the case whilst ignoring the court documents, the evidence that convicted Worden and witness' testimony yet again.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;">Returning to the August twitter conversation, </span><span style="font-size: large;">Steve also says that the legal system 'makes mistakes' (f) and convicts innocent people--implying again that Worden is innocent.</span><br /><br />With regards to the idea that false rape complaints are a problem, a 2009 study by Jo Lovitt and Liz Kelly (5b) looks at rape or sexual assault claims that are suspected or found to be false. They found that in the UK, Europe and the US false claims range between 4-6% of all cases-- falling in line with the rate of false claims for other crimes.<br /><br />Yet, we seem to hear more statements about the credibility of rape victims than the victims of any other crime. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Steve also implies that in his 1986 court case, Worden is perhaps being framed or mistreated as a result of his police auditing activities--long before police auditing was a thing (f). Worden couldn't have been a police auditor in 85 or 86. </span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />This again meets the criteria for rape apology by suggesting the system is somehow skewered against an accused rapist. <br /><br />As a 2018 New Statesman article points out, bias against alleged rapists is unlikely to be a problem as such cases are notoriously difficult to see to completion. (6)</span></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Downplaying Worden's crime once again, Steve points out that he didn't serve any jail time for the crime (d & e). This blatantly untrue. <br /><br />Worden served 30 days and later 90 days in Harris County and received 10 years probation. He later violated the probation by carrying a firearm. This resulted in him serving five years in prison. According to US criminal law when a person breaks probation it is initial crime that they serve time for (7)</span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />I also want to point out that during Worden's trial his representative asked the court to suppress information that Worden was a suspect in multiple sexual assault cases previous to his conviction--one such case collapsed purely as a result as a negative line-up identification (8). <br /><br />A wealth of investigations in the past 35 years have exposed the severe flaws with the 'line-up' as a form of perpetrator identification (9). This case would have been unlikely to collapse before it reached court was it conducted today.<br /><br />Worden also is currently awaiting trial for the alleged historical sexual assault of his children (10).<br /><br />How does a man go through life racking up sexual assault accusations--especially from his own children? Is it all a conspiracy? Where is the evidence that exonerates him? Why did he never use it to appeal, instead of remaining on the sex offenders register for life?<br /><br />In the September 6th hangout, Steve urges scepticism (y) but is he being sceptical about Worden's story? He is ignoring a preponderance of the evidence because he believes Worden is an "honourable person" (y).<br /><br />If I've swayed your mind what does that say about Steve. Do we cancel him? <br /><br />No, we should deal with the situation with humility. We should accept that Steve is not the first person to be convinced by a practised liar. Worden has had decades to rehearse his story and perfect his narrative and Steve is only human.<br /><br />All my sources, including screencaps, are in the video description.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">Talking points.</b><br /><br /><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">Why was Worden not a suitable guest to speak about first amendment auditing</b><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">--Preventing abuses of power is the aim of first amendment auditing. Worden abused the power of the police when he posed as a police officer, cuffed and raped a woman.</span><br /><br /><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">False equivocation--comparing what Steve said to those fight to have rape convictions overturned. Motivation/ Intent/ Application</b><br /><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Another aspect used to defend Steve that has been adopted is comparing is the case to legal challenges towards rape convictions. Surely, if what Steve did was rape apology, the people who have had rape convictions overturned are guilty of the same.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">This is a false equivalence. People that had rape convictions overturned went through legal channels to have cases reopened and re-examined. Worden has not done this. He accepted his conviction. Whilst maintaining his innocence he remains a convicted rapist. Also, these people considered the evidence in the cases, often taking into account new evidence that has come to light. </span><br /><br /><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">Motivation</b><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">--They don't just accept the story and use that as the basis of their argument--they take into account--new evidence, bad legal advice (such as the Brian Blake case when he was advised to plead guilty to minimise his sentence from 40 years in prison, if found guilty), reasons for a mistrial.</span><br /><br /><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">Intent</b><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">--they intend to have convictions overturned and names cleared. They aren't just squabbling on the internet. Worden has made no attempt to clear his name.</span><br /><br /><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">Application</b><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">--arguing on the internet is not equatable to forming a legal argument and instructing lawyers to build a case.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Reds' definition of 'rape apologetics'-- </b>Reds' definition of rape apologist is as follows: "A person who defends acts of rape... Who claims that rape is not a serious crime or people who do not believe that consent is required." What is the source for this definition? </span><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Also, as Reds believes that rape apologist and rape apologies are synonymous, as demonstrated in this Sept 25th tweet, we can hold him to this definition (h).<br /><br />If Reds were to agree with my definition, would he also agree that what Steve said qualifies as rape apologetics? If so, why doesn't he accept my definition? </span><br /><br /><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">The Non-Sequitur show--</b><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">Steve claims his reference to a 17 & 21-year-old was a separate case--why bring it up as a response to Worden's conviction? Talk about a non-seq!</span><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>You'll have to ask Steve/Worden-- </b>As Reds has been issuing challenges on the internet on Steve's behalf and claiming to represent his side of the story, it isn't unfair to ask him these questions. </span></span><br />
<h2>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large; font-weight: normal;">Also, would Reds say it is fair that if only Steve can answer questions about additional evidence and this isn't available to us, should we not disregard it? This leaves us with no recourse than to rely on the court's evidence. The evidence that convicted Worden.</span></h2>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br />Texas definition of rape-- </b><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">not the same as the rest of the US. 'Rape' only applies to those of non-legal age. Anything else is sexual assault. What Worden did meets the definition of rape almost everywhere else. </span><br /><br /><b style="font-family: sans-serif;">Making light of a situation-- </b><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">More than just joking about something: "</span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333;">to </span><a class="defRef" href="https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/joke" style="border-bottom: thin dotted gray; border-image: initial; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; transition: color 0.5s ease 0s, background-color 0.5s ease 0s;" title="joke">joke</a><span style="color: #333333;"> about something or </span><a class="defRef" href="https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/treat" style="border-bottom: thin dotted gray; border-image: initial; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; transition: color 0.5s ease 0s, background-color 0.5s ease 0s;" title="treat">treat</a><span style="color: #333333;"> it as not being very </span><a class="defRef" href="https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/serious" style="border-bottom: thin dotted gray; border-image: initial; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: inherit; transition: color 0.5s ease 0s, background-color 0.5s ease 0s;" title="serious">serious</a><span style="color: #333333;">, especially when it is important." Longmans dictionary (12)</span></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Sources</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(1) </span><a href="https://sarahbeaulieu.me/5-things-to-consider-before-calling-someone-a-rape-apologist"><span style="font-size: large;">https://sarahbeaulieu.me/5-things-to-consider-before-calling-someone-a-rape-apologist</span></a></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">(2)</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <a href="https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/turn-down-what-why-media-amplifies-rape-apology/how-do-we-break-narrative-cycle">https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/turn-down-what-why-media-amplifies-rape-apology/how-do-we-break-narrative-cycle</a></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(3)</span><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"> </span><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_apology" style="font-family: sans-serif;">https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rape_apology</a><br /><br />(4) </span><a href="http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/10/31/five-ways-you-might-be-a-rape-apologist/" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/10/31/five-ways-you-might-be-a-rape-apologist/</a><br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: #252525; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(4a) <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xiow_T5vFdc__P9Mn1iq_i8Y-DG-ru2I/view">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xiow_T5vFdc__P9Mn1iq_i8Y-DG-ru2I/view</a></span></div>
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">(5)</span><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: large;"> </span><a href="http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/138714/8/Johanna%20Stiebert%20FINAL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1YlRlL5hFzYf-fJ6gLxTK1CpfmVDdj75D65BzTw0Lfphn_H2xeceM4biQ" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/138714/8/Johanna%20Stiebert%20FINAL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1YlRlL5hFzYf-fJ6gLxTK1CpfmVDdj75D65BzTw0Lfphn_H2xeceM4biQ</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">(5a) <span style="color: #00768a;">A New Age of Believing Women? Judging Rape Narratives Online </span></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030138516?fbclid=IwAR2cx5kHoUpvzmmEHzZeqe29leU9EGvKCr9_Kl7lQHZXpMlRIFLSPrrPtI4#toc">https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030138516?fbclid=IwAR2cx5kHoUpvzmmEHzZeqe29leU9EGvKCr9_Kl7lQHZXpMlRIFLSPrrPtI4#toc</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">(5b) <a href="http://kunskapsbanken.nck.uu.se/nckkb/nck/publik/fil/visa/197/different">http://kunskapsbanken.nck.uu.se/nckkb/nck/publik/fil/visa/197/different</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">(6) <a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/05/no-legal-system-isn-t-biased-against-men-it-allows-them-rape-near-impunity">https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/05/no-legal-system-isn-t-biased-against-men-it-allows-them-rape-near-impunity</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">(7) </span><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/probation-faq.html" style="font-family: sans-serif;">https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/probation-faq.html</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: sans-serif;">(8) </span></span><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XMm0r-fRi_w5Z_7KvYG81VcXZLGRSRlz/view" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XMm0r-fRi_w5Z_7KvYG81VcXZLGRSRlz/view</a><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /><a href="https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/SexOffenderRegistry/Search/Rapsheet?Sid=03562739" style="font-family: sans-serif;">https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/SexOffenderRegistry/Search/Rapsheet?Sid=03562739</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6140408-People-vs-Earl-David-Worden-aka-News-Now-Houston.html" style="font-family: sans-serif;">https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6140408-People-vs-Earl-David-Worden-aka-News-Now-Houston.html</a><span style="font-family: sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.faanclub.com/forum/resources/earl-david-worden-charging-document-2019.32/#lg=1&slide=0">https://www.faanclub.com/forum/resources/earl-david-worden-charging-document-2019.32/#lg=1&slide=0</a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.faanclub.com/2019/03/27/earl-david-worden-motion-in-limine-1986-01-21/">https://www.faanclub.com/2019/03/27/earl-david-worden-motion-in-limine-1986-01-21/</a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(9) </span><a href="https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/02/problem-police-line-ups/4724/"><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/02/problem-police-line-ups/4724/</span></a></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(10) <a href="http://insidedp.com/news3/5654-man-wanted-for-sexual-assault-of-a-child-arrested-in-mcallen">http://insidedp.com/news3/5654-man-wanted-for-sexual-assault-of-a-child-arrested-in-mcallen</a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">(11) <a href="https://www.goodladinitiative.com/">https://www.goodladinitiative.com/</a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;">(12) <a href="https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/make-light-of-something">https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/make-light-of-something</a></span><br />
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Steve says he believes the sex was consensual</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b>(x) <a href="https://youtu.be/SppxsnIOqik">https://youtu.be/SppxsnIOqik</a></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">(y) the hangout: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YM-hesZac">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YM-hesZac</a><br /><br /><b>Screencaps</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>(a) Getting the ages of Worden and his victim wrong</b></span></div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitrfm08zOwd2Jytz_rOFlNrFCv98EfzerZRrEtJM3TcWEPH2G_3RS7GqvSvGjKr1g0g_WOqilUltCtDrZkmlQjjy5tI6z2w_Aw5n4LXRVL0VQkG5dRCNxFj1QKMgwNhqyGUezIuBRvQGI/s1600/17+21+2.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitrfm08zOwd2Jytz_rOFlNrFCv98EfzerZRrEtJM3TcWEPH2G_3RS7GqvSvGjKr1g0g_WOqilUltCtDrZkmlQjjy5tI6z2w_Aw5n4LXRVL0VQkG5dRCNxFj1QKMgwNhqyGUezIuBRvQGI/s640/17+21+2.png" width="640" /></a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdA-aUACBkdyBuD6iitJlo9tKfyj9PBzTsiPsX5on8v-SOkSEQzwrLm75OqespH5QTvgoi-9fT7A2jfs34BSEtJnUSvj4ab3YKgszGBvgc208OPlEM80WiENKBsi-iAFXipznJ76cZ9sQ/s1600/17+21.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="79" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdA-aUACBkdyBuD6iitJlo9tKfyj9PBzTsiPsX5on8v-SOkSEQzwrLm75OqespH5QTvgoi-9fT7A2jfs34BSEtJnUSvj4ab3YKgszGBvgc208OPlEM80WiENKBsi-iAFXipznJ76cZ9sQ/s640/17+21.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /><b>(b) No Steve, Romeo and Juliet laws still wouldn't save Worden</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ56svOBR5_ndTRJoMG0i9FlJeAcUyL1-VGUKwx1lIhcBASEMsxx6VHsqQCxL-jPLVihSMqge2uoO_vIvCYlYa7CRldpUs57FK3WQz1DDH2oXeTpRTqu_tyat4yUv9_-yJdKBGrJcB7Ao/s1600/good+people.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZ56svOBR5_ndTRJoMG0i9FlJeAcUyL1-VGUKwx1lIhcBASEMsxx6VHsqQCxL-jPLVihSMqge2uoO_vIvCYlYa7CRldpUs57FK3WQz1DDH2oXeTpRTqu_tyat4yUv9_-yJdKBGrJcB7Ao/s1600/good+people.png" /></a></div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">(c</span><span style="font-size: large;">) Drama, Trolls and Witch hunts</span></b></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxKqt5KMCDDKV3ZYV8dHs4ZER4Uc6gkbKHKL4O-3g-JMWLUw9egSWJLlhkYos_vAIEd07FlRhkHdKzkk6zEqlgesiHfxAcVIPY_JLOirj66n5YaydJq_VuRXeKxQFAz3UNtlTV1h8J4-o/s1600/drama+and+witch+hunt.png" imageanchor="1" style="font-size: x-large;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxKqt5KMCDDKV3ZYV8dHs4ZER4Uc6gkbKHKL4O-3g-JMWLUw9egSWJLlhkYos_vAIEd07FlRhkHdKzkk6zEqlgesiHfxAcVIPY_JLOirj66n5YaydJq_VuRXeKxQFAz3UNtlTV1h8J4-o/s1600/drama+and+witch+hunt.png" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>(d)</b> <b>Protesting Innocence and no jail time for rape</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiq7pIKhwtNfwZC8Sy2uCK4bp4Cccq5pn6_iwIqas0XIWC01agroiKtJfFbTNeqroRy8CCF_h7PQ7RVw8YZ7Z96vaFbWqeXG7-P0RfLN-JPYx6HFSrUzySE7F7R9SX4cQ2j5ZMQQh1Voc/s1600/no+jail+time+and+innocence.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="691" data-original-width="509" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiq7pIKhwtNfwZC8Sy2uCK4bp4Cccq5pn6_iwIqas0XIWC01agroiKtJfFbTNeqroRy8CCF_h7PQ7RVw8YZ7Z96vaFbWqeXG7-P0RfLN-JPYx6HFSrUzySE7F7R9SX4cQ2j5ZMQQh1Voc/s1600/no+jail+time+and+innocence.png" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>(e) Steve believes Worden--thus must believe that the victim is lying.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIg6dyt01XMt07TgUBclDjPJCHSBQgAYbgol968_jPAr7yL_HyJcjmzJ12ptWt6ZweAZe3pSv0TZyweJ3x33wq27AIngyYo-HMukOOPqHDC9r80KM8kcq3Qbj2wQjbLBKc4wMG0ioAxKw/s1600/steve+believes+him.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIg6dyt01XMt07TgUBclDjPJCHSBQgAYbgol968_jPAr7yL_HyJcjmzJ12ptWt6ZweAZe3pSv0TZyweJ3x33wq27AIngyYo-HMukOOPqHDC9r80KM8kcq3Qbj2wQjbLBKc4wMG0ioAxKw/s1600/steve+believes+him.png" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>(</b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>f</b></span><b style="font-size: x-large;">) The system is corrupt and the time-travelling police auditor hunters strike! </b><br />
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpJSSO4Q2M-q4JjL_nEuve2exVzftdxJTawsGGK63Nfi1xCOEPnGdI5vesvlDSZ-draszaesQivPNZWhxgTN5Ttugk-rKhXXFEfaHzid_B22txbNSqa7fV7VxFcvZNq3RRx6O9XYceGag/s1600/judical+system+and+conspiracy.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpJSSO4Q2M-q4JjL_nEuve2exVzftdxJTawsGGK63Nfi1xCOEPnGdI5vesvlDSZ-draszaesQivPNZWhxgTN5Ttugk-rKhXXFEfaHzid_B22txbNSqa7fV7VxFcvZNq3RRx6O9XYceGag/s1600/judical+system+and+conspiracy.png" /></a></div>
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b>
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b>
<b style="font-size: x-large;">(g) Shutting down the discussion is defending Worden </b><br />
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b>
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRhbLdYLs6Ekof1sFi_0jqYwZfY0ONWKPHMP1Hr7muI0hOQnlrD7pwS3-hpiHSPfr67lZfIvnYs5t7dn9iUrAk3HThYKZAdoVdZCa1KgupmigPMcOjQwnRCE6tXH3WePOJ5bKvhZ3859A/s1600/styme.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRhbLdYLs6Ekof1sFi_0jqYwZfY0ONWKPHMP1Hr7muI0hOQnlrD7pwS3-hpiHSPfr67lZfIvnYs5t7dn9iUrAk3HThYKZAdoVdZCa1KgupmigPMcOjQwnRCE6tXH3WePOJ5bKvhZ3859A/s1600/styme.png" /></a></b><br />
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b>
<br />
<b style="font-size: x-large;">(h) Reds believes that rape apologist = rape apologies</b><br />
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAOmvvIRuy_WrpwUrzCOCDMb6MnchVgd8meNMRAeuWyoekvZlG67AYSbxMwwnGvvefUiAG8Ai61tt7dWgo2CgZpqwTxBzhUGMAcvohpCPxtNNfYMw6Elbm_Ea1X2rOTW12hmpbiGuJyoQ/s1600/reds.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="409" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAOmvvIRuy_WrpwUrzCOCDMb6MnchVgd8meNMRAeuWyoekvZlG67AYSbxMwwnGvvefUiAG8Ai61tt7dWgo2CgZpqwTxBzhUGMAcvohpCPxtNNfYMw6Elbm_Ea1X2rOTW12hmpbiGuJyoQ/s640/reds.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></b></div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWAeupjwE9AkEfjeSoWoMFMZoRHVwLdDyAivX772n4Px13OmBg7lmRhoPwN2B7RI8qCufoYMZ-OmKmwQfiYVFP0ksW8gMBLR3sfz8kZioBl7KY9FrRn-spSc-4GidvpYRcH6spyldE5as/s1600/Mcrae+july+6th+Youtube+comment%25283%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-35237288585949949282018-11-03T18:14:00.000+00:002018-11-03T18:16:52.623+00:00Revisiting VHS at VideOdyssey<span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">This Halloween I had the opportunity to visit </span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="SpellingError SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; background-image: url("data:image/gif; background-position: left bottom; background-repeat: repeat-x; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">VideOdyssey</span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> in Toxteth, Liverpool. Founded by Andy Johnson, the store has been dubbed "the UK's last video store".</span></span><span class="LineBreakBlob BlobObject DragDrop SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><span class="SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space: pre !important;"> </span></span></span></span><br />
<span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><span class="LineBreakBlob BlobObject DragDrop SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-ligatures: normal; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><span class="SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space: pre !important;"><br /></span></span></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7WymAv9iupzxD7KdmNzx0XQigMNLgBUIGoS_D7Re0mcVt2vaznXq2mdJAW5rlbRBDG6YgvNjIXCjbBl4MQuqMCOmSCZvWJ99cO2ricWzaJWskxTBrRCHCRSl3HWuAO81Hm0rUOIosPF0/s1600/video.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="960" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7WymAv9iupzxD7KdmNzx0XQigMNLgBUIGoS_D7Re0mcVt2vaznXq2mdJAW5rlbRBDG6YgvNjIXCjbBl4MQuqMCOmSCZvWJ99cO2ricWzaJWskxTBrRCHCRSl3HWuAO81Hm0rUOIosPF0/s400/video.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">I was particularly curious about Andy's thoughts on VHS as a format and the decline of physical media.</span></span><span class="LineBreakBlob BlobObject DragDrop SCXW93432893" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space: pre !important;"> </span></span><span class="TextRun EmptyTextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"></span><span class="LineBreakBlob BlobObject DragDrop SCXW93432893" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space: pre !important;"> </span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">Is there still a demand for VHS or does the shop simply exist as a nostalgic throwback? </span></span><span class="LineBreakBlob BlobObject DragDrop SCXW93432893" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space: pre !important;"> </span></span><span class="TextRun EmptyTextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"></span><span class="LineBreakBlob BlobObject DragDrop SCXW93432893" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><span class="SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text; white-space: pre !important;"> </span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">One of the more </span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">interesting</span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> elements of my visit that </span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">persuaded</span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> me that VHS should be </span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;">preserved</span></span><span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"> was the number of films and television shows in the store that aren’t available in other formats.</span></span><br />
<span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dw15HTrmoLe8D8EvJWVp505h_Vu2a3BJ_oU8eCEXMN7V1Sb7guPP7c4jSxUYNl8EbG_Cbpg-U2h_zH5JWU__A' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<span class="TextRun SCXW93432893" lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "arial_msfontservice" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 19.425px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" xml:lang="EN-US"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW93432893" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-drag: none; background-color: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; user-select: text;"><br /></span></span>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-43621975186480939782018-09-26T19:12:00.002+01:002018-09-26T19:12:28.482+01:00Examining Bishop James Long's 'Honorary' Paranormal Degrees<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s1600/Untitled+design.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s1600/Untitled+design.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s1600/Untitled+design.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s1600/Untitled+design.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s640/Untitled+design.jpg" width="640" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s1600/Untitled+design.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s1600/Untitled+design.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjshVk5e19rc0xeRG-TkooXjk4x0hv_TzINnXYnH7k88GK0ABjB2cBWTc3R4LrCBV56-SSw6B7XAYidEA87YJnvgZy6H2SABZ_IscpnWaSobhQ4RoerChTUuKfFj9EhVmaq3A6WW_43AgM/s1600/Untitled+design.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><br /></a><b>Bishop James Long, a frequent guest on ghost hunting television shows, first came to my attention way back in 2015. What struck me about Long, a self-professed 'demonologist', was his seeming preoccupation with money. It seems that Long has a new way of acquiring his followers' money... 'Honorary' ParanormaDegrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on (1). </b><br /><br />In an interview I reference in that article (2), Long refers to his experiences on <i>Ghost Adventures</i> as simply advertising that he couldn't afford to pay for. Even more shockingly, he complains about his annoyance when clients call on his services and cannot, or refuse to, pay for them.<br />
<br />
Now it seems that Long has a new money-spinning scheme and it involves another complaint that I frequently have about the paranormal community, the obsession with meaningless titles and specialisations.<br /><br />Long, who himself claims to be a 'demonologist' is selling what he describes as 'honorary' academic qualifications through an organisation he calls<i> Paranormal Clergy Institute.</i> As you may imagine, the qualifications that Long is offering seem far from credible and imply that he really doesn't have the faintest idea what he is doing.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>What exactly is 'honorary' about Bishop Long's 'Honorary' Paranormal Diplomas?</b></h3>
The first question that we have to ask ourselves about Long is "does he even know what an honorary degree or diploma is?"<br />
<br />An honorary degree is generally offered to a person of note by a school or educational organisation. It's normally given in recognition of some altruism of good deed or contributions to a specific field.<br /><br />What is common amongst honorary degrees no matter from where they are offered is that they are not awarded on the basis of academic achievement. Also, honorary degrees, diplomas and doctorates are not generally exchanged for money, and on the rare instances they have been, the institutes involved generally end up having to ward off scandal.<br />
<br />
That incredibly short description of honorary degrees gives us several points of contention upon which to question Long.<br /><br />Firstly, and in my humble opinion, most importantly, Long is not awarding his 'honorary' diplomas for free.<br /><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5H_s-qAukl46uZ1IKrkmKZE5NRY_e1UyChMQ8kZnjq0ntzlcGwqfiQM7AZlGCH9SG50UxW5nrZfjY_L59MXW2do5J3csapBeZdGFxDYVu-gQKu_4QELaR1HKFzwgJ0OAyNTLzRDetrHg/s1600/long1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="849" data-original-width="693" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5H_s-qAukl46uZ1IKrkmKZE5NRY_e1UyChMQ8kZnjq0ntzlcGwqfiQM7AZlGCH9SG50UxW5nrZfjY_L59MXW2do5J3csapBeZdGFxDYVu-gQKu_4QELaR1HKFzwgJ0OAyNTLzRDetrHg/s640/long1.png" width="522" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The 'ultimate package' an honorary doctorate will set Long's followers back a cool $195.<br /><br />As an aside, I love the idea of a prospective-doctor walking into their University on the day of term and asking for "the ultimate package".<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Rather bizarrely, Long's other site claims that he offers these qualifications "for free" but following the link provided leads to the same price list. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxMnufRTWtjcviY-q2o8hYM1jx1fh39jPFkBK6QeYumaq886WVVCmGfaFARTrNrjJRylH9U3JS5YY3JMgFgF9Uud7EyfZ9vHZHbggwYK1I0Ex02OQ_tbWr_nQU8UJbf8Da8NSd4CLCPNk/s1600/long3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="118" data-original-width="675" height="110" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxMnufRTWtjcviY-q2o8hYM1jx1fh39jPFkBK6QeYumaq886WVVCmGfaFARTrNrjJRylH9U3JS5YY3JMgFgF9Uud7EyfZ9vHZHbggwYK1I0Ex02OQ_tbWr_nQU8UJbf8Da8NSd4CLCPNk/s640/long3.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Long's site also documents the academic targets that students will have to meet in order to gain their qualification. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilrRWipWit4WqCOXX3UzHd4GTN7FNLczXoFViBQdE5azp98_O4l_hxThH-JgbnFAETSdSc5YObUzycnyQM7VVomCINNi2dbBKN-PxtMh3NXBo9go6Hqe98zeIMnQ6i6Az6mSMoK-K4M50/s1600/long2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="160" data-original-width="648" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilrRWipWit4WqCOXX3UzHd4GTN7FNLczXoFViBQdE5azp98_O4l_hxThH-JgbnFAETSdSc5YObUzycnyQM7VVomCINNi2dbBKN-PxtMh3NXBo9go6Hqe98zeIMnQ6i6Az6mSMoK-K4M50/s640/long2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
All this runs contrary to numerous statements on the site in which Long claims that the qualifications are "not academic" but "honorary". Despite this, Long also claims on the site that prospective students take the courses to "improve their skill base".<br /><br />But that clearly isn't the purpose of Honorary degrees, which exist to bestow a title and recognition on the recipient without them having to study.<br /><br />Clearly Long can't keep his story straight here.<br /><br />He wants to shill these courses but at the same time is painfully aware that oth he and his laughable organisation have absolutely zero credibility what-so-ever. </div>
<h3 style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br />What's the bigger issue here?</h3>
<div>
As always, the paranormal community's obsession with titles and the credibility they confer is deeply misplaced. Made up titles shouldn't confer credibility and won't as soon as the owner steps outside their very narrow circle.<br /><br />In fact, employers strongly warn against mentioning degrees that have been purchased in ths manner on CVs and job applications (5). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
People like Long prey on the desire to take a short-cut to expertise. If one can't become an expert in a disipline that actually exists, why not just make one up... Or better yet, pay Long $200 and he'll do it for you, no refunds!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Way back in the annals of time when I still went under the name <i>Skeptic's Boot, </i>I was involved in a bitter dispute with one Jayne Harris a paranormal "expert" who was offering the UK's first "accredited" paranormal diploma (4).<br /><br />Now I don't think that Harris was anywhere near as mean-spirited or cynical as Long... I also suspect she is a lot smarter. But the underlying problem with what both Harris and Long are offering is the same.<br /><br />They are encouraging their followers to sell themselves short.<br /><br />The most common third-party comment in the discussion thread between myself and Harris was that I was an elitist. "Not ever one can afford a degree" I was told.<br /><br />The thing is that if people want to learn, there is help available. Sure going for a degree will incur debt. Way too much debt. But it will improve the quality of life of its recipient. It will improve their earning potential and, who knows, might even help with their paranormal investigating hobby.<br /><br />And degrees aren't the be-all-end-all. There are plenty of other courses and opportunities available for adult learners. That $200 dollars could be much better spent and than shoved into the pockets of James Long.<br /><br />The people that offer these paranormal courses are not educators. They are running a cynical operation designed to replace the money of believers with a false sense of expertise and credibility. It's a worrying cycle of expliotation.<br /><br /><h3>
References</h3>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(1) <a href="http://www.paranormalcourse.com/Paranormal_Course/Welcome.html" target="_blank">http://www.paranormalcourse.com/Paranormal_Course/Welcome.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(2) <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2015/11/bashing-bishop-examining-claims-and.html">http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2015/11/bashing-bishop-examining-claims-and.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(3) <a href="http://www.paranormalclergy.com/Paranormal_Clergy/Institute.html">http://www.paranormalclergy.com/Paranormal_Clergy/Institute.html</a><br /><br />(4) <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2016/07/haunted-dolls-paranormal-diplomas-for.html">http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2016/07/haunted-dolls-paranormal-diplomas-for.html</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(5) <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/apr/06/students.schools1">https://www.theguardian.com/education/2002/apr/06/students.schools1</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-58932626695074753282018-08-25T11:49:00.000+01:002018-08-25T11:53:05.707+01:00 'Help! My House is Haunted': Contradictions, deception and misdirection. <b>Time to dip my toe in the stagnant swamp that is paranormal television again. This time I'm taking a look at <i>Really's </i>new ghost hunting show <i>'Help! My House is Haunted'. </i>The show is scheduled to run for twelve episodes from mid-July in a fairly prominent Friday night slot sandwiched between '<i>Ghost Chasers' </i>and '<i>Most Haunted'. </i>The show is hosted by Chris Fleming from the US, Barri Ghai from the UK and Sandy Lakdar from France.</b><br />
<b><br /></b> <b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAK9UKTqm4CpXFUO67nbckH7ACm7EMQtmDpgLPseilZUGK3BIKLS3UhqoN_CL2nZQQaKoZOnCmyuY2CMXJWuo685VkYDlGGuwTHLvPflF_-kzE2tzzZF2Z-R5W8TRbPFGSGMFPqXQdnwo/s1600/Untitled+design+%252812%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAK9UKTqm4CpXFUO67nbckH7ACm7EMQtmDpgLPseilZUGK3BIKLS3UhqoN_CL2nZQQaKoZOnCmyuY2CMXJWuo685VkYDlGGuwTHLvPflF_-kzE2tzzZF2Z-R5W8TRbPFGSGMFPqXQdnwo/s640/Untitled+design+%252812%2529.jpg" width="640" /></a></b><br />
<br />
Whilst the show came to my attention as a result of several articles published in the <i>Star</i> featuring host Barri Ghai (1), it captured my interest for two particular reasons. Firstly, in the show's cold opening, it claims that science has now advanced to such a point that it can be used to "sort fact from fiction" with regards to the existence of ghosts. Secondly, the show's title implies it's aim is to come to the aid of members of the public who believe their home is haunted.<br />
<br />
This means that despite it is For entertainment purposes' screen cap at the start of each episode, it is making two claims that I think should be taken seriously. Firstly, the show is claiming scientific accuracy and more importantly, it is claiming that it can improve the lives of the people's houses investigated.<br />
<br />
I already have a severe issue with the second claim and the show's ability to demonstrate this. One of Ghai's articles for the <i>Star </i>implied that "every home in the UK 'could be' haunted". If the show's producers are aware that the idea that a home could be haunted could cause distress, as the very title of the show implies, it seems irresponsible to lead many to believe their homes are haunted simply in a bid to drum up interest in the show.<br />
<br />
Whilst a very British show, American readers may be interested too, as it credits a certain Zak Bagans as an executive producer. Whether he had any input in the show or this is simply a vanity credit, I'll let you be the judge.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Why Episode 3: De Grey St, Hull? </h3>
<div>
I chose episode 3 (listed as episode 4 on IMBD for some reason), which features an investigation at a residential home in Hull to focus on in the review. This may seem like a random choice, it isn't the first episode, it isn't the latest episode, but of the four episodes available on <i>Really's </i>on-demand service, it is the only one to actually involve a residence.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLLOgG6WU1UuFC7fGe6ZQLarTi_ashEg4ukgWe5xXAb9TSCxKDnvpB8dYfv-TDEp7cknJYKftriMXku72i1bNofKGjlepdywn1ErKa2ALP0g64O1j9DOFVUTk8H0ZWF3LEHviCEJeIwr0/s1600/HUSR20160401C-001_C-618x411.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLLOgG6WU1UuFC7fGe6ZQLarTi_ashEg4ukgWe5xXAb9TSCxKDnvpB8dYfv-TDEp7cknJYKftriMXku72i1bNofKGjlepdywn1ErKa2ALP0g64O1j9DOFVUTk8H0ZWF3LEHviCEJeIwr0/s640/HUSR20160401C-001_C-618x411.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
The other episodes thus far concern public buildings, hotels, stately homes and public houses. Certainly, these places can be homes, but they don't really fit the show's mission statement as given on the station's website (2):</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Ghostly bumps in the night make for good cinema, but if it's happening in your own house and scaring the life out of mum, dad and the kids, then it's suddenly not so entertaining. Help! My House Is Haunted's team of new, fresh of paranormal investigators are taking the art of ghost-hunting into the 21st century."</i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
As this is the claim, it seems odd that 4/5 of the investigations thus far have not been houses.<i> </i>As my primary concern is the way the team conduct themselves around the public, it isn't appropriate to get bogged down with their investigations of public venues.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, even this episode can't be totally cleared of the idea of ultimately being money-motivated. In fact, it could be more directly tied to paranormal tourism than any of the other shows combined. 39 De Gray street is a well-known destination for ghost hunting events companies, with groups charging up to £55 (~$70) per person for entry to the site.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsIzZDZN1Sh6IWzmGg4KiISEvytAxT6sVp3Abo7gdDCy7-NhFaZK8CdG8pAKGJo5OLxmygyExjVkxQMoQraA2vru2-u1fUkt1wUcl9_20Xm9azYiT-60y0Vj34uepDR75-oERSto6ba20/s1600/grey2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="453" data-original-width="866" height="334" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsIzZDZN1Sh6IWzmGg4KiISEvytAxT6sVp3Abo7gdDCy7-NhFaZK8CdG8pAKGJo5OLxmygyExjVkxQMoQraA2vru2-u1fUkt1wUcl9_20Xm9azYiT-60y0Vj34uepDR75-oERSto6ba20/s640/grey2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Clearly, what this demonstrates initially is that the show isn't what it presents itself to be. I suspect the mission statement is an attempt to distinguish the show from other ghost hunting shows. The fact that they fail to maintain this dividing line is very telling. They aren't investigating private residences. They aren't helping people who believe their homes are haunted. The title is completely misleading. This show is about the 'paranormal pound' nothing else.<br />
<br />
The proprietors involved in the show don't want help. They want publicity.<br />
<br />
<b>Perhaps a more fitting title for the show would have been <i>'Kerching! My business is Haunted (and on the telly)'.</i></b><br />
<br />
In addition to this, the claim of taking "ghost-hunting into the 21st Century" has to be contrasted with the image of one of the hosts burning feathers to ward off evil spirits. That's all it really takes to dismiss any notion of this programme offering modern take on these subjects.<br />
<br />
As with all paranormal investigative TV, science is simply window dressing. In the end, it's the old favourites that the crew rely on because that is the kind of method audiences react to. It's the kind of method that allows these shows to say something conclusive about ghosts.<br />
<div>
<i><b><u><br /></u></b></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKTa9X3Acisssm878220AznRIhF8o_7yRmFdz1qyftGzqPDoNXZIFOjphCMASEF9k8XcaFmTY_o8J9o-Umi9D1cly2cOjFflsfhnTBd9iY90ncw5gB1rLmDG_A0hyphenhyphenjVNBTxbx6RU7D8kI/s1600/help1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="526" data-original-width="750" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKTa9X3Acisssm878220AznRIhF8o_7yRmFdz1qyftGzqPDoNXZIFOjphCMASEF9k8XcaFmTY_o8J9o-Umi9D1cly2cOjFflsfhnTBd9iY90ncw5gB1rLmDG_A0hyphenhyphenjVNBTxbx6RU7D8kI/s640/help1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<i><b><u><br /></u></b></i></div>
</div>
<br />
In fact, immediately after this image is shown in the cold-opening, Ghai tells us about the team using the "latest high-tech equipment" in their investigations. I have to wonder if the production team are mocking their audience in doing this? I can't see how this isn't a deliberate attempt to show just how contradictory the show's mission is in comparison to its content.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Meet the team... </h3>
<div>
The show introduces us to our three hosts and a clear lack of consistency is further hammered home. Chris Flemming is introduced as the team's physic. Sandy Lakdar as a "truth seeker" who cites "her body as her first detector". All of which sounds like a so-called 'sensitive' to me. Wasn't this the show that is going to investigate ghosts in such a way that is only possible now because of advances in science?<br />
<br />
Whatever you think of psychics and sensitives, they've been around for centuries. Neither 'skill' classes as any kind of advancement. Only Barri Ghai presents himself as an expert in technology.<br />
<br />
We'll see how this pans out during the episode. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The idea of Lakdar as an investigator using the scientific method is a laughable one in consideration of the name of the team she heads up with her husband <i>'The Believers' </i>(3), which tells you everything you need to know about the level of objectivity they bring to their work. They have even titled the documentary of their investigative methods <i>'The Art of Believing' (</i>4). Which implies to me that they present beginning an investigation with a pre-existing belief as a benefit. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It's hard to discuss Chris Flemming without referring to the many strings to his bow. On his website (5), he markets himself as a physic, a paranormal investigator, a media expert (disconcertingly vague that one) and even an inspirational speaker. What caught my attention was his storefront 'Ghost Outlet' (6) - from which he sells the usual array of electrical equipment at marked up prices. You could also pick up some personalised Chris Flemming merch... want a signed photo of Chris in a grey waistcoat for $20? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYGAZQyP3OKkN4YB5kNvT1BM39ogbIPLwMqzRx_0j9dITfpQou8SkculsdY6E-IXynH0oV9Q1T1yNisg3cbgZ3a4Cn306lFU6qQIWe0EoX0SRSTgzM4NSF5hmcXHeg6phO3rgrIeOStSg/s1600/grey.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="648" data-original-width="1146" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYGAZQyP3OKkN4YB5kNvT1BM39ogbIPLwMqzRx_0j9dITfpQou8SkculsdY6E-IXynH0oV9Q1T1yNisg3cbgZ3a4Cn306lFU6qQIWe0EoX0SRSTgzM4NSF5hmcXHeg6phO3rgrIeOStSg/s640/grey.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
Of course, you don't, why would you?<br />
<br />
On to the episode itself...<br />
<br />
<h3>
Hull hath no fury...</h3>
</div>
<div>
After a strangely lacklustre intro sequence, we are introduced to the property on Grey street in Hull, which we are told has been the site of a spate of poltergeist activity. This includes events such as a carving knife being balanced on some plates. An event we are told cannot be explained in any other way than some form of paranormal intervention.<br />
<br />
How about someone preparing a late-night snack and forgetting about the knife? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The team arrives at the home and Chris Flemming enters to investigate, commenting "it looks like a slum". Fuck you mate. We can't all make $20 a pop for photos of us in shitty waistcoats. Chris also remarks that he has been told nothing about the property in advance.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFABptm6BdO362Y5mBclt9Cqa32TiRYoPVzXmstx-JiB7MfsQ7KIW-n9T10ATgn2YS_a-tNm_2kvJkwhCuUjUjfiCTsslbb21MED-QJNSoaHnvpNwkklV93hekVZtTaZxRr69NSMzsTjU/s1600/chris-fleming-sandy-lakdar-and-barri-ghai-from-help-my-house-is-haunted-on-really---under-embargo-until-0001-wednesday-18th-may_42728032674_o.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFABptm6BdO362Y5mBclt9Cqa32TiRYoPVzXmstx-JiB7MfsQ7KIW-n9T10ATgn2YS_a-tNm_2kvJkwhCuUjUjfiCTsslbb21MED-QJNSoaHnvpNwkklV93hekVZtTaZxRr69NSMzsTjU/s640/chris-fleming-sandy-lakdar-and-barri-ghai-from-help-my-house-is-haunted-on-really---under-embargo-until-0001-wednesday-18th-may_42728032674_o.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
This ranks as one of those claims you often get on paranormal television that are just so unverifiable that it's completely pointless to make. No one is going to be convinced by the claim, the only people who would accept it are the people who would have accepted Chris' psychic proclamations without protest anyway.<br />
<br />
It's also a claim that he will disprove himself in short measure.<br />
<br />
Those psychic skills of Chris' determine that the house is uninhabited. I'm assuming that he was also blindfolded outside the house as the boarded-up windows kind of give the game away in that regard. He also uses his amazing talents to count "panes of mirrors" in a particular room. Whilst investigating a room filled with dolls he remarks how "creepy" they are and that "they might be possessed". Or the owner could have just stuck a load of old tat up on the walls to creep out the ghost hunters who are fool enough to pay him to investigate his house.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, Ghai and Lakdar head off to the local history centre to collect information about the story. Again there's a contradiction here. One-third of the team seems to understand that the benefit of prior information before entering the house colours the experience that will be had in the said house. The other 2/3s of the team are rushing off to find as much information as possible and thus ensure their experience is completely coloured by prior knowledge. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ghai and Lakdar aren't the only people who have headed to the Hull History Centre to research 39 De Gray Street, the home in question. Local historian, Mike Covell also conducted his own research on the property (7) (8).<br />
<br />
Let's compare and contrast the two sources shall we?<br />
<br />
<h3>
The alternate histories of 39 DeGray Street</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
The show claims that the property has had multiple occupants, with very few staying for prolonged periods of time. Covell's research seemed to confirm this. But there are lots of reasons why people may not stay in a property for a prolonged period of time that has nothing to do with ghostly occurrences. The high-turnover in occupancy allowed Covell to reach out to several previous residents, none of whom reported ghostly or paranormal happenings.<br />
<br />
The show's team quickly abandon actual research quite and go to the house's owner Andy for the property's history. That's the difference between Covell's research and their's. The show settles for word of mouth and rumour rather than actual information as Covell did.<br />
<br />
Andy tells Lakdar a tale about seeing a ghostly young girl at the foot of his bed. At this point, with the help of a sharp edit, a quite extraordinary bait and switch occurs. After this story is relaid Lakdar tells us in voice-over that Andy informs her that the home was a former foster-home. We don't know where this information comes from, when the show's focus returns to the conversation between Andy and Lakdar, she is asking how he feels to be surrounded by a multitude of infant ghosts.<br />
<br />
Covell thoroughly researched the claim that 39 DeGray street had, at one time, been a foster home or orphanage, as is commonly claimed. Checking the property history of Hull, local and national newspapers and even documentation regarding fundraisers and subscriptions, Covell found no evidence that 39 DeGray street had ever been an orphanage or foster home.<br />
<br />
What's remarkable is our psychic Chris picks up on the spirits of distressed children. Almost as if his psychic powers are tuned in to the false narrative created around the house rather than its actual history... But remember, he didn't know anything about the property before going in...<br />
<br />
Ghai meets a local author Mark Riley who claims that a number of children have been murdered in the property by 'evil spirits'. Again, Mike Covall scoured a multitude of local and national papers to find any mention of murders taking place at 39 De Gray Street. And again he found no such evidence.<br />
<br />
As the show juxtaposes these information gathering sections with Chris' journey around the house we are repeatedly told that he can't possibly be aware of the information being recounted to both Ghei and Lakdar. This claim is undermined by two conceits. Firstly it requires the audience to believe that the trip to the library and both interviews were conducted simultaneously to Chris' tour of the house.<br />
<br />
How long exactly was he in there? Because accounting for travelling time, the length of the actual interviews and the time it takes to set up and dismantle recording equipment, not to mention the collection of exterior shots... well... it's highly unlikely that all these things happened on the same afternoon or day even.<br />
<br />
Secondly, all the information that is relaid is commonly available on the internet. The sites which advertise jaunts to 39 De Gray street boast of its macabre history. That's what inspired Covall to write his articles dismissing this word of mouth history that has built up around the house. Flemming could just be drawing on the same information that is commonly available that brought the production company to the location in the first place.<br />
<br />
The whole time I'm watching the information gathering process the adage "methinks the lady dost protest too much" is echoing through my mind. The show is to at pains to claim the Flemming knows nothing about the 'history' surrounding this property. Unfortunately, Flemming is his own undoing in this respect. At one point, whilst in the room occupied by the dolls, he turns to the camera and reminds the audience that the owner of the house rents it out for ghost-tours.<br />
<br />
I thought you didn't know anything about the house before going in? You just debunked yourself mate. Well done.<br />
<br />
<br />
Let's move on to the investigation itself and the team's various scientific claims.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Lights out, it's Investigation time.</h3>
<br />
In this element of the show, we are really exposed to just how similar it is to every other ghost hunting programme currently broadcast on UK and US television.<br />
<br />
We get a pseudo-scientific explanation of why the house may be a conduit for spirits. Hull is surrounded by water and water draws energy towards it. All meaningless nonsense, of course, but Ghai delivers it to the audience with the confidence of a sci-fi hero suggesting that the solution to a sticky problem is "reversing the polarity of the neutron flow".<br />
<br />
When the investigation begins Lakdar is pains to point that the lights are switched out, as they always are before beginning an investigation. Yes, because why would the ability to actually see be useful in an investigation?<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ0sJMSeyHOKcgK5qPZjyClLRs5aTqCPoTKMghXtj91bVNDCajvyh9m2yPIDe9vcSVpZDMkhBO7FIZ4EzjM81ChCQqLvAhxlr4FB8GWEVIuFdqgZXiFB4SOquCKTcMUBlBU3vdWhw4z-g/s1600/help2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ0sJMSeyHOKcgK5qPZjyClLRs5aTqCPoTKMghXtj91bVNDCajvyh9m2yPIDe9vcSVpZDMkhBO7FIZ4EzjM81ChCQqLvAhxlr4FB8GWEVIuFdqgZXiFB4SOquCKTcMUBlBU3vdWhw4z-g/s640/help2.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I can't see how operating in these lighting conditions would harm an investigation</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><i><u></u></i></b><br />
<br />
Comments are frequently made during the investigation that hint at two of the hosts Ghei and Lakdar not acknowledging that owner Andy rents it out for ghost tours. Ghei remarks that the house makes him feel uneasy. It's designed to that. It's like suggesting that the owner of a ghost train should clean up a few of the faux cobwebs. Lakdar laughably states she can see why he can't get any occupants to live there.<br />
<br />
Yes, because he is making a killing from rubes paying to ghost hunt in there! Why would he waste money fixing the place up for tenants when he is exploiting its ramshackle state for money nicely already?<br />
<br />
We see little in regards to 'evidence' during the investigation. The vague impression of hands on a mirror lead the team to conclude that this mirror is a 'portal' of some sort. Flemming boldly states that as a result of this there is a chance that the team may not even survive the night!<br />
<br />
<b>Blimey!</b><br />
<br />
Sandy insists that she is left alone in the house for some reason. During her solo-investigation, which consists of her sitting upstairs on the landing carpet, she claims to have heard footsteps. Ghai concludes she has encountered a male 'malevolent' spirit. I'm left wondering how tense and dramatic the scene would have been if the lights had been allowed to be left on. In a well-lit environment, I doubt that many viewers would have concluded that anything of significance had happened at all.<br />
<br />
After her vigil, Sandy appears to break down in tears prompting Ghei to remove her from the residence. As she turns to the camera, there isn't so much as a smudge to her heavily applied eye-makeup.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm1i0Rce5xoo1JG7cMcrkpbK4wxKt_RCei0QOX6jlPzVZRXWwi6LPzCw8oyEamnFNPLlCPnFoIagFKxRXXLYyStGjcly20sqOko4VkKohX3soPT-bgIUomBVov8pjUjhVrI9vz2vb0DgE/s1600/help3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="469" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm1i0Rce5xoo1JG7cMcrkpbK4wxKt_RCei0QOX6jlPzVZRXWwi6LPzCw8oyEamnFNPLlCPnFoIagFKxRXXLYyStGjcly20sqOko4VkKohX3soPT-bgIUomBVov8pjUjhVrI9vz2vb0DgE/s320/help3.png" width="300" /></a></div>
<br />
There isn't much to say about Flemming's contribution. He holds his hand out and says multiple spirit children have hold of it. Again, remove the eerie soundtrack, turn on the lights and tell me this isn't just a crank in a room spouting bullshit. Would anyone be convinced be either Lakdar or Flemming without the production elements of the show?<br />
<br />
One interesting thing that happens during the investigation is Sandy asks 'the spirits' to move a ball placed on a table in one of the upstairs rooms. The ball doesn't move, but a cable on one of the lighting rigs waves slightly. What is interesting about this is the door to the room is closed. The wire leads out through it.<br />
<br />
In every other instance of the team investigating a room, they leave the doors open. Before the wire moves, Sandy turns away from it to look towards the wire. If she is expecting the ball to move why isn't she watching it? Why is she watching a completely different area of the room? Why is she facing away from the cameraman who is recording the events unfolding in the room?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkCrPOmzxNp5NYt8JH_AhIAXmqgI-aEA8DGO7R3c9sJddFbKjY2HcGoNB0YUYsUaZtvgOpctfC5CItDOlLtm3k_U4wjXGDKnIa2SY3qbielUDL_Rk0kh9U_W42TNnyPXk4HA_W_xlEj54/s1600/help4.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkCrPOmzxNp5NYt8JH_AhIAXmqgI-aEA8DGO7R3c9sJddFbKjY2HcGoNB0YUYsUaZtvgOpctfC5CItDOlLtm3k_U4wjXGDKnIa2SY3qbielUDL_Rk0kh9U_W42TNnyPXk4HA_W_xlEj54/s640/help4.png" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
<b><i><u><br /></u></i></b> She says that she turned towards the wire because its movement makes a noise, but she's already looking that way before the movement begins!<br />
<br />
The team reinvestigate the room with their high-tech equipment derived from X-Box Kinect technology. Part of the anomaly is a 'dancing figure' on top of a wardrobe.<br />
<b><i><u><br /></u></i></b> <b><i><u><br /></u></i></b> <b><i><u><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGZQlymE8acLSO32qXAKZjmCh7HzO_EwD2axKgpiV4CoMUzJEtouKTwwiEqTOXTSPpeLLUEBUm7hwpvmz0hxtCtRqyvoVeTAm6L_Cge3Bi-qkDBmWZQnrfQ8cEgJhA3S6ZXKxm1jZy5Os/s1600/help5.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGZQlymE8acLSO32qXAKZjmCh7HzO_EwD2axKgpiV4CoMUzJEtouKTwwiEqTOXTSPpeLLUEBUm7hwpvmz0hxtCtRqyvoVeTAm6L_Cge3Bi-qkDBmWZQnrfQ8cEgJhA3S6ZXKxm1jZy5Os/s640/help5.png" width="640" /></a></u></i></b><br />
<b><i><u><br /></u></i></b> <b><i><u><br /></u></i></b> The stick figure image of the X Box Kinect is created by the system detecting and identifying vaguely 'human-like' shapes. The system is far from perfect, thus often confuses chairs and other objects as humans. Kenny Biddle gives a great explanation of how the system works and can become confused here (9). So what could be causing the system to be confused here?<br />
<br />
Could it be this strange light-setup?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8UkoREgcW3U_bKTQCZbrBa1fo3c-jyGJVfR-NZcVxtBth98bu53FBolny1jQmDFoQ-5Kd4nsYvJ3Nr6F2wJVXaOsJvBVrOr-H8Rz9-fRlAAYiv9zc0xqlNMxDaP_ClVK-MA9j26_OxhE/s1600/help6.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="458" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8UkoREgcW3U_bKTQCZbrBa1fo3c-jyGJVfR-NZcVxtBth98bu53FBolny1jQmDFoQ-5Kd4nsYvJ3Nr6F2wJVXaOsJvBVrOr-H8Rz9-fRlAAYiv9zc0xqlNMxDaP_ClVK-MA9j26_OxhE/s640/help6.png" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
It could certainly look like a vague head and shoulders.<br />
<b><i><u><br /></u></i></b>
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT7LoV80Ew3LS4amjyyNEI0JXQ3GdpfmxJiGz93H0bWRiYHfgq0PGA9fWgutGM6FZqmFtGTqDROKOcadu58rqqAczS8l0P-bDbFtBgpxh6KIOqw7WLNEq6cKxiprLkI13NQFy-4i-OP48/s1600/help7.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="362" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT7LoV80Ew3LS4amjyyNEI0JXQ3GdpfmxJiGz93H0bWRiYHfgq0PGA9fWgutGM6FZqmFtGTqDROKOcadu58rqqAczS8l0P-bDbFtBgpxh6KIOqw7WLNEq6cKxiprLkI13NQFy-4i-OP48/s640/help7.png" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
As if to confirm my theory, Ghai points the Kinect detector into the small wardrobe where it displays multiple 'entities'. In reality, it is simply confused by the multiple hangers in the enclosed space.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCc94djmjmmJUgdANU5dfpcTQOhRVTidMyvQVRGWNq9TR_8wJKKugPMq8rwNQm1jTxAkjWvXCsBwKBqnbov0HNg21sZcR6RMtUFXa0sW8kKDFaBAJg9Osw-rA6cYsqm8z1e1C2rOw72Q8/s1600/help8.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCc94djmjmmJUgdANU5dfpcTQOhRVTidMyvQVRGWNq9TR_8wJKKugPMq8rwNQm1jTxAkjWvXCsBwKBqnbov0HNg21sZcR6RMtUFXa0sW8kKDFaBAJg9Osw-rA6cYsqm8z1e1C2rOw72Q8/s640/help8.png" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />
<h2>
Conclusion</h2>
<div>
Let's wrap things up at this point. I'm aware that I've now written 3000 words about a very silly paranormal investigation show, that was cheaply made to capture a few ratings on a Friday evening. But 'Help! My House is Haunted' surprised me with just how contradictory and deceptive it is.<br />
<br />
I don't expect paranormal television to be honest. I doubt many people do. But this show can't even be honest about its title. It isn't about helping everyday people. It isn't about homes or residences. It isn't a show that heavily focuses on science. It isn't a show that has only just become available through technological advances.<br />
<br />
There's simply nothing different about this show than thousands of others, but whereas they acknowledge that they are what they are, 'Help! My House is Haunted' is hiding a quite mundane show under a title that someone clearly devised before the show even went into production.<br />
<br />
It's a patchwork of the usual deceptive practices offered in ghost hunting TV and a host of bizarre contradictions. It is almost as if different elements of the cast and crew had a completely different idea of the show that they were making.<br />
<br />
In the end, this makes it a deeply cynical offering that insults the intelligence of fans of paranormal television hoping they won't notice how poorly stitched together it is. </div>
</div>
<br />
<h3>
References</h3>
<div>
(1) <a href="https://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2018/08/ghost-hunter-claims-every-house-in-uk.html">https://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2018/08/ghost-hunter-claims-every-house-in-uk.html</a></div>
<br />
(2) <a href="https://really.uktv.co.uk/shows/help-my-house-is-haunted/" target="_blank">https://really.uktv.co.uk/shows/help-my-house-is-haunted/</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="http://www.whatisthebelievers.com/contact.html">http://www.whatisthebelievers.com/contact.html</a><br />
<a href="https://really.uktv.co.uk/shows/help-my-house-is-haunted/" target="_blank"><br /></a><a href="https://really.uktv.co.uk/shows/help-my-house-is-haunted/" target="_blank">(</a>4) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=64&v=7aaJKggxc8c">https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=64&v=7aaJKggxc8c</a><br />
<br />
(5) <a href="http://christopherfleming.com/">http://christopherfleming.com/</a><br />
<br />
(6) <a href="https://www.ghostoutlet.com/">https://www.ghostoutlet.com/</a><br />
<br />
(7) <a href="https://www.spookyisles.com/2017/12/paranormal-investigators-use-historical-documents/">https://www.spookyisles.com/2017/12/paranormal-investigators-use-historical-documents/</a><br />
<br />
(8) <a href="https://pocketmags.com/onlinereader/html5_reader/false/155875">https://pocketmags.com/onlinereader/html5_reader/false/155875</a><br />
<br />
(9) <a href="https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/the_xbox_kinect_and_paranormal_investigation">https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/the_xbox_kinect_and_paranormal_investigation</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-36029092419736747842018-08-15T23:53:00.000+01:002018-08-15T23:53:02.502+01:00A word of advice to paranormal investigators.<b>Once again I find myself looking into the behaviours and claims of a paranormal investigator and find a web of false claims of scientific credibility. Delving further I find the actions of a person so egotistical that they believe they are able to offer a client mental health advice and see no issue in telling a person with such a condition they are being attacked by a demon. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQc1t0x2_IldXsKb1S8BFm0GNpUnsDPeB7ydWRE0GiaAZ1rtRl6KcTC0P1fL9wppQUP_AvRbkx8lv44JpwloK4NGBwiCPWvN1dP3S7dugeEQNOJB0iXr8E385kCK_xg0-ZrEVNCBl9PYU/s1600/qualxyz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="663" data-original-width="1161" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQc1t0x2_IldXsKb1S8BFm0GNpUnsDPeB7ydWRE0GiaAZ1rtRl6KcTC0P1fL9wppQUP_AvRbkx8lv44JpwloK4NGBwiCPWvN1dP3S7dugeEQNOJB0iXr8E385kCK_xg0-ZrEVNCBl9PYU/s640/qualxyz.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b><br />If you're a paranormal investigator who thinks that adding the word 'science' or 'scientist' to their own title or investigation group...<br /><br />
<h2>
STOP IT!</h2>
<br />More importantly, if you believe you have the expertise to deal with a person with mental health issues...<br /><br /><h2>
STOP IT! </h2>
<h2>
<br />Just stop. </h2>
<br />
You may think it makes you sound cool and authoritative to claim to be a scientist, it may for a while. But it won't take long for some fucking arsehole, like me, to come along and start asking you awkward questions. It will happen. And if you block and ban me, someone else will come along. Finally, one of the big guys' will spot you. Someone with an audience. And your reputation will be shot.<br /><br />Either that or your lies ill spiral out of control. You'll start off claiming to have vague 'science qualifications' and then you'll start to create a narrative. You'll get more specific and you'll create a lie that you can't handle anymore. Let's face it if you threw 'science' into your title, you're a fantasy-prone person. And people like this get carried away.<br /><br />Either thing happens and you will lose all the credibility you ever stole, yes stole. Not just that, but what you did will hang around your neck like an albatross. People will discover you, then they'll quickly discover your past and drop you like an apple with a maggot in it.<br /><br />Don't believe me?<br /><br />Ask paranormal fuck-boy, David M Roundtree. In 2010 Roundtree was writing books about 'paranormal technology'. In 2014 he was a bit-part player in a TV show, <i>Ghost Stalkers. </i>Sure, it wasn't a runaway hit, but he was respected and did the rounds on talk-shows and podcasts. Could have even found himself on a new TV show. There's plenty of them around.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiFY2y_j7cOK0kyD1dsr0p48Kbn7gHPk3twXc0Qh1cOi4psygl1B4P4j2qUhrNRe6edkljjKZpByCPmAxzojcK184v-B2kibmcx8YU8Fds9k55G9CgMlto-KVsicDhC2fx_J6O7sPut5g/s1600/David-147-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiFY2y_j7cOK0kyD1dsr0p48Kbn7gHPk3twXc0Qh1cOi4psygl1B4P4j2qUhrNRe6edkljjKZpByCPmAxzojcK184v-B2kibmcx8YU8Fds9k55G9CgMlto-KVsicDhC2fx_J6O7sPut5g/s320/David-147-1.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
Now when you Google 'David Roundtree paranormal' the first hit you get is a blog post from <i>No Blue Falcons exposing </i>the lies he told about his military history (1), the second hit, a blog post from me exposing the lies he told about his scientific qualifications (2).<br /><br />The trend continues down the first page of results. More <i>Blue Falcons </i>posts, more of my posts, a petition to stop him from appearing on paranormal programming in the future (3). There are only three 'pro-Roundtree' links on that first page, his Twitter account, his blog site and his Amazon book page (4, why not go and leave a review guys?).<br /><br />He's a pariah of his own making. He started a lie and couldn't stop lying.<br /><br />Of course, I could be wrong.<br /><br />A chap on Facebook, PC Knickles, certainly thinks I am.<br /><br />
<h2>
Meet PC Knickles. Not a scientist. Not a mental health professional.</h2>
<br />PC, you will be unsurprised to learn, describes himself as a 'scientist' on social media. A paranormal scientist no less. He does this in a post in which he solicits followers for 'cases' for him to handle.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK8cCNrnAFtM1Q7HS-hc55OvHzqP7z2Zxpvcv8luPAdGsvLF6WE2KIpFoMCT6DDCtbc-cbtJZistzhF1qmexMaIM4QwfiA04cTa1h_nurx73MiMfEwJRoP_dG2Uv8adFUWIckZaZZuwVE/s1600/qual4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="219" data-original-width="545" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK8cCNrnAFtM1Q7HS-hc55OvHzqP7z2Zxpvcv8luPAdGsvLF6WE2KIpFoMCT6DDCtbc-cbtJZistzhF1qmexMaIM4QwfiA04cTa1h_nurx73MiMfEwJRoP_dG2Uv8adFUWIckZaZZuwVE/s1600/qual4.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
PC also operates a paranormal investigation group called '<i>Paranormal <b>Science </b>Investigations'. </i>All of which strongly implies that PC has some form of scientific qualification. So I and several others including Alex Matsuto of the <i><a href="https://www.facebook.com/assocofparanormalstudy/" target="_blank">Association of Paranormal Studies</a> </i>asked.<br /><br />Now, I'm sure that the drive of the post thus far has given you a good indication of the answer I received. But PC was remarkably evasive with his response. First, he directed me to his<a href="https://www.facebook.com/Paranormal-Science-Investigations-234507847151374/?timeline_context_item_type=intro_card_work&timeline_context_item_source=100018775058008&fref=tag" target="_blank"> group page.</a> When I put to him that there is no mention of his qualifications there, he directed me to his personal page. I found there is no mention of any qualifications there either. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcfNKDuRXd3YUDZ26-P8VfxyHV3g3lWzP_Hv4jAUM6D0Vyq2p_ydYeeLeuB8Hiq8mk6Nctgq_Mmq9Zgox1sjUbAcmYgILwVr1w_-IGb7oDIKYOXDZBW_2Gc9AAAyQRp_S1EFg-E91Mhuw/s1600/Untitled+design+%252810%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcfNKDuRXd3YUDZ26-P8VfxyHV3g3lWzP_Hv4jAUM6D0Vyq2p_ydYeeLeuB8Hiq8mk6Nctgq_Mmq9Zgox1sjUbAcmYgILwVr1w_-IGb7oDIKYOXDZBW_2Gc9AAAyQRp_S1EFg-E91Mhuw/s640/Untitled+design+%252810%2529.jpg" width="640" /></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />Remember, PC directly sent me here. I can only assume that he didn't believe I'd investigate further. When I put it to PC that none of his pages have any reference to science qualifications, he had quite an extraordinary response. PC told me that he believes he is fine to call himself a scientist as the 'Google definition' of scientists is <i>"a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.". </i>That is actually the definition from the <i>Oxford English Dictionary </i>(5). <br /><br />I don't disagree with the definition particularly, the question is regarding where "<i>expert knowledge</i>" actually comes from. It also ignores what other people believe when you tell them that you are 'a scientist'. I don't believe that it is unreasonable for those people to expect you to have some academic qualifications.<br /><br />PC has another justification for his claim, however, he believes that because he has been recognised for several 'key paranormal discoveries' he is entitled to make that claim. I'm not aware of PC's discoveries. In fact, I'd never heard of him today. I'd go further than that and say that I'm not aware of any 'paranormal discoveries' being made by anyone!<br /><br />PC believes that this image entitles him to call himself a scientist? He claims it shows the 'pink energy' of a soul escaping a body at the point of death. I think it's someone's finger over part of a camera lens.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJj3AdrrYOnD-P3Z1AfA7YS_3soqdkYiboXLCCUofLg7go7q5scWj4-QMhyphenhyphenEdXZ6tCEggRTabztcENu2FUIHfw44-IoCemPcCDCBAKFVoRJVUT7ZwDr6G0ZYrK7UZHfQxgf2Sfj3FuyWk/s1600/39261765_254539805181853_947594751866044416_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJj3AdrrYOnD-P3Z1AfA7YS_3soqdkYiboXLCCUofLg7go7q5scWj4-QMhyphenhyphenEdXZ6tCEggRTabztcENu2FUIHfw44-IoCemPcCDCBAKFVoRJVUT7ZwDr6G0ZYrK7UZHfQxgf2Sfj3FuyWk/s640/39261765_254539805181853_947594751866044416_n.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Capturing a finger over a camera lens does not make one a scientist. (PC Knickles) </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /><br />Whatever the case. That image in no way entitles PC to refer to himself as a scientist. He hasn't done the years of study that entitles one to claim the credibility that comes with that title. The fact that he thinks he does imply to me he is extremely egotistical.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
It also implies to me that he is misleading his 'clients'. Perhaps dangerously so.<br /><br /><b>And let's face it. If PC really thought that these things entitled him to claim that he is a scientist, he wouldn't have sent me on a wild goose chase looking for his qualifications. He'd have just fucking said it straight away. </b><br />Worse still, I found some indication that PC isn't being exactly honest about the qualifications he does hold. His Facebook profile indicates that he studied 'Business Economics' and 'Law' at Havard. His Linkedin profile states that he studied 'Business' and 'music' and was only at Havard for a year.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiouD1RRhaz0ceWnsScd2167X70UM03nxl-iCB0DA5V-ziZ8we-wJzHlzJoIeYdbtESJOGIiDlIV6xEBysFAgfNg-VASpZ75-lVf5RssNbFK_CBuBjPSdwyX1Fg-SQeUjAiUFz7P2Prl0U/s1600/qualx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiouD1RRhaz0ceWnsScd2167X70UM03nxl-iCB0DA5V-ziZ8we-wJzHlzJoIeYdbtESJOGIiDlIV6xEBysFAgfNg-VASpZ75-lVf5RssNbFK_CBuBjPSdwyX1Fg-SQeUjAiUFz7P2Prl0U/s640/qualx.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /><br />Unfortunately, my concerns with PC and his dealings with clients don't end there. In the process of conducting this discussion with PC, I came across one of his 'clients' and found that he is engaged in extremely concerning practices.<br /><br />The client, appeared on the thread to remonstrate with PC regarding the use of the footage he had shared. In addition to that, they claim that PC was not the lead investigator on the case as he indicated he was.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWPqZ6TWbgRd2dsPc2p8Z2maCY8VePW-FWL7gmG8eZaTrObLeEjHnvkm6MSh5mfGzW_OXoHDPBI6l7VBkryc4i3zfstQvFuwcLROyExXEZCkqTEHwXuZfXA0R7w4DiGyLy4Xwol0ktClI/s1600/qual7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="537" data-original-width="551" height="622" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWPqZ6TWbgRd2dsPc2p8Z2maCY8VePW-FWL7gmG8eZaTrObLeEjHnvkm6MSh5mfGzW_OXoHDPBI6l7VBkryc4i3zfstQvFuwcLROyExXEZCkqTEHwXuZfXA0R7w4DiGyLy4Xwol0ktClI/s640/qual7.png" width="640" /></a></div>
I'm not going to touch on the dispute with regards to who owns the footage PC used, what I will comment on is the disgusting way that PC talks to his client, plus the fact that he makes it very clear that he will only 'help' potential clients if they can pay his travelling expenses.<br /><br />This may sound a bit unprofessional, but during the conversation, it becomes apparent that the client, in this case, has mental health issues and a severe disability. If PC was even remotely ethical he would have never taken his case. His client should be receiving professional help. Help PC isn't qualified to dispense.<br /><br />Of course, that isn't going to stop PC from offering medical advice as seen below.<br /><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibR_417MnC6jM10Y6EDFfnUZ5OW0pDvUCY0AjG83difxEjO94eODlKHPBInHtXWw8cp0tWQ5HQMAn7j4Tpm3YL9hkBA9wzcvr2I_lNUOCLZjNnAiifSgqKSiC-CXFdCYsGPZMLHu14p30/s1600/38528992_2159640820974784_4243632665762201600_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibR_417MnC6jM10Y6EDFfnUZ5OW0pDvUCY0AjG83difxEjO94eODlKHPBInHtXWw8cp0tWQ5HQMAn7j4Tpm3YL9hkBA9wzcvr2I_lNUOCLZjNnAiifSgqKSiC-CXFdCYsGPZMLHu14p30/s640/38528992_2159640820974784_4243632665762201600_n.jpg" width="360" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
As well as suggesting that a qualified medical practitioner should listen to a paranormal investigator, he asks if his client is receiving 'Benadryl' for her mental health condition. Benadryl is an antihistamine. It is used for the treatment of allergies and hayfever.<br /><br />The man does not have fucking clue. He doesn't have the qualifications he is strongly implying he does and he is taking cases that involve people with mental health issues. People he is not qualified to help.<br /><br />There's definitely a pattern here.<br /><br />PC. I hope you read this. I hope that other paranormal investigators read it. Claiming to have expertise that you know you do not have is bad enough. Getting involved with people who you know need care and attention from professionals is abhorrent.<br /><br />You are going to hurt people if you go down this path. And ultimately, you're going to hurt yourselves.<br /></div>
<h2>
STOP IT. </h2>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
References</div>
<br />
<br />
(1) <a href="https://nobluefalcons.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/david-rountree-a-case-of-stolen-valor/">https://nobluefalcons.wordpress.com/2015/03/27/david-rountree-a-case-of-stolen-valor/</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-wacky-world-of-david-rountree-phd.html">http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-wacky-world-of-david-rountree-phd.html</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://www.change.org/p/reconsider-the-con-david-rountree-of-any-and-all-events-publications-of-books-or-association">https://www.change.org/p/reconsider-the-con-david-rountree-of-any-and-all-events-publications-of-books-or-association</a><br /><br />(4) <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paranormal-Technology-Understanding-Science-Hunting/dp/1450253563">https://www.amazon.co.uk/Paranormal-Technology-Understanding-Science-Hunting/dp/1450253563</a><br /><br />(5) <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientist">https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scientist</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-4062306137294067692018-08-15T12:21:00.002+01:002018-08-15T12:25:39.352+01:00Ghost hunter claims every house in the UK 'could be' haunted: Lots of ghosts. Not much evidence.<b>As a long-time follower of paranormal investigators and their interactions with sceptics, there are some phrases and expressions that stick in my mind and can be wheeled out to describe a variety of stories and events. For example, when reading the claims of a ghost hunter printed in a British paper, I think back to Joe Nickell's description of Ed Warren on a classic episode of the <i>Sally Jesse Raphael Show</i> in the 1990's.</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>"Warren never entered a house that he didn't think was haunted"</b></i></blockquote>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS8tmJxjlxRffFKoLdNTZHit0KzdM24jh6ypUdZEVXXj6uG2K8OOBsODsllZAlLbxVhGQUa5Vh_pKnrDmzlNerkiix4sKiDUvalBlM-vCf-rJmd0HTiBPhfSkPNdXbm_PGSzb9Rf1Z9Oc/s1600/september+5%252C+2016arcadia+football+field6_00+pm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="ghost hunter and tabloid claim every house in the uk is haunted" border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS8tmJxjlxRffFKoLdNTZHit0KzdM24jh6ypUdZEVXXj6uG2K8OOBsODsllZAlLbxVhGQUa5Vh_pKnrDmzlNerkiix4sKiDUvalBlM-vCf-rJmd0HTiBPhfSkPNdXbm_PGSzb9Rf1Z9Oc/s640/september+5%252C+2016arcadia+football+field6_00+pm.jpg" title="ghost hunter and tabloid claim every house in the uk is haunted" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Those words echoed through my head as I read a story published in the UK's <i>Daily Star </i>newspaper on the 10th August entitled<i> 'It’s possible EVERY British household is haunted’ Terrifying warning by expert' </i>(1). If you've any doubt what the motivation behind the report is then the strapline '<i>A GHOST hunter has claimed every British household could be haunted by evil spirits.'</i> should give you some indication.<br />
<br />
The ghost hunter (or 'GHOST hunter' according to<i> the Star</i>) in question, Barri Ghai, has been the focus of a vast amount of articles in <i>the Star</i> over the past week. Almost every day he has appeared discussing some very 'clickbaity' aspect of the paranormal.<br />
<br />
This has included discussing Elvis' ghost on 6th August and the 'irrefutable proof' that a ghost touched former glamour model, Katie Price's arm on 4th August. All of this attention from <i>the Star </i>is linked to Ghai's upcoming ghost-hunting show set to air on UK digital channel <i>Really, </i>the same channel that airs ailing ghost investigation farce <i>'Most Haunted.' </i><br />
<br />
The article in itself is stunningly lightweight, Ghai offers no real insight, a theme that runs through all of his articles for the Star. His main point seems to be that Britain's homes should be particularly vulnerable to hauntings because of their 'history'. "It's not just the home," Ghai says "it's the land around us." A particularly nonsensical claim considering that all areas have a history, what Ghai seems to mean is a history that he is aware of. Does he think that land in other countries didn't have people and animals dying on them throughout history? <br />
<br />
He has a strangely 'Anglo-centric' view of history if he hasn't considered this.<br />
<br />
It's pretty obvious that the series of articles featuring Ghai is paid promotion to support to the show '<i>Help! My House is Haunted."</i> making them cheap and cynical. Neither the production company behind the show, <i>Really </i>or the <i>Star</i> care if these articles are lightweight junk. Not even if it's lightweight junk that misleads or causes fear and anxiety.<br />
<br />
I view the article in conjunction with the recent story that went viral by ghost hunter Gary Parsons, claiming that the heatwaves experienced in the UK are responsible for a rise in ghost sightings (2). Neither article has the slightest bit of evidence behind them and both seem to offer an excuse for the tabloid press to print further ghostly nonsense.<br />
<br />
But there is a worrying trend here. In an attempt by these ghost hunters to make themselves relevant they are exposing potential sensitive and scared audience to the idea that ghosts exist, but they are everywhere.<br />
<br />
There isn't a lick of evidence to support these claims, of course. We're being told that Ghai, Parsons and others cited in the articles are 'experts' but were are the telltale signs of expertise? Here's a striking example that the addition of an implied expertise done simply to lend credence to nonsense. It's an argument from authority.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Technical paranormal expert, Robert Bryant, said: "With temperatures soaring its having an unexplained increase in paranormal activities."</blockquote>
Ok. So he's a 'technical expert'. Surely that means we can expect him to talk about some technology, maybe attempt to offer an explanation as to why high temperatures may be leading to an increase in ghost sightings from a physical standpoint?<br />
<br />
Well no. After briefly mentioning the 'Huff WonderBox' (yes, this 'technical expert' couldn't identify a broken radio when he purchased it for hundreds of dollars), Bryant offers this gem:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"On a recent house investigation, my body was taken over by a dead priest and refused to leave until it was ordered to leave by my colleague Amanda Oriana."</blockquote>
Yeah. Dead priests can be stubborn, sounds like you got lucky if this one left your body after just being told to do so.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU_6x291AIQyY4WIsJ5SkYb6Vd7nJ6EItbccsvhNAKBsFKSpzkwIG_0j5D1PwBxrwiUMYWCqA9hui2too_OjbnOjDkEzRhkjoFw2nuNysoxgHuKRTqOZBwoiFiMKExgULA35MOXuPux24/s1600/father-jack-gif-5.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="226" data-original-width="500" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU_6x291AIQyY4WIsJ5SkYb6Vd7nJ6EItbccsvhNAKBsFKSpzkwIG_0j5D1PwBxrwiUMYWCqA9hui2too_OjbnOjDkEzRhkjoFw2nuNysoxgHuKRTqOZBwoiFiMKExgULA35MOXuPux24/s640/father-jack-gif-5.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Not very technical though is it?<br />
<br />
I'll be honest when I saw the headlines of this series of articles I was excited. I haven't talked about the supernatural or debunked any paranormal claims for some time. I wanted to, for the summer at least, dip my toes back in. Maybe do a few old 'Skeptic's Boot' style articles. But what I instead found was a commentary on a major reason I haven't been touching this stuff of late.<br />
<br />
There's really nothing here to debunk.<br />
<br />
I really feel like we've come full-circle with the claims of ghost hunters and the attitude the tabloid press has towards them. There's no need for 'evidence'to build the claims around anymore. Journalists are simply looking for a paranormal-themed story to write that centres around a possible 'news hook'.<br />
<br />
People are reading articles about the heatwave the UK experienced in June and July, so journos go out and find an 'expert' willing to sell them bullshit centred around that. Readers are always interested in celebrity stories, let's centre a ghost story around that.<br />
<br />
Nickell's comment about Ed warren that I featured at the head of this post has come to horrific fruition. There is now a huge swathe of ghost hunters who are unable to walk into a home that they don't think is haunted. In Ghai's case, he's quite happy to tell you that your house is haunted without ever stepping foot in the same street! And there are tabloid media more than willing to serve that up to their customers.<br />
<br />
The problem that this presents to sceptics is this, there's that old adage "What can be claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" but this is a double-edged sword. Sure, on one hand, it means we can increasingly dismiss the claims of ghost hunters without a second thought. But it also means that we are deprived of the opportunity to change the minds of believers and fence-sitters.<br />
<br />
That's concerning. Especially as many sceptics and debunkers of paranormal claims were once believers. They had their mind swayed, in many cases, by coming across the work of a previous generation of sceptics, by convincing well-laid out auguments.<br />
<br />
How do we build an argument on nothing substantive? Other than pointing out how unsubstantive it is?<br />
<br />
<h3>
References</h3>
<br />
<br />
(1) <a href="https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/722509/Ghost-news-every-British-household-haunted-warning-video">https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/722509/Ghost-news-every-British-household-haunted-warning-video</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/721496/UK-heatwave-weather-forecast-ghost-news-paranormal-investigators">https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/721496/UK-heatwave-weather-forecast-ghost-news-paranormal-investigators</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-38976532792666613492018-07-23T21:58:00.000+01:002018-07-29T11:51:44.933+01:00Buried in bullshit. Once again, pseudo science obscures and exploits real research. <b>File this one under, take caution any time you read the phrase 'scientists confirm' on social media. You can significantly increase that caution every time the article making the claim is shared by a 'woo-favourable' page or group.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_fyZqfSaVHpk6aXbjDhWgt6OCk2NEt8tRvbBuE5ZMA73_p9LZfy8_LcwMmMUirh4nJxHjmry7L4yAlAy7lZj_bu4LGEW8jtpAyRVJNGgmP-F_QnSr2GvuTmBAqBpr_rzF2i5QsR7Lwls/s1600/Buried+in+Bullshit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_fyZqfSaVHpk6aXbjDhWgt6OCk2NEt8tRvbBuE5ZMA73_p9LZfy8_LcwMmMUirh4nJxHjmry7L4yAlAy7lZj_bu4LGEW8jtpAyRVJNGgmP-F_QnSr2GvuTmBAqBpr_rzF2i5QsR7Lwls/s640/Buried+in+Bullshit.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The article in question that we will be looking at today is 'Scientists Confirmed That People Are Capable Of Absorbing Energy From Others' published by website 'Wonderneed' (1). In examining the claims made in the article we'll delve into the usual misrepresentations of science pushed by pseudo-scientists, especially misuse of the term 'energy' and reference to 'quantum physics' without context or true understanding. We'll also find that there is genuine research at the heart of the story that has been blatantly misrepresented.<br />
<br />
As usually happens with any debunking I perform, I'm going head off the inevitable criticism I always receive, why is it important to correct this article?<br />
<br />
Firstly, it is misrepresenting someone's hard work, maybe even their lives work. It has the potential to damage their reputation, it could cost them work. Whilst you may not have heard of the website 'Wonderneed' (I certainly hadn't before reading this article) this piece has been shared over 19,000 times.<br />
<br />
Before we get into the "science" discussed in the article, it's useful to look at some of the other issues with the post. Firstly, the title may sound familiar to you despite the fact that it has only just been published. Don't worry, you're not having a deja vu event.<br />
<br />
A version of the article was originally published on the website 'Disclose TV' back in 2016 (2). 'Wondershare' even used the same low-quality image that Disclose TV used, just flipping it. They also slight changes to the title. The thing with these changes is that any editor worth their salt would look at that headline and suggest it was a bit cumbersome. The likely correction would revert it to its original version.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJxZbfoAMoOD2nu_ObL0P9XvYwjhb6BlkNDTCWlI0o7pn3q-LjCyf5IuQ_KQSuagPfPMhKTn7teVQmA5JarIV8-iohUc6tmNO8sMCCnZE-HuaIVyCDnf81W3VvQw069y7J5ixmmHC-a-A/s1600/35%2525.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJxZbfoAMoOD2nu_ObL0P9XvYwjhb6BlkNDTCWlI0o7pn3q-LjCyf5IuQ_KQSuagPfPMhKTn7teVQmA5JarIV8-iohUc6tmNO8sMCCnZE-HuaIVyCDnf81W3VvQw069y7J5ixmmHC-a-A/s640/35%2525.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
The article also appeared in a similar form on the website 'Soultype' in February of this year with the same images, under the title 'Science Shows That We Absorb Each Other’s Energies'. All the articles contain similar errors and the same fundamental manipulation, so when I state "this article" you can consider that to mean any of the three variations mentioned.<br />
<br />
Worth mentioning too, I know that human beings can absorb heat from a nice hug, but let's restrict the discussion to energy that can be used by the metabolism. Hugs later.<br />
<h2>
<br />Unpicking the research from the rubbish</h2>
<br />
Like most articles of this nature which claim to be based on actual research, when that research actually exists and is credible, what you find is that a significant bait &switch has been performed. There is actual research at the heart of this claim, but it in no way supports what the article claims.<br />
<br />
The research, conducted by Professor Dr Olaf Kruse proved extremely difficult to find as none of the articles cites it directly and the link in the Disclose TV article leads, not to nature as it claims, but to Natural News. Not two sources I'd advise getting confused.<br />
<br />
Eventually, I was able to find the original work (3), which confirmed that at least the article in focus had elements of that study more or less correct. But that doesn't mean they aren't going to take it to some wild, wacky and wholly unintended places before they're through with it. The lack of a correct citation and a link to the research or even mention of the publishing journal almost gives the impression that the writers of these articles don't want you to read it. Almost.<br />
<br />
Essentially, the research suggests that the photosynthesising green-algae <i>Chlamydomonas reinhardtii</i> is able to secrete an enzyme which is able to break down the cellulose contained in cellular walls of surrounding plant-life in order to use it as a source of food. It does this only in the absence of the necessary conditions to photosynthesise.<br />
<br />
This was the first time this kind of ability was observed in plant-life. It has previously been believed to be restricted to Fungi and some other organisms.<br />
<br />
Armed with this legitimate science, the article sets sail to wooville.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
<br />Heading to pastures unintended</h2>
<br />
<br />
The article begins:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A biological research team at Bielefeld University has made a groundbreaking discovery showing that plants can draw an alternative source of energy from other plants. This finding could also have a major impact on the future of bioenergy eventually providing the evidence to show that people draw energy from others in much the same way."</blockquote>
<br />
"In much the same way..." indeed. What? By soaking surrounding people with an enzyme that breaks down their outer-layers? I think that we wouldn't need this finding to provide evidence of those around us doing this. In would, in my humble opinion, be quite noticeable. And disgusting.<br />
<br />
The article brings in Dr Olivia Bader-Lee to discuss the team's findings. It's good practice for a science article to bring in an expert in a field who wasn't involved in the study being reported, but Bader-Lee isn't an expert in this field. She is described in the article as a "psychologist and energy healer" neither of which qualifies her as an expert in biology.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />"Flowers need water and light to grow and people are no different. Our physical bodies are like sponges, soaking up the environment. “This is exactly why there are certain people who feel uncomfortable in specific group settings where there is a mix of energy and emotions,” said psychologist and energy healer Dr. Olivia Bader-Lee."</blockquote>
<br />
There's a certain amount of permeability to our skin, which means we absorb some moisture and our skin absorbs sunlight to produce vitamin D, but even in its most charitable interpretation, that is not what Bader-Lee means by that statement. At no point is what Bader-Lee suggests comparable to what the cited research shows.<br />
<br />
We don't secrete enzymes on our neighbours to digest them, our emotions (or skin for that matter) are not constructed from cellulose. We don't photosynthesise as we have a very effective digestive method.<br />
<br />
What the article also does is conflates 'food' and 'energy'. Although food is used to create chemical energy, the two aren't totally synonymous. Nor can the chemical energy used for survival be compared to the vague idea of 'energy' floated by Bader-Lee.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />“When energy studies become more advanced in the coming years, we will eventually see this translated to human beings as well,” stated Bader-Lee. “The human organism is very much like a plant, it draws needed energy to feed emotional states and this can essentially energize cells or cause increases in cortisol and catabolize cells depending on the emotional trigger.”</blockquote>
<br />
Plants don't have 'emotional states' and this isn't an 'energy study'. It's a study of a biological mechanism, unknown in plants until now.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />"Bader-Lee suggests that the field of bioenergy is now ever evolving and that studies on the plant and animal world will soon translate and demonstrate what energy metaphysicians have known all along — that humans can heal each other simply through energy transfer just as plants do. “Human can absorb and heal through other humans, animals, and any part of nature. That’s why being around nature is often uplifting and energizing for so many people,” she concluded."</blockquote>
<br />
How does this study relate to any kind of mutual 'healing'? This is a case of plants eating each other. Hardly a healing experience for the organism being consumed!<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
<br />Conclusion</h2>
Essentially, what the article contains is simply a massive bait and switch. We're fed a legitimate piece of research and then it's quickly replaced with some utter rubbish about energy. I feel sorry on behalf of the researchers involved as a Google search of their names now brings up a cacophony of noise that drowns out their hard work and dedication.<br />
<br />
<br />
It's annoying too on the basis of the people who are tricked into believing that the utter bullshit of Bader-Lee has some scientific credibility. Bader-Lee is leaching on the hard work of others to fuel her own ideas. The algae have an excuse for leaching off others, what is hers?<br />
<h3>
References</h3>
<br />
<br />
(1) <a href="http://runwonder.com/news/scientists-confirmed-that-people-are-capable-of-absorbing-energy-from-others.html" target="_blank">'Scientists Confirmed That People Are Capable Of Absorbing Energy From Others</a>' (19/07/18)<br />
<br />
(2) <a href="https://www.disclose.tv/science-confirms-that-people-absorb-energy-from-others-312329" target="_blank">'Science confirms that people absorb energy from others'</a> (17/10/16)<br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2210.pdf" target="_blank">'Cellulose degradation and assimilation by the unicellular phototrophic eukaryote Chlamydomonas reinhardtii'</a> (Bilfernez-Klassin, O, Klassin, V, Kruse, O, 2012, <i>Nature Communications, </i>DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2210, accessed 23/07/18)<br />
<br />
<br />Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-82732155066946493902018-06-30T21:36:00.001+01:002018-07-03T16:01:52.721+01:00Let's do the time-warp... (AGAIN?). Examining the 'Vegas Interstate Time Anomaly' <b>The past few days have seen a number of</b><b> news reports regarding a 'time-warp' allegedly discovered by paranormal investigator Joshua P Warren on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Are we really looking at the 'Vegas Interstate Time Anomaly' or could there be a more rational explanation? </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUOj8VtgzYiCkanQIqaVafW0jzBH3cqvgYGAcSJ_hWRd8DRBiJhEE6LIUgrNqY2mPePw8NfmWGDBANvZsLf4mAzWA2T5HxZmKeIedZmGJjYWISg5M0cJaqUJNS0HcXnJouBazBEOR6ZzY/s1600/17067434_G.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUOj8VtgzYiCkanQIqaVafW0jzBH3cqvgYGAcSJ_hWRd8DRBiJhEE6LIUgrNqY2mPePw8NfmWGDBANvZsLf4mAzWA2T5HxZmKeIedZmGJjYWISg5M0cJaqUJNS0HcXnJouBazBEOR6ZzY/s640/17067434_G.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
I'm a bit late to the party on this one so I know by the time I publish this a few skeptics will have commented on it and Joshua has already responded to his critics in his podcast. Maybe I can add something else to the discourse. Maybe not...<br />
<br />
I'm going to split my examination of this story into three parts. First, the story as it was published. Then we'll look at the equipment that Warren used which is central to his claim. Finally, we'll examine Joshua's ideas about science and what I believe are the fundamental mistakes he made in handling the situation.<br />
<h2>
The story</h2>
<br />
Joshua's claims were first reported by Las Vegas Fox affiliate, Fox5 KVVU-TV(1). The text version of the story begins:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "verdana" , sans-serif;">LAS VEGAS (FOX5) -</span>A paranormal researcher said he's the first person to ever discover a time warp, and that he found it on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Joshua Warren has been measuring the rate of time all over Southern Nevada, and he said, last week he found that time had slowed down.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
He said he measured multiple places between Las Vegas and Area 51, but the only place he got a reading was in the desert just north of the city between I-15 and Route 93."<br />
“The weird thing, the real holy grail here, was what we picked up with this brand-new piece of technology,” Warren said."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
"The technology he’s referring to was the DT Meter, which stands for differential time rate meter. It was recently invented by a Silicon Valley engineer, Ron Heath. It's connected to a 100-foot cable with a sensor on the end that sends back a signal."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoLbApIMMrCJtSXW2VKrdADXtRCY44rly-JpfTTJQymSSyoMNRul-_JqRF-1kA4dSATdrhMY_wf9JrA4JmsHHnoqdk-l3qHKP87LeePgZ5QocsY-BDcCopVAm5KZCUqsnYy8pBPv0ehbI/s1600/dt1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="679" data-original-width="1539" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoLbApIMMrCJtSXW2VKrdADXtRCY44rly-JpfTTJQymSSyoMNRul-_JqRF-1kA4dSATdrhMY_wf9JrA4JmsHHnoqdk-l3qHKP87LeePgZ5QocsY-BDcCopVAm5KZCUqsnYy8pBPv0ehbI/s640/dt1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Above is the piece of equipment that Joshua is referring to, the DT or Differential Time meter which retails for $219 on Bay, it proudly proclaims that it will help owners detect UFOs in their vicinity (the promotional material cheekily suggests that for optimal results customers should buy two and place them at right-angles). The meter sends a signal from one end of the system to the other and then back. It measures the time it takes for the signal to complete its journey and then compares the expected time it takes for the signal to complete its journey to the actual time. If there is a difference between the expected time and the received time the monitor displays it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
“That signal is always supposed to travel at the same rate of time at any particular place. The only way that could change is if a black hole approached earth or something like that, which is never supposed to happen,” Warren said. “At this spot, on June 18 of 2018, I actually measured for the first and only time, time itself slowing down for 20 microseconds.”</blockquote>
The claim that the equipment would only display a variation in signal speed as the result of a black hole approaching Earth is something that is taken directly from the website which sells the DT meter. But Joshua doesn't go into the factors which can also cause a discrepancy.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif;">
"Warren said that should not happen, according to the laws of physics."</blockquote>
This claim interests me particularly as it simply isn't true. In fact, Warren himself refers to events in spacetime that can affect time. The reason an approaching black hole would affect time is a result of a phenomenon known as time dilation. It's an established facet of general relativity that proximity to gravitational sources can cause time to 'run slow'. This means that time would slower at the bottom of a tall tower rather than the top. As the cable is only 100 meters long and it seems Joshua placed it horizontally this wouldn't be a factor in this case though.<br />
<br />
What is most interesting here though is Joshua is, in my opinion, focusing on the wrong aspect of his experiment. The device he is using doesn't actually measure time, it measures how long it takes for an electromagnetic signal to travel from one end of the system to the other. It's really measuring speed of the signal and cross-referencing it against the distance travelled. That could be splitting hairs a little I know, but bear with me.<br />
<br />
In the case of this device, the signal is travelling through a cable. It's pretty safe to assume that the speed of the signal doesn't change too much, probably remaining about 2c/3, but that doesn't necessarily mean that if we see a variation between expected travel time and measured travel time of the signal, spacetime itself has changed.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjGyPZ20bO9wH1nPy4Ijp5siZVisDD8tS_rUHS3TLt8N5CA6kJMZYPlr-l2bOJss84RKL3DJUm1-ymDHYcBXYSN71I8O9thxCiUGMwDVw2dTwVR8GMmHxhR-wIF9IfzuoxlHAcda4JBM4/s1600/6149219_f260.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjGyPZ20bO9wH1nPy4Ijp5siZVisDD8tS_rUHS3TLt8N5CA6kJMZYPlr-l2bOJss84RKL3DJUm1-ymDHYcBXYSN71I8O9thxCiUGMwDVw2dTwVR8GMmHxhR-wIF9IfzuoxlHAcda4JBM4/s1600/6149219_f260.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
A quick recollection of the speed/distance/time triangle you were probably taught in your first year of high school science probably gives you an indication of the answer to this conundrum. What if it wasn't the speed of the signal that altered, but the distance the signal had to travel?<br />
<br />
I think the abnormal reading that Joshua received in the desert that day was a result of the thermal expansion of the cable that is carrying the signal. The signal is confined to the cable. If the cable expands the signal obviously has to travel further. A warping of spacetime really isn't needed. The hot Nevada desert will do just fine.<br /><br />The heat wouldn't just expand in one direction but in three, meaning that any change would be cubed. That's how even a small change in temperature could lead to a large error in the reading.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Experimental error and Noise</h2>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
You'll notice from the display that the device doesn't sit at a reading of 0.000000000. There is, as should be expected, a little bit of 'noise' an expected amount of interference that causes the clock not to be perfectly synchronised. Noise is defined as anything that alters the sensitivity of a piece of measuring equipment. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYwiGlabbH8-2GeDG6AdSOlGT4gulozxyynG0ws8BAgcMomg2MuiUVAPdK-hsjx8_qIBGsoH1hBnVEVhlIgYmUDqZcncghVTIMbWseND3wT6sax5Y13iH1cQjQiPh1Z6AIoIKydR10qwA/s1600/s-l1600.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1181" data-original-width="1600" height="472" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYwiGlabbH8-2GeDG6AdSOlGT4gulozxyynG0ws8BAgcMomg2MuiUVAPdK-hsjx8_qIBGsoH1hBnVEVhlIgYmUDqZcncghVTIMbWseND3wT6sax5Y13iH1cQjQiPh1Z6AIoIKydR10qwA/s640/s-l1600.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
<br />
The creator of the DT meter, Ron Heath, states that the average noise should be +/- 4 or 5 milliseconds (2). Displayed on the meter screen as 0.000005 s/s. Joshua recorded an abnormal reading of 20 milliseconds, way above the noise under normal conditions. That would appear on the meter as 0.00002 s/s.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkufzIlpAgqvHGeWxBgxhaAYu29Zhy8geDQkyVd43HpiDzEAUa8r46lSVz7bAoCO6Bl5rbyvUCROUvjXqDNN63LuRlMS9NeRiv55jC_xsN1pK4f1I9WKxZgS6h_w6Gm3LeTT_VTz7-avM/s1600/dt1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="312" data-original-width="631" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkufzIlpAgqvHGeWxBgxhaAYu29Zhy8geDQkyVd43HpiDzEAUa8r46lSVz7bAoCO6Bl5rbyvUCROUvjXqDNN63LuRlMS9NeRiv55jC_xsN1pK4f1I9WKxZgS6h_w6Gm3LeTT_VTz7-avM/s320/dt1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The catch comes when we consider what the sources of the noise are considered to be by the DT meter's creator. He states on the device's promotional website and in its instruction manual (3)<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"A 1:1 time rate where the two rates of time are the same will read 0.00000XXX where the XXX is noise and temperature drift that defines the limits of the meter sensitivity." </blockquote>
<br />
Interesting he'd mention temperature as a cause of noise. When we consider that Joshua is using the device in the desert, where it's presumably extremely hot, shouldn't we expect the thermal contribution to the noise to be much greater?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
Heath seems to aware of this potential fault in the system. His website advises that the system is used away from direct sunlight and extreme heat. He also advises that the cable element should be buried. As was pointed out to me by Nick Stone, it would also seem from this recommendation that, aside from the effect of temperature and direct sunlight, the system isn't designed to be carried around harsh terrain.<br />
<br />
It probably hasn't escaped your attention that this entire claim can be debunked by reading the instruction manual of the device that was used to collect the data. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
Another thing that we have to consider is that the difference in time that is displayed is an average of the differences measured over a period of five seconds. This is significant because if the system fails to send a signal or fails to register a received signal then this would presumably cause an extremely large difference in the average travel times. The anomaly Joshua recorded could simply be a result of a system failure. Perhaps a momentary drop in power, or exposure to an unusually strong magnetic field. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<h2>
How science works</h2>
<br />
Of course, these kinds of faults are present with all forms of scientific equipment, so how do scientists account for this kind of anomaly?<br />
<br />
The answer is they take lots of measurements. Then they see if other people can get the same measurements. Then they try to control for other factors which could have caused the measurements. These are things that Joshua has failed to do. He's registered one anomalous result and based his belief in a time-warp on the basis of this. As we've mentioned on this blog several times, this is what investigator Kenny Biddle calls 'Anomaly hunting'. I'm not sure that the term has ever fit better than in this case. In fact, Joshua even tells us he was in the desert to "hunt for anomalies" it would seem he found one and immediately called the local news! </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHYbKxiv0l1KzPBAxDf0aM57XqYkIHbdzNhiggoermq53Xap10sz-jA_qY_3kykvh2jrKxz4uPD4gwxnuow7aq7zTMLZEJsPT6CZj9UBicJ57wabzjxFLzDaFYP2xDK8j_6M8HPsYNmUY/s1600/dt1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="178" data-original-width="717" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHYbKxiv0l1KzPBAxDf0aM57XqYkIHbdzNhiggoermq53Xap10sz-jA_qY_3kykvh2jrKxz4uPD4gwxnuow7aq7zTMLZEJsPT6CZj9UBicJ57wabzjxFLzDaFYP2xDK8j_6M8HPsYNmUY/s640/dt1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 12px; margin-top: 12px; padding: 0px;">
<br />
<br />
Sharon Hill of Doubtful News left the above comment on the Fox5 news report that alludes to this point. It was one of many comments on the story that highlights the idea to Joshua that his results shouldn't be singular and should be reproducible by others. Joshua could've responded to this criticism by releasing his results and showing his methodology. He didn't.<br />
<br />
He responded by producing a 17-minute podcast (4) telling others how to 'handle criticism'. On the show, he suggests his critics don't understand science and refers to the anomalous measurements that led to the discovery of the gulf stream. The problem is, those measurements were reproduced. If reproduction had failed the idea would have never been developed.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUB-sIL2pSa_0WHekys0WkenYpTOOZf1aZU4Dnui3widU4_y1kUSvvjWpZN6d3EczgJ583GI6vxTt-gfzxVGA0VofhIPrjxvrBjuEpT4rAK0JcK2rLlzRqA_M3l2RzGbLCyVm23AJL8CE/s1600/peerreview-nickkim.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="514" data-original-width="647" height="508" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUB-sIL2pSa_0WHekys0WkenYpTOOZf1aZU4Dnui3widU4_y1kUSvvjWpZN6d3EczgJ583GI6vxTt-gfzxVGA0VofhIPrjxvrBjuEpT4rAK0JcK2rLlzRqA_M3l2RzGbLCyVm23AJL8CE/s640/peerreview-nickkim.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Warren needs to realise that if he wants his findings to be considered 'science' he has to follow the strictures of that discipline and that means you show your findings and you submit to peer review. If you're found to have made a mistake, you accept it and move on. Most importantly, you don't present your work based on one result.<br />
<br />
In his podcast, Joshua also makes reference to a fellow investigator who he seems to hold in some esteem. He talks about his person being 'driven from the field' by negativity and haters. I think I know who he is talking about. This is a man who was forced to leave the field because he couldn't handle peer-review. When the mistakes he had made were exposed he doubled down on them and retreated to an echo-chamber. He attacked his critics and extremely personal and unfair ways.<br />
<br />
Joshua. Don't be the same. Accept your mistakes or work to prove they weren't mistakes. That's the only way you'll grow. And it's the only way you'll ever be considered to be 'doing science'.<br />
<br />
I reached out to Joshua P Warren for more complete data rom his investigations. When I receive it I will post an update.<br />
<br /></div>
<h3>
References</h3>
<div>
(1) <a href="http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/38515977/time-warp-discovered-by-paranormal-investigator-outside-of-las-vegas">http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/38515977/time-warp-discovered-by-paranormal-investigator-outside-of-las-vegas</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(2) <a href="http://www.rhwebco.com/DT-Meter_Blurb.html">http://www.rhwebco.com/DT-Meter_Blurb.html</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="http://www.rhwebco.com/DT-Meter_Manual.pdf">http://www.rhwebco.com/DT-Meter_Manual.pdf</a><br />
<br />
(4) <a href="http://www.buzzsprout.com/127013/738279-joshua-p-warren-daily-dealing-with-criticism">www.buzzsprout.com/127013/738279-joshua-p-warren-daily-dealing-with-criticism</a></div>
<h3>
<a href="http://www.rhwebco.com/DT-Meter_Blurb.html" target="_blank"><br /></a> </h3>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-85593819551555591042018-06-10T17:33:00.002+01:002018-06-10T17:33:23.786+01:00Responding to the Flat Earth '£100 Street Challenge' <b>I'm sure if you have a passing interest in skepticism and the intersection of pseudo-science and actual science you won't have failed to notice the rise in popularity of belief in a flat-earth. April this year saw the largest gathering of flat-earthers ever held in Great Britain and similar meetings have been held across the Atlantic. As such, it's important that science communicators don't ignore the claims made by flat-earthers. </b><br />
<br />
With that I mind I decided to take a look at a specific claim made by a Youtube group known as <i>Beyond the imaginary curve</i> posed in what they call "the £100 street challenge". The claim specifically relates to the idea that water "doesn't bend". Flat-earthers argue that because water cannot be made to curve to a surface on a small scale, this must imply that water would simply "run off the sides" of a globe earth. This is often demonstrated by flat-earthers pouring water over the surface of a ball or balloon.<br />
<br />
Yes, I know. It's stupid. But lots of people take flat-earth rhetoric very seriously, so let's do the same and unpack the claim in detail.<br />
<br />
In the Street challenge, we see Del of <i>Beyond the imaginary curve </i>approaching members of the general public with a bottle half-filled with water. He offers them £100 if they can bend the bottle in such a way that surface of the water follows the curve of the bottle rather than remaining flat. Of course, water won't do this. This means, argues Del, that water will never curve in such a way and thus the Earth is not globe-shaped.<br />
<br />
It's a pretty easy claim to debunk. Let's do so in the form of a video.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jj6tFeIDGvs/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jj6tFeIDGvs?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
References<br />
<br />
(1) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VzItwtS9Gc&t=216s">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VzItwtS9Gc&t=216s</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/static-electricity-bring-science-home/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/static-electricity-bring-science-home/</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-5611757370046022302018-06-05T21:55:00.002+01:002018-06-05T22:32:46.040+01:00No. Sunscreen will not give you cancer!<b>The sun is shining again, summer is here, and that means with some certainty posts will start appearing on social media espousing the benefits of forgoing sunscreen and suncream or alternatively warning that such measures can damage health. That includes irresponsibly warning that sunscreens themselves can cause cancer. And indeed pose more of a cancer risk than the sun itself. </b><br />
<br />
This week brought one such article to my attention. Published in February of 2017 on the site <i>Collective Evolution, </i>a well-spring for awful science reporting, the article <i>'HOW SUNSCREEN COULD BE CAUSING SKIN CANCER, NOT THE SUN' </i> (1) proposes to show evidence from 'peer-reviewed' studies to prove sunscreens could be doing more harm than good. Let's examine the veracity of the claims made in the article.<br />
<br />
The piece begins with a troubling picture of a severely sunburned back. It's an odd image choice to head an article that suggests avoiding sunscreen and promotes the natural benefits of the sun. This lady's back clearly wouldn't have been so badly damaged had she avoided sun-exposure or used sunscreen!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieBkAllZjRmXTZ0DvEYzsJyxxDWWIZOQdjBNCwK2p4i0E6mvjIOGNLLfCK1zXmarry1z8Jpw3_9-XeBuwndpMwDeEYdr1bDGlHF4q7yIwpV1Bixq8fRDC2UCPnsDHYMfFWxPWPWlHaDwY/s1600/sunscreen-759x500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="759" height="421" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieBkAllZjRmXTZ0DvEYzsJyxxDWWIZOQdjBNCwK2p4i0E6mvjIOGNLLfCK1zXmarry1z8Jpw3_9-XeBuwndpMwDeEYdr1bDGlHF4q7yIwpV1Bixq8fRDC2UCPnsDHYMfFWxPWPWlHaDwY/s640/sunscreen-759x500.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ouch! An odd image to choose to front your article about avoiding suncream! </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The first paragraph strongly highlights the severe lack of knowledge the author is going to display and the propensity to drop scientific claims without citing supportive literature. It begins:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"<span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">Yet, while we do indeed need protection to prevent sunburns, blocking out the sun entirely is not ideal. Rich in vitamin D, it offers a number of other health benefits, including, oddly enough, cancer prevention." </span></i></blockquote>
Firstly, a minor gripe. Sunlight is not "<i>rich in vitamin D</i>" as the article laughably suggests. There are no chemicals in sunlight. The connection between sunlight and vitamin D as ultraviolet B light on the skin triggers its production in the body. Even articles such as the one provided by the NHS which I read (3) whilst advising on the benefits of vitamin D also advise the use of at least a <i>spf15 </i>sunscreen and exposure to the sun for short periods only.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is some evidence that vitamin D deficiency is linked to some cancers but it's an extremely relationship to quantify, as an estimated 40% of the population in the US and UK are vitamin D deficient (4). Studies conducted thus far, like the one I've referenced, have struggled from the fact that they are simply observational, with subjects continuing with established cancer-causing behaviours such as smoking, the eating of fatty foods and drinking alcohol... and exposure to the sun.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
The Classic Bait and Switch</h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">"We’ve been made to fear the sun, and, as a result, adults and children are choosing to drench themselves in a bath of toxic, hormone-disrupting chemicals."</span></i></blockquote>
<div>
<i><span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div>
The claim that sunscreens contain "toxic, hormone-disrupting chemicals" is unsupported by any evidence in any form. This claim is subject to an interesting bait and switch which underpins the deceptive nature of the article. Whilst not supporting this claim, the author <i>does</i> provide support for the claim that chemicals in sunscreens have been found to penetrate the skin and enter the body to some extent. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i><span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">Multiple studies from across the world have examined sunscreen in particular, evaluating its ingredients and how it penetrates and absorbs into the skin after application... </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">Results demonstrated a significant penetration of all sunscreen agents into the skin, meaning all of these chemicals are entering multiple tissues within the body,"</span></i></blockquote>
Checking the study cited (5) in support of this reveals that chemicals from sunscreens do indeed penetrate the skin, and research has been suggested to limit his absorption. But what the study liked does <i>not</i> state is that these chemicals are responsible for the type of tissue damage associated with causing cancers. Further studies have established that despite these chemicals leaching across the skin, there is no sign of associated tissue damage (6).<br />
<br />
Another thing that should be noted about the study cited in support of the claim above is that it's badly dated. The study cited is now 14 years old and thus won't take into account changes in sunscreen ingredients in this intervening time. Later research involving sunscreens has shown no skin penetration of constituent nanoparticles (7). The article doesn't mention any of these more recent findings.<br />
<br />
So as many articles of this type do, we have seen two distinct claims made:<br />
<br />
1. Chemicals in sunscreens are toxic and harmful, potentially cancer-causing.<br />
<br />
2. Chemicals in sunscreens penetrate the skin.<br />
<br />
The author provides evidence, albeit extremely flawed, of the second claim and hopes the reader will not notice (or bother to check) that the first claim is also supported. Classic bait and switch.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Poisoning the Well; Corporations are evil!</h3>
Another common theme with articles of this nature are the claims that big-businesses are corrupt and will quite willingly harm their customers and clients. In this article that extends to not trusting the results of studies that have been funded by corporate bodies.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><i>"The science given to us by the corporations who profit from the sale of sunscreen says no, but I think by now we have established how trustworthy such corporately-funded ‘science’ is."</i></span></blockquote>
How has this been established exactly? I'm no fan of big business and I too am suspicious of results from corporate-funded studies. That's why it's important to go over these studies with a fine-tooth comb. The source of funding shouldn't immediately invalidate research. To say otherwise is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water.<br />
<br />
Of course, the author of this article is choosy in how they apply their suspicion of corporations. If they weren't they may well have questioned the veracity of the study they cited to support their earlier claim. <span style="color: #505050; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , "lucida sans unicode" , "microsoft sans serif" , "segoe ui symbol" , "stixgeneral" , "cambria math" , "arial unicode ms" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> </span>Hill Top Research Inc, who part-funded the study, is a company which works closely with the pharmaceutical, food and cosmetics industry. Exactly the kind of company that <i>Collective Evolution</i> would likely warn its readership not to trust!<br />
<br />
The article then makes a specific claim about company <i>Johnson & Johnson </i>intentionally marketing a baby powder it allegedly knew to be "cancer-causing"<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">"It wasn’t long ago that Johnson & Johnson, for example, was found guilty of knowingly putting a cancer-causing baby powder on the market. You can read more about that </span>here<span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">."</span></blockquote>
The link leads to another article on <i>Collective Evolution </i>written by the same author as this one (8). The article is well-worth exploring in more detail, but in short, it documents a successful legal challenge against Johnson and Johnson in regards to a case of ovarian cancer which was allegedly brought about by use of baby powder. The decision was made by a judge and does not reflect the current scientific understanding of baby powder ingredients as being carcinogenic. There is no strong evidence that baby powders lead to ovarian cancer, so to suggest that a company 'knew' that this was the case is completely untrue. Scientific consensus is not reached in courtrooms. Judges are not scientists, opinion is not evidence and trials are not clinical trials. Whilst the author mentions this successful case, they omit the cases against Johnson & Johnson that have been dismissed or overturned (9).<br />
<br />
And in any case... even if Johnson & Johnson are as guilty as the author suggests, what does this tell us about their sunscreens? What does it tell us about other company's sunscreens?<br />
<br />
If you said 'nothing' give yourself a biscuit.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A complete absence of self-awareness</h3>
Prepare yourself for perhaps the most ironic statement ever committed to screen or page, so completely lacking in self-awareness that you yourself may lose your own self-identity after reading it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"(Referencing a <i>Huffington Post</i> article) <span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><i>Sarah Kallies shares how exhausted she feels trying to navigate today’s world and do the best for her children when everything, everywhere, seems to be killing us. For every purchase she makes for her children, there is science telling her it’s great on the one hand and toxic on the other, and so she highlights how confusing the consumer marketplace has become. We are dished a wealth of information that differs from source to source, on a variety of different topics, making it difficult to make even the simplest of choices without second-guessing ourselves."</i></span></blockquote>
But it's this author and this site creating that confusion in this case. By performing a completely disingenuous bait and switch, this piece indicates that sunscreens are unsafe, in complete opposition to the scientific consensus on the same. Articles like this are creating the confusion. It's not science to blame here it's the misrepresentation of science that is the enemy of the general public. To imply that you are adding clarity to the issue after purposefully obscuring the issue is absolutely disgusting.<br />
<br />
The author again reiterates:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"<span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">Yet we know the various chemicals found within sunscreens are toxic, and we know that our skin absorbs whatever we put onto it."</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
A statement that is in complete denial of the fact that the author has made no effort to prove the most relevant element claim. They haven't cited a single study that shows the toxicity of sunscreen constituents. But wait... the author ends the article by discussing specific compounds. Could these the scary toxic chemicals they have been discussing in the article.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Scary Chemicals!</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As usual with an article of this nature, it eventually descends into a demonstration of chemophobia. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhazEuYlvNWuCFdT1VPGFKo0k1H18WApdBD4aQjjbR44obU7loUDnkJkmCzmNUZCFPfHHKBKBJDR4j7AUGxXc5RiPQ_-2LoN67fSovzjwlCSqXODqFLzlFnNefsh8Z_jR3OuUX3xjqe3U8/s1600/chemical-skeptical-meme-societys-what-they-want-you-to-think-10924395.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="378" data-original-width="500" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhazEuYlvNWuCFdT1VPGFKo0k1H18WApdBD4aQjjbR44obU7loUDnkJkmCzmNUZCFPfHHKBKBJDR4j7AUGxXc5RiPQ_-2LoN67fSovzjwlCSqXODqFLzlFnNefsh8Z_jR3OuUX3xjqe3U8/s640/chemical-skeptical-meme-societys-what-they-want-you-to-think-10924395.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Are any of the compounds the article mentions as dangerous as it implies:<br />
<br />
<b>Oxybenzone.</b><br />
<br />
Collective Evolution says:<br />
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><i>"This could in fact be the most troublesome ingredient found in the majority of popular sunscreens. Used because it effectively absorbs ultraviolet light, it’s also believed to cause hormone disruption and cell damage, which could promote cancer... </i></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #484848; font-family: "open sans" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"><i>one study done by the Department of Clinical and Experimental Endocrinology at the University of Gottingen in Germany observed regulatory effects on receptor expression for oxybenzone that indicate endocrine (hormone) disruption."</i></span></blockquote>
The article doesn't link to the study, so I had to search for it, thus I can only guess that the study referred to is this one (10). The first thing that is abundantly clear is that the study shows the effects of oxybenzone-2 and oxybenzone-3 on ovaries removed from rats. We can't extrapolate this result to humans for a variety of reasons.<br />
<br />
Firstly rats have a different morphology to humans, even though there are similarities we cannot assume that a compound that has one effect in rats will have the same effects in humans. Secondly, the compound, in this case, is delivered directly to an organ. It isn't leeched through the skin and diluted in the blood. as such, the dosage delivered is much higher than that expected to be received via sunscreen.<br />
<br />
None of this supports the declaration of oxybenzone as 'toxic' in regards to humans. The study doesn't conclusively demonstrate oxybenzone is toxic to rats even!<br />
<br />
<b>Retinyl Palmitate (Vitamin A Palmitate)</b><br />
<div>
Again with the above compound, the linked 'study' involves animal cohorts and as such should be treated cautiously when extrapolated to humans. The link isn't a study at all but rather a governmental executive report requesting further investigations and human trials.<br />
<br />
With regards to the idea that Retinyl Palmitate causes tumours in conjunction with UV radiation, Steven Q Wang, a dermatological surgeon highlighted the problem with studies in this area (11): <span style="background-color: white; color: #373737; font-family: "montserrat" , "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">"</span><i>It is important to note that the mice in the NTP study are highly susceptible to the effects of UV radiation and can develop skin cancer or other skin abnormalities within weeks of UV exposure, even in the absence of retinyl palmitate," </i>said Dr. Wang.<i> "That is why extreme caution is needed when extrapolating these animal study results to humans."</i><br />
<h3>
The hypocrisy at the heart of this article and alternative medicine as a whole</h3>
<br />
The only other source offered in support of the toxicity of Retinyl Palmitate is one Dr Joseph Mercola, who may be familiar to readers of <i>the Null Hypothesis. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiyTT8TdmFB_IR0xdN9J6R1LxBhvRO0AFs6XpPUV2YLGxlplDDKEG1kVhJSjuBZV0Dxp-jk4mad2G8Y2_PigUHKVlhGx_sYbw8h7RAKLVYGvrB5MYZFywQjruSBfXH7geA8K8k7U2L07M/s1600/mercola.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="648" data-original-width="1454" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiyTT8TdmFB_IR0xdN9J6R1LxBhvRO0AFs6XpPUV2YLGxlplDDKEG1kVhJSjuBZV0Dxp-jk4mad2G8Y2_PigUHKVlhGx_sYbw8h7RAKLVYGvrB5MYZFywQjruSBfXH7geA8K8k7U2L07M/s640/mercola.png" width="640" /></a></div>
The link leads, not to a study of any kind, but to Mercola's website where the dangers of sunscreens are reiterated with no evidence what-so-ever (12). At the bottom of this linked page, there is a striking example of the hypocrisy that is inherent in this report and others that support alternative medicine. After a long spiel about the dangers of sunscreen, Mercola's website attempts to sell visitors a vitamin D testing kit for $65 (13).<br />
<br />
So the author of this post warns us not to trust companies that simply want our money Their profit-driven attitude implies they don't care about our health. But the sources they trust don't offer their services for free do they? It's somehow acceptable when Mercola wants to make a profit, but other companies are monsters, driven by the almighty dollar.<br />
<br />
Don't take health advice from such blatant fucking hypocrites. Exposure to the sun is a well-established cause of cancer. Compounds in sunscreens are not.<br />
<h3>
References</h3>
<div>
(1) <a href="http://www.collective-evolution.com/2017/02/13/how-sunscreen-could-be-causing-skin-cancer-not-the-sun/" target="_blank"><i>HOW SUNSCREEN COULD BE CAUSING SKIN CANCER, NOT THE SUN, </i>2017, Walia, A, Collective Evolution.</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(2) <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-james-h-randi-framework-assessing.html" target="_blank">The JAMES H RANDI framework, 2018, Lea, R. </a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(3) <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/how-to-get-vitamin-d-from-sunlight/" target="_blank">How to get vitamin D from sunlight, NHS, version accessed 05/06/18</a></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(4) <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4952.full" target="_blank">Low vitamin D levels as a risk factor for cancer, Manousaki, D, Richards, J, 2017, BMJ. </a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(5) <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15063329" target="_blank">Liquid chromatographic assay for common sunscreen agents: application to in vivo assessment of skin penetration and systemic absorption in human volunteers, Sarvieya, V, Risk, S, et al, 2004, PubMed</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(6) <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11702366" target="_blank">Assessment and clinical implications of absorption of sunscreens across skin, Benson, HA, 2000, PubMed</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(7) <a href="https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/98701" target="_blank">Human Skin Penetration of Sunscreen Nanoparticles: In-vitro Assessment of a Novel Micronized Zinc Oxide Formulation, Cross, S.E, Innes, B, et al, 2007, Skin Pharmacology and Physiology. </a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(8) <a href="http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/02/24/johnson-johnson-ordered-to-pay-72-million-for-ovarian-cancer-death-linked-to-baby-powder-here-are-the-details/" target="_blank"><i>JOHNSON & JOHNSON ORDERED TO PAY $72 MILLION FOR OVARIAN CANCER DEATH LINKED TO BABY POWDER – HERE ARE THE DETAILS</i>, 2016, Walia, A, Collective Evolution</a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(9) <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/11/health/talc-ovarian-cancer-cases/index.html" target="_blank">Does talcum powder cause cancer? A legal and scientific battle rages, Christensen, J, 2018 CNN</a><br />
<br />
(10)<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X04003725?via%3Dihub" target="_blank"> Effects of estradiol, benzophenone-2 and benzophenone-3 on the expression pattern of the estrogen receptors (ER) alpha and beta, the estrogen receptor-related receptor 1 (ERR1) and the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) in adult ovariectomized rats, Schlecht, C, et al, 2004, Toxicology</a><br />
<br />
(11) <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analysis-finds-sunscreens-containing-retinyl-palmitate-do-not-cause-skin-cancer-100332434.html" target="_blank">Analysis Finds Sunscreens Containing Retinyl Palmitate Do Not Cause Skin Cancer, American Academy of Dermatology, 2010</a><br />
<br />
(12) <a href="https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/04/ewg-sunscreen-guide.aspx" target="_blank">Some of the Most Toxic Sunscreens and Safer Options, Mercola</a><br />
<br />
(13) <a href="https://shop.mercola.com/product/1090/vitamin-d-testing-kit-for-consumer-sponsored-research" target="_blank">Vitamin D testing kit, Mercola</a></div>
</div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-11168834559917305512018-05-25T18:33:00.000+01:002018-05-25T18:33:26.982+01:00Superhero fatigue? Marvel has the cure... and it's horrific.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>By the time you're reading this post, Marvel's Infinity War is likely one of the most successful movies ever made, and its run in the cinema is far from over. Whilst it faces some tough box-office opposition in the form of Jurassic World: the Fallen Kingdom, the predecessor of which outperformed the first Avengers movie in 2012, it is likely to sit at the 2nd or 3rd most successful films of all time by summer's end. But with the movie being touted very much as the first part of a two-part culmination of the ten years of Marvel movies, one has to ask, after the second part brings that ten years to a definitive close and with many of the lead actors departing, can a new chapter of Marvel movies capture audiences in the same way as the original chapter did? If not, Marvel has a horrifying secret weapon up its sleeve, a perfect antidote to the oft-predicted 'Super-hero fatigue'... <br /><br />A wealth of horror-based characters to appeal to a more mature audience. </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQMszpBVwkgTJhzt2Qz1AUJgQ4RezyFoS_DbT8ty8-vLFKHLiu7jJXpNn5voMxuuPzHlEg3lYkEr9jUpskUx8s0zd1K1lVWZ5dnFZOHJPjWZB3hrq9NYCRjR_1klcGm1ygC8cVZ_wl0Wg/s1600/lom_header.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="653" data-original-width="980" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQMszpBVwkgTJhzt2Qz1AUJgQ4RezyFoS_DbT8ty8-vLFKHLiu7jJXpNn5voMxuuPzHlEg3lYkEr9jUpskUx8s0zd1K1lVWZ5dnFZOHJPjWZB3hrq9NYCRjR_1klcGm1ygC8cVZ_wl0Wg/s640/lom_header.jpg" width="640" /></a><b><br /></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Whilst the success of Black Panther earlier this year and the tantalising possibility of Marvel studios obtaining the rights to the Fox licenced Fantastic Four and X-Men franchises as a result of the Disney/Fox merger, seem to bode well for the future of Marvel's superhero fare, surely there has to be a saturation point, some stage at which audiences become somewhat tired of superheroes.<br />
<br />
As much as I love the Marvel films thus far, with a couple of exceptions, I can't deny that these films have a formula. Few of the films diverge from the light humour, quipping antagonist, third-act cartoon action and crowd-pleasing moments, perhaps other than Thor: Ragnarok which saw director Taika Waititi attempting to break into almost pure comedy at times. Marvel should take a lesson from that film, which I found to be, not to be the best Marvel film but perhaps the most refreshing, and experiment with a different genre. But rather than pushing into straight comedy, I suggest another route...<br />
<br />
Horror.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_PRcfNMZQWkVuJHv-3WYER1BiCIyFD0znOFnWywp6wg7mQcYkTCjwkj7cCCPMpTKjuC34M_sbfOlMFNPMOdFTcObD1JaKpLpVt5aIEr5eTGcFMhhJOR22FyeSxhjxv7e2GjGUEK3WIks/s1600/legion_of_monsters_by_justbuzz_by_gwhitmore-d2zyi7c.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="979" data-original-width="800" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_PRcfNMZQWkVuJHv-3WYER1BiCIyFD0znOFnWywp6wg7mQcYkTCjwkj7cCCPMpTKjuC34M_sbfOlMFNPMOdFTcObD1JaKpLpVt5aIEr5eTGcFMhhJOR22FyeSxhjxv7e2GjGUEK3WIks/s640/legion_of_monsters_by_justbuzz_by_gwhitmore-d2zyi7c.png" width="522" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br /><br />
Marvel has plenty of horror-themed heroes and villains. Cinema-goers are likely familiar with Blade and Ghost Rider, but less familiar with characters like Moon-Knight, Man-thing, Daimon Hellstrom, Brother Voodoo and Werewolf by Night. These and others have loosely formed into teams before such as the Legion of Monsters and more recently The Midnight Sons. If you suspect that these names or concepts are too goofy for Marvel to make them work, consider that this is a company that has made Rocket Racoon a more bankable character than Superman!<br /><br />Heck, Marvel even has its own version of Dracula who has harassed various heroes including the X-Men since his introduction in the seminal 70's horror comic 'Tomb of Dracula'.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHXeexikG3Szo_0IVknrcA37df4Yb5lAelqFK0FeRmrDDMhiBcC-iZLtMIea0-1aoqHPn9tk5ZJdV1FkBZNzudyVvdLI390PpYdsrNb5ABXbPxiVKMOzsusVkU2lK6EYEuyCFxWRVLvyA/s1600/marvel-dracula-x-men.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="486" data-original-width="620" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHXeexikG3Szo_0IVknrcA37df4Yb5lAelqFK0FeRmrDDMhiBcC-iZLtMIea0-1aoqHPn9tk5ZJdV1FkBZNzudyVvdLI390PpYdsrNb5ABXbPxiVKMOzsusVkU2lK6EYEuyCFxWRVLvyA/s1600/marvel-dracula-x-men.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<h3>
Do what Universal did!</h3>
<br />
Ask yourself what the first shared cinema universe was, it wasn't Marvel. Nor was it that brief glimpse of an Alien head in the Predator throne room in the climax of Predator 2. Or the Kaiju of Japanese monster movies. It was the Universal monsters who met who met up in films such as 'Frankenstein meets the Wolfman' (1943), 'House of Frankenstein' (1944) and 'House of Dracula' (1945). Sure they also shared this Universe with Abbott and Costello, but by that point interest in these crossovers had wained.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL8vL4k3wSpmp_PM-lNa0bUC8agByUbnc6SMdS7iWzIxqVBQRiUEIrWHMj_bh1m4aGUoQU9dyzfC2KuejdVvFUAg3euOTgxlRzmzrcGx2hhlL3vvbZfl_fDAuqr9_zQGoKWnEgHVJLiLc/s1600/download.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="202" data-original-width="250" height="517" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhL8vL4k3wSpmp_PM-lNa0bUC8agByUbnc6SMdS7iWzIxqVBQRiUEIrWHMj_bh1m4aGUoQU9dyzfC2KuejdVvFUAg3euOTgxlRzmzrcGx2hhlL3vvbZfl_fDAuqr9_zQGoKWnEgHVJLiLc/s640/download.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Another question. What is currently the second most popular 'shared universe' is cinema?<br />
<br />
Here's a clue.. its distributed by Warner Bros.<br />
<br />
If you said the DC comics universe you could probably make an argument for that, but the commercial failure of 'Justice League' which should have been their tentpole movie likely does not bode well for that line of films. Nor does the fact that the films have been divisive with audiences but generally panned by critics. What else does that leave us?<br /><br />A franchise that you possibly didn't even realise was a shared universe 'The Conjuring Universe'.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrAmn3NWTnMYsXrKEdjItx6kmOZh2qZZpyD1r0iLu_bloZn5ew7rXHT-va1y3LNxYKGUtVKzAKn4iD6393wJAtJmeRXTQ-r-ssy-V_5bl4x2gru_ESBY_EyjLSWr1zkK9S8d84WQF7YuU/s1600/download+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="149" data-original-width="339" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrAmn3NWTnMYsXrKEdjItx6kmOZh2qZZpyD1r0iLu_bloZn5ew7rXHT-va1y3LNxYKGUtVKzAKn4iD6393wJAtJmeRXTQ-r-ssy-V_5bl4x2gru_ESBY_EyjLSWr1zkK9S8d84WQF7YuU/s640/download+%25281%2529.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
As much is it pains me to say, the universe that features hucksters Ed and Lorraine Warren as its Superman and Wonder Woman is probably the second most popular series of interconnected films currently in development. The four films thus far have garnered $1.2 billion dollars on relatively small budgets making them extremely profitable for Warners and New Line Cinema.<br />
<br />
Previous horror crossovers have enjoyed moderate success too. For example, 'Freddy vs Jason' (2003) earned New Line $113 million, making it the most successful Friday 13th film and the second most successful 'Elm Street' film. It likely would have done much better had it been released when it was originally teased when Freddy grabbed Jason's empty mask at the end of 'Jason goes to hell' (1993) ten years earlier.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcvTJ4W-SCPT4Tja7h-AIaBWBA0HKUwkWAi-Cm_fAzoUbp-EwH5aGsoRu277mGpRExghuuJt5HYWQATF2lBtOZefe3DKYhgm_gEeESx4XbC_KruwiNwTH_wbvhHMOtHfsSIkTTpx2MA7g/s1600/Jason-Goes-to-Hell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="627" data-original-width="1200" height="334" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcvTJ4W-SCPT4Tja7h-AIaBWBA0HKUwkWAi-Cm_fAzoUbp-EwH5aGsoRu277mGpRExghuuJt5HYWQATF2lBtOZefe3DKYhgm_gEeESx4XbC_KruwiNwTH_wbvhHMOtHfsSIkTTpx2MA7g/s640/Jason-Goes-to-Hell.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
Don't do what Universal did! </h3>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2KW4-AiVN0kjjTnmQDyI6IyhVqQdrYvlFeOcLPxP6IkLFnegzTNd-EKvLNvw380JxNpqhfNgxW_nKpMo5mi61EGwMh_U8ykzSXgoAO5Q7LwUgqBhG1ukycHRJbrsh-1HecVDjlG3xOeY/s1600/MV5BODg1NTIxMzEtM2NmMi00MDQ2LWE5YjYtZTgxYmNhZTQxYWIzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDYzODU1ODM%2540._V1_UX182_CR0%252C0%252C182%252C268_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="268" data-original-width="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2KW4-AiVN0kjjTnmQDyI6IyhVqQdrYvlFeOcLPxP6IkLFnegzTNd-EKvLNvw380JxNpqhfNgxW_nKpMo5mi61EGwMh_U8ykzSXgoAO5Q7LwUgqBhG1ukycHRJbrsh-1HecVDjlG3xOeY/s1600/MV5BODg1NTIxMzEtM2NmMi00MDQ2LWE5YjYtZTgxYmNhZTQxYWIzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDYzODU1ODM%2540._V1_UX182_CR0%252C0%252C182%252C268_AL_.jpg" /></a></div>
One thing that may cause Marvel to reconsider pulling the trigger on a horror universe is Universal's failure to launch their 'Dark Universe' last year with the Tom Cruise vehicle 'The Mummy'. This shouldn't be too much of a deterrent though as Universal made some terrible mistakes in the marketing of 'the Mummy'.<br />
<br />
Universal confidently started hyping the film as the start of their 'Dark Universe' and the first of a ten-film series before audiences had even seen it. This was a rookie move that doomed the franchise early. Marvel didn't do that with 'Iron Man' (2008) they just dropped hints that this was the way in which they were heading with Nick Fury's appearance in the now standard post-credits sequence. This meant audiences could enjoy the film for what it was, a fun-action adventure without the pressure of investing in future films. Marvel played it smart and waited to see how audiences would react to the idea.<br />
<br />
Likewise, the original 'The Conjuring', a perfectly enjoyable horror let the movie speak for itself if New Line knew they'd be creating various spin-offs they played their cards close to their chest. Even DC, at Warner's, who have made some pretty critical errors didn't telegraph their intentions early. This may well have saved their necks as the movie the studio intended to the first of their 'shared universe' was the disastrous Ryan Reynolds starring Green Lantern. If that had been heralded as the first of a shared universe it would have likely killed the franchise then and there.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Also, Universal specifically designed 'the Mummy' to be a Marvel-like adventure. It even had the city wrecking third act. This just confused audiences and failed to mark out any differences between them and Marvel and they suffered for it.<br />
<br />
The third mistake... Universal started their universe with a property that audience was already familiar with. The Brendan Fraiser starring 'Mummy' series only ended in 2008 and audiences likely remembered its slapstick, lighthearted approach and were perplexed by the tonally inconsistent Alex Kurtzman effort that sat before them.<br />
<br />
Universal would have been well-advised to start with a less well-recognised property, 'Creature from the Black Lagoon' or 'the Invisible-man' perhaps and worked hints to other characters in gently instead of ramming their planned slate of films down audience's throats with Russell Crowe appearing in a narrative-halting scene as Doctor Jekyll mid-movie.<br />
<br />
And it's a relatively unknown property that I think Marvel should start their horror universe with.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Marvel's Hidden horrors...</h3>
</div>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiepPjrVBOv5Sim8yUCkwZC8wIWnbyqZxKJDLpELTpZGfzUsTzCYuRClroxC6E8Ub_vrGHEmpvCj7m5sjYIefGyfVhdzYcGlkMbLFrHt86QodcMATd8tbditOH16O4eHLs1_dBhHGBpAno/s1600/250px-Morbius_The_Living_Vampire_Vol_2_1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiepPjrVBOv5Sim8yUCkwZC8wIWnbyqZxKJDLpELTpZGfzUsTzCYuRClroxC6E8Ub_vrGHEmpvCj7m5sjYIefGyfVhdzYcGlkMbLFrHt86QodcMATd8tbditOH16O4eHLs1_dBhHGBpAno/s320/250px-Morbius_The_Living_Vampire_Vol_2_1.png" width="237" /></a>I wouldn't suggest starting with those characters I named above. Ghost Rider maybe too familiar at this stage and Man-Thing a step too odd for a first experimental foray into horror. I'd suggest a character who was first introduced as a Spider-man villain, Morbius, the Living Vampire. Morbius has the potential to be an archetype that both the horror and super-hero genres thrive on, a tragic character with a self-inflicted curse, fighting a darker nature and a striking, creepy as hell appearance.</div>
In his comics iteration, Morbius is a brilliant scientist inflicted with a terrible blood-disease, whose attempts to cure himself turn him into a 'pseudo-vampire' with an unquenchable blood-lust. It's that blood-lust that causes him to murder his lab assistant and numerous others. If he doesn't consume blood, he transforms into a more feral, more monstrous form which he can't control. This leads him to consume the blood only of criminals and the guilty, a pledge that has brought him into conflict with Marvel's heroes and villains alike.<br />
<br />
<br />
Including Blade.<br />
<h3>
Blade, horror and superheroes: a proven success.</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0BFXZ2xik-jGu-ppgC9CO0r0p36bUhrN89l_zE54b5rZzQitskJbcCUCJ09i63FIW9I-iZ8bEVWdDhmUaQiOBKhala3bRmjhQA54EUwlOS-1ZNzZkyypfMoH5BsZcDH9hxOevIagRjy4/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="372" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0BFXZ2xik-jGu-ppgC9CO0r0p36bUhrN89l_zE54b5rZzQitskJbcCUCJ09i63FIW9I-iZ8bEVWdDhmUaQiOBKhala3bRmjhQA54EUwlOS-1ZNzZkyypfMoH5BsZcDH9hxOevIagRjy4/s320/images.jpg" width="213" /></a>It may be hard to imagine, but there likely wouldn't be a Marvel cinematic universe without Blade simply because, before the release of the 1998 Wesley Snipes-starring New Line original, comic book movies simply weren't considered financially viable by studios. As laughable as it now sounds with a comic-book movie in cinemas poised to take in excess of $2bn. Only Batman and Superman had successful film franchises at the time and both were on the wane, to say the least. A Tim Burton-helmed, Nick Cage-starring Superman reboot had failed to get off the ground and 1997's 'Batman and Robin' all but killing that property. No one really wanted to touch superheroes.<br /><br />Blade, a film starring a Marvel character barely heard of since the 1970's, changed that. Even though its financial success didn't set the world on fire, it showed that superhero movies were worth the risk. Even more obscure characters could be profitable. This spurred Fox on to develop their first 'X-Men' movie released in 2000 and Columbia to start work on a Spider-man project which had struggled to get off the ground for decades.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3eYyI3BFCkI7JUU9vFK7YLc-8tK82cb_fxbDaP6WfLJwJ_UkSPSVot5YSFKoGo22H8rvkRDZ6az17ptvWBav01t3OfejVjqA-YzmaxTHjMtM1Lj2Sju925wIjkbWdI1bGS7pXi6T3EoQ/s1600/images+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="300" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3eYyI3BFCkI7JUU9vFK7YLc-8tK82cb_fxbDaP6WfLJwJ_UkSPSVot5YSFKoGo22H8rvkRDZ6az17ptvWBav01t3OfejVjqA-YzmaxTHjMtM1Lj2Sju925wIjkbWdI1bGS7pXi6T3EoQ/s640/images+%25281%2529.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /><br />
After Blade, the horror/superhero mantle was seized by a non-Marvel property, Hellboy, played by Ron Pearlman and helmed by Guilmero del Torro, who also directed the Blade sequel. The franchise which spawned two films and enjoyed moderate success is set to be relaunched this year with a strong horror angle.<br />
<h3>
At this point, isn't it worth a try?</h3>
<div>
Look, I love Marvel films and superhero films in general, and I want to see the studio to produce them for a long time, but the key to prolonged success is variety. One formula isn't going to sustain Marvel for another ten years, no matter what properties they re-acquire. There's only so many times we can see the original Iron-Man rehashed in a slightly different context as we arguably did with 'Doctor Strange' (2016). As a final example of why this is a good idea, consider 'Deadpool' (2016) and 'Logan' (2017). Whilst I haven't really been a fan of Fox's Marvel-related output, these movies reflected genuine attempts to do something different with the Superhero genre. They proved that audiences would accept other genres infiltrating and influencing their superhero films. One could argue that neither film went quite far enough in trend breaking with their respective third acts slipping into familiar tropes like 'hero fights a darker version of themselves' which has plagued the genre since 'Iron-Man'. The genuinely affecting 'Logan' especially plays more like a western in theme than a superhero film and it's much better for it.<br /><br />Blade shows us, they'll accept a horror blend too.<br /><br />Marvel, bring on the Monsters! </div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-64811575841421357482018-05-17T11:01:00.000+01:002018-05-17T16:37:22.059+01:00A look back at "I Was Raped By A Demon": Ed and Lorraine Warren on the Sally Jesse Raphael Show (1992)<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I'm pretty certain that almost everyone reading this post is familiar with the "Haunting In Connecticut" case investigated by Ed and Lorraine Warren back in the early 1990s. The incident was documented in the 1992 book "In A Dark Place" (left) by horror author Ray Garton, who has spent his time since the novel's publication declaring that it was a complete fabrication. Garton tells of Ed demanding that he make the book as scary as possible, even if it meant completely inventing elements of supposed haunting. Garton states:</span><i><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">“Elements of Carmen Snedeker’s story clashed with elements of Al Snedeker’s story, and it seemed everyone was having a problem keeping their stories straight. Frankly, I didn’t notice until I had nearly finished all my interviews and began going over my notes, then I started having trouble matching up the details. Ed told me '</span></i></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>make it up and make it scary'”</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">I highly recommend listening to<a href="http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/11/08/10/" target="_blank"> </a></span><a href="http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/11/08/10/" target="_blank">G<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">arton's interview with MonsterTalk here, it's a doozy. </span></a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">You're also very likely to be familiar with the 2009 film based on the case. You may even be acquainted with the 2002 documentary produced by the Discovery Channel, also named A Haunting In Connecticut. But what you may be less familiar with is Carmen and Al Snedeker's appearance with Ed and Lorraine Warren on 1990s daytime television show Sally Jesse Raphael. The show truly has to be seen to be believed. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">The title alone "I Was Raped By A Demon" should tell you the level of discussion on display here. A major part of the show's focus was the idea that both Carmen and Al were sexually abused, and even sodomised by demons. Ironically, Garton tells us in the above-linked interview, that Carmen hated that feature of his novel and petitioned hard for its removal. Yet here she is the same year, with her husband happily climbing on to a bed to demonstrate and recount in some detail how she was abused. Money talks and bullshit walks I guess.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-ZU8L9m-5CbTvLAW3u5qokIXjcUcqL0nR8ctQ1XM8H0vE6AfVS11uYaO1rZS1PhYGagLeksCcglVcqmw4WAErIq3dfYpX558z6XWH1Yon7CZkm9NuNh2IpBhjew7vk7OKddFPN27Y-gM/s1600/sned1.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-ZU8L9m-5CbTvLAW3u5qokIXjcUcqL0nR8ctQ1XM8H0vE6AfVS11uYaO1rZS1PhYGagLeksCcglVcqmw4WAErIq3dfYpX558z6XWH1Yon7CZkm9NuNh2IpBhjew7vk7OKddFPN27Y-gM/s640/sned1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jIvKQTUtNc5y032ZkXTvyg8XolrFJOanSTobHZgqyiwp_UNixdpQpzJifzOXsTjzBe3AXOfbJqoWV2SpUfom4F6fYjhQTLBTSeq9L8mnHLx2MPccfe_J47rgB2e08MAfSvxuOZB9cj0/s1600/sned2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jIvKQTUtNc5y032ZkXTvyg8XolrFJOanSTobHZgqyiwp_UNixdpQpzJifzOXsTjzBe3AXOfbJqoWV2SpUfom4F6fYjhQTLBTSeq9L8mnHLx2MPccfe_J47rgB2e08MAfSvxuOZB9cj0/s1600/sned2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jIvKQTUtNc5y032ZkXTvyg8XolrFJOanSTobHZgqyiwp_UNixdpQpzJifzOXsTjzBe3AXOfbJqoWV2SpUfom4F6fYjhQTLBTSeq9L8mnHLx2MPccfe_J47rgB2e08MAfSvxuOZB9cj0/s1600/sned2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jIvKQTUtNc5y032ZkXTvyg8XolrFJOanSTobHZgqyiwp_UNixdpQpzJifzOXsTjzBe3AXOfbJqoWV2SpUfom4F6fYjhQTLBTSeq9L8mnHLx2MPccfe_J47rgB2e08MAfSvxuOZB9cj0/s1600/sned2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jIvKQTUtNc5y032ZkXTvyg8XolrFJOanSTobHZgqyiwp_UNixdpQpzJifzOXsTjzBe3AXOfbJqoWV2SpUfom4F6fYjhQTLBTSeq9L8mnHLx2MPccfe_J47rgB2e08MAfSvxuOZB9cj0/s1600/sned2.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8jIvKQTUtNc5y032ZkXTvyg8XolrFJOanSTobHZgqyiwp_UNixdpQpzJifzOXsTjzBe3AXOfbJqoWV2SpUfom4F6fYjhQTLBTSeq9L8mnHLx2MPccfe_J47rgB2e08MAfSvxuOZB9cj0/s320/sned2.png" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />The show begins with Sally giving a rundown of Carmen and Al's story (or Garton's depending on your position I guess) with stock doom-laden music and creepy images. If this gives you the impression that Carmen and Al's account will be accepted wholesale, you're mistaken, The Audience is loaded with local residents who strongly dispute the Snedeker's tale and boy are they going to tell them so! Remember, this is a 90s daytime talk show on US network TV, two factors dominate these shows. Sex and conflict.<br /><br />In addition to Carmen and Al, the family is represented by son Michael and niece Kelly who lived with them at the time. Kelly, in particular, looks less than thrilled to be present, and there's very good reason for this. I'd actually say she is collateral damage in this whole tale. Carmen's son Stephen, the main focus of both the book and the film, who was said to be suffering from Hodgkins Lymphoma at the time of the haunting. This is hardly a surprise, firstly "Stephen" is actually Phillip, there is no Stephen Snedeker. Also, whilst researching his book Garton says he was only allowed to speak to Phillip once on the telephone. During the conversation, Phillip revealed he was the first in the house to see ghosts and that these sightings ceased when he began treatment for schizophrenia. Garton claims that the phone was quickly snatched from Phillip by Carmen who immediately ended the call. He was not part of any publicity for the book, film and documentary after this. To my knowledge, to the day of his death in 2012, Phillip had never talked publically about what occurred at that time. Unfortunately, there's a more serious reason for this and his exclusion from the show than his simple failure to toe the line with regards to the haunting.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAFN5fUMdV2wiOaJcPptRgADHKTrXC36Jca_ZZ4a3nrnMLGshhoK0GksEv0sSiM4X65F_erextHLQUS8MzSIwKMUCfE84X61f9uWGa3ObBFQ1w0aTG4elH6B62RyeXYP_qCqFa6CBIP00/s1600/sned3.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAFN5fUMdV2wiOaJcPptRgADHKTrXC36Jca_ZZ4a3nrnMLGshhoK0GksEv0sSiM4X65F_erextHLQUS8MzSIwKMUCfE84X61f9uWGa3ObBFQ1w0aTG4elH6B62RyeXYP_qCqFa6CBIP00/s320/sned3.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-CqzUQlNOUJvsIDGnfNsbHKUqafYtc6rik51SAeMTxxavd4AMEZB5Wf_AFvR9R154yAeClJilhkFRajmVZYFLZv2EhHrpeH6_1NAlnMb7KZ3h2lELKwkpPys13KcKM55XN3JSrPOMKzc/s1600/phlsn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-CqzUQlNOUJvsIDGnfNsbHKUqafYtc6rik51SAeMTxxavd4AMEZB5Wf_AFvR9R154yAeClJilhkFRajmVZYFLZv2EhHrpeH6_1NAlnMb7KZ3h2lELKwkpPys13KcKM55XN3JSrPOMKzc/s1600/phlsn.jpg" style="cursor: move;" /></a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">During the show, Kelly is asked to recount her experiences being sexually abused in the house. Unlike Carmen's claims of being sodomised as she washed dishes and ran down the road, which are delivered rather sterilely, Kelly is clearly uncomfortable and upset as Carmen talks about cold hands under her bedclothes and pulling at her bra, on Kelly's behalf. The reason for this may well be because Kelly WAS sexually abused in the Snedeker household.<br /><br />Unlike with the demonic assaults that Carman and Al claim to have suffered, there's corroborative evidence for Kelly's ordeal. This abuse wasn't perpetrated by a ghost or any demon though. Phillip (left), the Snedeker's eldest son, was removed from the Snedeker home at some point during the "haunting" by the police. He was accused of sexually abusing Carmen and Al's two nieces, including Kelly, and confessed to the abuse and also attempting to rape his 12-year-old cousin. He was placed in juvenile detention where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. When questioned about her son leaving the house, Carmen claims he was hospitalised, she also claims she had him diagnosed by a psychiatrist. This is patently untrue. </span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Knowledge of all this makes Carmen's urging that Kelly "tell her story" on the show, and her then stopping Kelly to tell her version of events for her, even more disgusting. Carmen seems nervous when other members of the family talk, and this is most notable when Kelly speaks. In my opinion, she's concerned that Kelly may slip about Phillip's role in her abuse.<br /><br />I wonder if Carmen actually managed to persuade this young woman that it wasn't her son that abused her, but the black mass that she describes. During the show, and a subsequent investigation by Joe Nickell (more on him in a moment), further details of Phillip's activities emerged, including drug use and criminal behaviour including breaking into neighbour's homes.<br /><br />Carmen's demeanour during the whole interview is off somewhat, she seems angry and defensive from the offset and as a sceptical audience member points out, both her's and Al's stories seems highly rehearsed, for example, Carmen frequently refers to her son Phillip as "the eldest boy" careful not to name him. She's also very quick to interrupt other family member's accounts to elaborate or correct them. Throughout the interview, she clutches rosary beads. She handles the audience questions with abject and outright hostility. When questioned if she sought medical attention after being raped by a demon, Carmen snaps "No. Why would we?" Why indeed? Carmen also contradicts herself at several points, For example, she insists she sent Phillip to a psychiatrist because she didn't believe his story, yet she too claims to have not only seen spirits by this stage but to have raped by them!</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOQPIK1oTE9wRUs3y0jGWvVmGbpshWJ8s3IqmVE0gEIit_EDFnJIF6M6db9qGQFB3IzO_Hy_qjG30HC1vQN8wXgI9RL19-7vVJ83eNOQC-_MrhOo7WaAmOWkTqympKzJVejMduRzuUCFc/s1600/sned4.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOQPIK1oTE9wRUs3y0jGWvVmGbpshWJ8s3IqmVE0gEIit_EDFnJIF6M6db9qGQFB3IzO_Hy_qjG30HC1vQN8wXgI9RL19-7vVJ83eNOQC-_MrhOo7WaAmOWkTqympKzJVejMduRzuUCFc/s1600/sned4.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOQPIK1oTE9wRUs3y0jGWvVmGbpshWJ8s3IqmVE0gEIit_EDFnJIF6M6db9qGQFB3IzO_Hy_qjG30HC1vQN8wXgI9RL19-7vVJ83eNOQC-_MrhOo7WaAmOWkTqympKzJVejMduRzuUCFc/s1600/sned4.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOQPIK1oTE9wRUs3y0jGWvVmGbpshWJ8s3IqmVE0gEIit_EDFnJIF6M6db9qGQFB3IzO_Hy_qjG30HC1vQN8wXgI9RL19-7vVJ83eNOQC-_MrhOo7WaAmOWkTqympKzJVejMduRzuUCFc/s1600/sned4.png" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOQPIK1oTE9wRUs3y0jGWvVmGbpshWJ8s3IqmVE0gEIit_EDFnJIF6M6db9qGQFB3IzO_Hy_qjG30HC1vQN8wXgI9RL19-7vVJ83eNOQC-_MrhOo7WaAmOWkTqympKzJVejMduRzuUCFc/s320/sned4.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<br />
<div style="font-family: arial; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Legitimate concerns with the Snedeker account are raised by residents of the area, including the present residents of their home. Carmen laughably pounces on the current residents, insisting they too had an exorcism, which they deny. She then has them confirm that there are hardwood floors in the building, which they do as if this somehow confirms the Snedeker's story. Carmen tells the couple to dig into the walls 12" to discover "exorcism metals" and "other stuff" which will prove their story is true. The most common complaints brought to the Snedeker's are that stories of problems with the home, including the "demonic presence" and claims they were unaware of the home's history as a funeral parlour, only arose when the Snedeker's fell behind with their rent. Also, the quite ridiculous idea that despite being frequently raped and sodomised by demons, Carmen and Al remained in the house for almost two full years!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />One neighbour, rather brilliantly, has kept a log connecting the events that the Snedekers reported to the papers and local events occurring in the neighbourhood.</span><br />
<div style="font-family: arial; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb8QyHPzQQ-gEb8w8AfojTdW3uhiJp9ktm_xWgDf8V2hthWYIuLDvnobTwRn8SJxsXIIb1QugCWxAB8qtOmabEvuoJHeFFEl2AHyssBKbQINcHbSzikGF9tI0_huVUSX6J-lsCQbNi8Z0/s1600/sned5.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb8QyHPzQQ-gEb8w8AfojTdW3uhiJp9ktm_xWgDf8V2hthWYIuLDvnobTwRn8SJxsXIIb1QugCWxAB8qtOmabEvuoJHeFFEl2AHyssBKbQINcHbSzikGF9tI0_huVUSX6J-lsCQbNi8Z0/s640/sned5.png" width="640" /></a><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="font-family: arial; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBX5AZMM870-aDZ_CRc0AQTY1YXeCcdfgfNNPwvoduZs79jl4GoJUdszLEuyW2FM8EJxPOE9fvBYmuNFP-MD12bByjIDTK17yqujkdwZHxem16x4uZf7FXAvzojUD1vw0vSjOSpqEkJGo/s1600/sned6.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="227" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBX5AZMM870-aDZ_CRc0AQTY1YXeCcdfgfNNPwvoduZs79jl4GoJUdszLEuyW2FM8EJxPOE9fvBYmuNFP-MD12bByjIDTK17yqujkdwZHxem16x4uZf7FXAvzojUD1vw0vSjOSpqEkJGo/s320/sned6.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's now time for Ed and Lorraine Warren to appear. This is when Ed makes one of the most disgusting claims I've ever heard made concerning the paranormal, the reason for this haunting was that bodies had been subjected to necrophilia whilst the house was a funeral home. The funeral director who had operated in the home was a well-known and much-respected member of the local community. Many of the local resident's loved ones had passed through that home at one time. Ed cared nothing for this or the potential upset and harm that could've arisen from this completely false and disgusting allegation. When people ask me why I loathe Hollywood's portrayal of Ed and Lorraine so much, I frequently point to this show. Ed is an absolute bully of a man, completely without class. There's none of the quick wit or charm displayed in Patrick Wilson portrayal of him on display here. He shouts down critics of the Snedeker's story, even going as far as accusing them of being "paid off" be the owner of the house, and claiming money and fame as their motivation for attending the show. One sharp young lad responds to this by asking Ed if he is there in the studio for free, which fails to silence him for even a moment, he continues to bellow. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">You often judge people by your own standards, is it any wonder Ed prioritises money as a motive before any kind of reverence to the truth?<br /><br />Ed claims that a priest conducted an exorcism at the home, as if that is any real validation of the events have actually occurred, but refuses to name him other than calling him "Father A". When a neighbour asks him to provide more information he angrily shouts "Why should I? Father A is the name I give you." as he angrily gestures at the young man in question. Perhaps so your account can be somewhat corroborated Ed?<br /><br /> Ed's response to almost all this criticism is "were you in the house?" He laughingly attempts to invalidate the questions and opinions of anyone who wasn't in the house, and therefore isn't complicit in the hoax!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1RZBLosqdWV4zErXNVy-K3XoJvidhlbP7tNAy81zEthhKIgFexPzwgjqNzHNxUuz8gavFpSglIpxn2VwMDTEmiHwANzdLmESA7KqVcCjbhEXVERCu9OzbGCPycVoPUp-hTTzhIrz7Xvc/s1600/sned7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="443" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1RZBLosqdWV4zErXNVy-K3XoJvidhlbP7tNAy81zEthhKIgFexPzwgjqNzHNxUuz8gavFpSglIpxn2VwMDTEmiHwANzdLmESA7KqVcCjbhEXVERCu9OzbGCPycVoPUp-hTTzhIrz7Xvc/s640/sned7.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF72hW6Oynn6Q0oHdpzp_FTT8FkDaA4vDPYSi-R9nmLZa0k27CN5mOAu5ggXBhYl_2lvti69A_0NcWltKbn1zRZTjFUCHZkHp5vheF7zS4TqI1cOHvhfaagt6fUs80AR0rbx5mphTv6ag/s1600/sned8.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF72hW6Oynn6Q0oHdpzp_FTT8FkDaA4vDPYSi-R9nmLZa0k27CN5mOAu5ggXBhYl_2lvti69A_0NcWltKbn1zRZTjFUCHZkHp5vheF7zS4TqI1cOHvhfaagt6fUs80AR0rbx5mphTv6ag/s1600/sned8.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF72hW6Oynn6Q0oHdpzp_FTT8FkDaA4vDPYSi-R9nmLZa0k27CN5mOAu5ggXBhYl_2lvti69A_0NcWltKbn1zRZTjFUCHZkHp5vheF7zS4TqI1cOHvhfaagt6fUs80AR0rbx5mphTv6ag/s1600/sned8.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF72hW6Oynn6Q0oHdpzp_FTT8FkDaA4vDPYSi-R9nmLZa0k27CN5mOAu5ggXBhYl_2lvti69A_0NcWltKbn1zRZTjFUCHZkHp5vheF7zS4TqI1cOHvhfaagt6fUs80AR0rbx5mphTv6ag/s1600/sned8.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF72hW6Oynn6Q0oHdpzp_FTT8FkDaA4vDPYSi-R9nmLZa0k27CN5mOAu5ggXBhYl_2lvti69A_0NcWltKbn1zRZTjFUCHZkHp5vheF7zS4TqI1cOHvhfaagt6fUs80AR0rbx5mphTv6ag/s1600/sned8.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF72hW6Oynn6Q0oHdpzp_FTT8FkDaA4vDPYSi-R9nmLZa0k27CN5mOAu5ggXBhYl_2lvti69A_0NcWltKbn1zRZTjFUCHZkHp5vheF7zS4TqI1cOHvhfaagt6fUs80AR0rbx5mphTv6ag/s1600/sned8.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgF72hW6Oynn6Q0oHdpzp_FTT8FkDaA4vDPYSi-R9nmLZa0k27CN5mOAu5ggXBhYl_2lvti69A_0NcWltKbn1zRZTjFUCHZkHp5vheF7zS4TqI1cOHvhfaagt6fUs80AR0rbx5mphTv6ag/s320/sned8.png" width="320" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Ed also makes the claim at this point that they have "the proof" of the occurrences in the home. That's a question which Ray Garton also asked Ed during his research for "In A Dark Place". Ed told Garton that there were videotapes of "evidence", but they had rather inconveniently been destroyed. Presumably, why we see not a jot of evidence on the Sally show. </span><br />
<div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Don't worry though, Ed has brought along an eye-witness to the occurrences in the house. Unfortunately, he fails to mention that this "eye-witness" whom he refers to as "that gentleman" is well-known to him, it's his apprentice and nephew, John Zaffis.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Zaffis has since made a killing, and career, on the Connecticut case. He has authored a book with Chip Coffey regarding the story and has worked with Carmen Snedeker, now Reed, in retelling her experiences in book form. Zaffis is often, also credited with being the lead investigator on the case, but it's clear from his appearance here that he has no real sway in the case. Ed refers to him only to offer back up and corroboration and he is never made a part of the main dialogue.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">An audience member comes to the Snedeker's aid asking why they would fabricate this story when there are other ways of making money, a ridiculous argument, imagine that being deployed as a defence in a bank robbery case: "Your honour, why would my client rob a bank. There are other ways of making money!" The truth is, the Snedekers were following the advice of Ed Warren, who admits moments earlier he urged them to write a book. Ed and Lorraine were always envious of the success enjoyed by George Lutz and the Amytiville case, they'd attempted to cash in on that case and when that failed, had attempted to emulate it repeatedly. This was their latest and most successful effort. I believe the Snedeker's started this nonsense as an attempt to blackmail their landlord into dropping the arrears in rent they owed. When they involved the Warrens, the blue touch paper was lit. Secondly, Carmen had tried to make money other ways, as the book was being written she was, according to Ray Garton, running an illegal interstate lottery scam, which she was, understandably, keen he not mention in the text.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQJkj6ivWQg8DAji2s4BmmS0_hijglAs7JhTwgnDeLOjZ_m7JXjI3KnWhARHPDYB02OwpXblwzsp_t2y4FFKQrvNm1RbEdtqEo2CDBqzWSAf3YiaPZHZ7w3tsG8cPgPJg10BOjQD7bceI/s1600/sned10.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQJkj6ivWQg8DAji2s4BmmS0_hijglAs7JhTwgnDeLOjZ_m7JXjI3KnWhARHPDYB02OwpXblwzsp_t2y4FFKQrvNm1RbEdtqEo2CDBqzWSAf3YiaPZHZ7w3tsG8cPgPJg10BOjQD7bceI/s320/sned10.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now we come to the final five minutes of the show, or as I like to call this point: <b>And now a word from our skeptic.</b> TV shows rarely give skeptical voices much air time, and Joe Nickell's contribution here is also burdened by the fact that Ed Warren constantly shouts over him. Ed clearly does not want Nickell to be heard, and even urging from the show's host cannot curtail his angry shouting. The exchange is actually immortalised in the Conjuring 2, with Nickell (left) replaced with a pudgy balding "scientist". Of course, Ed comes off the better in that fictional exchange, but Nickell takes him to the cleaners in the real version, correctly decrying Warrens as a loud-mouth. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVr6oPienka8j-haS_n_GEVXmBaP6k4CUKPcemAoIDUvACw6kFAmAhOr75-PzfZQmY7xPehE6RQ8V4OgsbsxaSbRkX5JV92Jmjx0BMvCainVcbFDxn12CBbTsbWio_P4vVj-Z6GR4xqbo/s1600/sned11.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVr6oPienka8j-haS_n_GEVXmBaP6k4CUKPcemAoIDUvACw6kFAmAhOr75-PzfZQmY7xPehE6RQ8V4OgsbsxaSbRkX5JV92Jmjx0BMvCainVcbFDxn12CBbTsbWio_P4vVj-Z6GR4xqbo/s320/sned11.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br />Nickell also has to deal with the hectoring of Carmen Snedeker, who seems to believe that denouncing Nickell as an atheist is a blow to his credibility. "This man doesn't even believe in God. What would he know?" she cries, somehow winning the argument that exists in her own head.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;">Whilst being hectored, Nickell makes excellent points about the case, highlighting it's inconsistencies and it's similarities to the Amityville Horror amongst other cases and it's scheduling for release around Halloween. Of course, one thing Joe misses possibly due to time constraints or even the fact that this wasn't common knowledge at the time, that killer blow to the credibility of this tale is the fact that the book's author is absent from this promotional appearance, for reasons we are now all too aware.<br /><br />I see this 48 minutes of schlock television as somewhat important in view of the current reference in which the Warrens are held. Ed comes off as a brutish bully, unable to express any ideas without aggression, In fact, he frequently gestures right in Lorraine's face as she sits and blankly stares ahead. Lorraine simply doesn't speak. She actually seems apart from the debate raging around her, so much so that I have to wonder if she was medicated at the time of the show. The show also leaves little doubt as to how we should view the Snedeker's claims. Local residents simply demolish their story. Many elements of the show were seized upon by Nickell in a <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/show/demons_in_connecticut" target="_blank">subsequent investigation </a>into the case which is essential reading for skeptics and believers alike.</span></div>
</div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-8722378004134748652018-04-05T20:50:00.000+01:002018-04-05T20:50:41.811+01:00Reviewing 'Haunted Tours. With Stephen Erikintalo.' <b>If you cast your minds back to May 2017, you may remember I talked about a prospective ghost-hunting television show called 'Haunted Tours' (1) that was to feature one Stephen Erikintalo. Erikintalo distinguished himself from other paranormal investigators with 'extreme' antics such as lying on disused train tracks with </b><b class="">a Ouija</b><b> board on his stomach. Whilst he and the producers of the show, the Jalbert brothers (2), enthused about how revolutionary this ghost hunting show/ Jackass hybrid would be, with Erikintalo even branding other investigators "pussies" on his F</b><b class="">acebook</b><b> page, I worried what effect reckless disregard for safety and bullshit machismo would have on the paranormal community at large. We're talking about a community here that is built on copying TV shows and rampant 'one-upmanship'. I don't want to see someone hurt replicating the actions of Stephen Erikintalo, especially the utterly stupid act of lying down on active railway tracks.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhooHIVL3XaRV3WlLhkAjE976pqsUzTpEpJEMF9KwtiDWm0pwyOXk8Ouzv6o2vNl6L6K2xdGZbiQGP38wUEkmqyfUNpPwGCD3Dpl_IWnXxZ_uWQFhlbMIwfpppns9LnUHMFFQcOM38xwr0/s1600/ht15.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="488" data-original-width="636" height="490" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhooHIVL3XaRV3WlLhkAjE976pqsUzTpEpJEMF9KwtiDWm0pwyOXk8Ouzv6o2vNl6L6K2xdGZbiQGP38wUEkmqyfUNpPwGCD3Dpl_IWnXxZ_uWQFhlbMIwfpppns9LnUHMFFQcOM38xwr0/s640/ht15.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I also cast some doubt that the show would appear on Amazon Prime, Hulu and Netflix in October of that year as Erikintalo and the Jalberts claimed. Well, I was wrong. Kind of. The show has been released to the public, albeit only on Amazon Prime and much later than October 2017, with its European release on the service occurring in March 2018.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
I was informed of this fact by one of the producers, Brian Jalbert. The Jalberts seem extremely happy with the show's performance thus far, posting figures of watch times on Amazon to Facebook.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTL7Mwuw5VCsU_qBWilMGZ-OswF75FEg8OQjy7cM3kPHI5UgGmSeCjH1tGTKcOUu9cE9Z7mlhOz2v1ubPi6QbME8ZIeMjzJ_bUwWswtjTMbUrx1M7V2tcxk8Zz5jlOYAINxgTKlLx3muU/s1600/29792621_1932351100172763_9004119992901092808_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="720" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTL7Mwuw5VCsU_qBWilMGZ-OswF75FEg8OQjy7cM3kPHI5UgGmSeCjH1tGTKcOUu9cE9Z7mlhOz2v1ubPi6QbME8ZIeMjzJ_bUwWswtjTMbUrx1M7V2tcxk8Zz5jlOYAINxgTKlLx3muU/s640/29792621_1932351100172763_9004119992901092808_n.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKGi35eWxqUHB9aZPQmZ83UhJ7_ndi8KYN0CcpVBLkDd-rHOEroWVyktqY_Vl7FT4SbcGRAEsBYd9r53s_vMMuIcesATeQVD2Dk2FQSUQcznJTCKmjTpX3uy5EK948sdVFIatsfloGgT4/s1600/ht14.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="249" data-original-width="349" height="456" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKGi35eWxqUHB9aZPQmZ83UhJ7_ndi8KYN0CcpVBLkDd-rHOEroWVyktqY_Vl7FT4SbcGRAEsBYd9r53s_vMMuIcesATeQVD2Dk2FQSUQcznJTCKmjTpX3uy5EK948sdVFIatsfloGgT4/s640/ht14.png" width="640" /></a></div>
Unfortunately, Brian seems to have cropped the y-axis off his graph and the values column on his table. This means we have absolutely no idea in 2,038,485 are watch minutes (as Jalbert says) or watched seconds. He also claims the table states a total of "2,038,485,00 million watch minutes"! <br /><br />Just a slight exaggeration there boys!<br />
<br />
As Brian was kind enough to reach out to me, I decided it would only be fair to reciprocate by watching a couple of episodes and giving you all my thoughts on the show. I took a look at three episodes of the five-episode first series, episode 1: Mr Nasty, episode 2: I killed them and episode 4: Gunsmoke.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Format: Tried, Tested, Tired. </h3>
Each episode of the show begins with a warning to the audience as is standard with paranormal shows of this kind. Unlike other shows, the warning makes no mention of the fact that the show is for 'entertainment purposes only' but rather focuses on the 'extreme' nature of the show. Something tells me earlier on I'm going to get very tired of the word 'extreme' very quickly.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj41wjVdx9HhFGclr0cJ4KhxUIc3E1Zz3GHlqja7B6GbLZFS6jgLCqEjRmsuKD9Wi9p1u5n0bsmvQRutr1bQDqWbsUlnH7ypR8WpREFZOqmlfjGl8mvOFhPjD7wbaCdFCSQH2rClO7txOI/s1600/ht1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="458" data-original-width="993" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj41wjVdx9HhFGclr0cJ4KhxUIc3E1Zz3GHlqja7B6GbLZFS6jgLCqEjRmsuKD9Wi9p1u5n0bsmvQRutr1bQDqWbsUlnH7ypR8WpREFZOqmlfjGl8mvOFhPjD7wbaCdFCSQH2rClO7txOI/s640/ht1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
There's a fantastic moment in the first episode when an on-screen graphic and voice-over asks the audience "Do you believe in ghost" Clearly they spell check the later episodes as the graphic is corrected but the voice-over remains "ghost" rather than "ghosts".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimGHjrj2CcmmYk1xRFaJtW5oUZUL_TS8dBen-lh8ptgQkcP7o6x4QfurkKTTvgmqKUnmv6g77Gf5XH8wLo1SXJ0carPNWlyGj-1MnFrUNzKX6wxljrhD57kLKzYZ2Ev3xdE1IkD53Yc2s/s1600/ht2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="435" data-original-width="995" height="278" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimGHjrj2CcmmYk1xRFaJtW5oUZUL_TS8dBen-lh8ptgQkcP7o6x4QfurkKTTvgmqKUnmv6g77Gf5XH8wLo1SXJ0carPNWlyGj-1MnFrUNzKX6wxljrhD57kLKzYZ2Ev3xdE1IkD53Yc2s/s640/ht2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The episodes follow the standard established in US ghost hunting shows. The team arrives at the location, receive a daylight tour by someone familiar with it who also relays some suitably spooky stories and highlights points where activity is alleged to have taken place which will be revisited later during the investigation.<br />
<br />
Another commonality the show shares with others in its genre is the over-bearing production style. Camera filters are used frequently during the course of the episode to add a sepia tone to the screen. In addition to that camera shakes and static is added, as well as camera status bars for some reason. It's frustrating and definitely indicates that the show favours style over substance. This sepia overlay with the grainy 'film-like' effect is so pointless, it's meant to invoke an old-fashioned, antique feel, but immediately takes you out of the show when you consider that Go-Pros are a fairly recent invention.<br />
<br />
Likewise, the soundtrack of stock 'creepy' music is overbearing and obnoxious. At one point in episode 1, Victoria and the crew claim to have heard a noise from above in the property. We don't hear it though, as at the moment it supposedly occurs there's a loud music cue. These things are meant to invoke a mood, it's the adequate establishing of this mood that has led to the success of paranormal programming and certain horror franchises. But when it's done clumsily, it just takes you out of the programme.<br />
<br />
We are introduced to the team. Our 'extreme' investigator Stephen Erikintalo, our host and 'skeptic' Victoria Catherine and the Jalbert brothers, Brian and Jake. During the course of the episode, we also meet Nick, the camera-man, who presumably doesn't have an introduction despite being a key player in episode 4 especially.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Victoria Catherine: Skeptic?</h3>
The idea of Victoria's role as a 'skeptic' becomes quite ludicrous within the opening moments of 'Mr Nasty'. During the trip to the team's first location, the May-Stringer house in Florida, Victoria discusses her history with the paranormal.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyEowizYvkYpf1kNZAtXLTtJ82usoY_0MvVK27ujSR-shlWsODHhHgGeEKIoHTzDXMLINGXZGogj4llh6ofdt9zucldc_VYXEEo7DQ-vHtEL4bCcW0FDBcgxr52YBMUYtbaCDvnq1fCX8/s1600/ht3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="570" data-original-width="989" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyEowizYvkYpf1kNZAtXLTtJ82usoY_0MvVK27ujSR-shlWsODHhHgGeEKIoHTzDXMLINGXZGogj4llh6ofdt9zucldc_VYXEEo7DQ-vHtEL4bCcW0FDBcgxr52YBMUYtbaCDvnq1fCX8/s640/ht3.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
During this discussion, Victoria reveals that during her childhood she'd lived in a house built on an 'Indian burial-ground'. Yep. That chestnut. This is our skeptic remember. This kind of thing continues during the course of this episode and the subsequent episodes. She seems almost unsure of her role in the show at points and swerves from screaming to cooly assessing events at a later point. Almost as if the Jalberts are having to remind her "You're the skeptic..."<br />
<br />
What's interesting is Victoria also makes a couple of Freudian slips during the episodes I watched. One, in particular, is so revelatory that I can't believe the Jalberts left it in the show!<br />
<br />
During the investigation in episode 1 whilst in the May-Stringer attic, Victoria claims that she is experiencing a burning sensation in her arm. It's quite clear at this point that she is offering a performance and not a particularly convincing one. There are moments when she is quite visibly corpsing and suppressing laughter. And then she seems to stop panicking and says "...I think it's more realistic if I cuss...."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIAIhCBJxlSyrKVCKo0NNYcgrd2pm4IgndwMSP3tMbBZ6kTb8aesvBb6jh3bgA4U6US4NVHnIA0ZGq4XVzRPrNDI2xl0YnNwyy6u_9Hi36ipuvNSzlVXc0KvhtAcxH-Pb-1V5rc3-K6G8/s1600/ht4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="1114" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIAIhCBJxlSyrKVCKo0NNYcgrd2pm4IgndwMSP3tMbBZ6kTb8aesvBb6jh3bgA4U6US4NVHnIA0ZGq4XVzRPrNDI2xl0YnNwyy6u_9Hi36ipuvNSzlVXc0KvhtAcxH-Pb-1V5rc3-K6G8/s640/ht4.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
If this incidence was real and not purely for the cameras, why would Victoria care whether it seems "realistic" or not? It seems to me that Victoria is breaking character here and checking her performance against the Jalbert's expectations.<br />
<br />
The role of Victoria Catherine over the episodes seems not to be the skeptic at all, rather she seems to be the one most emotionally affected by the proceedings. It also becomes clear the Erikintalo wants to goad our host into an emotional response. During the episodes, Erikintalo frequently urges 'the spirits' to grab or harm Victoria in some way.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCXXTr98Q0PHmiLclvHnVfYiWUenmVsoFS79IFa0oS4_aJ1c7Cmtv2b7fpun0lereBamMrkX1nJNZ3uNaAEMKMD9F5hQOjVk3ZWcWS84HF7ueC3DsENjOvbLEig5zovaq1d98MiIIveBY/s1600/ht5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1040" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCXXTr98Q0PHmiLclvHnVfYiWUenmVsoFS79IFa0oS4_aJ1c7Cmtv2b7fpun0lereBamMrkX1nJNZ3uNaAEMKMD9F5hQOjVk3ZWcWS84HF7ueC3DsENjOvbLEig5zovaq1d98MiIIveBY/s640/ht5.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
During episode 4, Gunsmoke, filmed at the Cuban Club, Stephen encourages Nick and Victoria to role-play a violent incident in the location's history. During this Nick grabs Victoria's hair, yanks her head back and shouts in her face.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRt-loU0wokObIN4mPQrPcXCqUNMsEMKszEDvg5lVTbM47XInJCuZpx3vbSWKbrFi1DOnxBFn02q_62fuR4xbAlUC_5Y4xM13VNmOpU8aloS41ElKZ_1QgVeWb522hURu3HnERsqHJoWo/s1600/ht6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="488" data-original-width="650" height="478" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRt-loU0wokObIN4mPQrPcXCqUNMsEMKszEDvg5lVTbM47XInJCuZpx3vbSWKbrFi1DOnxBFn02q_62fuR4xbAlUC_5Y4xM13VNmOpU8aloS41ElKZ_1QgVeWb522hURu3HnERsqHJoWo/s640/ht6.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>It's not extreme.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>It's weird, uncomfortable, unnecessary, upsetting and exploitative...</b><br />
<br />
<h3>
Stephen Erikintalo: Extreme or extremely stupid? </h3>
As for the promised extreme content, episode 1 is most notable for how mundane it is. I was seriously bored by the time Erikintalo showed up at 19 minutes and was surprised when he does very little performing two EVP sessions and two-spirit box sessions which are completely uneventful.<br />
<br />
Episode 2 sees Erikintalo determined to make something happen. It seems the crew want to avoid the possibility of another wash-out. Victoria even predicts, in another veil-lifting moment, that Erikintalo will try to "Pull out some scary things."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfBrTDzl7t2UGXxRSa70eyoAa4nIYSJ4Zw_9dPkLcHJUU4VRod9bvZ6abUwDyDRtHFojrG_M4ce5qefAyb1kEmVcVg_pmsNAjkgqenFUupZkiFvLYDqLD7dCGe87_ZfzqcdBrkuW9a4wE/s1600/ht7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="541" data-original-width="828" height="418" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfBrTDzl7t2UGXxRSa70eyoAa4nIYSJ4Zw_9dPkLcHJUU4VRod9bvZ6abUwDyDRtHFojrG_M4ce5qefAyb1kEmVcVg_pmsNAjkgqenFUupZkiFvLYDqLD7dCGe87_ZfzqcdBrkuW9a4wE/s640/ht7.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This prediction seems on the money, as it's during the course of this 'investigation' that Erikintalo leaves the building to lie down on nearby train tracks. We're told these train tracks are active, and indeed we have already seen a train on them. This act is completely and utterly stupid and marks Erikintalo out as nothing more than an attention seeker as it achieves literally nothing of value. Frankly, he comes off as a complete prick. It seems that at least one crew member agrees. Nick the cameraman repeatedly tells Erikintalo to get up and seems quite angry and upset by the incident.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6JoTA8NUQaMJP6BsKL0Fzc9QBFe4sR8gC9n-yrE91YBFkzHf3CI2U22U9-oi55YZH-Np81vI7QvIhgy3dJ9zKzPgQP1YlO7JlnBGi8Xn3fyV0yMg9GZw1PgtRxriyBnD67cn3Mic_E5A/s1600/ht8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="771" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6JoTA8NUQaMJP6BsKL0Fzc9QBFe4sR8gC9n-yrE91YBFkzHf3CI2U22U9-oi55YZH-Np81vI7QvIhgy3dJ9zKzPgQP1YlO7JlnBGi8Xn3fyV0yMg9GZw1PgtRxriyBnD67cn3Mic_E5A/s640/ht8.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Erikintalo seems lacking in any kind of actual expertise. His explanation of how spirit boxes work is vague and incorrect for the most part. When he makes statements such as "mirrors trap parts of you as you turn away. The dead is trapped in the mirror" he just seems to be making his explanations up as he goes along. And he's not particularly good at improvising. It's garbled and hardly gives the impression of knowledge in anyway shape or form.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj63avSTqJTfihAS5Z2W9cFSZrN5BeQmGw7rrf22B9uVJY7ti8KSb8aEUum4-yUCrU-CZhENneKQKWZNc_aR7CQCljOQBVGuUIMhwPlG90PyityKtxHDIlFvzp4wYigme6IMiHK4IOcWdA/s1600/ht9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="554" data-original-width="1043" height="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj63avSTqJTfihAS5Z2W9cFSZrN5BeQmGw7rrf22B9uVJY7ti8KSb8aEUum4-yUCrU-CZhENneKQKWZNc_aR7CQCljOQBVGuUIMhwPlG90PyityKtxHDIlFvzp4wYigme6IMiHK4IOcWdA/s640/ht9.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsMnvsj9sw2Pr7LsB3ZLXLfYMsm_FdjHlAMoix6GnPYtMWldSQTl3qMr8Wisx4f0l2D-n-U1vLGdkDJYo61XQtUpWE-5ZAarYp2m7ZPqy0XiRv0YwEDcw7DOTULyXyqZTFv7wP-R6SxUo/s1600/ht10.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="894" height="402" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsMnvsj9sw2Pr7LsB3ZLXLfYMsm_FdjHlAMoix6GnPYtMWldSQTl3qMr8Wisx4f0l2D-n-U1vLGdkDJYo61XQtUpWE-5ZAarYp2m7ZPqy0XiRv0YwEDcw7DOTULyXyqZTFv7wP-R6SxUo/s640/ht10.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
All this reinforces the fact that I can find virtually no information about Erikintalo before the filming of Haunted Tours barring an unsuccessful Kickstarter project in 2015 (3) and a smattering of internet radio interviews.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinokYAQBB0v3qMGV-n4rpfnJemCgK9IP1wietE-SqxoC23Un6VrdGh5wEtEzYqQQZmxPEWecQwpf64dXukZpw9uCadeDhWhnMe6smIpBoD-pvjPTA1TkkfH4LM-fcq4hjvPcVPqwCJ6Bw/s1600/ht11.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="556" data-original-width="964" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinokYAQBB0v3qMGV-n4rpfnJemCgK9IP1wietE-SqxoC23Un6VrdGh5wEtEzYqQQZmxPEWecQwpf64dXukZpw9uCadeDhWhnMe6smIpBoD-pvjPTA1TkkfH4LM-fcq4hjvPcVPqwCJ6Bw/s640/ht11.png" width="640" /></a></div>
The only other trace I could find I could of Erikintalo was as a male model with the agency model mayhem (4).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiZdicEYlYC4JuOG0weIsgMKKxwQE9o60sq95DjF4PkWusz1p4WzqIdhO5wYEc9MkQ5Dlopm2XwShZ5V3vS2AgJWwRgtzGezqNKYVltcjMonerYcncNnT9g-UomzQIEy8s8OU3vLRN-qU/s1600/ht12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="435" data-original-width="1005" height="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiZdicEYlYC4JuOG0weIsgMKKxwQE9o60sq95DjF4PkWusz1p4WzqIdhO5wYEc9MkQ5Dlopm2XwShZ5V3vS2AgJWwRgtzGezqNKYVltcjMonerYcncNnT9g-UomzQIEy8s8OU3vLRN-qU/s640/ht12.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
All this is odd considering Erikintalo's claim to be the most "controversial investigator in the field". Surely if he were so controversial people would be talking about him?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwHgdFvssXAepCPIcut7TL_LKTgkRVuV9_26fohjb1sKczv23QB2bAbZHrKtJmBJVevEqGf60__DOYBSDSsPAIuahfU6Ra-g4IKh2EvfuY4jmAR9QdlCuVC3LN9lTkazWq6PfLp4Bqf64/s1600/ht13.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="487" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwHgdFvssXAepCPIcut7TL_LKTgkRVuV9_26fohjb1sKczv23QB2bAbZHrKtJmBJVevEqGf60__DOYBSDSsPAIuahfU6Ra-g4IKh2EvfuY4jmAR9QdlCuVC3LN9lTkazWq6PfLp4Bqf64/s640/ht13.png" width="622" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
The conclusion. </h3>
<div>
The greatest fault of Haunted Tours is that the promotional material for the show promised us that this would be something different and yet the show does nothing to distinguish itself from the pack. I didn't find it the least bit entertaining and I can't really see many people concluding differently.<br />
<br />
Both Catherine and the Jalberts come across as likeable. It's clear Victoria is not suited to the role of skeptic and seems to be uncomfortable and unsure what she should have been doing at times. I think cameraman Nick would have better suited the role.<br />
<br />
Erikintalo fails to live up to his 'extreme' label. When he performs his stunts they seem sophomoric and immature and he comes across as deeply unlikable. Most worryingly he doesn't seem to display any real expertise at all. Any equipment he brings is carried in his pockets. It's amateurish and gives the impression of someone who thinks attention-grabbing stunts will distract from this aura of vagueness and bluster. <br /><br />It fails to rescue the show from the mediocrity it shares with its peers.</div>
<br />
<h3>
References</h3>
<br />
(1) <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/ghost-hunting-just-got-extremely-stupid.html">http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/ghost-hunting-just-got-extremely-stupid.html</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="https://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/companies/jalbert-brothers-studio">https://www.thefilmcatalogue.com/companies/jalbert-brothers-studio</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/1765984700/created">https://www.kickstarter.com/profile/1765984700/created</a><br />
<br />
(4) <a href="https://www.modelmayhem.com/stephenerkintalo">https://www.modelmayhem.com/stephenerkintalo</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-68967157279708574012018-02-10T12:09:00.000+00:002018-02-10T12:54:59.120+00:00The 'JAMES H RANDI' Framework: Assessing Science Reporting.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>It's vital to acknowledge that most people do not get information about the sciences from peer-reviewed papers, instead relying on the media to disseminate information to them. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but most journalists are not qualified in the sciences, this includes actual science correspondents and content writers for science periodicals like New Scientist and Scientific American. Headlines are often vastly exaggerated or outright false. The articles in question may not reflect the findings of the paper or study they concern because the journalist failed to understand what they were reading, they took the information in their article from a secondary source that was incorrect or they've blatantly misrepresented the findings of the research to fit some other narrative or belief. Of course, there's another possible reason for the article being wrong, it may accurately represent the study it reports, but that study may itself be deeply flawed. So it's vital to review how to assess a news article that relates scientific findings.</b><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_4bOeUGSRLNDP_RJ-WTgrXNDCN_kt636J4mBeierM3iVAycIQtklozrJk7oRV-LVDU-n97ce69btdhCfpFQGRqJ_z3wjA4-mukayQVzxvwocaGNGdnjPMuN83RiaJjrGJQKVU0-0y1wk/s1600/science+news.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_4bOeUGSRLNDP_RJ-WTgrXNDCN_kt636J4mBeierM3iVAycIQtklozrJk7oRV-LVDU-n97ce69btdhCfpFQGRqJ_z3wjA4-mukayQVzxvwocaGNGdnjPMuN83RiaJjrGJQKVU0-0y1wk/s640/science+news.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/30/editorial-narratives-in-science-journalism/n</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
In what follows I'm going to draw heavily on the work of Kevin McConway and David Spiegelhalter (1), two statisticians, who after getting tired of hearing bogus medical claims on the morning radio, developed a framework to assess the reporting of medical studies in the press. At points, I'm going to generalise to make the points apply beyond the medical sciences. My adapted framework contains eleven questions divided into two categories, <i>study quality and the standard of reporting.</i><i><br /></i><br />
<h3>
Scoring your article</h3>
All the questions in the framework can all be answered 'yes' or 'no' but you'll notice that they are sometimes worded in a quite ungainly fashion. This is because one point is awarded for a 'yes' and zero points are being awarded for a 'no'. Thus the higher an article's score the less trustworthy it is. An article with a score of seven or above should be considered deeply flawed, an article with 10 or more, utter bunkum.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2>
Quality of study.</h2>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
<b>1. Just Observational? </b></h3>
</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Have the researchers made any attempt to control for other variables or have they simply observed a process without interference? Whilst a lack of experimenter tampering may sound like a good thing, failing to apply proper controls make it extremely difficult to link a cause to an effect. Imagine testing a medical intervention but failing to control for other treatments. How can we tell which medical intervention caused an observed improvement?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>2. Another Single study? </b></h3>
<b><br /></b> What journalists often fail to realise is that scientific consensus cannot be built upon the outcome of one study. We should establish if the study in question has been successfully replicated, or if the results found reflect those found in other, similar investigations into the same phenomena. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
<b>3. Might there be another explanation for the observed effect?</b></h3>
</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Is there a confounder that might explain the found results? The experimental controls should allow the researchers to eliminate plausible alternative explanations for an observed effect. Imagine experimenters are testing a new cold remedy. They select two groups, men and women. They give the women the new drug, but not the men. They find that the women in the group administered the medicine tend to recover more quickly than the men and report less extreme symptoms. They conclude the remedy is successful, but they have failed to control for gender. The experiment is confounded.<br />
<br />
We should also consider any systematic bias, have the researchers introduced an element into the study that will skew the results in favour of one particular outcome? A striking example of this would be a recent survey issued by the Trump administration comparing voters opinions of the first year of Trump's first term to the first term of Obama's first term (below). You'll immediately notice that the first question has an element missing. Subjects are unable to rate Trump poorly whereas the option is available in the second question which asks subjects to rate Obama's first term(2). This quite laughable omission means that a side by side analysis is unsuitable.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwn15BFeVyZcXSdqFJQTx0Ggfa5iVaV0f7-Ggt3KMjP6U1cnzhUE0EHwswTsNLjA2_aNN0Xb0H5nFHXBCjHrIEjSNVB7k4txg05gTgxNaQOkSQgBHHdR8XHLClbqjdMKGmrmxVBF4XlF8/s1600/trump.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="386" data-original-width="550" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwn15BFeVyZcXSdqFJQTx0Ggfa5iVaV0f7-Ggt3KMjP6U1cnzhUE0EHwswTsNLjA2_aNN0Xb0H5nFHXBCjHrIEjSNVB7k4txg05gTgxNaQOkSQgBHHdR8XHLClbqjdMKGmrmxVBF4XlF8/s640/trump.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<h3>
<br /><b>4. Extrapolating Small sample sizes?</b></h3>
We should be extremely wary of studies with small sample sizes, especially those with subjects numbering in the tens rather than the hundreds or even thousands. There are mathematical ways to calculate appropriate sample sizes, but often it's easy enough to do this intuitively. You can't draw conclusions about millions of people based on a study of tens. For example, consider Andrew Wakefield's withdrawn Lancet study which attempted to establish a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Wakefield's study group contained five children, clearly not enough to draw conclusions about millions who had received the MMR vaccine. We need to be even more concerned when the conclusions of a series of tests are extrapolated to a much larger population<br />
<br />
In relation to sample sizes, it's important to be wary of larger of studies of rare events. For example, a study of a rare illness may involve following millions of people but only an extremely small number of that sample develop the illness in question.<br />
<br />
<h3>
5. Samples not varied enough? </h3>
</div>
<div>
Related to the previous point, it's not suitable to draw conclusions about a large population based on a sample that isn't varied enough. A good example of this is the study I looked at with the Spooktator crew early last year. The study proposed to show that individuals with strong religious or supernatural beliefs have poor cognitive abilities. The problem was, not only were the sample sizes extremely small but the vast majority of those studied were aged under 25 and female. It's not possible to draw conclusions about millions of believers of all ages and both sexes from such small, unvaried sample sizes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h2>
Standard of reporting.</h2>
<h3>
6. Half (or less) of the story?</h3>
<div>
Are the reporters telling you everything? If they are reporting on the harmful effects of a medicine are they pointing out the benefits as well, or vice versa? Are they highlighting a small part of the research and ignoring the bigger picture? Researchers will normally point out flaws with their studies and suggest avenues for further research. Are these elements being covered in the report?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
7. Representing risk in a misleading way? </h3>
<div>
Watch out for the phrase "higher risk" in a report. If you are told that exposure to a substance doubles your risk of a certain ailment or illness it sounds quite bad. But what if your risk was incredibly low, to begin with? Unfortunately <i>"X doubles the risk of Y"</i> makes a fantastic attention-grabbing headline. This can also be true when considering a stated effect. If some variable makes the chance of a positive outcome more likely, we need to know how likely that outcome was in the first place to know if that is significant or not. To combat this we should be looking at absolute numbers as a sign of good science reporting.<br />
<br />
<h3>
8. An Exaggerated headline? </h3>
</div>
<div>
Headlines for articles can be difficult to construct, this sometimes means important details are omitted, worse still they can be abandoned in favour of hyperbole. Does the headline of the article actually reflect what is said in the actual report, or is it misrepresentative or manipulated?<br />
<br />
A great example of this would be a study published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reflecting the decision to list the radiation from mobile phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” or in specific terms to place classify it as a group 2B carcinogen (3). The 2B category is used when there is no specific evidence of a substance or material posing an actual risk, but there have been correlations made in the past. Some other 2B carcinogens include; fuels, laundry detergents and aloe vera.<br />
<br />
The Daily Express clearly weren't interested in these details when they reported the IARC's report with the headline: "Shock Warning: Mobile phones can give you cancer" (4).</div>
<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSucZ-8D4UOTvVaPqACDS7G09FE8HXGTgjJEWjWb0abqOeiT4KKzl-XYdQCqEUR_SlibHWVrOyurWuryMf5-viIaDgJVvX3HHPWgDe2TKjMHTwMHKA9tQkgdzG7CW5G14iFztm-NVQSkQ/s1600/express.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="368" data-original-width="645" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSucZ-8D4UOTvVaPqACDS7G09FE8HXGTgjJEWjWb0abqOeiT4KKzl-XYdQCqEUR_SlibHWVrOyurWuryMf5-viIaDgJVvX3HHPWgDe2TKjMHTwMHKA9tQkgdzG7CW5G14iFztm-NVQSkQ/s640/express.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This headline complete strips the subtlety of the IARC report in favour of hyperbole and blind panic.<br />
<br />
<h3>
9. No Independent Comment?</h3>
When considering a scientific study it's vital to remember our first point, single studies do not make the scientific consensus. That means that we should be looking for independent comment from someone in the field of research not involved with the research in question to put our study in context. If an article omits this, it's likely based on promotional material issued by the institution that produced the research, one that has vested interest and may well not be as even-handed as one could hope. This doesn't mean these comments have to be negative, but they should be present.<br />
<br />
This leads us to...<br />
<br />
<h3>
10. Does the report rely on public relations puff pieces, or are there considerable personal interests involved?</h3>
Are there elements of the report that imply the study is just PR? Who sponsored the research? What was the ultimate aim of the study? Does it fit into a wider scientific context? The answers to these questions are likely to tell you whether you should take the report with a pinch of salt or a shovel. This isn't to say that research that has been paid for by a company or corporation should be immediately disregarded, but it should be viewed with some skepticism. Likewise, research conducted by individuals with considerable personal interests in the research should be considered with suspicion.<br />
<br />
For example, Martin Pall's research (5) on the dangers of electromagnetism should be weighted alongside the fact that he sells a range of supplements that he claims to strengthen the biological systems which his research claims EMF 'attacks'(6). Is this conflict of interest mentioned in the report, or in the original paper even?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFQuH3c0zngvFBKLILbtINhPctaLDOEUbcoQR9haF-78nigtjpf3b5TpAdL0mt5uWlgh4rwbqQNdqKKqRQY29y891SnU4mNSJC9I69ceMtxwDHi8gPCqlUw622yXGh-5-OFLgGEb_5YS4/s1600/pall.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="451" data-original-width="1298" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFQuH3c0zngvFBKLILbtINhPctaLDOEUbcoQR9haF-78nigtjpf3b5TpAdL0mt5uWlgh4rwbqQNdqKKqRQY29y891SnU4mNSJC9I69ceMtxwDHi8gPCqlUw622yXGh-5-OFLgGEb_5YS4/s640/pall.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<h3>
11. Is the original research unavailable?</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
A great deal of the time, you'll find that the article you're reading doesn't even link to the original study. This means you're going to have to do the legwork yourself. The original study should be searchable by title if this gets you no results try searching by selected keywords. When doing your search, you may be far more likely to find success searching using an academic search programme such as Google Scholar (7). When you find your paper, it may well be hidden behind a paywall. Don't despair, even if this is the case, the abstract will be available for free. You will more likely than not find that this alone is sufficient to find errors in sloppy articles, especially if the author didn't even bother to read the abstract as often is the case!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h3>
Conclusion </h3>
If you're slightly worried that all that may be difficult to remember, fear not, I've formed it into a handy mnemonic, JAMES H RANDI after my skeptical hero. You could always rework the framework to spell out the name of your own hero of science or skepticism. I've also formed the questions into a rudimentary scorecard which you can see below and download by following the link in the sources (8). Hopefully, it should make assessing science articles much easier.<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiphb4mq7f8NbcxRlolcdUISbUEMp3Qb3TDXKpczBHWPbe1xNhbVpl5QRXuUlGPKKKjN8cdR5RcxsYp9GEm1hi5pIFHdy2I-vT6CFTA-5KhXQLWeb1FdCyBkJW_o2WWN-RPv8fTQQ9ewQI/s1600/JAMESHRANDI.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="544" data-original-width="550" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiphb4mq7f8NbcxRlolcdUISbUEMp3Qb3TDXKpczBHWPbe1xNhbVpl5QRXuUlGPKKKjN8cdR5RcxsYp9GEm1hi5pIFHdy2I-vT6CFTA-5KhXQLWeb1FdCyBkJW_o2WWN-RPv8fTQQ9ewQI/s1600/JAMESHRANDI.png" /></a></div>
<h2>
Sources</h2>
<div>
(1) "Score and ignore: A radio listener's guide to ignoring health stories" McConway, Spiegelhalter, Significance, 2012. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2012.00611.x/full" target="_blank">Accessed 17/12/17.</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/trump-invites-america-to-rate-his-and-obamas-presidencies-with-unimpeachably-evenhanded-survey.html" target="_blank">https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/trump-invites-america-to-rate-his-and-obamas-presidencies-with-unimpeachably-evenhanded-survey.html</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf">http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf</a><br />
<br />
(4) <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/250043/Shock-Warning-Mobile-phones-can-give-you-cancer">https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/250043/Shock-Warning-Mobile-phones-can-give-you-cancer</a><br />
<br />
(5) <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/</a></div>
<div>
<br />
(6) <a href="http://www.nutricology.com/martin-pall-products/">http://www.nutricology.com/martin-pall-products/</a><br />
<br />
(7) <a href="https://scholar.google.co.uk/">https://scholar.google.co.uk/</a><br />
<br />
(8) <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s5CEQanT9JT5-fdL-skZ9ZcCXdyv_xI7/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s5CEQanT9JT5-fdL-skZ9ZcCXdyv_xI7/view?usp=sharing</a></div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-80598061451683499102018-02-06T00:52:00.001+00:002018-02-07T12:45:11.607+00:00A Quick Look At Another of David Rountree's Academic Claims.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
When this title says quick, it's no exaggeration.<br />
<br />
By this point, David Rountree has been so fundamentally debunked that there's very little else to say about the man. His reputation is in tatters, his claims of academic success have been shredded so many times they should be served in pancakes with Hoisin sauce.<br />
<br />
But this turkey keeps on cluckin'.<br />
<br />
A friend led me to recent conversation Rountree had with his followers, and amidst the anger, denial and threats of retribution, I found the final nugget that David seems to be offering as evidence of his academic success. Rountree is repeatedly reposting links to his 'Academia.edu' website. That's where Rountree initially uploaded his laughable "Wormhole theory of the Paranormal" paper.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYkpQilLErqHJ8128TchmOTQn9_pTNgMOa_a3bRVHBcENpxBdGEtSfgRjyd1v7werjM_iL-VMd6eAZdVRSGnfPvP215ip4W5xheh75O6rp8mC2Cwydb0VvDiuRbzf6b6aMWQdbyFZ-8bU/s1600/roun.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="152" data-original-width="387" height="251" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYkpQilLErqHJ8128TchmOTQn9_pTNgMOa_a3bRVHBcENpxBdGEtSfgRjyd1v7werjM_iL-VMd6eAZdVRSGnfPvP215ip4W5xheh75O6rp8mC2Cwydb0VvDiuRbzf6b6aMWQdbyFZ-8bU/s640/roun.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmXLYQdXzBmvDkfTHTN1Zn7T-jciqXsBfW9_soFc3f5zmoM6ehlj379ry3V74DMXzzdQHxgLJUTvnQ116k04a4X0BjbmRG8iUkVr_nVjW19C92Ye1VSugVdUWyrBSdp_eeDBSOA3Igs_8/s1600/roun.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="165" data-original-width="390" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmXLYQdXzBmvDkfTHTN1Zn7T-jciqXsBfW9_soFc3f5zmoM6ehlj379ry3V74DMXzzdQHxgLJUTvnQ116k04a4X0BjbmRG8iUkVr_nVjW19C92Ye1VSugVdUWyrBSdp_eeDBSOA3Igs_8/s640/roun.png" width="640" /></a></div>
Now, to Rountree's dwindling band of followers, who bizarrely continue to massage his ego, the fact Rountree has an 'academic profile' may seem impressive. It may even imply he has some form of credibility.<br />
<br />
To disprove that, here's my Academia.Edu profile. I don't have any academic qualifications, having not yet finished my degree. That wasn't a problem in setting up the site. Nor was the fact that I didn't even use my real name!<br />
<br />
They even send me e-mails to tell me I've been cited despite having never published there!<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWbU82afTU3jX_o5gGaBCZHMc68pxbaCGhtnMc0HdG3r1qmdeDnXxGy2lh_L_2h03yB7zB6QqDN1Bhyphenhyphena3A_CHg-5zujGI-AyJMcuxmNgw69KCIwxWe9UJkiguruGKDX9KBxL0qsgXVQtA/s1600/roun3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="404" data-original-width="573" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWbU82afTU3jX_o5gGaBCZHMc68pxbaCGhtnMc0HdG3r1qmdeDnXxGy2lh_L_2h03yB7zB6QqDN1Bhyphenhyphena3A_CHg-5zujGI-AyJMcuxmNgw69KCIwxWe9UJkiguruGKDX9KBxL0qsgXVQtA/s640/roun3.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The only reason my profile isn't visible to the public is I won't pay the money that Academia.Edu require for me to finalise the account!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOCQQTewUbWA4KwIRbvNqc3IceEx-dnlXA72pdCTcjD9j7r0ddNiTq9AppxfI7thKdFJfQS3UAX9ZMNzHr0oEVeknRof_qUl2WHyuyzK1K4-cpMWcd31fMccZa93vta17TMnrfkH9n2mo/s1600/roun4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="457" data-original-width="265" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOCQQTewUbWA4KwIRbvNqc3IceEx-dnlXA72pdCTcjD9j7r0ddNiTq9AppxfI7thKdFJfQS3UAX9ZMNzHr0oEVeknRof_qUl2WHyuyzK1K4-cpMWcd31fMccZa93vta17TMnrfkH9n2mo/s640/roun4.png" width="370" /></a></div>
<br />
There is legitimately nothing to stop you setting an Academia.Edu account up for your hamster. Meaningless to anyone who hasn't taken a big old swig of Rountree's Kool-Aid.<br />
<br />
If you want more meat on Rountree you could read <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/david-roundtree-what-you-need-to-know.html" target="_blank">this</a> which collects the hard work of a group of folks who were determined not to let him get away with this kind of bullshit.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h3>
PLUGS. PLUGS. PLUGS.</h3>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVHdsE8wB1pzrDClR9l1IC7ZEeHSFyP3dBIwzBetHmb4YesOKsvZXuK6lnrqY0n_IJTwSPG6jlREOhKh3W7KOBlHYzpesiPuEsT5d3YszyWWXqkx2l8EmL9fYJxEaS18TrBTdFyiR4zTc/s1600/pugs.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="202" data-original-width="249" height="519" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVHdsE8wB1pzrDClR9l1IC7ZEeHSFyP3dBIwzBetHmb4YesOKsvZXuK6lnrqY0n_IJTwSPG6jlREOhKh3W7KOBlHYzpesiPuEsT5d3YszyWWXqkx2l8EmL9fYJxEaS18TrBTdFyiR4zTc/s640/pugs.jpeg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I said "Plugs. Plugs. Plugs." Dammit!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
As this has been a quick post, I'm going to throw in two extremely quick plugs. Firstly in addition to writing here, I have also been writing for an up and coming news website called Scisco media as I've mentioned before. My writer's page can be found here,<br />
<br />
<a href="https://sciscomedia.co.uk/author/robl/" target="_blank">My writer's page.</a><br />
<br />
And without blowing my own trumpet, I think the last post I wrote for Scisco is possibly the best thing I've ever written.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://sciscomedia.co.uk/gravitational-waves-a-new-form-of-astronomy/" target="_blank">Gravitational Waves: A new way to ‘see’ the universe</a><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
Also a plug for my new t-shirt shop. Yes, I have shilled out and am now selling what my children term 'merch' through the website Spreadshirt. At the shop, you'll find some sciencey, some skeptical t-shirts, badges, bags and all sorts of merchandise. Purchasing from the shop is a nice way to support what I do here and hopefully moves me closer to devoting more time to writing.<br />
<br />
There are about six designs at the moment and they are all available in a range of styles.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/the-null-hypothesis/" target="_blank">The Null Hypothesis@spreadshirt. </a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="458" data-original-width="425" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihsSaMP3megq_4-RR0G_3Lvre5aVQVetRpqdC1B4CYL1CevHVjdwMV21bEUTC6tM81D9gdExCYOlf_opzZf8sTRCfK8W7fRwZnlIlepx0d2Z_27RmhBvP88ug0jeN804szVjgDUGKs-FQ/s320/warning.png" width="296" /><span id="goog_1942314420"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/the-null-hypothesis/warning+may+require+evidence-A5a7447912225090d57b29070" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/the-null-hypothesis/warning+may+require+evidence-A5a7447912225090d57b29070" target="_blank">Warning! May Require Evidence!</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzxPfgWcNGw_AeOv6qtCTrjioB-0Idkh051zZfmcWcZeei2crLEmISvd0eJrSH9fs_LFp7q-oAwHXQOAFS5GCNYTajpdOd6-GyI4fDBmccrX3066QDE6v7Na2LVXQEzyUgKYcdcKPiy2M/s1600/e%253Dmc.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="496" data-original-width="502" height="316" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzxPfgWcNGw_AeOv6qtCTrjioB-0Idkh051zZfmcWcZeei2crLEmISvd0eJrSH9fs_LFp7q-oAwHXQOAFS5GCNYTajpdOd6-GyI4fDBmccrX3066QDE6v7Na2LVXQEzyUgKYcdcKPiy2M/s320/e%253Dmc.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/the-null-hypothesis/no-A5a708dd35fd3e434ea97a33c?department=1&productType=6&appearance=2" target="_blank"><br /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/the-null-hypothesis/no-A5a708dd35fd3e434ea97a33c?department=1&productType=6&appearance=2" target="_blank">No. E=mc^2 doesn't prove your attic is haunted! </a></div>
<br />
<br /></div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-53692211637794862002018-02-02T01:29:00.000+00:002018-02-02T01:29:21.131+00:00Money For Huffin'. Steve Huff's Patreon Exposes Just How Sleazy He Is. <b>It's late, you're preparing for bed when there's a familiar ping from your phone. A little red bubble appears over your messenger app. A friend who keeps tabs on the worst scumbags in the paranormal field has something to show you. You open the message getting the feeling you have when you pull open the door of the seediest bar of your town. That's what happened to me tonight when my friend directed me to Steve Huff's Patreon (0). </b><b>Just when you think that a human being could not possibly sink any lower than selling broken radios to the gullible at massively inflated prices. When you believe that this same person couldn't do anything more tasteless than 'contacting the spirits' of recently deceased celebrities.<br /><br />He suprises you on both counts.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBKdkudZy1Q8tdSEhkfYkfuP_M7SqOZl54E0xednbajjDojwj4eBblalDPn4oi0Yly3CRCCEJH1qAdl0z8cWqSuDFC4pjq60UWPLI6RL06qJ0rpZxAokXqpRWMkq9OSy2ZkyuiIxH1is/s1600/huff.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="468" data-original-width="1326" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBKdkudZy1Q8tdSEhkfYkfuP_M7SqOZl54E0xednbajjDojwj4eBblalDPn4oi0Yly3CRCCEJH1qAdl0z8cWqSuDFC4pjq60UWPLI6RL06qJ0rpZxAokXqpRWMkq9OSy2ZkyuiIxH1is/s640/huff.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b> <b><br /></b><br />
<br />
Let's get something out of the way first. I have no objection to people opening a Patreon. Heck, when I mulled over the move from blogging to making Youtube videos and podcasts I considered doing the same. The time restrictions on making videos meant I may well have to cut down my working hours and I thought Patreon would help me do this without impacting my family. I never made that move, mainly because I enjoy writing and the time constraints of recording audio and editing videos were just too limiting. But opening a Patreon isn't something I rule out, nor is it something I frown upon others for doing.<br />
<br />
<h3>
So why do I have a problem with Huff doing this?</h3>
Essentially, it comes down to the fact that Huff uses the videos and content he creates in order to sell his ridiculous range of broken or at best, poorly functioning radios. He's already receiving a revenue stream from the videos he creates, which are essentially just advertisements. But he's not content with that. He wants his followers to pay him to create his advertising material. Obviously, Huff can't outright say this, so let's unpack his justification for soliciting money from his followers.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwDqaKnluYU5r3ERhvsu3XvqM-noKYXCc3g2Ip8DxsT7Ie9ZxlipThxPKrH0ZKHnb57U0h5UzTMZC-GWUyNRA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Huff tells his followers that by donating to him through Patreon they are helping him to conduct his 'research'.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXA3uX1A1ivb5m4JGYUUJx8aTQIs7bEq_kArOGTQa9uKgHe1_6JxKkoPUvh4WJBAOD4kLxWzQj-tI5L77-Pon9F-iiUnW_VYWxZHiPQ0u_O2KSszYiqO55cnhytgH4VgUFn3hgRFCiChY/s1600/huff1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="246" data-original-width="605" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXA3uX1A1ivb5m4JGYUUJx8aTQIs7bEq_kArOGTQa9uKgHe1_6JxKkoPUvh4WJBAOD4kLxWzQj-tI5L77-Pon9F-iiUnW_VYWxZHiPQ0u_O2KSszYiqO55cnhytgH4VgUFn3hgRFCiChY/s640/huff1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
His "drive is stronger than ever before"? I guess a lot can change in a few months because only last year Huff quit the paranormal 'field' after claiming he was under sustained attack from demons! (1), As for Huff's claim that he is conducting 'research'. Where is it? In his introduction video on his Patreon he claims that people have never even seen the majority of his research.<br />
<br />
Two questions. Why is that? And given that is the case, why the fuck should anyone pay to support Huff conduct more research, just for him to lash the results in the fucking garbage?<br />
<br />
Sitting in your bedroom playing with neon-lights and broken radios is not research. It's tinkering and he's got a damn nerve asking others to pay to allow him to continue to do it. Now he's receiving money just for the purposes of research doesn't Huff have a responsibility to his donors to properly and publically present that research?<br />
<br />
I believe so, but he gives no indication that he is going to do this.<br />
<br />
In the above video, Huff declares that he is broke, that he can only continue his 'research' without donations. But surely he's got a revenue stream from selling his junk? In fact, only on January 25th, he posted his latest products on his website, costing between $900 - $3995! (2)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXrf9FV-yvG4220SAMcryDs3-PIZ8RNCNoj1ZlbLIyRymu_AbiJPnirb2B_R50KbN3auGKAQRmDl4WqnFsEmw0fLEADmiMZXa0r_PRq9p38r8QB_9uTAnfO9eRjHM3XH_71IPrx4ki_rk/s1600/huff2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="1290" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXrf9FV-yvG4220SAMcryDs3-PIZ8RNCNoj1ZlbLIyRymu_AbiJPnirb2B_R50KbN3auGKAQRmDl4WqnFsEmw0fLEADmiMZXa0r_PRq9p38r8QB_9uTAnfO9eRjHM3XH_71IPrx4ki_rk/s640/huff2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAyb6wjmXDXvURB7IsBqi0hZLoHVngyzYHwyUcw97vyg0PTElxXyhBAL-620ppjBvetpnhApTT-nFBDGrUf9mQK3IQMsOQgibQ2V7FxBqWbjvJzieh_sG7zAnjDXdaq8LSUnDnalhVk54/s1600/huff3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="589" data-original-width="1250" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAyb6wjmXDXvURB7IsBqi0hZLoHVngyzYHwyUcw97vyg0PTElxXyhBAL-620ppjBvetpnhApTT-nFBDGrUf9mQK3IQMsOQgibQ2V7FxBqWbjvJzieh_sG7zAnjDXdaq8LSUnDnalhVk54/s640/huff3.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
And finally, the model that costs over $3000. It will set you back over $4200 if you want it shipped abroad!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaAerV6FmmDzB-2EL7x3CdNEotVN0G2_vt926uFMkS5dbVKg26DE0FQjrYH_df9u-6qmq2yghNP5j68OyanaiiEELTrA5xo-BucQJc5rHj9d5V8wGSlkKQ_BE9J2MNIs-uRUaS5vUCs10/s1600/huff4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="596" data-original-width="1260" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaAerV6FmmDzB-2EL7x3CdNEotVN0G2_vt926uFMkS5dbVKg26DE0FQjrYH_df9u-6qmq2yghNP5j68OyanaiiEELTrA5xo-BucQJc5rHj9d5V8wGSlkKQ_BE9J2MNIs-uRUaS5vUCs10/s640/huff4.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Now, Huff can't have lots of his money tied up in stock of this rubbish for the simple reason that he requests you accept that he won't build your box until he's got your cash in his hand.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Vcwi2s1cdM8tYHS6rpZPcP08w641au6xA7hB_opx_HUVCHMxq5JAcJ2HrVjBfuvxaKNO2dP-Z8wHcOQnL38-EP36Xhf0lKS63QUuv7E_r1ZcDKLAnApIIpejP4-iZxXMQ8qZLi_Zz04/s1600/huff5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="587" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Vcwi2s1cdM8tYHS6rpZPcP08w641au6xA7hB_opx_HUVCHMxq5JAcJ2HrVjBfuvxaKNO2dP-Z8wHcOQnL38-EP36Xhf0lKS63QUuv7E_r1ZcDKLAnApIIpejP4-iZxXMQ8qZLi_Zz04/s640/huff5.png" width="640" /></a></div>
There's another interesting condition the Huff asks his customers to agree to. He asks his customers to accept that there is no guarantee that his boxes will actually work!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9vlHwpbwR6_tu-FyoAmjqZEoehJiduMlnJaRTWdCWdBsdhomi0g_4jp0HhlnW3BYtJF-jwvvZoJTds5G7T0fXNVK4xxRWEveLeiYlFbRa3oCC9ZfxEA3fgZnTpul_zS72D8gqIEiLW-g/s1600/huff6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="590" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9vlHwpbwR6_tu-FyoAmjqZEoehJiduMlnJaRTWdCWdBsdhomi0g_4jp0HhlnW3BYtJF-jwvvZoJTds5G7T0fXNVK4xxRWEveLeiYlFbRa3oCC9ZfxEA3fgZnTpul_zS72D8gqIEiLW-g/s640/huff6.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Can you imagine any other type of retailer selling a product that they don't guarantee will work! Huff may actually be falling afoul of a piece of US legislation, the Sales and Storage of goods framework (3), which states:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWiRWaxOw8ADtGxoYX-sbgqyYdEvsLDyVle1XXqGLZPm2dfiP3IBCNdkZtqcFYxC11349HHNQ1K3XpgC1mQNnBYdHtqICf3s06oBWjw910g7AmUhe48HrjST4hy-L3NLO7dj1qrWC98D4/s1600/huff7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="295" data-original-width="841" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWiRWaxOw8ADtGxoYX-sbgqyYdEvsLDyVle1XXqGLZPm2dfiP3IBCNdkZtqcFYxC11349HHNQ1K3XpgC1mQNnBYdHtqICf3s06oBWjw910g7AmUhe48HrjST4hy-L3NLO7dj1qrWC98D4/s640/huff7.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
This requires that the seller knows that an item is fit for purpose at the time of sale, Huff is expressly telling his customers that he does not know that!<br />
<br />
Back to Huff's Patreon, as well as crying poverty, you'll notice that Huff brings the issue of heaven and hell into the equation of whether you choose to support him. Huff tells us he has categorically discovered there is a heaven and a hell, and his research is helping discover who goes where when they die. In this respect, Huff has made himself indistinguishable from televangelists like Jim Bakker who threatened that viewers' grandchildren would go to hell unless they buy a $60 bucket of pancake mix. (4) Well, there is one difference. Give your money to Bakker and you get some pancake mix.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho0ZUk5mk1kFMzTi1tjoOnmBnfEsJ4DicRLsbGAoFxWDCFDPpm7GuJyCBxvz4P0uu2Vn5Pb3nS5uCoFUFsDGy-0i-FtYetGeCY17MiBztyI3PTkNswb1hp7pYux3Cw8LQCnNCtcs4M84o/s1600/huff8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="575" data-original-width="550" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEho0ZUk5mk1kFMzTi1tjoOnmBnfEsJ4DicRLsbGAoFxWDCFDPpm7GuJyCBxvz4P0uu2Vn5Pb3nS5uCoFUFsDGy-0i-FtYetGeCY17MiBztyI3PTkNswb1hp7pYux3Cw8LQCnNCtcs4M84o/s320/huff8.png" width="306" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
So what is Huff offering to his donors?<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>It's a lot sleazier than pancake mix.</b><br />
<h3>
<br />Steve Huff. Ghoul for Gold.</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKHRQ8q7reRfcUbxCMw9I2pvKZ3D51dmpAitLkfI8QjCWb3g5vzWjsJDlnnlRUjCS0ZG5FV6mhPB8z0CSPpwDVtX-quRgNmsGkd8Xs6XsHh4v-49ihWrlbqxv7RWrBw1Hp_j-VOYSNnoA/s1600/huff9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="149" data-original-width="584" height="162" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKHRQ8q7reRfcUbxCMw9I2pvKZ3D51dmpAitLkfI8QjCWb3g5vzWjsJDlnnlRUjCS0ZG5FV6mhPB8z0CSPpwDVtX-quRgNmsGkd8Xs6XsHh4v-49ihWrlbqxv7RWrBw1Hp_j-VOYSNnoA/s640/huff9.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
So, for your monthly contribution, Huff is offering to attempt to contact your deceased loved one. Of course, with everything Huff offers, he's quick to point out there are no guarantees. And when it does work, it's very likely because the patron has provided Huff with the name or names of the person they want to be contacted. Something which makes audio pareidolia and suggestibility a much easier for Huff to exploit.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_kiLPwVSx1fBONWPZhNOT5BOKIJtdVjq5TTUG7daFgeOBIEem1grz8xkXQ3VkqiavSlZhTXKA9jFL1njNC1Lh3JKzKOmRsnEe4H1YHm0DIr9Gxjtm740thJ0G6NruFQKk607cPvkUZ-k/s1600/huff10.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="106" data-original-width="596" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_kiLPwVSx1fBONWPZhNOT5BOKIJtdVjq5TTUG7daFgeOBIEem1grz8xkXQ3VkqiavSlZhTXKA9jFL1njNC1Lh3JKzKOmRsnEe4H1YHm0DIr9Gxjtm740thJ0G6NruFQKk607cPvkUZ-k/s640/huff10.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Clearly, in the pursuit of the almighty dollar, there is no level Huff will not stoop to now. He is quite happy to manipulate his patron's grief and pain. Something that shills in the paranormal circus have been doing for years.<br /><br /><b>Just like mediums or anyone else who proposes to contact the dead, Huff is a ghoul. Pure and simple. It </b>a<b>ngers me greatly to read the messages from patrons on Huff's page requesting him to contact their loved ones. </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUyTbBxLjtmi-K86KL8muyBiaYjlkONpEm3ufhUmBZUQn4R5sc_v_B2gcrbflXbWtueB_gz-cqguUeF3TWSf8Oj6BWajsSwIkANY7fLX6qaC2gDoYFVSOk_xbWK4pA3o6j291d7HLMHNM/s1600/huff11.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="163" data-original-width="587" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUyTbBxLjtmi-K86KL8muyBiaYjlkONpEm3ufhUmBZUQn4R5sc_v_B2gcrbflXbWtueB_gz-cqguUeF3TWSf8Oj6BWajsSwIkANY7fLX6qaC2gDoYFVSOk_xbWK4pA3o6j291d7HLMHNM/s640/huff11.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz6K_Pa1mn4MHKMyvAXrW0UIAK928z35xyJIXg4HbwfzuLWeUzxi_316rq6JL_E43nqiFNfuHi9oC-P-PeLM15YAVMcMDs1IIAlCb_HdR-PqHCNZ0hfSzEz_yxJJ9GJ-sO3Ct7DTuVQfA/s1600/huff12.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="100" data-original-width="589" height="108" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz6K_Pa1mn4MHKMyvAXrW0UIAK928z35xyJIXg4HbwfzuLWeUzxi_316rq6JL_E43nqiFNfuHi9oC-P-PeLM15YAVMcMDs1IIAlCb_HdR-PqHCNZ0hfSzEz_yxJJ9GJ-sO3Ct7DTuVQfA/s640/huff12.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<br /><b>No-one deserves to be exploited in this way. </b><br /><br /><b>No one.</b><br /><br />So what can we do? The first step I'd suggest is going to Patreon directly. I have to say that they aren't particularly responsive, but if enough people register their disdain perhaps we can help shut down this thinly veiled exploitation. Next, raise awareness, whether by spreading this post around social media or by writing your own posts and articles.<br /><br /><b>One thing should be abundantly clear here, Huff is a fraud and a charlatan. He has shown himself to have absolutely no boundaries in what he will do for money. </b><div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b><h2>
Sources</h2>
<br />(0) <a href="https://www.patreon.com/huffparanormal/overview">https://www.patreon.com/huffparanormal/overview</a><br />
<br />
(1) <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/the-huff-model-disrespecting-dead-for.html">http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/the-huff-model-disrespecting-dead-for.html</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="http://huffparanormal.com/2018/01/2018-versions-of-the-portal-backwards-box-and-wonder-box-now-available-to-purchase/">http://huffparanormal.com/2018/01/2018-versions-of-the-portal-backwards-box-and-wonder-box-now-available-to-purchase/</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-618-0307?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1">https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-618-0307?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1</a><br />
<br />
(4) <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/11/televangelist-jim-bakker-buy-pancake-mix-grandkids-go-hell/">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/11/televangelist-jim-bakker-buy-pancake-mix-grandkids-go-hell/</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/11/televangelist-jim-bakker-buy-pancake-mix-grandkids-go-hell/" target="_blank"><br /></a>
</div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-26719672375736939712018-01-29T12:59:00.002+00:002018-01-29T13:22:53.052+00:00Giving up the Ghost: Why I've debunked my last tabloid ghost article<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<b>Let's address the elephant in the room. The last post I wrote on the blog I came to certain conclusions regarding an alleged ghost image which was published in the Daily Record and then spread on to the Mail and other tabloid outlets. My conclusion was wrong. The image couldn't be accounted for in the way I suggested. The reason for my failure was two-fold. Firstly there was a pure quirk of</b> <b>coincidence that I thought was too convenient to call a coincidence. That I can't help. Secondly, I didn't research my explanation carefully enough. I found a reasonable explanation and then went looking for evidence to support that explanation, ignoring data that didn't support it. You know, that thing I accuse ghost hunters and creationists of doing all the time.</b><b> I got caught NOT practising what I preach, and whilst I appreciate that everyone makes mistakes. This whole episode is pointing to something I've suspected for a long time.</b></div>
<b><br />I'm done debunking ghost "evidence" presented by the tabloids. </b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTDV8dH7jRJbD-pYuQFtQs4NdUkfR1JGCw2xksLAEpPrsSp3S2FYGTgSJ5t9lQ6w6y6K-0XNBCtWIbM5ukNpbnkC3lOji26fkKSuV7Lr0Mf6kaFsUZJ2RdDr_dZgstjHlQpxC1RTX8Tcc/s1600/tabliod.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="273" data-original-width="821" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTDV8dH7jRJbD-pYuQFtQs4NdUkfR1JGCw2xksLAEpPrsSp3S2FYGTgSJ5t9lQ6w6y6K-0XNBCtWIbM5ukNpbnkC3lOji26fkKSuV7Lr0Mf6kaFsUZJ2RdDr_dZgstjHlQpxC1RTX8Tcc/s640/tabliod.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I was lucky enough in this case, that someone who still has a modicum of respect for me was the one who caught me out and worked overtime to privately show me that I was wrong. If it weren't Kenny Biddle that caught me out, it could have been another skeptic, perhaps one I've burnt bridges with (there are plenty of those believe me, even if I have no idea what I did to piss these people off) or someone with a new blog or vlog who doesn't care about stepping on toes and exposing his peers. Someone not as decent as Kenny, someone... well, like me. I've got to add at this point, I've no hard feelings towards Kenny. I actually appreciate that he took the time to privatively explain my mistake to me before going public with his own explanation, which I will link in the article in question as soon as Kenny publishes it.<br />
<br />
I've always made the point that there is only one thing worse than no skepticism, and that is bad skepticism. Bad skepticism gives an 'in' for pseudoscientists and woo-merchants, they use mistakes made by skeptics as a weapon against other skeptics. There are lots of other skeptics out there doing great work in this area (see sources for some of the best), I don't want to be impeding their work by offering, lazy, rushed and inaccurate 'debunkings'.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
When you produce a post or an article you attach your credibility to it. The same is true essentially everytime you communicate anything to anyone. The internet holds that information forever, and if you've made a grave error that is immortalised too. You continue to do this because it's an endless cycle of risk/reward. You can justify your mistakes by saying "I got this one wrong, my credibility got hurt, but the next one I may nail and I'll be back". Essentially, you're only as good as your last debunking. The problem is I feel the risk-reward ratio is completely unbalanced when commenting on ghost stories/evidence published by the tabloids. The reason for this is, the tabloids aren't ever going to change their approach to publishing ghost articles that people click-on. As such, they don't have any credibility at stake. As long as they keep earning revenue the papers will publish them. At this stage, it doesn't even matter what the content of the story is, the UK tabloids will publish it regardless.<br />
<br />
An example of this, on the 20th January 2018, the Mirror published a story entitled <i>"Moment 'poltergeist' spooks ghost hunters by letting them know it is in the room"(2). </i>What spooky evidence was provided? A video showing a K2 meter placed on an uneven carpet falling over (below: image taken from the 'chilling' video). This is the kind of story I'd have once devoted 800 words and an evening to.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL7t1zPf6XONeHGLAWARvozviKBDqtrnRyb2MYeJOrgX4sJMWkowEZpkhnDp78BSnXNDbafvtN4jIaVaoHd6DGL808lHu1zqsMESCzFzoF4lA8aqiRdXCQgep4NcHHKw1z9w8jOazCrFM/s1600/Poltergeist-spooks-ghost-hunter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="346" data-original-width="615" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL7t1zPf6XONeHGLAWARvozviKBDqtrnRyb2MYeJOrgX4sJMWkowEZpkhnDp78BSnXNDbafvtN4jIaVaoHd6DGL808lHu1zqsMESCzFzoF4lA8aqiRdXCQgep4NcHHKw1z9w8jOazCrFM/s640/Poltergeist-spooks-ghost-hunter.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The tabloids just don't care what they publish anymore. Not one shit. All they care about is whether people visit the site. Heck, they don't even care if the majority visit just to tell them how fucking stupid the story is, I'm devoting my time to debunking this stuff, often linking to the original post and thus sending extra traffic their way. I used to think that what I do is part of the solution, now I see it's just part of the problem.<br />
<br />
As for the risk. As result of writing for this blog and the negative and positive feedback I've received other the years, I've found myself in the position where I can actually be a science communicator. I never thought this would ever develop into an endeavour that I could possibly use to help support my family. A piece I wrote on dowsing helped pay for my daughter's school shoes. That might not seem like a lot, and financially it isn't, but it's a lot symbolically. For the first time, something I wrote made my little girl's life incrementally better.<br />
<br />
The only thing about this is, the one piece of advice I've received from every science writer/blogger/journalist whose writing I've read on the subject is that in order to be an effective science communicator your audeince has to trust you implicitly. Mistakes like this 'monk-y buisness' from last week may well whittle that trust. Google will hold that error against my name for the foreseeable future. I can't afford to make too many mistakes, that means I can't afford to write articles debunking things that crucially don't matter, won't make a difference and potentially helps the organisations that spread the misinformation in the first place.<br />
<br />
I've been thinking this way for some time. Since way before I dropped the Skeptic's Boot moniker. The rough guide to debunking ghosts videos was an attempt to put a lid on this sort of post. I kept doing the low-hanging fruit, the tabloid ghost junk because it's the stuff I write that connects with the most people. I like my audience and I want to keep them, but I'm not sure this kind of post is my ballpark anymore. I may lose my audience by saying "I'm done with tabloid debunkings" but I'll lose them anyway if what I write is sloppy and wrong.<br />
<br />
I spoke to a fairly well-known skeptic last year about a particular element of the paranormal that he'd become heavily associated with. He had got to the stage were he approached the subject with utter disdain, he hated writing about it and had lost all reason to talk about it beyond "It's what people want". I found this a pretty sad situation and resolved never to get stuck in that rut.<br />
<br />
<b>Of course, the Null Hypothesis blog will continue, and I'll continue to write about pseudoscience and the poor application of the scientific method, meaning the odd ghost hunter will pop up from time to time. I may well even review the odd Ghost Hunting show or book. <br /><br />But as for debunking tabloid dross...<br /><br />Always leave 'em wanting more, not wishing you'd go away. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Great skeptical resources that focus on tabloid and viral ghost stories, follow these and you won't be missing anything, they were always better than me anyway.<br /><br />The Spooktator podcast/ Hayley Stevens<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Hayley Stevens, Ash Pryce, Paul Gannon, Charlie Revelle-Smith and others look at a month's worth of ghost tales from various sources and discuss them. The great thing about this podcast is you can to hear a variety of viewpoints and the team has a great rapport. </span><br /><br />Follow them on<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbIPpHQ45VM&list=PLVq7HqIH-gPpvQk9U7LryqEUujyxV-NDD" target="_blank">Youtube</a><br /><br /><a href="https://soundcloud.com/the-spooktator" target="_blank">Soundcloud</a><br /><br />and like them on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/spooktator/" target="_blank">Facebook.</a><br /><br />Read Hayley's blog <a href="http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />Doubtful News/15 Credibility Street<br /><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Sharon Hill's Doubtful News covers plenty of dodgy tabloid junk from both sides of the Atlantic. As well as ghosts and UFOs, the site is particularly good for those with an interest in cryptozoology. </span><br /><br /><a href="http://doubtfulnews.com/" target="_blank">Website</a><br /><br />
<a href="https://soundcloud.com/15credstreet" target="_blank">Soundcloud</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/doubtfulnews/" target="_blank">Facebook</a> page<br />
<br />Mick West<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Mick mostly focuses on debunking conspiracy theories but also dips his toes in other elements of pseudoscience. He operates the website Metabunk which is a brilliant go-to source for debunkings.</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></span> <span style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="http://mickwest.com/" target="_blank">Website</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.metabunk.org/" target="_blank">Metabunk</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />Kenny Biddle.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Kenny assesses the latest viral </span>and tabliod<span style="font-weight: normal;"> ghost stories and 'evidence' with a strong emphasis on the scientific method. This work features attempts to replicate phenomena to assess if they can be achieved through natural means.</span><br /><br /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/IAmKennyBiddle/" style="font-weight: normal;" target="_blank">Facebook</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/parainvestigator" style="font-weight: normal;" target="_blank">Youtube</a><br /><br />ParaRationalise<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;">A new one, but a good one. As well as producing his own articles and posts, Kev Kerr has brought together an assorted collection of other people's work in his Debunking lounge. In a field that is filled with people dedicated to promoting their own work, it's refreshing to see someone promote other people as they realise that information trumps ego.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.facebook.com/Pararationalise/?fref=mentions" target="_blank">Facebook</a></span><br />
<br /><a href="https://www.pararationalise.org/debunking-lounge" style="font-weight: normal;" target="_blank">Debunking Lounge.</a><br /><br /><br />Sources<br />
<br />
</h3>
(1) <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/a-hole-in-his-storythe-unexplainable.html">http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/a-hole-in-his-storythe-unexplainable.html</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/moment-poltergeist-spooks-ghost-hunters-11882141">https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/moment-poltergeist-spooks-ghost-hunters-11882141</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-17210781246925056812018-01-25T18:42:00.003+00:002018-01-26T17:31:30.003+00:00A Hole In His Story.The Unexplainable 'Ghostly Monk' of Eynsford Castle Explained. Ok, it’s never easy to do this, but I have to admit that I’m wrong about the recent Castle ghost. After a lengthy talk with Kenny Biddle, he finally managed to explain where I’d gone wrong.<br />
<br />
So apologies to everyone who has shared and liked the post that follows. All I can say about my mistake is that the nature of science is that you correct your position when you’re faced with new evidence.<br />
<br />
Also, got to mention that Bear fella and a commenter called Chris on the blog, who also pointed out my error.<br />
<br />
As for what the image actually is, I suspect Kenny will pick up the cudgel on that, so I’ll leave the reveal to him.<br />
<br />
Apologies again.<br />
<br />
- Rob.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>The Daily Record reports today on a spooky apparition appearing on an image taken at Eynsford Castle, Kent. The image, taken by Jon Wickes alleges to show the spectral figure of a hooded monk(1). The Record tells us that Jon enlisted the help of paranormal investigator Alan Tigwell, who assured him there is 'no explanation' for the image. The story is almost certain to hit the Star and the Mirror in the next 24-48 hours. Let's take a look at it and see if we can find an explanation first.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<h3>
<b>Here's Jon's Image.</b></h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdKzlVs5DDTFFhYci7i4hqV7NMUcAlnesLYMzIIZoL2kBjD9fcqiFnCGX1obYEqeT73VkHq4i_tpghuoPf1lXnOJ4kyfJR0kdif1xTtkj6RLMFRv3Byv3b1KjkfUkWPubo9Lj12lQa9lk/s1600/PAY-DAD-SPOTS-BLACK-MONK-STARRING-AT-HIM-FROM-OTHER-SIDE-OF-CASTLE-GROUNDS+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="713" data-original-width="615" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdKzlVs5DDTFFhYci7i4hqV7NMUcAlnesLYMzIIZoL2kBjD9fcqiFnCGX1obYEqeT73VkHq4i_tpghuoPf1lXnOJ4kyfJR0kdif1xTtkj6RLMFRv3Byv3b1KjkfUkWPubo9Lj12lQa9lk/s1600/PAY-DAD-SPOTS-BLACK-MONK-STARRING-AT-HIM-FROM-OTHER-SIDE-OF-CASTLE-GROUNDS+%25281%2529.jpg" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b> And a closer look.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivgcUB0eD3gPm4JUEcudKTMMyPjgf_zsbyNbNHs6U7iYaqt0qJPX-MCxYG-980t5ZjDLeqw2wyFUtLIrMLzBIlN_eRrku1J0cYSr-Ds8Me0gGoy_eZq37Z5-U4i5G7yED6aI8HzhZxUy0/s1600/PAY-DAD-SPOTS-BLACK-MONK-STARRING-AT-HIM-FROM-OTHER-SIDE-OF-CASTLE-GROUNDS+%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="615" data-original-width="615" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivgcUB0eD3gPm4JUEcudKTMMyPjgf_zsbyNbNHs6U7iYaqt0qJPX-MCxYG-980t5ZjDLeqw2wyFUtLIrMLzBIlN_eRrku1J0cYSr-Ds8Me0gGoy_eZq37Z5-U4i5G7yED6aI8HzhZxUy0/s640/PAY-DAD-SPOTS-BLACK-MONK-STARRING-AT-HIM-FROM-OTHER-SIDE-OF-CASTLE-GROUNDS+%25282%2529.jpg" width="640" /></b></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>The investigator, Tigwell tells the Record he visited the castle twice to search the area for potential answers before declaring it 'unexplainable'.</b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"I went to the site twice last Thursday – in the morning when it first opened and later on. The purpose of my visit was to ascertain whether there was anything within those walls to explain the picture. I've been investigating the paranormal for over 20 years. The difficulty with looking at things retrospectively is that it's impossible to say exactly what something is.All I can say is that there wasn't anything in the castle itself that could explain that picture."</b></blockquote>
<b>Hmmm... "within those walls..." these words may come back to haunt Tigwell.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgS77uTlV5yZ1jqvg6k_xpxiRZqiLwmEUNrf6_ha6e6heWlT9HGGgG36enVgHBKLm5vqyizZOYnraOE7O1q5AQk2r9ccLXZ6sR8ffXC5NdebXZLgiNgpMMdjS0Wphf-iZemmbMzurpUn0/s1600/cas1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="327" data-original-width="400" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgS77uTlV5yZ1jqvg6k_xpxiRZqiLwmEUNrf6_ha6e6heWlT9HGGgG36enVgHBKLm5vqyizZOYnraOE7O1q5AQk2r9ccLXZ6sR8ffXC5NdebXZLgiNgpMMdjS0Wphf-iZemmbMzurpUn0/s320/cas1.png" width="320" /></b></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>I can't get to Kent at short notice, so I decided to use the wonders of Google to attempt to solve this mystery. I used street view to get as close the castle grounds as possible. The first few images gave me a pretty clear idea of what our 'phantom' actually is. </b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_rQQXs33YPRfvasGsSXPcA0ohHaoxyZYE7wOqWsLt14w968wqov1XvrciC95YX9GN-g5mk-IOBeJiHDCF5urIYiFoE0jtVLCfgw7pWhJeZyqPSohykl1sbB5t62jNxquQoydxd56gC4o/s1600/cas2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="385" data-original-width="673" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_rQQXs33YPRfvasGsSXPcA0ohHaoxyZYE7wOqWsLt14w968wqov1XvrciC95YX9GN-g5mk-IOBeJiHDCF5urIYiFoE0jtVLCfgw7pWhJeZyqPSohykl1sbB5t62jNxquQoydxd56gC4o/s400/cas2.png" width="400" /></b></a></div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>The various walls of the Norman castle are punctuated with doorways and openings. Some of which may appear dark in poor lighting conditions due to the fact that they have walls immediately behind them. After forming this idea it was a case of finding the area in question and checking it for such openings. Luckily the area photographed was quite distinctive having the bridge, steps, wall and river in the same shot and there is a wealth of shots of the Castle on the internet.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Sure enough, I managed to find the exact area. The only remaining issue was that as the image was taken in an open field, there was a multitude of angles that other photographers could take pictures of the wall in question from. After a tiny bit of searching, I found an image that fit the bill, taken in July 2017.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjngVkV3CCLSiCmpV6vROO3j2MYqOB1l8AKw0aQB01-iLIDfQ7XX2XVxmk_S5Rj_b1jUS841IQThBSlrWglLF_c3fhG9uwgyIcVXh7xF8hJ9htP6AhzF7niakCJu_R4JmUF6H-eD44whUI/s1600/cas3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="309" data-original-width="477" height="414" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjngVkV3CCLSiCmpV6vROO3j2MYqOB1l8AKw0aQB01-iLIDfQ7XX2XVxmk_S5Rj_b1jUS841IQThBSlrWglLF_c3fhG9uwgyIcVXh7xF8hJ9htP6AhzF7niakCJu_R4JmUF6H-eD44whUI/s640/cas3.png" width="640" /></b></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>A side by side comparison shows it is the same area taken from a slightly different angle. And if we zoom in somewhat, we can distinctly see the top of the opening which the Record is claiming is a ghostly monk.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjseIcXlE2s-FgQ2e4ZFUlIkOX1Ja9-NR7zSLVRPb2UZDGZhtpBxkGbv_m9IZ7wnm2KQyQ5kmYGY4rQYi7Mxc-d39fsDmTOKCzLJ4iGUAI6vYhRFGPXzjIuEU24iLu5GL4aYPaZXo7WiYo/s1600/cas4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="838" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjseIcXlE2s-FgQ2e4ZFUlIkOX1Ja9-NR7zSLVRPb2UZDGZhtpBxkGbv_m9IZ7wnm2KQyQ5kmYGY4rQYi7Mxc-d39fsDmTOKCzLJ4iGUAI6vYhRFGPXzjIuEU24iLu5GL4aYPaZXo7WiYo/s640/cas4.png" width="640" /></b></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>The last thing to do is check this is actually a feature on the wall. To do this we can use the fact that the image was taken at a slightly different angle but at roughly the same distance from the wall to bust this ghost. All we have to do is choose a reference point on the wall we think the opening is based on. We then measure how much this reference point (1) shifts from our test image (A) to the image featured in the Record (B). If the 'ghost' is simply a feature of the wall we should expect it to also shift by a comparable amount. You may want to click on this image to enlarge it.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuhvQa1g2dmkP3v9Ch0NGKJl5exQNdZXqdt6HS91bcH-k9pNFWVZZrlt69RsNPuuXNDxco5tm0VVCsYThCMUSdev-cL9U7DyndcPYcsCKCrXrSYqxp9hwx33FtquzhJPnk4Ez4cEt2bAk/s1600/cas5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><b><img border="0" data-original-height="527" data-original-width="1099" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuhvQa1g2dmkP3v9Ch0NGKJl5exQNdZXqdt6HS91bcH-k9pNFWVZZrlt69RsNPuuXNDxco5tm0VVCsYThCMUSdev-cL9U7DyndcPYcsCKCrXrSYqxp9hwx33FtquzhJPnk4Ez4cEt2bAk/s640/cas5.png" width="640" /></b></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Indeed we find our reference point (1) moved by roughly -40mm and our 'ghost' shifted by roughly -37mm. I put that 3mm drift down to the relativity low level of accuracy we've used to measure the shift and the slight difference in distance between the point where A and B were taken.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>I think this one is well and truly debunked. On to the Mirror and Star to republish it regardless, like the peerless journals they are. As for Tigwell, I don't want to be rude, but perhaps focus more on the earning second half of the title "Paranormal Investigator" and a little less on justifying the first.</b><br />
<br />
<h2>
Sources</h2>
(1) https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/dad-photographs-ghost-monk-medieval-11907283</div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-60390010767765243372018-01-23T19:33:00.001+00:002018-01-24T21:26:49.391+00:00The Art of Misdirection: Supporting your ideology the easy way. <b>The last few days have been fairly interesting in regards to some of the feedback I've received to my Jordan Peterson article 'The Politicization of Science: Jordan Peterson's lesson from lobsters' (1). Mainly because a particular strategy of argumentation has arisen in response to the points I made in the post which I think it's valuable to highlight. Not every exchange I had with regards to the post ran this way, and many of the people who had negative things to say stuck to the science and we were able to have a positive dialogue even if we didn't come to an agreement at the end of it. Then there were other people who were much less interested in the science I presented. In fact, they seemed adamant to avoid discussing the science at all. </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8d0uJfJz_2Fdhll-3_brVRIklqgZuPnYTupsdDQGDbFmBHgrVIc8DVe3sRr9PwR_T2ruf2JkUBrDtMi3E6wyPowKMzVv1afDCb8DqlsmgR53badG8s_v5M4bUDhzC8YYv4PIiyclP3g8/s1600/zoid.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8d0uJfJz_2Fdhll-3_brVRIklqgZuPnYTupsdDQGDbFmBHgrVIc8DVe3sRr9PwR_T2ruf2JkUBrDtMi3E6wyPowKMzVv1afDCb8DqlsmgR53badG8s_v5M4bUDhzC8YYv4PIiyclP3g8/s640/zoid.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
<br />
Firstly before critiquing anybody else, let me offer some self-criticism. The Peterson post was the third addition in the loose series of posts I call the politicization of science. It's the second one which has dealt with a right-wing example of the skewing of science to support an ideological point. The first being '<i>The Politicization Of Science: How the study "Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain" became the news story "Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With"'</i>(2). I also offered a criticism of a left-wing organisation skewing or misrepresenting science in <i>'The Politicization Of Science: A Response To "US trade deal after Brexit could see milk and baby formula with cancer-causing toxins flood UK market"'. </i> In addition to those posts, I began a third edition previous to the Jordan Peterson article that would have focused on the Young Turks horrendously mangling a science story. It was never completed simply because I just did have the time to really do it justice. That would have also been critical of a left-wing source.<br />
<br />
The difference between those previous posts and the Peterson one is that in the latter I let my impartiality slip somewhat at the start of the post. I commented on one of Peterson's other arguments that isn't really relevant to the issue I wanted to deal with and in doing so, I let my partisanship show, albeit briefly. That isn't the point of the politicization of science posts, the point of which is to show that it doesn't matter what side of the political aisle we approach science from, properly applied science and skeptism is not partisan. I hold my hands up, it's a lesson for the future. I do believe that after briefly assessing some of Peterson's other arguments when I move onto his specific claims I focus on these alone, and without a political bias.That brings me to the criticism I've received which has tended to fall into some very narrow topics.<br />
<br />
<h3>
The Nit Pick squared.</h3>
<div>
Some commenters, including a fairly well known 'science' podcaster, have pointed out that I have no grounds to criticise Peterson's use of the word 'divulge' instead of 'diverge'. Mostly because at one point in the article I spell 'serotonin' as '<i>seratonin'. </i></div>
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6KA6QOmphs0Fb-AjL8NKv_Ymkzg290bjeXnrjMsKgD1uhQ0UHnd9d6ksqPJEcYCmTpWRk2M9758RE_18c8YjdQD8iTvvKq-WPEYAyybcrSF_jVz3UJuwBhO5sppNUAiZMloRSQGc1_n8/s1600/dan.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="626" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6KA6QOmphs0Fb-AjL8NKv_Ymkzg290bjeXnrjMsKgD1uhQ0UHnd9d6ksqPJEcYCmTpWRk2M9758RE_18c8YjdQD8iTvvKq-WPEYAyybcrSF_jVz3UJuwBhO5sppNUAiZMloRSQGc1_n8/s1600/dan.png" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are a few points to make about this. Firstly I don't think that a grammatical error is the same as getting a piece of terminology wrong. I don't think it's a fundamental mistake. Science relies heavily on precise terminology. If you're presenting a scientific idea it creates a terrible impression if your terminology is wrong. Secondly, I hardly "rail" on Jordan for this. I mention it once then move on to his claims. Let's look at how "hard" I mocked Jordan:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: "times new roman" , "times" , "freeserif" , serif; font-size: 19.8px;">"Jordan says humans "divulged from lobsters". We should assume that Jordan means "diverge" rather than "divulge" an embarrassing slip and one that gives the distinct impression Petersen doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Putting this lack of knowledge of terminology aside, the claim Peterson is making is simply not true"</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Scathing.<br />
<br />
In a 1065 word article, I devote a WHOPPING 53 words discussing his slip. That's just 5% of the article. I'd hardly say the crux of my argument against Jordan's claims rests on this element as Dan seems to imply. I'll return to Dan in second.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Jordan explains here why I should pick him up on his words.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyp6JyHd_30diQuP_vgPQ7nEnvtIRDQUc4Gsst69wMDf9SBDc6XmvpvjcpU08nF6NNu4Ft3YUTWMWSV9bii9Q' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
Thanks Jordan!<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
You really need to read /watch /listen to his books /website /podcasts before commenting</h3>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: normal;">Another claim was that I shouldn't take Jordan's claims on the show at face value, perhaps he gets the things he gets wrong here, right in his other materials. </span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4nAvstBqfH9leMlNNKGACYIcB8Aww22NPv_b2qCbEfHaMRP-Ass8xvLz0CTiaYw22ET3yHRFbGuBrUnKv9lnu0XFs9rjbmiinDYOUTAEjx8YEtgSEEPer4p6zKLLk6kQX429k3SnNaSw/s1600/dan2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="192" data-original-width="418" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4nAvstBqfH9leMlNNKGACYIcB8Aww22NPv_b2qCbEfHaMRP-Ass8xvLz0CTiaYw22ET3yHRFbGuBrUnKv9lnu0XFs9rjbmiinDYOUTAEjx8YEtgSEEPer4p6zKLLk6kQX429k3SnNaSw/s640/dan2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
Maybe Jordan does get this stuff right in his books, but I find it unlikely. Why? Because he gets things so fundamentally wrong. Two of the elements he discusses, the role of serotonin and the effect of antidepressants, are completely opposite to what he claims. In a similar vein, he's hardly going to correct on these errors given time to continue and elaborate. As an analogy, trains that derail don't tend to hop back onto the tracks if they're allowed to run for a while.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWRX7WceF_a0GdNLkm5iamxCQfySAqZgmCv1nBLHFGEfKjXyU2AK4O5GKrwNXG8UmpP2KeM8jU4TKtN2zP7p0juRPKgnN9A-DCXamNJhxqmZUUCR6GjgLqQse8Wj18iMe8cmi-Xd6Cb-A/s1600/dan5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="640" height="518" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWRX7WceF_a0GdNLkm5iamxCQfySAqZgmCv1nBLHFGEfKjXyU2AK4O5GKrwNXG8UmpP2KeM8jU4TKtN2zP7p0juRPKgnN9A-DCXamNJhxqmZUUCR6GjgLqQse8Wj18iMe8cmi-Xd6Cb-A/s640/dan5.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
As for running to his books to correct these errors, do skeptics and science lovers do this when Ray Comfort makes a glaring error? When Comfort called the banana "the atheist's nightmare" how many of us immediately logged onto our Kindles just to give him the benefit of the doubt?<br />
<br />
None of us. We were too busy making 'banana man' memes. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh27aP6neHSKqR8ctd2NZCCuAuvwEkm6ZPiqLlEpQvUJONVSPNQGgYARWaAoEzde6bEF3T9MrYRyMiqwTeyWeJyv8PFYLhXpBxKl7KCqfSqdWDWbo5KmC5RO1Gjlcevrcx-RWGiUsvU7Oo/s1600/ray+comfort.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="563" height="510" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh27aP6neHSKqR8ctd2NZCCuAuvwEkm6ZPiqLlEpQvUJONVSPNQGgYARWaAoEzde6bEF3T9MrYRyMiqwTeyWeJyv8PFYLhXpBxKl7KCqfSqdWDWbo5KmC5RO1Gjlcevrcx-RWGiUsvU7Oo/s640/ray+comfort.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Why should we give Peterson any more charity than Comfort?<br />
<br />
Because he's a Professor?<br />
<h3>
An argument from authority. </h3>
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8KhKv4eEbbDZbwklYEOX8tVJJHxBtt-gZ1vjpqZkGTklP7poHqjJCWM198NYcZnosTHqhNKmDzmkyVBy3vJv23bcfJYi7XsOclzZIFRbYqwgGklgDQ8CjCjCz7-vORKV_f4OkARDLv5g/s1600/dan3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8KhKv4eEbbDZbwklYEOX8tVJJHxBtt-gZ1vjpqZkGTklP7poHqjJCWM198NYcZnosTHqhNKmDzmkyVBy3vJv23bcfJYi7XsOclzZIFRbYqwgGklgDQ8CjCjCz7-vORKV_f4OkARDLv5g/s1600/dan3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8KhKv4eEbbDZbwklYEOX8tVJJHxBtt-gZ1vjpqZkGTklP7poHqjJCWM198NYcZnosTHqhNKmDzmkyVBy3vJv23bcfJYi7XsOclzZIFRbYqwgGklgDQ8CjCjCz7-vORKV_f4OkARDLv5g/s1600/dan3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="64" data-original-width="389" height="104" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8KhKv4eEbbDZbwklYEOX8tVJJHxBtt-gZ1vjpqZkGTklP7poHqjJCWM198NYcZnosTHqhNKmDzmkyVBy3vJv23bcfJYi7XsOclzZIFRbYqwgGklgDQ8CjCjCz7-vORKV_f4OkARDLv5g/s640/dan3.png" width="640" /></a>A commenter on a thread created by Youtuber Noel Plum, commented on the likelihood of a professor making a mistake regarding terminology or evolution. </div>
</div>
<br />
I don't know if he misspoke or he is fundamentally wrong about evolution, but I can't rule out the possibility of the latter as Jordan may well be a professor, but he is NOT a professor of biology. Peterson is a psychology professor which in no way makes him an expert in evolutionary biology or anatomy or neurology. I've no reason to suspect he's anymore knowledgeable about biology than anyone else. This is simply an argument from authority. But wait, I'm not a biology professor either, or a neurologist. How can we be sure I'm correct?<br />
<br />
That's why I cite my sources so you can check I'm right and correct me if I'm not.<br />
<br />
<h3>
'Cause Feminism!</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimvW3Ccrya1fnLUBRQAIcQBs0VWhCyu8Alfxx0ZRTc51LOCpE8KEyIIY0NjaV3nerq3_tbWNTNXY9cN2MBZH6o6z-GiPFYObcZm5D22K7-QZEPB5FDD8TbcQB_V0hzjODItEAKqbGYAAo/s1600/dan6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="133" data-original-width="470" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimvW3Ccrya1fnLUBRQAIcQBs0VWhCyu8Alfxx0ZRTc51LOCpE8KEyIIY0NjaV3nerq3_tbWNTNXY9cN2MBZH6o6z-GiPFYObcZm5D22K7-QZEPB5FDD8TbcQB_V0hzjODItEAKqbGYAAo/s640/dan6.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
And here's the crux of the matter, and the theme that ran through almost all the criticism my post received. People see Jordan as a warrior against 'third wave feminism' and they really don't care about the fact that he is completely wrong in the science he is using to support his ideology. To many of the people who defended Jordan, it didn't matter he got almost everything he said wrong. All that mattered was the intent. Now, this is not something exclusive to this discussion by any means, but the reason this is so troubling here is these discussions are occurring in science groups. These arguments are made by people who describe themselves as "science enthusiasts" and skeptics. And they want to talk about anything but science.<br />
<br />
Need convincing of this?<br />
<h3>
Let's not get to the point.</h3>
<div>
Clearly, if you've read my post you know the main drive of it is the science presented by Peterson. It's ironic then, that most of the people I interacted with on this subject wanted absolutely nothing to do with the science described by Jordan. I attempted several times to steer the conversation to science. These are the kind of responses I received. Remember Dan? Here's his response when I requested a discussion on the science in question on the science page he moderates.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0-7rLNbGxbE6cnymUQBBSBvMhCBIN7ttMp1D1HpiRbp7L8s3diedi6JEsOEoB_vtzvtIaAaNUlVX1_gsDrF9Bdpe2ztmT0rQliQVDqiFp9Dy4WnNYCQqUKLzn6IFs0l5wTo6r0OCvOaQ/s1600/dan7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="100" data-original-width="422" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0-7rLNbGxbE6cnymUQBBSBvMhCBIN7ttMp1D1HpiRbp7L8s3diedi6JEsOEoB_vtzvtIaAaNUlVX1_gsDrF9Bdpe2ztmT0rQliQVDqiFp9Dy4WnNYCQqUKLzn6IFs0l5wTo6r0OCvOaQ/s640/dan7.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
That hurts my feels! Why do some of these folks not want to talk about the science involved here with me? This lovely chap (below), Miles, thinks it's because I'm not a very nice person. Put mildly. Oh and I've given him an extremely complex 17-word answer to one of his questions!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1kaNb7i2fPwIYtT15WEnjcdnCB5pnsHOhEgG-u_mFEObeWEvr8N-Geb2dztiI06UKW6piNcfFwk6XK6_hT4IIcOUWbzwAdX0mEv3IoVnV5mi2dxAep0rDvG1D0yjnUGXK4nmtWyPhS7k/s1600/miles0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="369" data-original-width="1299" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1kaNb7i2fPwIYtT15WEnjcdnCB5pnsHOhEgG-u_mFEObeWEvr8N-Geb2dztiI06UKW6piNcfFwk6XK6_hT4IIcOUWbzwAdX0mEv3IoVnV5mi2dxAep0rDvG1D0yjnUGXK4nmtWyPhS7k/s640/miles0.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Now, anybody would think that Miles and Dan are desperate here not to actually address the points I've raised both are focusing on trivial matters. It doesn't really matter if Peterson was reading off notes, and it's not that important his slip of words.<br />
<br />
But that's all his supporters seem to want to talk about. Here's a list of the things I requested that Peterson supporters completely ignored.<br />
<ul>
<li>Any evidence that humans diverged from lobsters 350 mya.</li>
<li>Any evidence that serotonin has a similar affect in arthropods as in humans.</li>
<li>That hierarchy existed in proto-roundworms, the lobster/human earliest common ancestor.</li>
<li>That similarity in animal hierarchy in such diverse classifications as mammal and arthropod are anything more than convergent evolution.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>That antidepressants effect lobsters in similar ways to humans.</li>
<li>That lobster hierarchy, which is totally based upon fighting, is in anyway comparable to human society.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh06C0DYS8rCSjCqpjrfLJWD1KQTay6cN9rQce9Hfsk-_KbTXr59dnkN2tXUTrmWA74-C6clEhXdhvd7eGsPZg6EKC58pqpHc8brlcKIqbeP-ys-T6isXbvklET-LBqV_qUZIBE4UfWKtY/s1600/misdirection.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="272" data-original-width="392" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh06C0DYS8rCSjCqpjrfLJWD1KQTay6cN9rQce9Hfsk-_KbTXr59dnkN2tXUTrmWA74-C6clEhXdhvd7eGsPZg6EKC58pqpHc8brlcKIqbeP-ys-T6isXbvklET-LBqV_qUZIBE4UfWKtY/s320/misdirection.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This is pure misdirection. These "fans of science" don't want to be forced to admit there's no science behind this anti-feminist ideology. That they support it not because it's well-founded, but because they like it. Yet they want these ideas to be founded in science because they've seen science devastate religious and supernatural arguments for years. Science was an ally to them and they want to keep it that way. This means they have to point to irrelevant things such as whether Peterson has notes, or whether he intentionally said "divulge" instead of "diverge" when these things don't really matter. What matters is whether Peterson is wrong in the science he presents or not. The only way to avoid admitting that he is, is to avoid talking about it.<br />
<br />
They want science to work for them again. And when it won't they stuff their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes.<br />
<br />
<b>Peterson is frequently accused of being "the stupid man's smart person" and I sadly suspect this is all too true.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
(1) https://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-politicization-of-science-jordan.html<br />
<br />
(2) http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/the-politicization-of-science-how-study.htmlRobert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-25123099477512612122018-01-21T15:15:00.002+00:002018-01-23T19:39:49.226+00:00The Politicization of science: Jordan Peterson's lesson from lobsters<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2DrCJ7MwgxYtneSH0G4BLWo9DKxN2oe3SGZp2dejn-U8jvs9T2GQAIS7jS9hTKp8cgN_D2-jLOK1bDqMy_Yjk2G5NB6qbVo1Ytm1Q-AQKOdxPue4rGUhqv6vQREq1ogNw-f1NrS0ZR8s/s1600/jordan.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="327" data-original-width="561" height="372" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2DrCJ7MwgxYtneSH0G4BLWo9DKxN2oe3SGZp2dejn-U8jvs9T2GQAIS7jS9hTKp8cgN_D2-jLOK1bDqMy_Yjk2G5NB6qbVo1Ytm1Q-AQKOdxPue4rGUhqv6vQREq1ogNw-f1NrS0ZR8s/s640/jordan.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<b>By now I'm sure many of you are aware of Jordan Peterson, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. Peterson has become a darling of the Youtube alt-right crowd as a result of his refusal to refer to individuals by their prefered gender pronouns, especially new gender-neutral pronouns such as 'Ze' (1). Peterson recently made headlines across the globe when a rather spiky interview with channel four news host Cathy Newman, resulted in her being inundated with threatening and misogynistic messages, which is what happens when you dare to disagree with an alt-right idol in a public space, especially if you have the sheer audacity of being female as you're doing this. What caught my attention during this exchange was Peterson's attempt to suggest that human hierarchies are a result of evolution. In particular, Peterson points to the lobster as an example, and in doing so demonstrates the kind of knowledge of evolution we'd normally associate with a creationist. </b><br />
<br />
I've avoided Peterson's arguments against new pronouns thus far, mainly because of how silly it all seems. Language changes frequently and the addition of new words to help define and categories new ideas are not restricted to expressions of gender. Peterson insists he is not 'transphobic' as he is frequently accused of being, but this defence somewhat falls apart when we investigate his argument and find he has no issue with other new terms being introduced to the lexicon. Peterson is fine with words such as 'dongle', 'emojii' and 'meme' all introduced to the Merriam Webster dictionary and other dictionaries in the last ten years (2). He only objects to the addition of words directly related to gender. Jordan argues that these new words somehow impinge on his right to free speech, which implies he alone has the right to decide how people should be identified. Like most alt-righters who argue for 'free-speech', it's only Jordan's own right to speak he's concerned with.<br />
<br />
But in the aforementioned interview, Peterson attempted to suggest that human hierarchies aren't socially created, but are effects of human evolution. His evidence for this is the fact that lobsters also have hierarchies. Let's watch the section of the interview in which he makes this claim. If you want to watch the whole interview the link is in the sources (3). Pay special attention to the fact Jordan is clearly reading from pre-prepared notes (4).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dySJTRgKrI4mSn0Q_CLK5RkhegR7hQJSq5Ohfv_U_vaT9LmTXM7pQNy8di5TDlZgCZqj4cwrcvZmN7chAX8Qg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Let's look at the easiest points to debunk first. Human lineage diverged from arthropods long before lobsters evolved, so lobster hierarchy clearly developed independant t o any human socitital structures.<br />
<br />
Jordan says humans "divulged from lobsters". We should assume that Jordan means "diverge" rather than "divulge" an embarrassing slip and one that gives the distinct impression Petersen doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. Putting this lack of knowledge of terminology aside, the claim Peterson is making is simply not true. Humans did not diverge from lobsters. Jordan throws in the term "common ancestor" and that element is correct lobsters and humans do share a common ancestor. Peterson tells us that this divergence occurred 350 million years ago, but he is way out here. The ancestors of lobsters did indeed appear roughly 360 million years ago (5), but lobsters are invertebrates, specifically, arthropods much like arachnids and insects, whilst humans are vertebrates. These are completely separate groups on the phylogenic tree, and diverged at least 500 million years ago (5). As the main difference between two groups of animals is a completely different skeletal structure, it seems sensible to suggest that they diverged before the development of any type of skeletal structure at all. Probably something similar to a roundworm with a centralised nervous system. So human societal structures and lobster hierarchies are completely unrelated as even conservative estimations show the vertebrate branch of the phylogenic tree diverged hundreds of millions of years before the emergence of the proto-lobster.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirIDslPtvaxAzT45KALQsf3cOhln-d_MbNIdVIGza90cZEEtcDQXIP5DfSt0MGzS4Xhjt12h4LBAhJmHWxqoeOOF0jeFbfGICsdIhFaU-PDWxsukEdDGPgbkgQY8SzUGM46xw_WRjPe2g/s1600/evolution-of-vertebrates-3-638.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="638" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirIDslPtvaxAzT45KALQsf3cOhln-d_MbNIdVIGza90cZEEtcDQXIP5DfSt0MGzS4Xhjt12h4LBAhJmHWxqoeOOF0jeFbfGICsdIhFaU-PDWxsukEdDGPgbkgQY8SzUGM46xw_WRjPe2g/s640/evolution-of-vertebrates-3-638.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So what about the other similarities that Peterson highlights? Do they exist at all?<br />
<br />
Seratonin is indeed found in the brains of both humans and lobsters. In fact, it is found in the systems of most animals and it is generally linked to aggression. As all species share a common ancestor this shouldn't be surprising to us. Clearly, serotonin was a part of our's and lobster's common ancestor. But what Peterson doesn't mention, perhaps because he is unaware, serotonin has a completely different effect in arthropods and vertebrates. In vertebrates lowered levels of serotonin lead to increased aggression. Studies using crustaceans, such as crayfish, have shown that increased serotonin can reverse societal positions (6) as these roles are determined by aggressive confrontation. The lobsters with higher serotonin levels engaged in more aggressive confrontations and were less likely to withdraw, thus they improved their societal standing. With invertebrates, the opposite is true (7). In fact, there are conditions in which the failure of a particular gland to produce serotonin in humans causes unprovoked violent outbursts (8).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHzYA7AQbguLw4N-AkS9qTiqFsZie5_jVFsakM2ic8qz2GqGhENaNdLaNVFOW2Epsc0weXA1hZRJ0cqM8jETz6HrawPI6gr8jOVZz3-PM3ToAxd0ZV0QChuT4Ua5v86Dc2CSfrhbpGE34/s1600/Crayfish-with-Prozac.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="281" data-original-width="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHzYA7AQbguLw4N-AkS9qTiqFsZie5_jVFsakM2ic8qz2GqGhENaNdLaNVFOW2Epsc0weXA1hZRJ0cqM8jETz6HrawPI6gr8jOVZz3-PM3ToAxd0ZV0QChuT4Ua5v86Dc2CSfrhbpGE34/s1600/Crayfish-with-Prozac.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
As for Peterson's other statement that "antidepressants work on lobsters" again in the same study as the one linked above Prozac was introduced to lobsters, and a significant effect was found. As in humans, in lobsters<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: justify;">,</span> Prozac blocks serotonin uptake into nerve terminals (8). Predictably, as the abundance of serotonin in arthropods has opposite effects to its abundance in the systems of vertebrates, Prozac also has converse effects. So antidepressants do work on lobsters, albeit in a completely different way!<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7BBeu8kjUsW_vS-juDvDGeN3lgvj_CZZssSKTeisipUW7kUQs7z-yUtSG1CzdeA01xQg3HnWy8IrSa2M4QBpXki9er36r_29-zqfc0cSk39QLBFEa5VxfMLpkorE4lvhyphenhyphen9r4kRA-pDhE/s1600/hqdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7BBeu8kjUsW_vS-juDvDGeN3lgvj_CZZssSKTeisipUW7kUQs7z-yUtSG1CzdeA01xQg3HnWy8IrSa2M4QBpXki9er36r_29-zqfc0cSk39QLBFEa5VxfMLpkorE4lvhyphenhyphen9r4kRA-pDhE/s400/hqdefault.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">rough day at the office?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Human hierarchical structures are nothing like those of lobsters. Comparing the two is actually quite laughable. Lobsters are clearly extremely basic animals with a simple brain, much more influenced by body chemistry. Hierarchy is determined by body size and aggression. Clearly, we don't determine our leaders based on the results of UFC matches. Sometimes I get the impression that men like Peterson believe that this is the case, or at least wish it were, that the more aggressive candidate should assume a leadership role. It's a male power fantasy where they will be valued for their masculinity, aggression and physical strength. This is why it is young men in particular that find this nonsense appealing. They desire a world in which advantages are conveyed to them based on their nature and morphology alone. Clearly, our society has moved beyond this, the existence of art, music, science and literature all make Jordan's comparisons to lobsters utterly facile.<br />
<h2>
There's an epilogue to this story fair readers. <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-art-of-misdirection-supporting-your.html" target="_blank">Click here to read it.</a></h2>
<br />
<br />
<b>Sources</b><br />
<br />
(1) <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jordan-peterson-cathy-newman-interview-channel-4-abuse-psychologist-professor-women-political-a8169926.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jordan-peterson-cathy-newman-interview-channel-4-abuse-psychologist-professor-women-political-a8169926.html</a><br />
<br />
(2) <a href="https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865629620/10-new-words-added-to-the-dictionary-in-the-past-10-years.html">https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865629620/10-new-words-added-to-the-dictionary-in-the-past-10-years.html</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54</a><br />
<br />
(4) <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10155601295271939/" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10155601295271939/</a><br />
<br />
(5) <a href="https://news.fiu.edu/2014/02/marine-scientists-find-worlds-oldest-lobster/74791">https://news.fiu.edu/2014/02/marine-scientists-find-worlds-oldest-lobster/74791</a><br />
<br />
(6) <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20885/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20885/</a><br />
<br />
(7) <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/98/3/1277.long">http://www.pnas.org/content/98/3/1277.long</a><br />
<br />
(8) <a href="http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/serotonin-levels-affect-the-brain%E2%80%99s-response-to-anger">http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/serotonin-levels-affect-the-brain%E2%80%99s-response-to-anger</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-124765501044173292018-01-10T20:56:00.000+00:002018-01-10T21:25:58.603+00:00The Caspers: Celebrating the worst of the paranormal in 2017!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQoaq3DL8r6i_L5165DDMlSXGwWPWvbmZ-tQV2x-_7q7eHFOz_EBohYRJyPMUCr89sSoNbePcZNFc8c5C86l5myw4jpPwL54c5cH7lAf_R4PkVcl1vG7TLTkj8-4Vo1SFlA48gWZ2KO4A/s1600/caspers.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="507" data-original-width="548" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQoaq3DL8r6i_L5165DDMlSXGwWPWvbmZ-tQV2x-_7q7eHFOz_EBohYRJyPMUCr89sSoNbePcZNFc8c5C86l5myw4jpPwL54c5cH7lAf_R4PkVcl1vG7TLTkj8-4Vo1SFlA48gWZ2KO4A/s320/caspers.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>It's time for awards season to gradually roll around again, and as others prepare to celebrate the best and brightest in their respective fields let us turn our attention to the slightly less prestigious. <br /><br />It's time to hand out the Caspers for the worst in paranormal chicanery and hijinks. What can we say about 2017 other than what a fantastic year for the paranormal, especially for the rich and famous. </b><b>No year before has ever seen quite so many skeletons rupture from long since sealed and forgotten closets to claim their vengeance. </b><b>Hollywood stars and politicians have been scared stiff all year! </b><br />
<br />
And talking of Hollywood, let's make the world of showbiz the first stop in our tour of paranormal dross. Our first Casper goes to the worst paranormal TV show of 2017!<br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<h2>
<b>Worst Paranormal TV show of 2017!</b></h2>
Without a doubt, this is the most hotly contested category of the year. Nick Groff certainly made his presence known in the category, both Paranormal Lockdown and Ghosts of Shepherdstown were strong contenders. Ghosts of Shepherdstown particularly elicited ire from the paranormal community after accusations of fakery were levelled against it. The irony of this should not escape anybody.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg07QzzkK9zeP2aJU2H_Sk_cHUUJTgEPF3eg_35YI-_Df6YrZQ0bYijXj3wx7TJfPFfkUSsmdX8JKaE1St1tM1LH-2PbF8i4jREG5D0Sbvbv5xr8G08ylGvlj-F0RQY4qaHU3A_pD1taf8/s1600/groff.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="270" data-original-width="537" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg07QzzkK9zeP2aJU2H_Sk_cHUUJTgEPF3eg_35YI-_Df6YrZQ0bYijXj3wx7TJfPFfkUSsmdX8JKaE1St1tM1LH-2PbF8i4jREG5D0Sbvbv5xr8G08ylGvlj-F0RQY4qaHU3A_pD1taf8/s640/groff.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Have a lie-down Nick: You're a double runner-up</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Also, this year featured a return to prominence of the long-in-the-tooth Most Haunted with a clearly <a href="https://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/most-haunted-series-19-episode-2.html" target="_blank">overlaid video</a> propelling Karl and Yvette back from obscurity to the tabloids (and back again). Special amusement comes from this one simply due to the fact that <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4432040/Ground-breaking-footage-ghostly-figure.html" target="_blank">the quote</a> that accompanied MH's return to fame from host Yvette Fielding "<i>'In the 17 years we've been doing Most Haunted we've always wanted to capture a ghost on camera," </i>strongly implies that all the other times they have claimed to capture ghosts on film were well.... bullshit.<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 11.25px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkyq1Qx2CC0plL8Mf8McxVCc2Az86a8weiWWTGi5m4KEy8dVqCNiIgecua7Os56iO947so3zCLPPCpz5M7SUfsJ50eURRVhCcKnr1V-BzFJMgpTY_rfVIYKiLppvuQ9zBXsmrPFReZY5Y/s1600/nintchdbpict0003183669211-e1492770519860.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="451" data-original-width="535" height="538" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkyq1Qx2CC0plL8Mf8McxVCc2Az86a8weiWWTGi5m4KEy8dVqCNiIgecua7Os56iO947so3zCLPPCpz5M7SUfsJ50eURRVhCcKnr1V-BzFJMgpTY_rfVIYKiLppvuQ9zBXsmrPFReZY5Y/s640/nintchdbpict0003183669211-e1492770519860.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Runners-up. Most haunted. There's always next year guys.... and the year after.... and after.... and after.....</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Another special mention should go to 'Lowe and Son's Amateur Hour' or as it was eventually named <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-lowe-files-in-focus-new-lowe-for.html" target="_blank">'The Lowe Files'.</a> Despite garnering lots of attention it's hard to be too critical of this one as it was clear that Lowe and lads clearly didn't have a clue what they were doing and a lot of folks found this quite endearing.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdpKuzhTH5212nZPW0d5rsDx22Kj8RxIwIFE5WouvWvXTmSIHfVJ2SNLmrJVwGpZ9leXP1PERSS3ctgBcgDmEOuvhn_dYcnCa_XQaArO54nTFWZUFxVAicG03c2GXR3TN-fJ2AhoshLOA/s1600/lowe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="493" data-original-width="876" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdpKuzhTH5212nZPW0d5rsDx22Kj8RxIwIFE5WouvWvXTmSIHfVJ2SNLmrJVwGpZ9leXP1PERSS3ctgBcgDmEOuvhn_dYcnCa_XQaArO54nTFWZUFxVAicG03c2GXR3TN-fJ2AhoshLOA/s640/lowe.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Runners-up: Lowe and Sons Amateur Hour. Don't pout guys, you're runners up!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
So with so much hot competition on the television why not hand the award to a show so ham-fisted, amateurish and crappy that it didn't even make it to TV.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Winner of 2017's Worst Paranormal TV show: Haunted Tours with Stephen Erikantano!</h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOQf3OVaQeWWRtsAMFcaH7TS1hS05iP3HbzbmgYvdDGR_I5EUcwxPPKL4VtLnTaJ45IiETRTY0qgIp0VffEtR67BEIMv0S0_d4NWKpt4HUzD5IbJ1R6yEuZ4QQBJ6hTsztmTShjAYwmew/s1600/haunted4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="505" data-original-width="887" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOQf3OVaQeWWRtsAMFcaH7TS1hS05iP3HbzbmgYvdDGR_I5EUcwxPPKL4VtLnTaJ45IiETRTY0qgIp0VffEtR67BEIMv0S0_d4NWKpt4HUzD5IbJ1R6yEuZ4QQBJ6hTsztmTShjAYwmew/s640/haunted4.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Don't do it, Stephen! You won!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h4>
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br />Who better to collect this anti-prize than the makers of the <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/ghost-hunting-just-got-extremely-stupid.html" target="_blank">Haunted Tours show</a>, who promised their show</span> "is unlike any other you’ve seen..." <span style="font-weight: normal;">and lived up to the claim by ensuring none of us saw it! The makers, the Jalbert Brothers, also proudly claimed that the show would debut on "Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime" in Late October 2017.</span></h4>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmxlfcFhbKwmNcCMzK6Hwxb2IIgWdYETSpLtXCFp-TtJX7FrGpATxFBG0nc6ftvKoZgWSzYfDvAEZt4A5t65PuAO40XZCSnPyNttELw4hOHKJstclH37XH6t6cjOVQkA4SNc-j0XaKyEE/s1600/haunted.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="496" data-original-width="467" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmxlfcFhbKwmNcCMzK6Hwxb2IIgWdYETSpLtXCFp-TtJX7FrGpATxFBG0nc6ftvKoZgWSzYfDvAEZt4A5t65PuAO40XZCSnPyNttELw4hOHKJstclH37XH6t6cjOVQkA4SNc-j0XaKyEE/s640/haunted.png" width="602" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Winners of the 2017 Worst Paranormal TV show Haunted Tours. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
A bold claim indeed. Especially considering the show didn't appear on any of the above-mentioned services! I messaged the production team behind Haunted Tours to inquire when we should expect it to make its triumphant debut. Brian Jalbert, one of the show's producers, replied in a totally non-aggressive, non-confrontational way.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_FQKeGRdhVa5VaA3epXpzA07dawuJ9cLBS0zJSynEu1xGiB1j4m9Mffy-nHT-5a9rQmHQWVVc0aFpNg0hRpueQF_e6nUEfMC73ibGset3ycj-t2Q07vBITGM5CHvrunz3853nMJTXwIM/s1600/haunted2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="478" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_FQKeGRdhVa5VaA3epXpzA07dawuJ9cLBS0zJSynEu1xGiB1j4m9Mffy-nHT-5a9rQmHQWVVc0aFpNg0hRpueQF_e6nUEfMC73ibGset3ycj-t2Q07vBITGM5CHvrunz3853nMJTXwIM/s640/haunted2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Since then, the team have worked hard on turning a negative into a positive, claiming that the lack of a network TV deal actually makes Haunted Tours a superior product.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWnoCcSqPUJ9bCwjo9n52NvV1hMVECoBD1qyw7QowTIzFmNo6WCYl-79RCdtrN9UglApmM-DjgcRYniEknRUhcgVVLZ3iSzrWfAS8hL_4tAdbVxiqmYtAX8_zWNhfxuBamWCLhP8zeIw/s1600/haunted3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="479" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVWnoCcSqPUJ9bCwjo9n52NvV1hMVECoBD1qyw7QowTIzFmNo6WCYl-79RCdtrN9UglApmM-DjgcRYniEknRUhcgVVLZ3iSzrWfAS8hL_4tAdbVxiqmYtAX8_zWNhfxuBamWCLhP8zeIw/s640/haunted3.png" width="576" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
Yeah. Right. It's a sad state of affairs when a group of committed and deeply irresponsible group of morally bankrupt individuals can't get a break in paranormal TV!<br />
<br />
Better luck in 2018 guys and congratulations on this well-deserved award.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Worst Paranormal Team or Group 2017</h2>
<h4>
Winners: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ParanormalDen/" target="_blank">Paranormal Den</a></h4>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDTl3o0vNghTGICCkgu4SdGsoYIvMhoHMOf4uD_i_gUei81SdRU_ipV5WDTXk-LlrnhlEuwiVgrfv7uAHg-9ppVryC6uhlpmZBAlPrYwCmh5WMoTFPheVnn7JGENgCKbmpNoFXBLnhfoU/s1600/terr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="495" data-original-width="915" height="346" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDTl3o0vNghTGICCkgu4SdGsoYIvMhoHMOf4uD_i_gUei81SdRU_ipV5WDTXk-LlrnhlEuwiVgrfv7uAHg-9ppVryC6uhlpmZBAlPrYwCmh5WMoTFPheVnn7JGENgCKbmpNoFXBLnhfoU/s640/terr.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Winners: Paranormal Den. A terrible bloodsucking creature with some sort of vampire thing.<br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
Unlike the first category, there isn't any real competition here and the reasons for highlighting this group is no laughing matter. I wrote about <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/the-huff-model-disrespecting-dead-for.html" target="_blank">Paranormal Den</a> back in October of 2017 as a result of their decision to hold an ITC session contacting the victims of the Las Vegas shooting. Clearly, the members of Paranormal Den were following the example of Steve Huff who regularly 'contacts' the spirits of dead celebrities shortly after their deaths. But I suspect even Huff, not a man who displays much respect in the pursuit of attention, would have shied away from this one. After I wrote the post criticising Paranormal Den appeared in the comments section to inform me that the group is not in the field "for the money". Well, I'm pretty sure I can demonstrate they are.</div>
<br />
On November 5th Paranormal Den, claimed they had added an antique urn to their collection of haunted objects.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhznupgkDtbKagIyqQqZ02QZv_GlCsV8OGCaVO3n7eZTYCMrpIXEGlpHNHxjhLQ9UCCaiWhdN5kPvNW4nfALzZsvfPJRYmgAAqfqJCUsmyLBJFDU3Pk5RB6GJfh98i8v6SbJhT5K08AByU/s1600/terr7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="486" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhznupgkDtbKagIyqQqZ02QZv_GlCsV8OGCaVO3n7eZTYCMrpIXEGlpHNHxjhLQ9UCCaiWhdN5kPvNW4nfALzZsvfPJRYmgAAqfqJCUsmyLBJFDU3Pk5RB6GJfh98i8v6SbJhT5K08AByU/s640/terr7.png" width="576" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
On the same day, it appeared on Ebay sold by 'Hexintentions' at a requested price of $300.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKXtDIJaPCLjH7hkMo0hs4OUEYxoBBc_-OaA6UUo64PF6lRb3xlOzVQJuBWvUvNNuSeVyXBRxPDp6ngVmMgmmnJRnJWNRToZY9c6hfRWeGOUVpjXnO6_3UMxO_HPbWO9G09-XikF25Vss/s1600/terr6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="241" data-original-width="760" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKXtDIJaPCLjH7hkMo0hs4OUEYxoBBc_-OaA6UUo64PF6lRb3xlOzVQJuBWvUvNNuSeVyXBRxPDp6ngVmMgmmnJRnJWNRToZY9c6hfRWeGOUVpjXnO6_3UMxO_HPbWO9G09-XikF25Vss/s640/terr6.png" width="640" /></a></div>
After this, Paranormal Den began posting ITC sessions with the urn. Unsurprisingly, they were allegedly getting 'amazing results' from the object.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-rejSkD9D4r_T1zWEOneoOdRGmOQb1lCkYCmq6YIjVxowgLshyphenhyphenUCDf9KJB3ttULg-IMbEVO292kqkCY_SPHsOzEYZbSlhl9sUIpys3c-Pox8TqevHxbxg4kP_f61Brl7fIMivOWf-L8s/s1600/terr5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="485" data-original-width="503" height="616" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-rejSkD9D4r_T1zWEOneoOdRGmOQb1lCkYCmq6YIjVxowgLshyphenhyphenUCDf9KJB3ttULg-IMbEVO292kqkCY_SPHsOzEYZbSlhl9sUIpys3c-Pox8TqevHxbxg4kP_f61Brl7fIMivOWf-L8s/s640/terr5.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
After this Paranormal Den reposted the Urn to Ebay, this time selling at a very reasonable $100. Remarkable, since they purchased it a few days previous for $300 apparently.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRGturJlvUvFvweATLpxj8YmfP1mnyJ4tQSzGAgqctf3MbNFmPisAZ_ckmS1tsgm-AQ-LXFOQb_9KW3ButYKwOVc26hcN1xnmsvt9BfLgHIjnyBO1ay2_pkEpZ5zJB_PYZrKC624djjp0/s1600/terr3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="237" data-original-width="919" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRGturJlvUvFvweATLpxj8YmfP1mnyJ4tQSzGAgqctf3MbNFmPisAZ_ckmS1tsgm-AQ-LXFOQb_9KW3ButYKwOVc26hcN1xnmsvt9BfLgHIjnyBO1ay2_pkEpZ5zJB_PYZrKC624djjp0/s640/terr3.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
They even tell us the object is 'antiquity' worth $300-£600.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFYdwmTUUXacUaVYoZJJXKNISTENnfThxtBi1ryKMGHG7DG_A4ZmfoOTDHDH5ItWHTbodsw1Ovo7H9CABxxoLD5GFVT1ZNSiT99Avp1m_jYASfG09Z5Wm8uQKjDPAJOrO5oFJDAHUV0-4/s1600/terr8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="297" data-original-width="1235" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFYdwmTUUXacUaVYoZJJXKNISTENnfThxtBi1ryKMGHG7DG_A4ZmfoOTDHDH5ItWHTbodsw1Ovo7H9CABxxoLD5GFVT1ZNSiT99Avp1m_jYASfG09Z5Wm8uQKjDPAJOrO5oFJDAHUV0-4/s640/terr8.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The only problem is, they uploaded the urn under the seller name 'hexintentions' again! Meaning they expect us to believe that they bought it from themselves!<br />
Forgive my cynicism, but it appears to me that Paranormal Den attempted to sell this urn, then when they couldn't they produced some EVP sessions with it to drive interest and capitalise on the burgeoning 'haunted object' trade, and reposted it at a markdown price. Well, a markdown price if you believe it's an antique. I spoke to several people who suggested that it isn't even worth $40. The fact that there is relatively well preserved felt on the base implies it is not particularly old.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyYo-QigEW7u5aTmsh99-wXjOYLqklykFBXkcy02kbHQ9g23y2oD73H1Sw7gOcobQxySCwy33H_SZjIefKjqnyU6ImTjXeScfTbS6X47WPWN33TRyWQz0EfQMPll6KezCOCwIs_A2HPJw/s1600/s-l1600+%25283%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyYo-QigEW7u5aTmsh99-wXjOYLqklykFBXkcy02kbHQ9g23y2oD73H1Sw7gOcobQxySCwy33H_SZjIefKjqnyU6ImTjXeScfTbS6X47WPWN33TRyWQz0EfQMPll6KezCOCwIs_A2HPJw/s320/s-l1600+%25283%2529.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This isn't the first example of the team using this selling technique. They attempted to sell a 'Haunted doll' named Lucy for $200, at the beginning of November after using it as the central object in a series of EVP recordings.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZeFm8OMKBee2RbCyKPwN5cfQnWqqM_pC6QZzeGIIWcSFP3gP-aBMh2GHJnQKwLoUMCyheFOl5wxfUgTRu35xMZeiiYAcWowPNVLd5ueHkL2zFhgTFiGbyRZgcy9pRye07eXVhZN6KLy4/s1600/terr9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="472" data-original-width="1169" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZeFm8OMKBee2RbCyKPwN5cfQnWqqM_pC6QZzeGIIWcSFP3gP-aBMh2GHJnQKwLoUMCyheFOl5wxfUgTRu35xMZeiiYAcWowPNVLd5ueHkL2zFhgTFiGbyRZgcy9pRye07eXVhZN6KLy4/s640/terr9.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
For this reason, Paranormal Den has 'urned' their second Casper. Get it....'Urned'?<br />
<h2>
The 2017 Steve Huff award for Internet's Top Enterprising Shills (SHITES). </h2>
<h3>
Winners: Paranormal Den. </h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfPZTgAYP078tz3nR_Wwh0PtHHVzH-7dscZ56_FT-nTk3Q4H9re8Qs62soeAFaGjaTgOi5MsH9FcAN174EUd0EYUY09gHpLw6sDFQnHMZZl3tCrYUD4aDMxD6nvrbYoloExxWfo1ZmibA/s1600/terr11.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="470" data-original-width="1112" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfPZTgAYP078tz3nR_Wwh0PtHHVzH-7dscZ56_FT-nTk3Q4H9re8Qs62soeAFaGjaTgOi5MsH9FcAN174EUd0EYUY09gHpLw6sDFQnHMZZl3tCrYUD4aDMxD6nvrbYoloExxWfo1ZmibA/s640/terr11.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">As you can see guys, that trophy has an antiquity value of one million dollars and a spirit attachment. No selling it on Ebay<span style="font-size: small; text-align: start;">!</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As for 'the Huff', it would be wrong to involve him without handing him some form of award too. Therefore to Steve Huff I present...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<h2>
The 2017 David Roundtree "You should've stayed gone" award for the most unwelcome return to the paranormal field. </h2>
<h3>
Winner: Steve Huff. </h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8uI46T5A08eCPRwzR23PxlxDGH7W4SDYyqAcc5oVexMj43bnkY9E2S6_-21EsbqktXOy7xqeqfAyCmpg0QhljcgcFgGhpBJazir9Z4pHGpShh9lOI_nd_3lTQ_QlnPcIknfKofJRCVok/s1600/huff.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="1224" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8uI46T5A08eCPRwzR23PxlxDGH7W4SDYyqAcc5oVexMj43bnkY9E2S6_-21EsbqktXOy7xqeqfAyCmpg0QhljcgcFgGhpBJazir9Z4pHGpShh9lOI_nd_3lTQ_QlnPcIknfKofJRCVok/s640/huff.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Uh... Hi Steve. Go away again please.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
The year of 2017 is one that will live in infamy in the minds of Huff fans, as it has been one of tragedy and triumph. In August, Huff announced that he was leaving the paranormal forever. Many cynics speculated on the reason for this; had trading standards finally become aware of Steve's activities as a broken radio salesman... I mean inventor of the "HuffBox (TM)". Was it to do with his other "interests" on the internet (rhymes with 'grape horn bites')?</div>
<div>
<br />
No! None of the above! Silence cynics. Huff was attacked by demons! <br />
<br />
Fortunately, sanity prevailed. Huff realised that it was rather difficult to sell his broken radios... I mean 'WonderBox XXLs' (TM. All rights reserved)... in self-imposed exile. So he bravely returned.... with a new Tee-Shirt for sale (15% Cotton)!<br />
<br />
Thanks Steve. You're a true hero. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmg44DXkvxpSVV2Wl1Cd_Vp7msByztrktYRDjYxcxfNobhlj68RwDBalEMm9M3XNF2L_CQKcuiPkKzLPNCjalUZDs0AGDT1bOqLUiDIB2BrhZlUnfbokaweJPxbYUE4amIAl-z4ZSu09o/s1600/huff.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="481" data-original-width="540" height="569" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmg44DXkvxpSVV2Wl1Cd_Vp7msByztrktYRDjYxcxfNobhlj68RwDBalEMm9M3XNF2L_CQKcuiPkKzLPNCjalUZDs0AGDT1bOqLUiDIB2BrhZlUnfbokaweJPxbYUE4amIAl-z4ZSu09o/s640/huff.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ain't no demon gonna keep Huff from selling shit!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
And now for our next award. This goes to the organisation that produced the weakest, the most low-hanging fruit of the year. Got a blur in your picture? This is the company that is going to buy that shit call it a ghost and turn it into sweet, sweet profit.<br />
<br />
<h2>
The 2017 Low-Hanging Fruit award for the most witless, easily debunked Paranormal Dross. </h2>
<h3>
Winner: The Star.</h3>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheYhjHuczkvah0I09W47udPF_L0YdarBKo-YwA1RYDhOiWeTPKwZiW0XZGpnmAbZgS5qFIR7mYgqF1nIY-6lcV3X2j16mz_OeU1FkK8zfbJeUrdMMXq32ttvYAw-u1ybB1eQWyFW-gU8Q/s1600/star.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1048" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheYhjHuczkvah0I09W47udPF_L0YdarBKo-YwA1RYDhOiWeTPKwZiW0XZGpnmAbZgS5qFIR7mYgqF1nIY-6lcV3X2j16mz_OeU1FkK8zfbJeUrdMMXq32ttvYAw-u1ybB1eQWyFW-gU8Q/s640/star.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All the British tabloids have turned bullshit into an artform, and more importantly revenue. At a time when journalists across the Atlantic are under constant attack by what has become the establishment, the Star, the Mail, the Sun and the Mirror took the title 'fake-news' and wore it as a badge of honour. </div>
<div>
<br />
But none more so than the Star.<br />
<br />
I can't think of another newspaper that would take an alleged 'ghost story' with associated video footage and purposely attach different, unrelated and very fake footage in order to 'sex up' the article. That's <a href="http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/the-daily-star-and-chilean-poltergeist.html" target="_blank">exactly what the Star did</a> on February 28th. In the article <i>"Chilling video of family home so HAUNTED it was evacuated by police" </i>author Peter Truman attached video footage filmed by Facebook user Ashy Murphy in Ireland 2015 and claimed it had been filmed in Chile in 2017. The fact that the soundtrack had been scrubbed and replaced with stock 'spooky' music, implies this wasn't an error but intentional. It's one thing printing rubbish because you're too lazy and overworked to do a modicum of research, but to intentionally create that rubbish gives the distinct impression that you've never cared if what you print is true or not. It implies you just care whether it will get hits or not.<br />
<br />
This leads to an interesting dilemma for sceptics looking to debunk these stories when they are presented in the tabloid press. Is debunking these articles just part of the problem? Sure, we can use 'non-follow' programs, but ultimately we're still raising awareness of them.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Which brings me to the final award.<br />
<br />
<h2>
The 2017 Shameful Attention Seeker award for the most desperate attempt to get in and stay in the public eye.</h2>
</div>
<div>
<h3>
The winner is... Nope. </h3>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6-ySygRTO6tinXgRVuXlVRTjN-Ekk4GHArjER5ypvmnpcD03Kt-szrl7RlD54DdxTJHKNF4DkHAy8OUrRO9HVYDkwtlX9-s3rTa3bu-b5pMcgIUgH5SVm58dWR6x6xOf6w5OwgsCm9dY/s1600/no+sat.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="1114" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6-ySygRTO6tinXgRVuXlVRTjN-Ekk4GHArjER5ypvmnpcD03Kt-szrl7RlD54DdxTJHKNF4DkHAy8OUrRO9HVYDkwtlX9-s3rTa3bu-b5pMcgIUgH5SVm58dWR6x6xOf6w5OwgsCm9dY/s640/no+sat.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I know you're watching, you know you're watching. No more 'leg ups' from me.<br />
<br />
Nope. Nope. Nope.<br />
<br />
Happy New Year everyone! <br />
<br />
Let's do it all again in January 2019.</div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-19604449202225076462018-01-04T17:26:00.002+00:002018-01-04T17:26:31.030+00:00Unmasking the Indonesian 'female vampire-ghost'. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b>The first rule of click-bait. Try to appeal to as many people as possible to maximise the the number of hits and therefore revenue heading your way. When it comes to paranormal click-bait this means throwing in a few mixed terms to maximise your appearances in search engines. A common example of this would be 'ghost/demon' or even the less logical 'ghost/alien' or 'alien/demon' combinations. What's another good combination; how about ghost/vampire/possession? That will really capture the imagination of paranormal enthusiasts. Thus the British tabloids were likely jumping for joy when the following 'chilling' image, allegedly showing a 'vampire-ghost' possessing the body of a female bar-patron, dropped into their laps yesterday.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF4uEemtNXaRwBqCw8COztt-e9s-_Q5wnrte2SLNtfqYh7ovVZmtJBu29tTnZ5kLaJKiu9rM6whU3ktyDkN8p6Z7_JLFkb2MoAM8vaZTy-fjhfXNRYKuCivDTi_p_3CVbO28hDDy3El0Y/s1600/PAY-AsiaWire-AuthenticGhost-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="810" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhF4uEemtNXaRwBqCw8COztt-e9s-_Q5wnrte2SLNtfqYh7ovVZmtJBu29tTnZ5kLaJKiu9rM6whU3ktyDkN8p6Z7_JLFkb2MoAM8vaZTy-fjhfXNRYKuCivDTi_p_3CVbO28hDDy3El0Y/s640/PAY-AsiaWire-AuthenticGhost-01.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<b><br /></b>
The image was taken by Indonesian police during a vice-raid on a karaoke bar in East Java on Friday. It quickly went viral as images alleging to show supernatural beings are want to do. It was also quickly checked out by 'paranormal expert' Ahmad Hasyim at the request of Indonesian media outlet Detik (1). Hasyim, an expert after-all, told Detik that he believed the image was a Jinn taking the form of a 'female vampire ghost' known as a Kuntilanak (also known as a Pontianak) in Indonesian folklore (2) obscuring the face of the young lady. The image was circulated by the Asian wire news service where it was picked up by British tabloids the Star (3) and the Mirror (4).<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJVWNn110bAX7OSxIm5MDFkH9KPcZkttQAUFlzPNe3PEVxKdNNrohTZ3ZNlHZbjjDcL9vfQWUGNmZETCbuBbZqB-HCV8Mp6M3RfzCMa2BQzWb8BlG77_dPOlZtKrXMH_nfwWvWoBzKI60/s1600/a5e88e63-0864-4b64-b5f2-5af3e5584c44_169.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="349" data-original-width="620" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJVWNn110bAX7OSxIm5MDFkH9KPcZkttQAUFlzPNe3PEVxKdNNrohTZ3ZNlHZbjjDcL9vfQWUGNmZETCbuBbZqB-HCV8Mp6M3RfzCMa2BQzWb8BlG77_dPOlZtKrXMH_nfwWvWoBzKI60/s640/a5e88e63-0864-4b64-b5f2-5af3e5584c44_169.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Paranormal expert, Ahmad Hasyim. Not an expert on ladies fashion apparently. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Whilst both tabloids make it clear in their articles that Indonesian police have denied that this was any kind of supernatural being, and also urged people to stop showing the image out of concern that it may cause public panic, what they don't mention is that the police have also categorically debunked the image by releasing other images that were also taken that night.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXEyh_KN8CBschsAnQn5YwZv4UU72b8Wpm1X1BslgWPEwCLm0PVrjxY5P0floWWyTv8CqAJ91u4GBV9Kif68MQ5ylzMYLnwmSiqHs-k1uoSlV1x783-Ezu4JZXO0zarJDvVN8rVdi8Tho/s1600/deb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="191" data-original-width="320" height="382" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXEyh_KN8CBschsAnQn5YwZv4UU72b8Wpm1X1BslgWPEwCLm0PVrjxY5P0floWWyTv8CqAJ91u4GBV9Kif68MQ5ylzMYLnwmSiqHs-k1uoSlV1x783-Ezu4JZXO0zarJDvVN8rVdi8Tho/s640/deb.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The images clearly reveal that it wasn't a 'spirit' concealing the suspect's face, but a rather fetching floral scarf. The glowing eyes were likely a result of the flash used to take the image. Hard to figure whether the journos at the Mirror and the Star conveniently ignored this information or simply didn't do the slightest bit of research. Again, just another example of lazy, click-bait journalism.<br />
<br />
Not much has changed in the time I've been away.<br />
<br />
Speaking of which, if you're wondering what I've been up to whilst things have been quite over here you can catch up with my articles for <a href="https://sciscomedia.co.uk/" target="_blank">Scisco media</a> on my author's page <a href="https://sciscomedia.co.uk/author/robl/" target="_blank">here</a>. Writing for Scisco has thus far been a fantastic opportunity to introduce skeptical ideas to a news website. Never in my wildest imagination did I ever believe that an up and coming news website would publish my articles on things like the physics of ghosts and dowsing. Just by popping over and regularly reading my articles and sharing them on social media you lend me a huge amount of support.<br /><br />As for the year ahead on the Null Hypothesis blog, I'm currently working on outlining an EVP protocol which highlights how I think some current EVP practitioners are going off the rails, I'm also developing a frame-work to help readers assess science news they encounter and how to identify good science sources. This is all in addition to continuing to debunk paranormal and pseudo-science stories such as the one above.<br /><br />I hope you all have a happy 2018 and enjoy what is to come.<br />
<h2>
Resources</h2>
<br />
(1) <a href="https://news.detik.com/jawatimur/3792303/wajah-pemandu-lagu-seperti-hantu-ini-kata-paranormal" target="_blank">https://news.detik.com/jawatimur/3792303/wajah-pemandu-lagu-seperti-hantu-ini-kata-paranormal</a><br />(2) <a href="http://www.indomagic.com/articles/mythology/folklore/kuntilanak-pontianak/">http://www.indomagic.com/articles/mythology/folklore/kuntilanak-pontianak/</a><br />
<br />
(3) <a href="https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/671150/Ghost-vampire-photo-woman-possessed-supernatural-Probolinggo-Indonesia">https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/671150/Ghost-vampire-photo-woman-possessed-supernatural-Probolinggo-Indonesia</a><br />
<br />
(4) <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/chilling-image-female-vampire-ghost-11791954">http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/chilling-image-female-vampire-ghost-11791954</a>Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-34707939370490558582017-11-12T02:44:00.002+00:002017-11-12T21:36:14.406+00:00A Quick Retcon: How Changing the Flash's History Made the Character Less Unique. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhi2jhkZmGF0sZ1ThQYxGfVLixEJpA0g4PWkvQuIRULQWn8oZWmaAa5pfEReCnnEzs8PqvtA0kt8CVVVEL2iIdiXqXbanM8horMsOYxtgi2DH_uU1sKyYjZCcymY4FrIAE67xELhPzgHM/s1600/flash.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="591" data-original-width="1050" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhi2jhkZmGF0sZ1ThQYxGfVLixEJpA0g4PWkvQuIRULQWn8oZWmaAa5pfEReCnnEzs8PqvtA0kt8CVVVEL2iIdiXqXbanM8horMsOYxtgi2DH_uU1sKyYjZCcymY4FrIAE67xELhPzgHM/s640/flash.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This month sees the release of the next movie in the DC extended universe film series, Zack Snyder's Justice League. The movie will represent something of a milestone for many comic-book fans as, barring two quick cameos in Batman Vs Superman and Suicide Squad, it will make the first big-screen appearance of comics premier speedster, the Flash. The movie is expected to be followed up with a big-screen adaptation of the limited series "Flashpoint" which will serve as a Flash solo movie. This is disappointing for me, a fan of the character since the short-lived 1990 TV series starring John Wesley Shipp in the titular role, as "Flashpoint" isn't really a solo Flash story. The reason it is popular with some DC comics fans is it features alternate versions of established DC characters in a timeline drastically altered by Barry Allen, the Flash, in one of his time-travel escapades. It's disappointing because I think that with over fifty-years of stand-alone stories there's more than enough material to justify a Flash solo-outing. It seems as if Warner Bros don't have much faith in the Flash as in his solo-outing he'll play second fiddle to Wonder Woman, Aquaman and an alternate version of Batman.<br />
<br />
It's also disappointing as it solidifies my fears that a recent addition to the Flash's background, that has been upheld in his mediocre but fun enough TV series currently screening on US network the CW, will also be carried over to the movie version of the character. Before I explain what that is, it's essential to explain what the concept of a "retcon" is.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYqgU_n5SwOUIOI-QcICjQjWBKB-srPy-2SBpPntmiIIi41Df80PbiQmv5HsEhqvZiE40JK7WHb-B8vtbyAhVx181ts_IQOGOe_uMBp3uIeceoe4wQi8W8xafb79tc2iiYj-kQ1nF9R9s/s1600/1706283-death_of_wonder_woman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="876" height="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYqgU_n5SwOUIOI-QcICjQjWBKB-srPy-2SBpPntmiIIi41Df80PbiQmv5HsEhqvZiE40JK7WHb-B8vtbyAhVx181ts_IQOGOe_uMBp3uIeceoe4wQi8W8xafb79tc2iiYj-kQ1nF9R9s/s640/1706283-death_of_wonder_woman.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Essentially a retcon is when a fictional character's background is given an extra previously unknown element or aspect that had not been previously revealed to viewers or followers. The difference between this happening on a TV show and a comic book is that comic book retcons are often far more extreme than the introduction of a childhood friend or relation, comic book retcons can often change who a character fundamentally is and almost everything about that character. In terms of retcons, DC comics publishers of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman and the Flash, are either the pioneers or the worst offenders based on your stance on retcons and whether you think they are a good or a bad thing. The most retconned characters in the realm of comic books are undoubtedly Wonder Woman and Hawkman. The latter has been alternately a museum curator and hero by night, an intergalactic space cop and the reincarnation of an Egyptian king, whilst Wonder Woman suffered the rather ungracious feat during DC's first major retcon "Crisis on Infinite Earths" in 1985, of being completely wiped from continuity so she could be reintroduced in 1986 as a "new hero" to the DC comics universe. This means her role as a founding member of the Justice League was given to fellow heroine the Black Canary. Her origins have been retconned several times since this, it seems that everytime a high-profile creator takes over the Wonder Woman title a change to her origins is enforced.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghEZSCoRFfzyYfQuXj6xAkiG_ofjxzUWMJhzBCm0abKeGfOImOBn1ic3rxa4aP-Y3HuhjqAnRzANGgimSYBXwJ2RdvqpTa13sOihQYPgik6r1IyZ2JkPzbSevX3UJHlQc90sEsEo0sKyw/s1600/origin.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="621" data-original-width="820" height="484" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghEZSCoRFfzyYfQuXj6xAkiG_ofjxzUWMJhzBCm0abKeGfOImOBn1ic3rxa4aP-Y3HuhjqAnRzANGgimSYBXwJ2RdvqpTa13sOihQYPgik6r1IyZ2JkPzbSevX3UJHlQc90sEsEo0sKyw/s640/origin.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
In terms of retcons at DC, the Flash remained relatively untouched until recently. This is likely because the Flash is one of DC's "legacy heroes", in that many people have taken the role on different occasions. Barry Allen, the character most associated with the title was the second character to hold it after the original Flash Jay Garrick. When DC sought to reboot its universe in 1985's Crisis on Infinite Earths, the Flash escaped the retcon eraser wielded on Wonder Woman, Superman and others by having Barry Allen die and be replaced by his protegee "Kid Flash" Wally West.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxLui-LL0Et9Vdc6j5HSCR8RFVinr6loTFkCb1naowrxzCRRsTPx49v2QTEkySRGHHxwZxk6-j5w2SIWrFHfFD97bDVaYZWYnldy_ugQ-UCh1-GLZ5oQGyj4Ny27PRyK_zsCAgo6PS6sI/s1600/out+with+the+old%2523.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="1221" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxLui-LL0Et9Vdc6j5HSCR8RFVinr6loTFkCb1naowrxzCRRsTPx49v2QTEkySRGHHxwZxk6-j5w2SIWrFHfFD97bDVaYZWYnldy_ugQ-UCh1-GLZ5oQGyj4Ny27PRyK_zsCAgo6PS6sI/s640/out+with+the+old%2523.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This was a genius move by DC. Under the guidance of some of the comic industry's finest creators such as Mark Waid, William Messer Loebs and Grant Morrison, Wally became one of DC's most identifiable and likeable characters. His powers at first paled in comparison to Allen's, with this gradually revealed over many years and 78 issues to be a psychological effect of Wally's fear of replacing his mentor and beloved uncle, To Wally, becoming as fast as Barry meant accepting that he was dead and not coming back. It was only when faced with having Barry's worst enemy do this in his place that Wally finally stepped up and became the equal of his predecessor.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_tH-mvcVh1BfjBDeAsepOz7ByTVgWudfQl-iMVqoDSEbPVnknLzADwuAEJVyFp_MDde6JEFZn1TcR92tIAGpsw6ruILvlav8NUIAzyOmLrXHO-Qny_faWyO9pNu9rPlegl-wXdU8IGPE/s1600/max.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1127" data-original-width="1600" height="450" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_tH-mvcVh1BfjBDeAsepOz7ByTVgWudfQl-iMVqoDSEbPVnknLzADwuAEJVyFp_MDde6JEFZn1TcR92tIAGpsw6ruILvlav8NUIAzyOmLrXHO-Qny_faWyO9pNu9rPlegl-wXdU8IGPE/s640/max.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This continued for roughly ten years, with Wally settled in the role of the Flash and finally starting to appear in cross-media appearances as the holder of the title, something the 1990s series had avoided, until DC decided that their 2005 major reboot "Infinite Crisis" should feature a shift of the Flash role as it's 1985 predecessor event did. This time Barry Allen's grandson from the future, Bart Allen, seized the mantle of the Flash. Bart had been introduced in Wally's series as the reckless and immature Impulse. He later took Wally's of Kid Flash, following his path to the main speedster of the DC universe. Unfortunately, the move was an unmitigated disaster. Bart was not as sympathetic a character as West, who had been a staple of DC comics almost as long as Barry Allen, and the writing of Bart's, now the third Flash, solo series was incredibly poor. Fans simply didn't accept Bart as the Flash. DC decided to cut it's losses and killed Bart in brutal and unceremonious manner, then having West return from his hiatus to avenge Bart's murder. Along with him, Mark Waid, the writer who made West a fan-favourite and had him finally accepted as the Flash, returned to smooth the transition. Unfortunately, even Waid couldn't achieve this. West had moved on and so had Waid.<br />
<br />
The decision was made to return Barry Allen to the role of the Flash after him being dead for over twenty years. There was just one problem. Barry had been, for lack of a better term, something of a bland character. He was far more valuable to DC as a measuring stick of heroism to the DC universe. Over the twenty years, he had been gone Allen had achieved close to sainthood. It was clear that if he were to be accepted in the modern age of comic-books, Allen's character would have to be significantly fleshed out. This job fell down to up and coming DC writer Geoff Johns, the man now with a major role in the development of DC television series and big screen adaptations.<br />
<br />
Johns decided that what Allen needed was a more tragic backstory and a more typical reason for becoming a superhero. He did this by introducing the idea that Barry's mother had been killed by his arch-nemesis the time-travelling Reverse Flash, as an act revenge against his constant defeats at Allen's hands, oh and the fact that Allen had previously murdered him in the 1980s! Adding insult to injury, Allen's father, Henry, was falsely accused of the crime and had died in prison. The events of Flashpoint, the inspiration behind the upcoming Flash movie, were caused by Barry travelling back through time in an attempt to save Nora Allen, his mother.<br />
<br />
Allen was now an orphan, inspired by the fates of his parents to help others. Sound familiar?<br />
<br />
It should.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_kpJEIsFKdIUhf0Q6LZVIPRgiJoBEYYWrKGMFhkyEIUfwVYMmnRD4Vf_mWf67D-4j03ybaT7ZzP28bL_PXLE9ZxLkoW8OXojG7o7jvjYaoCcYWTn7RcSwjhEtIACZ92HacsvKpmoqGkw/s1600/tropes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="500" height="408" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_kpJEIsFKdIUhf0Q6LZVIPRgiJoBEYYWrKGMFhkyEIUfwVYMmnRD4Vf_mWf67D-4j03ybaT7ZzP28bL_PXLE9ZxLkoW8OXojG7o7jvjYaoCcYWTn7RcSwjhEtIACZ92HacsvKpmoqGkw/s640/tropes.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
What Johns had essentially done is provide Barry Allen, the Flash, with an origin story shared by a multitude of heroes. Batman, Superman, Spider-man and numerous others had been inspired by the loss of parents or father figures. Johns had also retconned Green Lantern in EXACTLY the same way a few years before this, having Hal Jorden's father killed in an air-crash which Jordan witnessed. Clearly introducing this as the inspiration for Allen's heroic activities, made the character significantly less-original. The original version of Barry Allen used his abilities, not because of revenge, or a misplaced sense of responsibility. Allen became the Flash because it was the right thing to do. This is what differentiated him from other characters. When the Flash arrived to combat Captain Cold, the Mirror Master or Gorilla Grodd with a crack of lightning and a smile he did so because it was the right thing to do.<br />
<br />
In a Secret Origins annual published in the late 1980's. It is shown that at the time of Allen's death he is transformed into pure energy. A lightning bolt. He travels back through his own timeline approaching a scene all too familiar to him. He realises that he has become the very bolt of lightning that initially granted him his fantastic abilities. He has a stark choice. If he strikes his younger self it will lead him down the path to his eventual, unavoidable death. He chooses his fate anyway.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoC_PFqMYaRBa8nQKHouSVvqef9bVbW6vvnbXq16BxLGIAIQsbznT7Qzta-yfsQ_tGmxVp57vetHXkVN9qf9dBObcmo0P77YmmSZXZPMxAhWjCCYGoJtyBjktQtMjFNtAf3kUyJjZcwv4/s1600/SecretOriginsAn2-37_Flash2-11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1417" data-original-width="937" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoC_PFqMYaRBa8nQKHouSVvqef9bVbW6vvnbXq16BxLGIAIQsbznT7Qzta-yfsQ_tGmxVp57vetHXkVN9qf9dBObcmo0P77YmmSZXZPMxAhWjCCYGoJtyBjktQtMjFNtAf3kUyJjZcwv4/s640/SecretOriginsAn2-37_Flash2-11.jpg" width="422" /></a></div>
<br />
Barry Allen's, the Flash's story, should be one about personal sacrifice. A morality play about doing the right thing to help others even though it hurts and it costs you the peaceful life you deserve. I'm so sad that in these morally grey times, my children won't have a hero of scarlet and gold who helps others for no other reason than that's what good people do. I think we all need that today. The Flash isn't meant to be a grim and gritty hero, and I don't think that a dark outlook necessarily makes for a more complex character. I'll be there when the Justice League Movie hits cinemas with my son and daughter. I'll hope that the heroics of the Flash thrill them, but simultaneously, I'll be saddened that this version won't teach them that one doesn't need a tragic backstory to be a hero.Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2560645581226708607.post-42566144400191623122017-10-29T01:49:00.001+01:002017-11-01T14:54:39.623+00:00A Rough Guide To Debunking Fake Ghost Videos. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOgyDIdWGnT6dIko5OaX23UJ5fj4NlXOZaK_RVCNvHeEIaH5QQbdtewyVMC3Ob9-aIyF2Vs7k0RU-vbwiikPiOE833ri6ZMZ6PFREOEcEaYrHQkypE80y1gu_ZwA_8a_cOWfkzqVKDb5M/s1600/debunked.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="355" data-original-width="577" height="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOgyDIdWGnT6dIko5OaX23UJ5fj4NlXOZaK_RVCNvHeEIaH5QQbdtewyVMC3Ob9-aIyF2Vs7k0RU-vbwiikPiOE833ri6ZMZ6PFREOEcEaYrHQkypE80y1gu_ZwA_8a_cOWfkzqVKDb5M/s640/debunked.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Earlier this month the Null Hypothesis/Skeptic's Boot blog hit a quarter of a million views, a milestone that is pretty insignificant in comparison to other skeptical blogs and podcasts, but it still represents a massive achievement for a bloke from the North West of England with few discernable skills. In celebration of this and the fact that it's Halloween the idea time for spooky videos, I've decided to do something self-indulgent and go back over a few samples of alleged ghost video footage in order to demonstrate some of the techniques I use to get to the bottom of supposed video "evidence" for ghosts and the paranormal. The list I'm running through is in no way exhaustive. As soon as I post this I know I'll think of another ten things I should've mentioned.</b><br />
<br />
When reading this list, remember, I'm not an expert, anyone could get to the bottom of these videos, the key is perseverance and attention to detail. The list isn't particularly technical. You'll also notice from the first example, that many of the lessons I've learned regarding debunking have come from mistakes I've made. You can consider this rule zero in getting to the bottom of this footage: Learn from your mistakes and never be too proud to admit them.<br />
<br />
<b>As always with the video footage that I feature, there is a Youtube compilation available at the foot of the page.</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>1. Seek Multiple Sources</b><br />
<br />
One of the first lessons I learned in debunking alleged paranormal footage came as a result of me making a mistake in accepting footage as is when offered by the tabloid press. In April 2014, the footage below circulated around social media and the tabloid press. It purports to show a shadowy figure running through a Bolivian stadium during a soccer match.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyBe04jPLNRTGh2CUH5PJ0vnhn_qOyRveKNgOfeqGWI0I8p6zlmG3KaLNwVPcPpx02RLawCphgtMYb0atQ6' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
When I assessed it, I believed that it may be the shadow of the stadium's "spider cam" which records ariel images of the pitch. I was wrong. If I'd have searched for alternative versions of the footage, I'd have discovered that it's clearly a guy running down the stadium steps and across the bleachers.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguN9vj83wiCp9jXXYjRBVRz2t36NOdBiCgRw9xuYLY5oiTDWK15jfT3AipYNinav-VWT3he_2LBW6pE4DsXkl0A3zhIkBilhD-U56yreFevTdZuqwCNBI6KOlYTJtHLbGL6tfEjiZT-9w/s1600/FANTASMAENELHERNANDOSILESESMENTIRA.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="146" data-original-width="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguN9vj83wiCp9jXXYjRBVRz2t36NOdBiCgRw9xuYLY5oiTDWK15jfT3AipYNinav-VWT3he_2LBW6pE4DsXkl0A3zhIkBilhD-U56yreFevTdZuqwCNBI6KOlYTJtHLbGL6tfEjiZT-9w/s1600/FANTASMAENELHERNANDOSILESESMENTIRA.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
I had this own goal in mind when I examined alleged Chilean poltergeist footage from the Daily Star for the Spooktator podcast in March this year. In searching for alternative footage I found the Star had taken an old video produced by a Facebook user called Ashy Murphy, removed the soundtrack and attached it to a completely unrelated story.<br />
<br />
Whilst we're on the subject of the Ashy Murphy footage....<br />
<br />
<b>2. No Strings Attached....</b><br />
<br />
Here's that Ashy Murphy footage. You'll be unsurprised to learn that the effect below was achieved with fishing line.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzHwhgXH7KziytE_JuvItPoiX_tfqegPUM-0mLDv4GBsl72T3NyoteiIk9W1Q8Km0UVaSjKcbYl2qzn6A-n3g' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg42xg2Bjp58JfrwE5NklPcmfPoqw9hcotHyjQwUoxF5o7AHS8Vwq1RyMZ6ZGwXu1eqDA9bmTMvuCAy2q8XcsN3kZ_UV4W0RUnzuozqleV7fe4nkzBjLjpody6TXKtQpQQU-0oYvo_oD-s/s1600/ashymurph.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1366" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg42xg2Bjp58JfrwE5NklPcmfPoqw9hcotHyjQwUoxF5o7AHS8Vwq1RyMZ6ZGwXu1eqDA9bmTMvuCAy2q8XcsN3kZ_UV4W0RUnzuozqleV7fe4nkzBjLjpody6TXKtQpQQU-0oYvo_oD-s/s640/ashymurph.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4GJk5EiHQdR77hdZSZj6LoCWxX8qE0gsymxgwdGGji3jpYNktZdWPvs7ybrihNZTlPBGOn-rHN3iLYbAi-JdHYTppP01FzsyCflt0kq7kkTMwtmkRlEwqGBPqI13Ef57Z_HvShnrHVaM/s1600/ashymurph4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="504" data-original-width="862" height="374" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4GJk5EiHQdR77hdZSZj6LoCWxX8qE0gsymxgwdGGji3jpYNktZdWPvs7ybrihNZTlPBGOn-rHN3iLYbAi-JdHYTppP01FzsyCflt0kq7kkTMwtmkRlEwqGBPqI13Ef57Z_HvShnrHVaM/s640/ashymurph4.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The key to spotting a fishing wire hoax is watching on zoom, and very slowly. What you're looking for are moments when the light in the room hits the wire. You aren't going to spot this at full speed unless it's particularly clumsily done. Don't restrict your view to the edges of the moving objects. Watch the negative spaces between objects, as in the second image above you'll often spot the fishing wire in what appears to be empty space.</div>
<br />
Be careful to look in places you might not necessarily expect. In the "banging morgue door" video from March this year. The wire isn't attached to the edges of the door as you'd expect. It's attached, instead to an inside fold in the door.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxLzX2M9zoBsFuUdJjYt-YHj4J_--h3x8_tCqKPIctEjw9riwU3rO1LT1xSIjE2Tz4xs2rNMcqGenWPvcV9hw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLtKgFmrFQ6zzj8ok8YOGhuAxQ3WmI8C_BILL80hgtSX9_0_bejaLH0TVw9OPpEip5_fTX16tWhbsSs1jh-A3lX9Q_tUM24R4YjhrhFt2JMf3JuGVoaru5TUFxtaQO4HpCIR8bAo2cys8/s1600/fw.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="1002" height="222" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLtKgFmrFQ6zzj8ok8YOGhuAxQ3WmI8C_BILL80hgtSX9_0_bejaLH0TVw9OPpEip5_fTX16tWhbsSs1jh-A3lX9Q_tUM24R4YjhrhFt2JMf3JuGVoaru5TUFxtaQO4HpCIR8bAo2cys8/s640/fw.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Also be on the lookout for motion blur, a wagging loose wire in slow motion is easier to spot than a tight wire. That's how I caught YouTuber "Sam Strange" in the video in which she alleged a poltergeist had yanked the head off a Darth Vader toy. When her partner held the head up to the camera the wire could be clearly seen. Unfortunately, I can't show you this footage as the videos are removed, unfortunately, and the channel now has a new age/reincarnation theme.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQrJBw5TfRcDyrLHOtV3n9TPDJ6F05tpYOyRiAQWZVeFDKv6ibf0-fE0GE6h6BGN0vKOLND0Kf2DUK-ZOq53l0RDnmm8SwxMDNB0FvEqx9fQx7I2TO_LBpathLkuPNAyESPo8k9trEHxo/s1600/line1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1366" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQrJBw5TfRcDyrLHOtV3n9TPDJ6F05tpYOyRiAQWZVeFDKv6ibf0-fE0GE6h6BGN0vKOLND0Kf2DUK-ZOq53l0RDnmm8SwxMDNB0FvEqx9fQx7I2TO_LBpathLkuPNAyESPo8k9trEHxo/s640/line1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In both cases above the only reason, I was able to spot the method of fakery was that the hoaxer revealed too much. Both cases they brought the camera too close to their "haunted object" and allowed anyone attentive enough to spot their fakery. Watch carefully for this moment in your footage, when your hoaxer overplays their hand.</div>
<br />
That said, some hoaxers are more careful than others.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b>3. Managing Misdirection....</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
There isn't much difference between a faked piece of ghost footage and a magic trick, other than the fact that most magicians aren't interested in actively deceiving you. Sure, they want to mislead and confound, but most are open to the fact that they are doing this. Both parties use the technique of misdirection, they want you to look in specific places without noticing other things. Get around this by looking at the entire frame. Often this means directly avoiding the phenomena you are meant to be paying attention to, which feels weird at first. This means being aware of areas of the screen the camera tries to avoid. If your hoaxer has an accomplice they'll often give you a full view of an area except where the accomplice is hiding. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Take this footage from UK Ghost Hunts, an English paranormal tourism group, for example:</div>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dyePLt7pr9YtDI8SyF8wkkkGyXQnAThAT62EaxtYCzWHBUx1pfDnwtrajGqDWPCWC7j8bY6Qk1Qq6YorMM7_A' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Our intrepid cameraman bravely chases the hallway spook just slow enough to allow him to duck into a side room off the corridor, which of course, our cameraman never investigates.<br />
<br />
A striking example of this was provided by the aforementioned Youtuber Sam Strange, who faked a series of ghost videos on her channel back in 2015. In a video that Sam claimed featured a Darth Vader toy being disassembled by a "ghost". Sam gives us a panoramic view of her bedroom, which seemed to show her cats and her were alone. She then leaves the room gives a brief tour of her apartment, before returning to find the toy taken apart. During the shot, Sam tries to keep the camera above waist height. Her trip through the apartment allows her partner time to take the toy apart. But how did he get in the bedroom?<br />
<br />
Of course, Sam's boyfriend was present in the room the whole time, but if I don't see him can I prove this?<br />
<br />
<b>4. Consider the Environment.</b><br />
<b><br /></b> The key to discovering Sam's fakery was to consider the environment of the bedroom before and after the phenomena occurred. Remember how I said Sam "tried" not to show us below waist height in the bedroom? Well, she failed. One brief shot of the bedroom floor revealed some items such as a show and a large cardboard sheet poking out from under the bed.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVOvG3uIFcqkux5iM8cAZLuRXbVDRAoBi18zIfgmHQ4LCf3e-VEa_XFglHVA-KIGk6KU4j2Wcp_cgkCtZNrlhuxCrma4HLleSs_2_EulPibu-0XSkGwaLzAKqfXQviqzngw1TklJSQHYo/s1600/shoe+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1366" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVOvG3uIFcqkux5iM8cAZLuRXbVDRAoBi18zIfgmHQ4LCf3e-VEa_XFglHVA-KIGk6KU4j2Wcp_cgkCtZNrlhuxCrma4HLleSs_2_EulPibu-0XSkGwaLzAKqfXQviqzngw1TklJSQHYo/s640/shoe+1.png" width="640" /></a></div>
When Sam returns to the bedroom, the items that were under the bed have shifted. Could this possibly be because Sam's partner has slid out from under the bed, disassembled the toy and then whilst Sam is at the back of the apartment, moved to the front door and shouted "I'm home!" as a cue to let Sam knows she's clear to move back to the bedroom?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-FDUs9R0KX-4009W-3Bg3ZNVNiJgz5UkYxHr-j3f3Eo0gfCzC5xwcDAISVf4K0mw4Xd2F2jNPN58izTtWQaU0KjZzL8Dnvs8Q-PauEYuBTqxLbkid0E9DxjZ4PnU6PbNdIFyugAiFy-k/s1600/shoe+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="802" height="424" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-FDUs9R0KX-4009W-3Bg3ZNVNiJgz5UkYxHr-j3f3Eo0gfCzC5xwcDAISVf4K0mw4Xd2F2jNPN58izTtWQaU0KjZzL8Dnvs8Q-PauEYuBTqxLbkid0E9DxjZ4PnU6PbNdIFyugAiFy-k/s640/shoe+2.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<b><br /></b> <b>5. Get Shady. </b><br />
<br />
Watching the environment also helped me highlight some discrepancies in Adam Ellis' "Dear David" footage from a couple of months ago. In footage that was alleged to have taken place over a short space of time, it was clear that the natural light had moved from one end of the room to another.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JR-fvCxuuUA/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JR-fvCxuuUA?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnHBrSkqw-wt-D0p7X-eCFgFqlhZwkNSWSJvNBB6aiEs40Pi0IPBl_lY5D-Y0HjSQovaBYJBZ4xDjKz7RJDIdCJwMNONVJObPlbOY_hd5j0dcyPpYwVSGhOEOGlD3e3z-tpKOqizrnLVo/s1600/crit4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="449" data-original-width="1340" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnHBrSkqw-wt-D0p7X-eCFgFqlhZwkNSWSJvNBB6aiEs40Pi0IPBl_lY5D-Y0HjSQovaBYJBZ4xDjKz7RJDIdCJwMNONVJObPlbOY_hd5j0dcyPpYwVSGhOEOGlD3e3z-tpKOqizrnLVo/s640/crit4.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Watching the effects of light on an environment can expose a multitude of sins. In a video that purported to show a soul leaving a prone body in a Chinese hospital, there were clear signs of a "lightening" of the screen during the period in which the "phenomena" was occurring. This is most visible on the wall at the foot of the screen on the left.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAXoZbT1jMY7W5YpsoEramYIk1-SiBrS_eo59DYjkfgTSATqLc5Gu1i_4MyTwX5yktAzMj-4rEG3PJVSnIL2_2xFM37tbfLlCAUq_UJnDCndkpj-VYwdmSMzbg2QAn_1Rvxb672Rozz7U/s1600/cm02.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="640" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAXoZbT1jMY7W5YpsoEramYIk1-SiBrS_eo59DYjkfgTSATqLc5Gu1i_4MyTwX5yktAzMj-4rEG3PJVSnIL2_2xFM37tbfLlCAUq_UJnDCndkpj-VYwdmSMzbg2QAn_1Rvxb672Rozz7U/s640/cm02.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Screen lightening of this type is a very good indication of the use of screen overlay. Two separate pieces of footage are shot, one with a figure moving across it. They are then overlaid, resulting in the moving figure appearing in the composite as a ghostly, transparent shape.<br />
<b><br />6. Watch the clock. </b><br />
<br />
Another dead giveaway that this method has been used is the clock on the footage. As one part of the footage is "held still" whilst the phenomena occurs. This can result in the clock also holding still. This is the case with a piece of footage which may well be one of the most widely spread and shared on the internet. The footage, shown below, alleges to show a "possessed man" failing to the floor in a Malaysian supermarket, after which a ghostly figure is said to appear by the man.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzTpuXZIqgaiiT-kEKH9g-H7XTKbTwAZFZhNsumYXuyXd0qRRSa1rM__QOr1bbzQrdGZGHMCudooFcWmgIhLg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Notice that from the time the shadow moves across the chiller cabinet to the moment the stock hits the floor the clock freezes. Look at the two separate time codes circled below: the youtube time code is 1:04 whilst the security footage time code is at 01:29:21.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfZ4UYi5jecz4gqf3R3kvqyffrywsE0LAUYFJgIpIm2FzcQIdfb2zZdyO2Op7sjPZ1eRkcIzR53F6GAV0uAPN7LjChwkK8DiA56XsyLBDA8YT4jZy_VVlw_uhuSW3hfaG5L0fmeMvJI8/s1600/1.04.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyfZ4UYi5jecz4gqf3R3kvqyffrywsE0LAUYFJgIpIm2FzcQIdfb2zZdyO2Op7sjPZ1eRkcIzR53F6GAV0uAPN7LjChwkK8DiA56XsyLBDA8YT4jZy_VVlw_uhuSW3hfaG5L0fmeMvJI8/s640/1.04.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Now looking at the point just before the stock has hit the floor. The store time code is at 01:29;22, so one would expect the youtube time code to read 1:05. It doesn't. It reads 1:08. This is because the store clock spends three seconds at 01:29:22.<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicO44PNmWMmUC4s9Dtp1TUw2qXyEH0XK2ONghWWm3pcoFePHZf_XZiTi7VtYrwEAJ2cCNuMxiy25YJfpbRfl2Ta_wYYqmVIZ7FU74jvH8XBiHSUsFtUN8tS3su6aPlZe_MKnW0ym0abBk/s1600/1.08.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicO44PNmWMmUC4s9Dtp1TUw2qXyEH0XK2ONghWWm3pcoFePHZf_XZiTi7VtYrwEAJ2cCNuMxiy25YJfpbRfl2Ta_wYYqmVIZ7FU74jvH8XBiHSUsFtUN8tS3su6aPlZe_MKnW0ym0abBk/s640/1.08.png" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
The three seconds of 01:29:22 clear evidence of alteration of the video.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSs2HB_FQSP5Yyy-jvgjmMZjjV88e-12Adi8aBMHgYvITEjd05M57APdivmFyryfegDMLfFUETfZtSk3Gev6WLW64hwjP-zZaoyCClhLoT7kampvQY7LC6dSMNA95Udy5lfzFBPt9BKAg/s1600/comp.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSs2HB_FQSP5Yyy-jvgjmMZjjV88e-12Adi8aBMHgYvITEjd05M57APdivmFyryfegDMLfFUETfZtSk3Gev6WLW64hwjP-zZaoyCClhLoT7kampvQY7LC6dSMNA95Udy5lfzFBPt9BKAg/s640/comp.png" /></a><br />
<br />
Also just before this point at 1.03 watch the "possessed" man's left foot. You'll see clear evidence of an edit as his foot jumps from one position to another. It's difficult to display this. Watch at 0.25 speed and focus on the foot you'll see a clear jump edit. It's for this reason you'll often see hoaxers remove or alter the clocks in their faked videos. Remember that "Chinese hospital" footage mentioned above? Here's the clock as displayed in that footage.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsVODPlVADwCVz4YYaUBMHhruBPeB8_RsJiUHPDBnlEY9cYZtkzwFWPc5MsiCRueGLk7KlPDigmVn0Vn3kGock4od-WH76xBamUAHPXX7w3ljZJJBpgEZ4VpDE6Xh7nTtH10W2hr06hYI/s1600/cm03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="609" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsVODPlVADwCVz4YYaUBMHhruBPeB8_RsJiUHPDBnlEY9cYZtkzwFWPc5MsiCRueGLk7KlPDigmVn0Vn3kGock4od-WH76xBamUAHPXX7w3ljZJJBpgEZ4VpDE6Xh7nTtH10W2hr06hYI/s640/cm03.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Notice how poorly formatted it is? The numbers on the clock almost run together and overlap. Also, the date isn't written in a way found in China. Culturally, the Chinese rank dates from the highest unit to the smallest, specifically year/month/day. Other aspects to look for in this bar include the seconds counter being missing and the fact that there are no camera numbers. Most places with CCTV have more than one camera and it's vital for security reasons that these cameras are labelled separately as is it that seconds are available for precise timings. If these things are missing it's a good sign your footage has been tampered with or wasn't CCTV to begin with.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>7. Explore the extras.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Just as CCTV footage normally has camera details and a clear date-line, there are a few things they normally DON'T have. Sound for instance. The video "Ghost screaming in a hotel room" was uploaded by YouTuber "JimmyNut22" on September 4th, 2012. "Jimmy" also uploaded the video with the alternative title "Alien screaming in a hotel room" the day after this but has since deleted it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxfhetZG3mMhsIP6zF2kHkKjtxDbEpns3k4utnVQqD6mOw__nGtFoxYCACCWEXp_DyBhCn1_ihj6owpXHGQrw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<br />
You'll notice that we hear the dispatcher talking on the radio to John, who is investigating the room, who is recording the dispatcher? Also, we can hear the screaming coming from the room but we can't hear John's voice talking to the dispatcher whilst in or outside the room. Also, look at the way this camera is positioned in this footage. A good proportion of the screen is occupied by the ceiling. This wasn't fitted by a professional security company.<br />
<br />
Other factors to consider with CCTV footage are the screen resolution and light sources. CCTV doesn't tend to have particularly good screen resolution, and it doesn't tend to have its own light source. A good example of this is the recent "poltergeist" footage allegedly filmed at a school in Cork. The footage is supposed to be CCTV but look at the strong light source around the area of activity. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dw-Q03ErFn_eJlS8IOCSQjPJ9_jO3zmxj7KquiqycGvZSWg2MiMUTLJ6rk8WvnTmsU4eQa4fDn0yWj_T0GCIg' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<br />
The lights are off in the building, and public spaces such as this generally have lighting fixtures on "rings" meaning that if you turn one off, the whole bank is turned off with it. So where is this strong light source coming from?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>8. A Neat Orderly Queue of Paranormal Phenomena.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Ok, so this particular observation may not help you debunk any particular paranormal footage, but it's a common feature that you'll find in every hoax video you'll ever watch. Paranormal events almost never occur simultaneously. Take the above video as an example. No two events occur at the same time! This is always the case with poltergeist footage. There are two options: either, ghosts are very bad multitaskers or hoaxers generally only have one pair of hands.<br />
<b><br />9. Question everything.</b>Earlier this year, UK ghost hunting show Most Haunted created a media sensation when they publicized what they claimed was the first genuine footage they had ever captured of a ghost. The British tabloids went into a frenzy and the subsequent attention briefly revived waining interest in the show. The first thing that struck me about the footage was the behaviour of Karl Beattie. </div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dwNs505Fh2UhNYsdo77tOZIjmmkxU6_LVUvwsSQTR8Ux87Pg_RauKQTDrwIP-jWrSoxxvMtxtwHsORFr5EDhA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
Karl allegedly spots a ghostly figure on the stairs and for some reason places the camera down. He even gestures to Stuart Torvil to show him where the apparition will appear on the lens of the camera. This behaviour is highly unusual, especially as Karl "sees" the ghost through Torvill and before it appears on the stairs. When he places the camera down, he carefully adjusts it to get a particular shot. Then he almost immediately picks up the camera and runs down the hallway with it. Why do this?<br />
<br />
Because the overlay method of creating a ghostly figure I mentioned above requires a still shot. It would be very difficult to achieve with the camera hand-held. That's why Karl put the camera down, that's why he carefully adjusts it, that's why he checks with Torvill that it's positioned correctly.<br />
<br />
Another example of the necessity to question the logic of behaviour and choices made by the author of such footage comes from the Adam Ellis "Dear David" case mentioned above. In Ellis' video footage we see his rocking chair placed by the front door gently rocking apparently without influence. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2O75g9T6FII/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2O75g9T6FII?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What are we to question here? Why has Ellis placed this chair by the front door? It isn't there in any of his other footage, and it's quite clear that its placement would make it difficult for Ellis to enter or exit the apartment. Worrying, since Ellis is supposed to be out of the home whilst this footage is being recorded. How did he get out without disturbing the chair? Why place the chair in such an awkward place? Perhaps it's because that's somewhere in the apartment where pressure on the floorboards elsewhere can cause the chair to rock?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>10. And Finally, Hyman's Maxim.</b></div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
Very basically, Hyman's maxim, developed by skeptic Ray Hyman, states that before we strive to explain something we should ensure there's something to explain. Let me demonstrate this with an example. The footage below alleges to show a poltergeist or some other paranormal entity flipping several cars on a busy crossroads in China. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dz89mCGR9TIeSvZJMK0xUKIabdn4C7PKxNVhOWNVxX2lFX8tltYyH0GO1DJlHH76aLvMUDSHcz0Z0T6eb5KPQ' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The key to debunking this one is observing the right-hand side of the screen, where a street sweeper is going about its business when it suddenly halts at the same time as the cars flip. This is because the sweeper snags a fallen telegraph wire and pulls it taught. The wire is under the cars and this is what flips them. But it isn't necessary to do a lot of legwork on this as it was reported in the press before the footage was attributed to a poltergeist. A Reddit user who speaks Mandarin here explains the incident as it was <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/3ugh9j/bizarre_accident_in_china_invisible_cable_on_road/" target="_blank">reported on Chinese news.</a> Despite this and the fact that the solution was widely reported in the western press, the story and the footage are still widely circulated on social media. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's my list. As I said it's not exhaustive and I'd love for you to share your own tips in the comments. There are numerous people I'd have to cite for helping me come to the conclusions I have here but I simply don't have space to list them all. Even though I'm not an expert in analysing video footage there are some people I do consider experts chief amongst them <a href="https://www.metabunk.org/" target="_blank">Mick West of Metabunk</a> and<a href="https://www.facebook.com/IAmKennyBiddle/" target="_blank"> Kenny Biddle. </a>In addition to them, UK paranormal investigator <a href="http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/" target="_blank">Hayley Stevens</a> has an almost encyclopedic knowledge of techniques to produce fakes. Again this list is far from exhaustive but these are three of the people I've learned the most from. I guess we could call these recommendations tip 11.<br />
<br />
Finally, if you enjoyed this post please like and share it. There's a reason this blog hit 250,000 views and exists at all today, and that is because of the support and the shares it has received on social media. Thank you to everyone who has shared the blog and supported it and me.<br />
<br />
See you at 500,000.<br />
<br />
If you are still in need of more spooky content for Halloween check out my post on <a href="https://sciscomedia.co.uk/science-supernatural/" target="_blank">the laws of physics and ghostly properties</a> on Scisco media's site.<br />
<br />
<b>The Youtube compilation of the footage featured in this article.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Zr3sAQPQeho/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zr3sAQPQeho?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><b><br /></b></span>
<h4>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><b>Apparently the Youtube compilation for my "rough guide to debunking fake ghost videos" was hit by a copyright strike by the owners of the banging morgue door video. Funny they didn't seem to care about the thousands of shares the video has had by channels who believe it is genuine though! Here's a re-edited version with the offending content removed<span style="font-size: 14px;">.</span></b></span></h4>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3uT3JEPoo6U/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3uT3JEPoo6U?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><b><span style="font-size: 14px;"><br /></span></b></span></div>
Robert Leahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01550310613452039647noreply@blogger.com0