Most British people think it is possible to communicate with the dead. This is especially remarkable because very few believe it is possible to communicate with a living politician. Perhaps we'd have better luck if they were dead. It must surely be worth a try.
Even so, it's encouraging news, even if many of those 'believers' are determined to talk to Princess Diana, an ex-member of the Royal Family and hardly someone you'd expect to chat to at the supermarket checkout.
Why does everyone think that talking to the dead involves a fireside rumination with royalty or an ectoplasmic flirtation with Marylin Monroe? Just as in real life, most dead people are commoners and some are downright bores. One thing that would alert me to the possibility of a fake psychic is the apparent ability to call up famous dead people at will. Or indeed, the ability to call up anyone. That's not mediumship, that's necromancy and that's nasty.
One thing I would really like to try is to get two of the most obviously fake psychics and send them a client each. Those clients would ask the fakes to call up the same ghost at the same time. Obviously, the fakes won't be in on the game.
I'll bet they'll both get a result and I'll bet the ghost, while appearing at two locations simultaneously, will also exhibit two completely different characters. I will further bet that neither fake will hear from this ghost that he/she is being called away to another sitting. Have you ever seen that happen on TV?
No real psychic can claim 100% success. No real psychic can call up just the right number of spirits to fill a TV programme week after week with never a blank spot and never a random spirit who isn't involved with anyone in the room. No real psychic would ever call up any spirit at all, they would just have to deal with whoever turned up. Real psychics can learn to shut them out but never to force an appearance of a specific spirit. Fakes annoy me.
All the same, it is encouraging to find that I am not working in a totally disparaged field. There are those who laugh and dismiss the entire subject, but there always have been and always will be.
It's nice to know they are not the majority.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Granny wins again.
My grandmother was a fount of wisdom, usually delivered with a scowl and a clip around the ear. Then again, I was never short of comics or pocket money. A fearsome woman, short and square and apparently made of ill-tempered brick, but when it came to family she knew which side to take.
Stung by nettles? Crush dockleaf and rub it in. Gut problems? Apples. If she resorted to pharmaceuticals, it went as far as calamine lotion, kaolin and morphine or aspirin. No further.
One treatment for warts was the sap from dandelions. Snap off the flower and the white exudate would kill a wart. Incidentally, dandelion flowers make good wine, the leaves are good in salads and the roots can be eaten boiled or fried. Don't be too hasty with that weedkiller.
Science is catching up with Grandma. They have now found that non-melanoma skin cancers (warts) can be cured with topical application of milkweed sap. Somewhere in the spirit world, Grandma is administering an ectoplasmic smack across the head to a scientist. She knew about that years ago.
The odd thing about science is that when you read about marvellous cures for this and that, they involve some exotic Polynesian fruit or rare Transylvanian herb. Blueberries and cranberries abound in these papers, as do kiwi fruit and starfruit and yams. One fruit they ignore, in all cases, is the humble apple.
I did test them. Since testing them I have planted two apple trees in my garden. Draw your own conclusions.
The arrogance of modern science and medicine is leading to their downfall. The 'five-a-day' fruit and vegetable recommendation, or the '21 units of alcohol' limit for example - have you seen the research from which these figures were derived? I can state with absolute confidence that you have not. There was no research. Both figures were simply made up.
Now, the most effective way of leaving tobacco ever invented is to be banned on the lack of understanding displayed by an idiot:
Democrat Linda Rosenthal, or the New York Assembly, said: 'I got interested in this because I saw all these ads for e-cigarettes, so I did some research.
'I found what is in the e-cigarettes is a mystery.'
She didn't do very much research. Every electrosmoking website I've seen details exactly what's in them. Water and propylene glycol or glycerol (common and safe food additives) for the 'smoke', flavouring of all kinds and nicotine. The nicotine is optional. I have zero-nicotine electrosmoking fluid that works, for me, just as well. The addiction story is, and always has been, nonsense.
It's going to be banned to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical companies selling patches and gum and to keep tobacco revenues pouring in. If you live in New York and vote for these people, you are voting to keep smokers on tobacco because the patches and gum have never worked and never will. Electrosmoking does work. If you like being surrounded by smokers, vote for Linda Rosenthal. If you think smokers should get a safer alternative that produces no ash, butts or smell, vote that idiot out at the first opportunity.
There is no science any more. Rely on Granny because those who claim to 'know best' cannot be trusted. They have been proven to be just making up their results, time and again.
Now they are claiming credit for knowledge Granny learned from her own Granny.
That's just despicable.
Stung by nettles? Crush dockleaf and rub it in. Gut problems? Apples. If she resorted to pharmaceuticals, it went as far as calamine lotion, kaolin and morphine or aspirin. No further.
One treatment for warts was the sap from dandelions. Snap off the flower and the white exudate would kill a wart. Incidentally, dandelion flowers make good wine, the leaves are good in salads and the roots can be eaten boiled or fried. Don't be too hasty with that weedkiller.
Science is catching up with Grandma. They have now found that non-melanoma skin cancers (warts) can be cured with topical application of milkweed sap. Somewhere in the spirit world, Grandma is administering an ectoplasmic smack across the head to a scientist. She knew about that years ago.
The odd thing about science is that when you read about marvellous cures for this and that, they involve some exotic Polynesian fruit or rare Transylvanian herb. Blueberries and cranberries abound in these papers, as do kiwi fruit and starfruit and yams. One fruit they ignore, in all cases, is the humble apple.
I did test them. Since testing them I have planted two apple trees in my garden. Draw your own conclusions.
The arrogance of modern science and medicine is leading to their downfall. The 'five-a-day' fruit and vegetable recommendation, or the '21 units of alcohol' limit for example - have you seen the research from which these figures were derived? I can state with absolute confidence that you have not. There was no research. Both figures were simply made up.
Now, the most effective way of leaving tobacco ever invented is to be banned on the lack of understanding displayed by an idiot:
Democrat Linda Rosenthal, or the New York Assembly, said: 'I got interested in this because I saw all these ads for e-cigarettes, so I did some research.
'I found what is in the e-cigarettes is a mystery.'
She didn't do very much research. Every electrosmoking website I've seen details exactly what's in them. Water and propylene glycol or glycerol (common and safe food additives) for the 'smoke', flavouring of all kinds and nicotine. The nicotine is optional. I have zero-nicotine electrosmoking fluid that works, for me, just as well. The addiction story is, and always has been, nonsense.
It's going to be banned to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical companies selling patches and gum and to keep tobacco revenues pouring in. If you live in New York and vote for these people, you are voting to keep smokers on tobacco because the patches and gum have never worked and never will. Electrosmoking does work. If you like being surrounded by smokers, vote for Linda Rosenthal. If you think smokers should get a safer alternative that produces no ash, butts or smell, vote that idiot out at the first opportunity.
There is no science any more. Rely on Granny because those who claim to 'know best' cannot be trusted. They have been proven to be just making up their results, time and again.
Now they are claiming credit for knowledge Granny learned from her own Granny.
That's just despicable.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Goodbye Orion.
In the northern UK, we see the constellation Orion in its entirety in winter. It is one of the few we can consistently identify, along with Cassiopea (the 'Big 'W') and Ursus Major (the 'Great Bear' or the 'Big Dipper') Both can be used to find the Pole Star, Polaris, and there was a time, not so long ago but before widespread computer use, when we were taught how to do this in school.
The top left star, Betelgeuse, has entered popular imagination through the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and the spooky-fun film 'Beetlejuice'. Not everyone knows how to find it but there are few who can say they have never heard the name.
Betelgeuse is an old star, a red giant, and is close to its own personal boom-day. When it goes it is likely to produce a supernova bright enough to be seen by day. There is nothing to fear in this, the star is 650 light years away so we won't get much in the way of dangerous radiation or debris coming our way. We will get an awful lot of visible light though.
Astronomers say it might happen as soon as next year. What they are actually saying is that they think it might have happened 649 years ago and the light will arrive next year. Then again, it might not happen for a long time yet. It's not easy to be sure with these things.
Part of me hopes it goes nova during my lifetime. I'd like to see that. Another part of me would prefer not to see the end of Orion. It's one of the easiest constellations to identify.
It's an important one, because the three stars of the belt point to the rising of the sun, three days after its apparent demise at the winter solstice. These three, known as the 'three kings' in many cultures, are the three kings that follow the rebirth of the Sun.
I'm not going to get into that now. I just hope to see a supernova and simultaneously hope it doesn't wreck one of the most easily-found constellations for those of us who are not astronomers.
A supernova in Canis Minor would be better. I can never find that one anyway.
The top left star, Betelgeuse, has entered popular imagination through the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and the spooky-fun film 'Beetlejuice'. Not everyone knows how to find it but there are few who can say they have never heard the name.
Betelgeuse is an old star, a red giant, and is close to its own personal boom-day. When it goes it is likely to produce a supernova bright enough to be seen by day. There is nothing to fear in this, the star is 650 light years away so we won't get much in the way of dangerous radiation or debris coming our way. We will get an awful lot of visible light though.
Astronomers say it might happen as soon as next year. What they are actually saying is that they think it might have happened 649 years ago and the light will arrive next year. Then again, it might not happen for a long time yet. It's not easy to be sure with these things.
Part of me hopes it goes nova during my lifetime. I'd like to see that. Another part of me would prefer not to see the end of Orion. It's one of the easiest constellations to identify.
It's an important one, because the three stars of the belt point to the rising of the sun, three days after its apparent demise at the winter solstice. These three, known as the 'three kings' in many cultures, are the three kings that follow the rebirth of the Sun.
I'm not going to get into that now. I just hope to see a supernova and simultaneously hope it doesn't wreck one of the most easily-found constellations for those of us who are not astronomers.
A supernova in Canis Minor would be better. I can never find that one anyway.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Dr. Crippen's Corpse.
The UK abandoned capital punishment in the 1960's. You won't get hanged for murder here, instead you are likely to get a stern ticking-off and maybe a prison sentence that you'll serve about half of. Seems to me as if it's gone a bit too far the other way, but that's what we have now.
I am not a supporter of capital punishment for one reason - what if the wrong person is convicted and killed? If the wrong person is imprisoned, you can let them out and compensate them for the error. If they're dead, well, 'sorry' doesn't really help.
It has happened in the past and it seems it happened in one of the more famous murder trials of the last century. Dr. Crippen was hanged for the murder of his wife and always protested his innocence.Rather than being a famous murder case, it seems it was in fact a famous miscarriage of justice.
Some things about the case still don't quite fit. There is mention of a 'headless corpse', then a piece of flesh, shown to the court, which had a scar. This was given as evidence that the flesh came from Mrs. Crippen and on that, Dr. Crippen was convicted and hanged.
DNA testing now reveals the flesh to have been male. If it came from that headless corpse, couldn't they tell? Only the head was missing. Did Victorian morals extend to the post mortem room, with the body fully clothed throughout the investigation? Somebody must have noticed whether the corpse, head or no, was male or female.
There is also the matter of this corpse. It was found in the cellar, minus head, so someone was murdered. Nobody cuts off their own head and then hides it. It also means that someone was a murderer. It does not mean it was Dr. Crippen who did this, nor that Mrs. Crippen was the corpse. There was, however, a murder carried out by someone at the premises.
In law, that's beside the point. Dr. Crippen was convicted on the basis of false evidence. He was not accused of killing a man so the presentation of a bit of male flesh was not evidence that he killed his wife. If the cellar corpse was male, then it was evidently not his wife, yet he was convicted of killing his wife.
Whether he was responsible for the cellar corpse is neither here nor there. If it was never proved that the corpse was his wife, he should not have been convicted of her murder. As to what really happened, once he had been hanged, there was nobody who could say.
So it seems the death of Dr. Crippen was a miscarriage of justice, and one that could never be put right no matter what new evidence came to light. That gives investigators a very strong incentive to cover up any new evidence that might prove they were wrong, and that is not a good basis for a fair justice system.
There are cases where a death penalty would be appropriate, such as the Yorkshire Ripper case which concluded without a shred of doubt that Peter Sutcliffe was guilty. However, I would never support a return of the death penalty because it will be wrongly used. We already hear of cases where the wrong man was locked up, and who is then released and compensated. That can't happen if the wrong man goes to the gallows.
If one of the more famous murder convictions was based on unreliable, maybe even false evidence, then how certain can we be of the reliability of the courts? They do get things wrong sometimes and that's because they are human. It's no shame to admit to being human and making mistakes now and then.
Unless that mistake has caused someone to be executed.
I am not a supporter of capital punishment for one reason - what if the wrong person is convicted and killed? If the wrong person is imprisoned, you can let them out and compensate them for the error. If they're dead, well, 'sorry' doesn't really help.
It has happened in the past and it seems it happened in one of the more famous murder trials of the last century. Dr. Crippen was hanged for the murder of his wife and always protested his innocence.Rather than being a famous murder case, it seems it was in fact a famous miscarriage of justice.
Some things about the case still don't quite fit. There is mention of a 'headless corpse', then a piece of flesh, shown to the court, which had a scar. This was given as evidence that the flesh came from Mrs. Crippen and on that, Dr. Crippen was convicted and hanged.
DNA testing now reveals the flesh to have been male. If it came from that headless corpse, couldn't they tell? Only the head was missing. Did Victorian morals extend to the post mortem room, with the body fully clothed throughout the investigation? Somebody must have noticed whether the corpse, head or no, was male or female.
There is also the matter of this corpse. It was found in the cellar, minus head, so someone was murdered. Nobody cuts off their own head and then hides it. It also means that someone was a murderer. It does not mean it was Dr. Crippen who did this, nor that Mrs. Crippen was the corpse. There was, however, a murder carried out by someone at the premises.
In law, that's beside the point. Dr. Crippen was convicted on the basis of false evidence. He was not accused of killing a man so the presentation of a bit of male flesh was not evidence that he killed his wife. If the cellar corpse was male, then it was evidently not his wife, yet he was convicted of killing his wife.
Whether he was responsible for the cellar corpse is neither here nor there. If it was never proved that the corpse was his wife, he should not have been convicted of her murder. As to what really happened, once he had been hanged, there was nobody who could say.
So it seems the death of Dr. Crippen was a miscarriage of justice, and one that could never be put right no matter what new evidence came to light. That gives investigators a very strong incentive to cover up any new evidence that might prove they were wrong, and that is not a good basis for a fair justice system.
There are cases where a death penalty would be appropriate, such as the Yorkshire Ripper case which concluded without a shred of doubt that Peter Sutcliffe was guilty. However, I would never support a return of the death penalty because it will be wrongly used. We already hear of cases where the wrong man was locked up, and who is then released and compensated. That can't happen if the wrong man goes to the gallows.
If one of the more famous murder convictions was based on unreliable, maybe even false evidence, then how certain can we be of the reliability of the courts? They do get things wrong sometimes and that's because they are human. It's no shame to admit to being human and making mistakes now and then.
Unless that mistake has caused someone to be executed.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
A new Zodiac recruit.
Apparently there's a new Zodiac sign. It seems the Earth has shifted around since astrology was first conceived and the Sun no longer goes through the right signs at the right times. In fact, there's a constellation it goes through now that it didn't go through before. Ophiuchus, the snake-wrestler.
The new list is as follows.
Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11
Pisces: March 11-April 18
Aries: April 18-May 13
Taurus: May 13-June 21
Gemini: June 21-July 20
Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23-29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29-Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20
I thought I was Aries but now it seems I'm completely Pisces. Which I deny. I haven't touched a drop today. I despise being in water as much as a cat does, I can barely swim and I am uncomfortable on boats. A fish-sign does not suit me at all. I prefer to stick with Aries the Ram because the idea of being able to head-butt people without feeling any need to give any kind of explanation is very appealing indeed.
Does anyone know where this stellar image of a giant guy waving his serpent around came from? I am not a student of astrology so maybe he's been in the picture all this time and I haven't noticed. Although I have to say I have never heard the name at all.
This new list comes from astronomers rather than astrologers so I have no idea of the impact (if any) it has on astrology. Does it change things retrospectively? Am I Aries because it was still Aries when I was born, or do I have to go out and get Pisces now? This is more confusing than when they demoted Pluto from 'planet' to 'big rock'. At least Pluto didn't change its orbit in response.
I wonder what the character traits for Ophiuchus people will be. A propensity for shaking your snake at people, or perhaps the ability to recognise and strangle the slimy people. That could be useful.
We'll have to wait and see whether this new sign works its way into astrology. I'm sure it will mean a lot of books will have to be rewritten.
It'll be interesting to see what effect this has. I'm sure the astronomers plan to use this to say 'Nyah, you're wrong' to the astrologers, but won't they be kicking themselves if the adjustment turned out to make astrology much more accurate?
That would be worth seeing.
The new list is as follows.
Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11
Pisces: March 11-April 18
Aries: April 18-May 13
Taurus: May 13-June 21
Gemini: June 21-July 20
Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23-29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29-Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20
I thought I was Aries but now it seems I'm completely Pisces. Which I deny. I haven't touched a drop today. I despise being in water as much as a cat does, I can barely swim and I am uncomfortable on boats. A fish-sign does not suit me at all. I prefer to stick with Aries the Ram because the idea of being able to head-butt people without feeling any need to give any kind of explanation is very appealing indeed.
Does anyone know where this stellar image of a giant guy waving his serpent around came from? I am not a student of astrology so maybe he's been in the picture all this time and I haven't noticed. Although I have to say I have never heard the name at all.
This new list comes from astronomers rather than astrologers so I have no idea of the impact (if any) it has on astrology. Does it change things retrospectively? Am I Aries because it was still Aries when I was born, or do I have to go out and get Pisces now? This is more confusing than when they demoted Pluto from 'planet' to 'big rock'. At least Pluto didn't change its orbit in response.
I wonder what the character traits for Ophiuchus people will be. A propensity for shaking your snake at people, or perhaps the ability to recognise and strangle the slimy people. That could be useful.
We'll have to wait and see whether this new sign works its way into astrology. I'm sure it will mean a lot of books will have to be rewritten.
It'll be interesting to see what effect this has. I'm sure the astronomers plan to use this to say 'Nyah, you're wrong' to the astrologers, but won't they be kicking themselves if the adjustment turned out to make astrology much more accurate?
That would be worth seeing.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Peering over the keyboard.
This wretched holiday refuses to end.
In Scotland, both the first and second of January are holidays because the Scots New Year parties mean most people need both days for recovery. This year, those dates fell on Saturday and Sunday, but they apparently don't count. So everything is still shut down for Monday and Tuesday.
Reality does not descend until Wednesday. It's going to happen again next year.
I need a new chair. This one is broken. The gas-lift plunger has popped out of the bottom so it's at minimum height and staying there. If I had a webcam now I would look like an enraged gnome. I have ordered another but it won't even be dispatched before Wednesday.
Bah. Humbug. Scrooge was right all along.
In Scotland, both the first and second of January are holidays because the Scots New Year parties mean most people need both days for recovery. This year, those dates fell on Saturday and Sunday, but they apparently don't count. So everything is still shut down for Monday and Tuesday.
Reality does not descend until Wednesday. It's going to happen again next year.
I need a new chair. This one is broken. The gas-lift plunger has popped out of the bottom so it's at minimum height and staying there. If I had a webcam now I would look like an enraged gnome. I have ordered another but it won't even be dispatched before Wednesday.
Bah. Humbug. Scrooge was right all along.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
New Year.
Wel, that's this holiday period nearly over. I expect the shops will be stocked with Easter eggs when they reopen on Tuesday.
I'll be glad when it gets back to normal on the High Street. I am in desperate need of a haircut.
So begins 2011. As always, everyone considers it a new year and imagines it will somehow be different. There are those who believe the world will end when the Mayan calendar ends on December 12th 2012. Well, our calendar just ended again and the planet didn't even notice.
The Mayan calendar is a long one but it has ended before and when it ends this time, it just goes back to the beginning again. As ours does. So I don't expect anything to happen in December 2012.
Well, there will be one event of note in 2012. There will be one second of time where clocks that display seconds will read 12:12:12 on 12/12/12. A small amusement, just as this year they read, for one second, 10:10:10 on 10/10/10 and there'll be one next November too. After the 2012 one, these little amusements won't be available again until the year 3000 and I, for one, am not confident about being here to see that.
As for resolutions, I don't really have any. I need to lose the weight I've gained by sitting around snowbound for a month but that's a necessity, not a resolution. I hope to revive this neglected blog this year and get back to the expanded version of 'Ghosthunting' which has also been neglected.
We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, I hope the year turns out to be a good one for everyone.
Happy New Year.
I'll be glad when it gets back to normal on the High Street. I am in desperate need of a haircut.
So begins 2011. As always, everyone considers it a new year and imagines it will somehow be different. There are those who believe the world will end when the Mayan calendar ends on December 12th 2012. Well, our calendar just ended again and the planet didn't even notice.
The Mayan calendar is a long one but it has ended before and when it ends this time, it just goes back to the beginning again. As ours does. So I don't expect anything to happen in December 2012.
Well, there will be one event of note in 2012. There will be one second of time where clocks that display seconds will read 12:12:12 on 12/12/12. A small amusement, just as this year they read, for one second, 10:10:10 on 10/10/10 and there'll be one next November too. After the 2012 one, these little amusements won't be available again until the year 3000 and I, for one, am not confident about being here to see that.
As for resolutions, I don't really have any. I need to lose the weight I've gained by sitting around snowbound for a month but that's a necessity, not a resolution. I hope to revive this neglected blog this year and get back to the expanded version of 'Ghosthunting' which has also been neglected.
We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, I hope the year turns out to be a good one for everyone.
Happy New Year.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Missing datapoint.
Every year at this time I visit a local haunting and try to get photos. Last year looked promising and I had hoped to build on it this year.
However, I chickened out this year. Temperatures here have been well below freezing, even during the day, and once the sun goes down the frost is severe. It's not forecast to reach above zero until Tuesday. So I have a missing datapoint but then it would have been impossible to hold a camera steady at these temperatures anyway. It's disappointing but the site will still be there next year, and it might not be quite so devastatingly cold next time.
I'm keen to photograph this haunting event but I'm not keen to become part of it.
Apparently this freezing weather is caused by global warming. It seems the alleged scientists involved think we have no memories, because the run of mild winters we had a few years ago were also caused by global warming. We were in fact told that we could expect to see no snow at all in the UK in the future, and we'd all be growing grape vines and Kiwi fruit. Last summer I struggled to grow tomatoes in a greenhouse!
So, if it gets warmer, that's global warming. If it gets colder, that's global warming. If we get a summer drought, that's global warming and if we get summer floods, that's global warming. It seems that if we get any weather at all, it's global warming.
If you doubt that anything and everything is global warming, you are a climate heretic and must be silenced. If you accept that no matter what happens, it's all global warming, you are allowed to consider yourself 'scientifically literate' even though you are self-evidently a deranged lunatic who will accept exactly the same explanation for diametrically opposite events.
When this country is under a kilometre of ice, rest assured that it will be due to global warming and heating will still be frowned upon.
'Weather is not climate' is the mantra these morons spout. Unless, of course, it's a weather event that supports the idea of global warming. Then it's climate. Any weather event is global warming. The explanation comes first, the observation must then be made to fit. This is what passes for science now. Alchemists were far more rigorous.
I'm glad I no longer teach science. Current standards have fallen so far, I'd be castigated for having unreasonable expectations of students.
You see, I wouldn't let them just make it all up.
Anyway, Merry Christmas. Time to get the whisky out.
However, I chickened out this year. Temperatures here have been well below freezing, even during the day, and once the sun goes down the frost is severe. It's not forecast to reach above zero until Tuesday. So I have a missing datapoint but then it would have been impossible to hold a camera steady at these temperatures anyway. It's disappointing but the site will still be there next year, and it might not be quite so devastatingly cold next time.
I'm keen to photograph this haunting event but I'm not keen to become part of it.
Apparently this freezing weather is caused by global warming. It seems the alleged scientists involved think we have no memories, because the run of mild winters we had a few years ago were also caused by global warming. We were in fact told that we could expect to see no snow at all in the UK in the future, and we'd all be growing grape vines and Kiwi fruit. Last summer I struggled to grow tomatoes in a greenhouse!
So, if it gets warmer, that's global warming. If it gets colder, that's global warming. If we get a summer drought, that's global warming and if we get summer floods, that's global warming. It seems that if we get any weather at all, it's global warming.
If you doubt that anything and everything is global warming, you are a climate heretic and must be silenced. If you accept that no matter what happens, it's all global warming, you are allowed to consider yourself 'scientifically literate' even though you are self-evidently a deranged lunatic who will accept exactly the same explanation for diametrically opposite events.
When this country is under a kilometre of ice, rest assured that it will be due to global warming and heating will still be frowned upon.
'Weather is not climate' is the mantra these morons spout. Unless, of course, it's a weather event that supports the idea of global warming. Then it's climate. Any weather event is global warming. The explanation comes first, the observation must then be made to fit. This is what passes for science now. Alchemists were far more rigorous.
I'm glad I no longer teach science. Current standards have fallen so far, I'd be castigated for having unreasonable expectations of students.
You see, I wouldn't let them just make it all up.
Anyway, Merry Christmas. Time to get the whisky out.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Busy day tomorrow.
There are a few things happening tomorrow. It's the Winter Solstice and it's also a total lunar eclipse. The eclipse starts at 6:30 am GMT and is visible from the UK. I'm not sure how good it will look from other parts of the globe but I think Eastern parts of North America might get a good view. In fact, I'm a little late with this because Americans will see it in the early hours of the 21st.
Here, the moon will be setting as it goes into eclipse and the sun will be just starting to rise. The last time this happened was in 1638. The years following it saw the English civil war, the Great Plague, the Witchfinders, the beheading of King Charles and finished with the Great Fire of London in 1666. So it wasn't a good omen, really. Fortunately we don't currently have a King Charles, so let's hope the Queen is in extraordinarily good health.
I hope to see the eclipse, but it's full cloud cover at the moment. It doesn't look promising.
Here, the moon will be setting as it goes into eclipse and the sun will be just starting to rise. The last time this happened was in 1638. The years following it saw the English civil war, the Great Plague, the Witchfinders, the beheading of King Charles and finished with the Great Fire of London in 1666. So it wasn't a good omen, really. Fortunately we don't currently have a King Charles, so let's hope the Queen is in extraordinarily good health.
I hope to see the eclipse, but it's full cloud cover at the moment. It doesn't look promising.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Forest ghoul?
This made the rounds of UK newspapers a few days ago. It is allegedly a picture taken by an American hunter in Louisiana.
One commenter on the story says it's an advert for a computer game and cites the bottom-left tag 'Wildgame Innovations' as evidence. Nope. Wildgame Innovations is a hunting supplies company, not a games manufacturer. The picture appears under their 'success stories' listing, is taken using an infrared camera and was put there by someone who says it was taken by 'a friend of a friend'.
I am unconvinced.
First, if you were alone in the woods on a dark night, equipped for hunting, and that came at you - what would you grab first? The camera or the gun? I mean, it doesn't look as if that thing wants a conversation, does it?
Second, look at the arms. Huge shoulders with thin arms poking out of them. The musculature makes no sense. Its right arm has straight bones, its left arm has rubber bones. The right leg appears to be much thicker than the left.
My suspicion is that it was a photo that included an interestingly shaped object, perhaps a fallen branch, and that the head was added later. Or maybe it's a totally digital image.
Real? Not impossible, but I'd rate this as having no more than a 5% chance of being real. A second photo would improve that rating, preferably by someone completely unrelated to the first photographer.
Unknown large animals are certainly possible. There are many wild places on the planet where nobody ever goes. In recent years, a new species of ape has been found in Africa and it's only a few decades since the discovery of the giant and colossal squid species.
The thing in the picture, though, looks to have such odd musculature that it would be unlikely to thrive in woodlands. Its arms don't have enough muscle to be much use, it appears to have no fur or scales, its teeth don't look very big and its jaw isn't strong enough to rip through much of anything.
So, for now, I'd file this as 'not very likely at all'.
Unless someone else from Louisiana has seen one?
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Something for the Greens.
Two feet of snow and still falling. The earliest snowfall in twenty years, the deepest snow since 1965, the country is once again almost entirely white when seen from space and it looks like this weather is staying for a long while yet. There are icicles hanging off everything and the temperature is not getting above freezing during the day. Tonight it's due to hit -20C (-4F).
Still, we hear about all this global warming. We hear about the less than one degree of increased temperature in the Arctic over the last decade and we keep hearing that Arctic ice is melting.
Well, followers of the Green God of Climatology, here's what they are not telling you.
It has nothing to do with the climate. Nothing to do with 4x4 cars or people flying around in planes or anything else we do. You have been duped and you have demonstrated and demanded tax increases because you were told to.
Now, the cost of heating is to go up again. Last year over 20,000 pensioners died in the winter in the UK because they could not afford heating. So, Greens, are you trying to top that this year?
You'll be pensioners one day. You might regret your zeal in disposing of the elderly by then.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Double standards.
I've already mentioned the study on precognition that looks remarkably well done. Last week's New Scientist (issue dated 20 Nov 2010) mentioned it too, in dismissive terms. The scientific world's analysis of any such study is 'It simply cannot be' and that's the end of it. The New Scientist editorial goes so far as to claim that investigators set up some kind of magical sensory adaptation in volunteers with half a ping pong ball taped over each eye, and white noise in the ears.
In fact, those conditions are used to be certain that the subject could not have heard or seen anything that might clue them in to what they were supposed to receive telepathically. Far from being a magical ritual set up by investigators, they are a response to the scientific world's insistence that the experimental procedures are absolutely cheat-proof.
Yet now, these methodologies, brought in as a result of mainstream insistence, are held up as proof of the lunacy of paranormal investigation. Doublethink is everywhere these days.
Yes, we have to take special care in any investigation, not only because we are guaranteed to meet a wall of 'I don't believe it' no matter what we do, but because there are cheats out there. Lots of cheats. Some very clever ones. Some have become famous by convincing most of the world that stage magic is real magic, even after regular debunking. So yes, we have to be very careful in our methods.
Taping half-balls over eyes might seem like overkill but cheats have been known to adjust blindfolds so they can see. To have that cautionary experimentation referred to as if it is some kind of arcane ritual simply serves to demonstrate the blinkers worn by mainstream science. If they cannot find fault in that study on precognition, they will use derision and scorn to belittle the whole field.
In that same issue is an article on quantum physics, which claims to have sent particles back in time to interact with themselves. No scoffing from New Scientist here. This claim is lauded as a great breakthrough. I admit that the details of quantum physics is way over my head but having read the article twice, I cannot see where the 'back in time' part fits in. Maybe that's just me.
So, in one issue, there are two articles on, effectively, time shifting in which an event that has not yet occurred shows an effect in the present. One is considered a great breakthrough, the other is the babbling of the spooky brigade.
There is really nothing that can be done about personal prejudice. If, faced with correctly performed experiments, someone wants to resort to abuse and misrepresentation to support their preconceived notions, then why bother arguing with them? Nothing will change their minds. You might as well try to persuade the Pope to convert to Buddhism. Or bang your head on a wall.
I choose to spend my time investigating things that mainstream science simply dismisses. Will I ever persuade any of the mainstream to take any of it seriously? Probably not. It no longer matters to me. My own curiosity is the only drive I need. So, scoff away, pretend I'm not here.
The only other thing I need is some decent weather. Cold and damp might be fine for ghosts but not for me. It doesn't do much for expensive electronics either.
Just as well I don't have deadlines.
In fact, those conditions are used to be certain that the subject could not have heard or seen anything that might clue them in to what they were supposed to receive telepathically. Far from being a magical ritual set up by investigators, they are a response to the scientific world's insistence that the experimental procedures are absolutely cheat-proof.
Yet now, these methodologies, brought in as a result of mainstream insistence, are held up as proof of the lunacy of paranormal investigation. Doublethink is everywhere these days.
Yes, we have to take special care in any investigation, not only because we are guaranteed to meet a wall of 'I don't believe it' no matter what we do, but because there are cheats out there. Lots of cheats. Some very clever ones. Some have become famous by convincing most of the world that stage magic is real magic, even after regular debunking. So yes, we have to be very careful in our methods.
Taping half-balls over eyes might seem like overkill but cheats have been known to adjust blindfolds so they can see. To have that cautionary experimentation referred to as if it is some kind of arcane ritual simply serves to demonstrate the blinkers worn by mainstream science. If they cannot find fault in that study on precognition, they will use derision and scorn to belittle the whole field.
In that same issue is an article on quantum physics, which claims to have sent particles back in time to interact with themselves. No scoffing from New Scientist here. This claim is lauded as a great breakthrough. I admit that the details of quantum physics is way over my head but having read the article twice, I cannot see where the 'back in time' part fits in. Maybe that's just me.
So, in one issue, there are two articles on, effectively, time shifting in which an event that has not yet occurred shows an effect in the present. One is considered a great breakthrough, the other is the babbling of the spooky brigade.
There is really nothing that can be done about personal prejudice. If, faced with correctly performed experiments, someone wants to resort to abuse and misrepresentation to support their preconceived notions, then why bother arguing with them? Nothing will change their minds. You might as well try to persuade the Pope to convert to Buddhism. Or bang your head on a wall.
I choose to spend my time investigating things that mainstream science simply dismisses. Will I ever persuade any of the mainstream to take any of it seriously? Probably not. It no longer matters to me. My own curiosity is the only drive I need. So, scoff away, pretend I'm not here.
The only other thing I need is some decent weather. Cold and damp might be fine for ghosts but not for me. It doesn't do much for expensive electronics either.
Just as well I don't have deadlines.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
God and gods.
I haven't been to the lab for a while. I have things to do that require me to shift my sleeping pattern away from nocturnal and it's not easy. It hasn't worked yet.
So I have had time to think. And read blogs.
I read a lot on ancient Celtic religion and other things that come under the 'Pagan' banner, as well as on modern religions. I am not religious, neither am I atheist. Pascal's wager states that belief is better than non-belief because if there is no God, it doesn't matter - but if there is, it matters a lot.
Pascal was wrong. You can't just say you believe, you either do or you don't and if there is a God, he will know. So if you don't believe, don't waste your time pretending. It's not going to work. You might as well enjoy some debauchery, drunkenness and devilment because you're going to Hell anyway. So I didn't take up Pascal's wager even though I don't have time for any of those other things.
I am not a believer. I am also not a fervent non-believer. I am an apathist. I don't care whether there is a God or not, I'm an outside observer. However, I am very interested in the reasons people believe or don't and in the structures of religions. A study conducted some time ago suggested that there was a genetic component to belief and that priests were likely to beget more priests. That's bad news if you're Catholic because your priesthood has been busy wiping out their own genetic predisposition to the priesthood. All they have now are politicians and paedophiles.
Maybe I'm looking for something, maybe I'm just curious. I don't know. One thing that came up on Tom Sheepandgoats blog led to me wondering if there was a subliminal reason I left the church in my youth. On the back wall of the church I visited were the Ten Commandments (Exodus ch. 20). The second one says 'No graven images - you worship a graven image and you're hot pitchfork fodder, matey' or words to that effect. At the front of the church was a carving of Jesus on the cross. A graven image, and we all had to bow before it. Perhaps my subconscious thought the dichotomy was just too much.
Anyway, I left faith and became a 'don't care'. Even so, my interest remained. The thought processes were fired up again by a post on Tessa Dick's blog.
What I chiefly noticed about all the other gods, Pagan, Roman, Greek, Norse, all of them (before Gerald Gardner's New Age revision of the Pagan faith) was that these gods had to be appeased rather than worshipped. There were gods of war and of storms and all sorts of nasty things and if they didn't get what they wanted, people got hurt. This was more a Mafia of gods than any sort of benevolent father figure.
The Abrahamic god structure through the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths all depended on one god (they call it by different names but it acts much the same way) who basically says 'Follow me, be nice to each other and you're in. Oh, and smite the unbeliever while you're at it.' I am, so far, unsmited but with all those religions out there it's only a matter of time. One thing the Abrahamic religions state, unlike the rest, is that their God will not whack them just for fun.
All of these trace back to something called a War in Heaven in which many angels decided they could do better than their creator and staged a takeover bid. They failed and were cast out. Not to Hell. To Earth. They weren't the first.
The best known is, of course, Lucifer but he wasn't one of those who first came down in defiance of law. Nor was he the serpent in Eden. He was still allowed into Heaven in Job's time, at least. According to the book of Enoch (not in the current Bible), it was Semjaza and eighteen others, plus many unnamed ones, who came down to Earth and took wives, giving rise to the Nephilim or giants, depending on the version you have. The Nephilim eventually died out and the angels involved were fired.
They weren't killed. Separated from their source of power they would be limited in what they could do but they were most likely still immortal. So they're still around.
Could they have set up their own godlike structures? They knew how to do it, they were trained by the best. After the heavenly war they would have been joined by many others. In Solomon's time, according to Goetia (definitely not part of the Bible, but part of Lemegeton which won't be found in any devout Christian library, although you can get it on Amazon), seventy-two of the fallen asked to endure penance so they could go home. Solomon sealed them in a brass casket and threw them into a lake beside Babylon. The Babylonians, thinking he was hiding treasure, eventually retrieved the casket and opened it and the compressed fallen angels, by now driven nuts, escaped. Shades of Pandora's Box?
What interests me is the way it all fits together. Most of the pantheistic gods can be somewhat petty at times and none of them have the omnipotence and all-over power of the one God. Each of the gods in a pantheon is a specialist. None of them - not even the leader - is all-powerful and none are omnipresent. Tales of Zeus/Jupiter producing children from human women matches Abrahamic tradition of angels - not God - doing the same. God only does this once and even then it's not absolutely certain he was the father. Nowadays he'd be paying maintenance anyway.
It's an enormous jigsaw puzzle but the pieces fit together gradually. Solomon and the seventy-two fallen angels, Pandora's box. The Nephilim, and Leda and the swan. Immortals cast to Earth with limited powers and pantheons of gods with one power each. Pantheons that come and go - Norse gods, Roman and Greek, changing names and moving to a new patch just as businesses do nowadays.
I am not convinced that this stems from a God. Before the Abrahamic religions, there was one that regarded the snake as a carrier of wisdom. It is logical, therefore, that the new religion would try to discredit the old by casting the snake in the role of deceiver. Whether that is what actually happened, thousands of years ago, is impossible to say. Nevertheless, it must be included as a possibility.
It's just that there are so many coincidences in these things. The dates of festivals are irrelevant - Easter is there to overshadow the spring equinox, Christmas to cover the winter solstice (the holly is not of Christian origin, but stems from the Pagan battle between the Holly King and the Oak King, and you are probably happier not knowing where the tree decorations originate). Even Halloween was once just Celtic New Year. There is considerable overlap in religion as the new always strives to eradicate the old.
Still, there is too much overlap to ignore. Goetia/Clavicula Salomonis and the story of Pandora do not reference each other at all. Neither do the tales of Zeus as a lusty swan and those of fallen angels taking wives. Hercules and the Nephilim. I have seen no connections made between these.
There is much in folklore and religion that should be studied seriously but is not. Science dismisses without thought far too many things that really should be examined. Sure, they might turn out to be of no importance but can we really decide that with a snort and a sneer?
Is that modern science? All too often, I fear it is.
So I have had time to think. And read blogs.
I read a lot on ancient Celtic religion and other things that come under the 'Pagan' banner, as well as on modern religions. I am not religious, neither am I atheist. Pascal's wager states that belief is better than non-belief because if there is no God, it doesn't matter - but if there is, it matters a lot.
Pascal was wrong. You can't just say you believe, you either do or you don't and if there is a God, he will know. So if you don't believe, don't waste your time pretending. It's not going to work. You might as well enjoy some debauchery, drunkenness and devilment because you're going to Hell anyway. So I didn't take up Pascal's wager even though I don't have time for any of those other things.
I am not a believer. I am also not a fervent non-believer. I am an apathist. I don't care whether there is a God or not, I'm an outside observer. However, I am very interested in the reasons people believe or don't and in the structures of religions. A study conducted some time ago suggested that there was a genetic component to belief and that priests were likely to beget more priests. That's bad news if you're Catholic because your priesthood has been busy wiping out their own genetic predisposition to the priesthood. All they have now are politicians and paedophiles.
Maybe I'm looking for something, maybe I'm just curious. I don't know. One thing that came up on Tom Sheepandgoats blog led to me wondering if there was a subliminal reason I left the church in my youth. On the back wall of the church I visited were the Ten Commandments (Exodus ch. 20). The second one says 'No graven images - you worship a graven image and you're hot pitchfork fodder, matey' or words to that effect. At the front of the church was a carving of Jesus on the cross. A graven image, and we all had to bow before it. Perhaps my subconscious thought the dichotomy was just too much.
Anyway, I left faith and became a 'don't care'. Even so, my interest remained. The thought processes were fired up again by a post on Tessa Dick's blog.
What I chiefly noticed about all the other gods, Pagan, Roman, Greek, Norse, all of them (before Gerald Gardner's New Age revision of the Pagan faith) was that these gods had to be appeased rather than worshipped. There were gods of war and of storms and all sorts of nasty things and if they didn't get what they wanted, people got hurt. This was more a Mafia of gods than any sort of benevolent father figure.
The Abrahamic god structure through the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths all depended on one god (they call it by different names but it acts much the same way) who basically says 'Follow me, be nice to each other and you're in. Oh, and smite the unbeliever while you're at it.' I am, so far, unsmited but with all those religions out there it's only a matter of time. One thing the Abrahamic religions state, unlike the rest, is that their God will not whack them just for fun.
All of these trace back to something called a War in Heaven in which many angels decided they could do better than their creator and staged a takeover bid. They failed and were cast out. Not to Hell. To Earth. They weren't the first.
The best known is, of course, Lucifer but he wasn't one of those who first came down in defiance of law. Nor was he the serpent in Eden. He was still allowed into Heaven in Job's time, at least. According to the book of Enoch (not in the current Bible), it was Semjaza and eighteen others, plus many unnamed ones, who came down to Earth and took wives, giving rise to the Nephilim or giants, depending on the version you have. The Nephilim eventually died out and the angels involved were fired.
They weren't killed. Separated from their source of power they would be limited in what they could do but they were most likely still immortal. So they're still around.
Could they have set up their own godlike structures? They knew how to do it, they were trained by the best. After the heavenly war they would have been joined by many others. In Solomon's time, according to Goetia (definitely not part of the Bible, but part of Lemegeton which won't be found in any devout Christian library, although you can get it on Amazon), seventy-two of the fallen asked to endure penance so they could go home. Solomon sealed them in a brass casket and threw them into a lake beside Babylon. The Babylonians, thinking he was hiding treasure, eventually retrieved the casket and opened it and the compressed fallen angels, by now driven nuts, escaped. Shades of Pandora's Box?
What interests me is the way it all fits together. Most of the pantheistic gods can be somewhat petty at times and none of them have the omnipotence and all-over power of the one God. Each of the gods in a pantheon is a specialist. None of them - not even the leader - is all-powerful and none are omnipresent. Tales of Zeus/Jupiter producing children from human women matches Abrahamic tradition of angels - not God - doing the same. God only does this once and even then it's not absolutely certain he was the father. Nowadays he'd be paying maintenance anyway.
It's an enormous jigsaw puzzle but the pieces fit together gradually. Solomon and the seventy-two fallen angels, Pandora's box. The Nephilim, and Leda and the swan. Immortals cast to Earth with limited powers and pantheons of gods with one power each. Pantheons that come and go - Norse gods, Roman and Greek, changing names and moving to a new patch just as businesses do nowadays.
I am not convinced that this stems from a God. Before the Abrahamic religions, there was one that regarded the snake as a carrier of wisdom. It is logical, therefore, that the new religion would try to discredit the old by casting the snake in the role of deceiver. Whether that is what actually happened, thousands of years ago, is impossible to say. Nevertheless, it must be included as a possibility.
It's just that there are so many coincidences in these things. The dates of festivals are irrelevant - Easter is there to overshadow the spring equinox, Christmas to cover the winter solstice (the holly is not of Christian origin, but stems from the Pagan battle between the Holly King and the Oak King, and you are probably happier not knowing where the tree decorations originate). Even Halloween was once just Celtic New Year. There is considerable overlap in religion as the new always strives to eradicate the old.
Still, there is too much overlap to ignore. Goetia/Clavicula Salomonis and the story of Pandora do not reference each other at all. Neither do the tales of Zeus as a lusty swan and those of fallen angels taking wives. Hercules and the Nephilim. I have seen no connections made between these.
There is much in folklore and religion that should be studied seriously but is not. Science dismisses without thought far too many things that really should be examined. Sure, they might turn out to be of no importance but can we really decide that with a snort and a sneer?
Is that modern science? All too often, I fear it is.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Who saw this one coming?
At last there has been a scientific study of premonition that was so well set up that not even the sceptics can tear it down.
There was no fault in the methodology, although nobody predicted anything really worth knowing - just which words would be chosen and where a randomly-placed picture would be. An attempt to replicate it over the internet failed, but the effect might be distance-limited so replication should really follow the format of the original experiment, with subjects in the lab. All the same, the principle is there with results well above the possibility of chance.
The scoffers are out in force as usual - but these are scoffers, not sceptics. Being sceptical is part of science. Simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'I don't believe it' is not science. Sceptics check things, scoffers simply deny them.
There is a flipside to this of course, and it's the anti-sceptic statement 'the science is settled'. Real science is never settled. Science that is afraid of sceptical inquiry is science with something to hide. Like Climatology, and much of current obesity, alcohol and smoking research. So much as question it and they'll scream 'Heretic!'. The science is settled, you see, and dissent must be punished. Not answered. Punished.
What's the connection? Those who simply make pronouncements rather than bothering with all that 'reproducibility' and 'transparency' stuff are the same ones who scoff at any form of paranormal research. Yet paranormal researchers' methods have to be open and clear because there is no chance of anyone listening if the full data is not available.
Climatology refuses to release data and details of methods. Ask why, and ask why it's actually getting noticeably colder every year and you won't get a reasoned response. You'll be called a heretic.
Smoking research has long since descended into the utterly bizarre, with infections now blamed on little tobacco goblins and trace amounts of tobacco causing nonsmokers to drop dead on contact. Question it, and you'll be told the 'science' is settled and you're a heretic.
That five-a-day vegetable thing, and the alcohol units per week per adult... do you know where they came from? Have you seen the research that produced those figures? No. You haven't. There isn't any. Those figures were simply plucked out of the air and they are now Government policy. They are based on nothing at all. Reproducibility of methods and falsifiability of theory cannot be tested where none even exist. In these cases, 'science' skipped all the theory, experimentation and analysis and went straight to the conclusions. Try questioning it and see what you get.
And yet these same people will scoff at paranormal research. They accuse us of 'making it up'!
These days, paranormal research might be the only branch of science still applying proper techniques. That's something I certainly never expected to see.
There was no fault in the methodology, although nobody predicted anything really worth knowing - just which words would be chosen and where a randomly-placed picture would be. An attempt to replicate it over the internet failed, but the effect might be distance-limited so replication should really follow the format of the original experiment, with subjects in the lab. All the same, the principle is there with results well above the possibility of chance.
The scoffers are out in force as usual - but these are scoffers, not sceptics. Being sceptical is part of science. Simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying 'I don't believe it' is not science. Sceptics check things, scoffers simply deny them.
There is a flipside to this of course, and it's the anti-sceptic statement 'the science is settled'. Real science is never settled. Science that is afraid of sceptical inquiry is science with something to hide. Like Climatology, and much of current obesity, alcohol and smoking research. So much as question it and they'll scream 'Heretic!'. The science is settled, you see, and dissent must be punished. Not answered. Punished.
What's the connection? Those who simply make pronouncements rather than bothering with all that 'reproducibility' and 'transparency' stuff are the same ones who scoff at any form of paranormal research. Yet paranormal researchers' methods have to be open and clear because there is no chance of anyone listening if the full data is not available.
Climatology refuses to release data and details of methods. Ask why, and ask why it's actually getting noticeably colder every year and you won't get a reasoned response. You'll be called a heretic.
Smoking research has long since descended into the utterly bizarre, with infections now blamed on little tobacco goblins and trace amounts of tobacco causing nonsmokers to drop dead on contact. Question it, and you'll be told the 'science' is settled and you're a heretic.
That five-a-day vegetable thing, and the alcohol units per week per adult... do you know where they came from? Have you seen the research that produced those figures? No. You haven't. There isn't any. Those figures were simply plucked out of the air and they are now Government policy. They are based on nothing at all. Reproducibility of methods and falsifiability of theory cannot be tested where none even exist. In these cases, 'science' skipped all the theory, experimentation and analysis and went straight to the conclusions. Try questioning it and see what you get.
And yet these same people will scoff at paranormal research. They accuse us of 'making it up'!
These days, paranormal research might be the only branch of science still applying proper techniques. That's something I certainly never expected to see.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Wake-up time.
I have left this blog dormant for a long time. The weather has made outdoor investigations impossible for the last couple of years. Currently we have gales and rain and even if the ghosts were dancing in my garden, I wouldn't go out there tonight. They don't get wet or feel cold. I do, and so does my expensive camera equipment.
Lab ghost remains elusive, and in this weather the creaks, rattles and bangs in that old building mean I'd have trouble finding a banshee. Any low voices will be drowned out by howls, whistles, creaking and banging doors and rattling windows and all of it is easily discounted as being down to the wind. I wouldn't be able to prove a thing against that level of background interference.
Things are starting to liven up in the news though. There's another UFO report, although it's one of those 'black triangle' ones. They always make me think of those stealth fighters which, oddly enough, appeared a few years after the first black triangle UFOs. If the military were testing a new secret plane, they would test it at night and they certainly wouldn't admit it was anything to do with them if someone spotted it. So I am very sceptical of black triangles.
The saucer ones are more interesting. I knew that the German air force was interested in that form of flying machine during the Second World War. I was aware they had drawn up plans but I didn't know they had actually built fifteen prototypes. Unfortunately the article doesn't say whether any of them flew. The moon base is part of the movie being advertised. That's fiction. The German attempts to build such a machine were real.
There's one big flaw in the design. If the outer rim rotates at high speed, I don't see how they could stop the inner part rotating in the opposite direction once it left the ground. Helicopters get around this by having a small rotor on the tail to keep the body steady, but these discs don't seem to have a tail. Another way would be to have two sets of blades rotating in opposite directions. Again, there doesn't seem to be room for this in the designs.
Is it even possible to make a circular flying craft? It seems it certainly is. At least at the model scale. I don't know how well those designs would scale up. It is, however, possible.
What's special about this shape of craft is its maneuverability. Like a helicopter, it doesn't have to travel in any particular direction. It can hover or even fly backwards. It can change direction at speed without having to bank or turn. It would be faster than a helicopter at all these things because it is, in effect, just the blade part. There is no heavy passenger cabin hanging below the propulsion unit, the whole thing is the propulsion unit. One thing stops them being spaceships - they can only work in an atmosphere. Rotating propellors get you nowhere in space.
If I was involved in a secret military project to get one of these things working (I'm not and never have been) then how can such a thing be kept secret? Simple denial won't work for long. They'd have to be test-flown and sooner or later, someone will see them. Once in a while there's likely to be a crash.
If, however, a couple of pilots were to dress up as aliens now and then, land in a field where they'd be seen, and start a rumour that the ships were from another planet, then the entire project remains secret as long as everyone who takes an interest is looking the other way.
It's still possible that these UFOs are coming from another world, of course, but there is also the possibility that those 1940's plans weren't discarded when they were captured. They might be from another world. Or they might be from this one.
Perhaps even a mixture of both.
Lab ghost remains elusive, and in this weather the creaks, rattles and bangs in that old building mean I'd have trouble finding a banshee. Any low voices will be drowned out by howls, whistles, creaking and banging doors and rattling windows and all of it is easily discounted as being down to the wind. I wouldn't be able to prove a thing against that level of background interference.
Things are starting to liven up in the news though. There's another UFO report, although it's one of those 'black triangle' ones. They always make me think of those stealth fighters which, oddly enough, appeared a few years after the first black triangle UFOs. If the military were testing a new secret plane, they would test it at night and they certainly wouldn't admit it was anything to do with them if someone spotted it. So I am very sceptical of black triangles.
The saucer ones are more interesting. I knew that the German air force was interested in that form of flying machine during the Second World War. I was aware they had drawn up plans but I didn't know they had actually built fifteen prototypes. Unfortunately the article doesn't say whether any of them flew. The moon base is part of the movie being advertised. That's fiction. The German attempts to build such a machine were real.
There's one big flaw in the design. If the outer rim rotates at high speed, I don't see how they could stop the inner part rotating in the opposite direction once it left the ground. Helicopters get around this by having a small rotor on the tail to keep the body steady, but these discs don't seem to have a tail. Another way would be to have two sets of blades rotating in opposite directions. Again, there doesn't seem to be room for this in the designs.
Is it even possible to make a circular flying craft? It seems it certainly is. At least at the model scale. I don't know how well those designs would scale up. It is, however, possible.
What's special about this shape of craft is its maneuverability. Like a helicopter, it doesn't have to travel in any particular direction. It can hover or even fly backwards. It can change direction at speed without having to bank or turn. It would be faster than a helicopter at all these things because it is, in effect, just the blade part. There is no heavy passenger cabin hanging below the propulsion unit, the whole thing is the propulsion unit. One thing stops them being spaceships - they can only work in an atmosphere. Rotating propellors get you nowhere in space.
If I was involved in a secret military project to get one of these things working (I'm not and never have been) then how can such a thing be kept secret? Simple denial won't work for long. They'd have to be test-flown and sooner or later, someone will see them. Once in a while there's likely to be a crash.
If, however, a couple of pilots were to dress up as aliens now and then, land in a field where they'd be seen, and start a rumour that the ships were from another planet, then the entire project remains secret as long as everyone who takes an interest is looking the other way.
It's still possible that these UFOs are coming from another world, of course, but there is also the possibility that those 1940's plans weren't discarded when they were captured. They might be from another world. Or they might be from this one.
Perhaps even a mixture of both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)