Paranormalpeopleonline.com

In the growing pantheon of cryptids, from Bigfoot to El Chupacabras, there is an abundance of weird and wonderful creatures in this world.  A good many are surrounded by mystery and controversy, but some are the stuff nightmares are made of, such as the notorious Mothman.  To some, the very mention of Mothman strikes fear into their hearts, he, or shall I say, it is the very picture of creepy.

Popularised by author Grey Barker in his 1970 book The Silver Bridge (Saucerian Books) –which was reprinted in 2008 under the title The Silver Bridge: The Classic Mothman Tale (BookSurge Publishing).  Then by John Keel in his 1975 book The Mothman Prophecies (Saturday Review Press), which was later developed into the wildly popular movie of the same name in 2002, staring Richard Gere.  It seems Mothman’s press agent is particularly adept.

Mothman is best known for its involvement in the Silver Bridge incident in Point Pleasant, West Virginia on December 15, 1967, but its history actually predates that event by at least a year, and perhaps much more than that.  As the story goes, a group of five men digging a grave in a cemetery near Clendenin, West Virginia on November 12, 1966, saw a strange winged man fly overhead.  The men described the creature as looking like “a brown human being”, claiming that it flew from a group of trees, low over their heads and likely scared the bejesus out of them.[1]

It showed up next in Point Pleasant three days later, where two young couples driving along a road in the “TNT Area” –a specific location in Point Pleasant that is a former World War II munitions plant and is thought to be Mothman’s home- claimed that a “flying man with ten foot wings” chased them for several minutes.  Roger and Linda Scarberry, and Steve and Mary Mallette described Mothman (who hadn’t yet been named) as a large white creature whose eyes glowed red when caught in the headlights of their vehicle.  This account was printed in the Point Pleasant Register on November 16, 1966, a small, local newspaper that received much attention for their piece titled: Couples See Man-sized Bird…Creature…Something.[2][3]

A contractor by the name of Newell Partridge described an encounter with a strange creature that he believed was responsible for disrupting his television reception and was the apparent cause of the demise of his beloved German Shepherd named Bandit.  Partridge claimed that when he shone a flashlight into the darkness to illuminate the cause of his dog’s nervousness he was startled by two large red eyes reflecting the light.  He fled to the shelter of his home, locking the door behind him (seems prudent to me), but was unable to find his companion, Bandit, in the morning.  The dog was never seen again.[4]

Officials at the time were unconvinced of the truth of these Mothman reports, claiming that what was likely responsible was the Sandhill Crane, a very large white bird known to visit the area from time to time.

After the events of 1967, Mothman has apparently been sighted “hundreds of times” by Linda Scarberry and her husband.  According to interviews she participated in with UFOlogist Jerome Clark, Scarberry claims that “It seems like it doesn’t want to hurt you. It just wants to communicate with you.”[5]

As popular culture has immortalised Mothman for its apparent involvement in the collapse of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River on December 15, 1967, which resulted in the deaths of some 46 people, most people believe that Mothman is

some kind of harbinger of doom, though the accounts that tell of Mothman sightings on or near the bridge immediately prior to the collapse seem to be false.  Nonetheless, it has been responsible for a great many urban legends over the years.

Of course, most are quite familiar with the story of Mothman from John Keel’s book and movie, which sort of intimates that Mothman was directly connected to the creepy psychic phone stalker/fortune teller Indrid Cold and to the reports of strange encounters with Men In Black that occurred shortly before the bridge collapse.  In reality though, the stories are quite separate and Mothman seems to be a completely different phenomenon from that described in The Mothman Prophecies.  Indrid Cold, in fact, is a phenomenon unto itself.[6]

As sightings apparently continue right up to present day, most of which are highly suspect, some liken Mothman to other winged cryptids such as Spring Heeled Jack, a creature (or man?) that originates in Great Britain in the Victorian era,

sightings of whom have been reported in the eastern United States as late as 1995.  It has also been likened to the Flatwoods Monster (or the Braxton County Monster / Phantom of Flatwoods), though the Flatwoods Monster is said to have stubby arms with claw-like fingers rather than huge wings.

Skeptics are fairly adamant, however, that Mothman is a case of repeated misidentification, citing (as noted above) the Sandhill Crane, the common Barn Owl and/or the Snowy Owl as the likely culprit.  Believers have a few different theories though, ranging from 3^rd kind close encounters with extraterrestrials, to angelic origins, to demons, and the descriptions do seem to be a tad more specific –with most describing the creature as

more than seven feet tall, with arms, legs and facial features- than most sceptics are willing to admit.

Having said that, it does seems coincidental that the most prevalent component of Mothman sightings is the red eye shine described by witnesses, a phenomenon known as tapetum lucidum which is the reflecting of directed light by the eyes of an animal (even humans) that can manifest in several colours, including red.  Though it appears in the descriptions of many cryptids, Bigfoot included, there is nothing supernatural about red eye shine.

In any event, Mothman has been written about in more than 11 books and four movies (two of which were made-for-TV documentaries), and his likeness is doubtful to go away any time soon.  With the annual Mothman Festival taking place in Point Pleasant on the 3rd weekend of every September, it seems there’s no shortage of people willing to cash in on Mothman’s popularity.  Crypto-tourism is a burgeoning industry apparently, as has been seen with the Nain Rouge and even El Chupacabras.

One of the best things about cryptozoology is the fact that everyone has an opinion about the creatures we investigate, and Mothman has its share of supporters and deniers.  In an effort to foster more discussion, both groups are invited to share their opinions in the comment section below.

As promised, this post begins a series of pieces I’m planning on the pseudoscience offered by the likes of Ancient Alien denizen Erich von Däniken and his ilk.  Today I’ll look at one of von Däniken’s most infamous claims, Pakal’s sarcophagus lid at the Mayan Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque.

Pakel (also Pacel) was the one time Mayan ruler K’inich Janaab’ Pakal, born in 603 AD.  Pakal, most famously known as Pacal The Great, reigned over the Palenque area (now known as Chiapas, Mexico) for some 68 years.  In that time he was responsible for the construction or extension of Palenque’s most notable surviving inscriptions and monuments.

Perhaps his greatest achievement was the construction of the magnificent Temple of Inscriptions which is the largest Mesoamerican stepped pyramid at Palenque.  The Temple of Inscriptions has been significant in the study of the ancient

Maya, owing to the extraordinary sample of hieroglyphic text found on the Inscription Tablets, the impressive sculptural panels on the piers of the building, and the finds inside the tomb of Pakal.[1]

Although the Temple of Inscriptions itself had been visited and studied for very nearly 200 years, the tomb of Pakal wasn’t found until 1952, when Mexican archaeologist Alberto Ruz Lhuillier (the current Director of Research at Palenque for Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia) removed a slab of stone from the floor of the temple revealing a stairway that led to Pakal’s tomb (the now famous story of its discovery includes Lhuillier’s description of his first view inside the tomb). Inside the tomb researchers were delighted by the discovery of several important artefacts, including the beautiful and intricate carving on the lid of Pakal’s sarcophagus.[2]

“The widely accepted interpretation of the sarcophagus lid is that Pakal is descending into Xibalba, the Maya underworld. Around the edges of the lid are glyphs representing the Sun, the Moon, Venus, and various constellations, locating this event in the night time sky. Below him is the Maya water god, who guards the underworld. Beneath Pakal are the “unfolded” jaws of a dragon or serpent, into whose mouth Pakal descends. This is a common iconographic representation of the entrance to the underworld.”[3]

Pakal’s sarcophagus has been analysed by leading archaeologists, iconographers and epigraphers (experts responsible for deciphering and translating inscriptions), all of whom concur on the general meaning of the iconography present in the carving.  As mentioned above, it represents Pakal’s journey into the underworld or afterlife.

Erich von Däniken however, would have you believe a very different story.  First postulated in his 1968 best-selling book Chariots of the Gods, von Däniken claims that another interpretation of the sarcophagus’ relief just begs to be told:

“In 1935 a stone relief that very probably represents the god Kukumatz (in Yucatan, Kukulkan) was found in Palenque (Old Kingdom).  A Genuinely unprejudiced look at this picture would make even the most die-hard sceptic stop and think.

There sits a human being, with the upper part of his body bend forward like a racing motorcyclist; today any child would identify his vehicle as a rocket.  It is pointed at the front, then changed to strangely grooved indentations like the inlet ports, widens out and terminates at the tail in a darting flame.  The crouching being himself manipulating a number of undefinable (sic) controls and has the heel of his left foot on a kind of pedal.  His clothing is appropriate short trousers with a broad belt, a jacket with a modern Japanese opening at the neck and closely fitting band at arms and legs.  With our knowledge of similar pictures, we should be surprised if the complicated headgear were missing.  And there it is with the usual indentations and tubes, and something like antennae on top.  Our space traveller – he is clearly depicted as one – is not only bent forward tensely, he is also looking intently at an apparatus hanging in front of his face.  The astronaut’s front seat is separated by struts from the rear position of the vehicle, in which symmetrically arranged boxed, circles, points and spirals can be seen.”[4]

Right off the bat one is struck by the glaring errors von Däniken made in this passage.  From the wrong years of discovery to the wrong location cited, to its attribution to the wrong deity, all the way to the erroneous assumptions he makes about the iconography in question.  Von Däniken asks the question: “Is everything that anyone links up with space travel a stupid figment of the imagination?”[5]  And in this case I would have to say: yes!

This is something he does quite often in the book; he asks rhetorical questions that seem to back up his claims, apparently in an attempt to distract us from his errors in research and judgement.  He often cites the fact that there are 530 question marks in Chariots of the Gods as proof that he hasn’t made many of the erroneous claims attributed to him, but that he simply asked questions to get people thinking.  Even with a cursory analysis of his interpretation of the carving, one immediately sees mistakes that could have been avoided with a little careful reading of the available material, which, by the way, was readily available in the 1960’s.  Von Däniken likens the overall structure of the relief to a rocket ship, interpreting astronomical symbols incorrectly and seeing the Mayan water god Chaak as flames resulting from said rocket’s propulsion system.  He claims that even a child could see this and draw the same, correct conclusion.

Nevermind that there is no archaeological evidence to support the idea that the Mayans knew anything about powered flight, or the fact that mainstream science has all but conclusively interpreted the sarcophagus lid as a depiction of Pakal’s journey to the underworld, is it simply rebellious intellectualism at work here or is von Däniken guilty of something more?  If anything, the above excerpt from Chariots of the Gods tells us precisely why much of the archaeological world regards von Däniken’s conjecture as pure pseudoscience.

Nonetheless, droves of ancient alien believers accept von Däniken’s unfounded interpretation.  One man, Paul Francis (self-proclaimed researcher and model maker) even went so far as to construct a model of Pakel’s rocketship in support of von Däniken’s theory, achieving some measure of infamy when that model was showcased on the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens with Georgio Tsoukalis.[6]

The UFOlogical/Paranormal world is divided on the issue of ancient aliens, while some see evidence of extraterrestrials everywhere in our past, most often that opinion is the result of conspiracy thinking and lazy intellects.  The idea that aliens visited our ancestors, for whatever reason, is an attractive one for many people, but even the most enticing theory should be questioned for its validity and accuracy.  In the interest of such transparency, I recommend that everyone take a closer look at my own sources for this piece.  I don’t want anyone to take my word for it…do some reading and come to your own conclusion, just read more than one source.

Sitting in near darkness, a group of sitters assemble around a large table, waiting with baited breath as a medium or seer conjures spirits from the hereafter.  Almost indistinguishable at first a strange substance begins to exude from the ears and nose of the psychic.  It’s white and billowy, like a cloud, but as it forms it becomes more gelatinous and begins to take shape in the air above the table.  The witnesses hold their gasps of disbelief and watch as the ectoplasm morphs loosely into the form of a small girl, the shape of the ghost with whom they have finally made contact.

The above description of a séance or a variation thereof could probably be found in just about any book on 18^th or 19^th century spiritualism, as it was the common experience of those who participated in the trendy fad of contacting the dead.  A large component of those experiences was the witnessing of ectoplasm materialization, and as such there has been a great deal of investigation of the phenomenon, calling many of the accounts and evidence into question.

The term ectoplasm was coined by the French physiologist Charles Richet in 1894[1]but its discovery has been traced to the works of 17^th century alchemist Thomas Vaughan[2].  According to the inimitable Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, ectoplasm enjoyed its first published description in 1774[3] at the whim of famed 18^th century seer, Emmanuel Swedenborg, wherein he said of ectoplasm:

“…a kind of vapour steaming from the pores of my body.  It was a most visible watery vapour and fell downwards to the ground upon the carpet.”[4]

As far as definitions are concerned, ectoplasm has two, but we’re only interested in the classic rather than the biochemical (relating to cytoplasm), ectoplasm is:

A substance said to be excreted by mediums during trances; a slime-like substance said to be associated with hauntings.

A good portion of the modern paranormal community views ectoplasm as something altogether different thanks in part to its use in the classic movie Ghostbusters.  It’s largely thought of as the residual physical after-effects of ghostly manifestation or apparitions, but those of us who are more traditional reject that notion in favour of its original expression.  Though in its original form it is largely regarded as a fraud.

Popular among late 19^th and early 20^th century occult enthusiasts, ectoplasm became a staple of the séance, wowing sitters (the term used for séance attendees) along side the tipping table and mediums trumpet.  As the description above suggests, it is, or was thought to be a supernatural substance excreted through various bodily orifices by the medium.  In some instances the ectoplasm would be a simple gelatinous blob, but other times it would take the form of a specific entity, using the ghost’s non-corporeal shape as a sort of wire frame.

Here’s the catch though, it was believed that ectoplasm would disintegrate under the harsh rays of light, so, as was common anyway, séances were held in near or total darkness (which would greatly inhibit the sitter’s ability to detect a fraud).  This atmosphere of darkness and mystery did foster quite a few wild tales, and famous psychics such as Elizabeth D’Esperance, Eva C. and Mina “Margery” Crandon were scrutinised by many investigators and scientists.

The first systematic study of ectoplasm was a joint effort by Baron Albert von Schrenck-Notzing and Juliette Bisson, who experimented with Eva C.  Prior to this, Gabriel Delanne, Enrico Morselli, and Charles Richet published descriptions of the different evolutionary states of ectoplasm.[5]  Most famously the literary giant Sir Arthur Conan Doyle investigated and was apparently taken in by the phenomenon.

While many witnesses were convinced that these mediums were in fact manifesting a physical representation of the dearly departed, scientific efforts eventually debunked nearly every documented instance of ectoplasm.  Commonly it was found that mediums used fabric, such as cheesecloth, or butter muslin to simulate ectoplasm.

Many grotesque photographs of what were supposed to be ectoplasm have been put forward over the years.  They tend to show gelatinous, viscous material oozing from all the natural orifices of the medium’s body, and also from the top of the head, from the breasts, and from the fingertips.  Most often it comes from the mouth.  The form of the substance varies, according to Gustave Geley – French physician and psychical researcher – between threads, cords, rigid rays, membranes, and fabric-like or woven material with indefinite and irregular outlines.

As mentioned, the modern idea of ectoplasm resembles not the true history of this wonderfully weird phenomenon.  In fact much of what the modern paranormal investigator does is so departed from the traditional notions of occultism and spiritualism that one wonders where the current ideology of ghostly phenomenon came from.  In my opinion, the modern paranormal investigator would do well to delve into the rich history of ghost hunting available at their fingertips and perhaps even try to duplicate the results of earlier spiritual efforts.

What do you think of ectoplasm and its associated methodologies?  Voice your opinion in the comment section below.

A real tragedy has occurred, an outrage.  A portion of Peru’s Nazca Lines have been destroyed, and all in the name of greed.  As reported March 14, 2013, by El Comercio – A Spanish language daily news service – the lines were destroyed by the heavy equipment of a Peruvian mining company called Gálvez, as they excavated the area looking for base construction materials for their recently upgraded quarry.

The Nazca lines, constructed between 400 and 650 AD, are a particularly fragile archaeological artefact, most being only 10-30 centimetres deep.  The arid and windless environment is responsible for their survival for the last 1500 years, but all that is threatened by a man whose arrogance and ignorance of his own culture are rivalled only by his lust for the almighty dollar.  The owner of the limestone aggregates company claims that the land the lines are on is his private property, and that he can do whatever he wants to his own property.

Eduardo Herrán Gómez de la Torre, director of research at Ojos de Condor, described the extensive damage in the area. (Eyes of the Condor SAC, a Peruvian aerial photography organization working to foster tourism and preservation of Peru’s archaeological sites):

“We have witnessed the irreparable destruction to a set of lines and trapezoids that existed in the area…

The limestone firm responsible has not been sanctioned or supervised by the authorities of the Regional Directorate of Culture of Ica, despite being in this great archaeological reserve.

The company argues that the land where the plant is installed is private property and that the owner can do whatever he wants on his land, but this is not so,”[1]

The site of the Nazca lines, which covers some 500 square kilometres in the Pampas de Jumana in southern Peru, between Nazca and Lima, was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1994 (UNESCO Ref 700).  This status as a historical monument protected by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) puts it under the purview of the Geneva Convention, which states:

“Article 53. PROTECTION OF CULTURAL OBJECTS AND OF PLACES OF WORSHIP. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954,’ and of other relevant international instruments, it is prohibited:[2]

(a) To commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;

(b) To use such objects in support of the military effort;

(c) To make such objects the object of reprisals.”

However, the provincial director of Culture of Nasca, Mario Olaechea Aquije, said the land is privately owned and that the owner can work freely, and authorities cannot interfere.  Sotil Raul Galindo, Regional Director of Culture of Ica, declined to give statements, reported El Comercio.  He said the responsibility lies with Olaechea, and he doesn’t question Olaechea’s decision.

The extent of the damage, which took place near mile marker 444 of the Panamericana Sur Highway, is unclear, but Herrán describes it as irreparable.  There is no word on whether UNESCO will seek legal action against the firm, or even if the actions of the mining company fall under the requirements of the Geneva Convention, so it’s anybody’s guess what will happen.

Fortunately, the most iconic shapes and images of the Nazca Lines collection were unharmed and are in no immediate danger, but this incident highlights the need for more aggressive legal protections for sites of such archaeological and historic importance.  NASA and the US Government have taken steps to protect the Apollo moon landings sites, which are deemed necessary due to the advent of commercial space flight, but we can’t even protect historical sites on our own planet.

Since this story is now gaining global momentum, public opinion and pressure may in fact cause the government of Peru and its cultural protection organizations to act.  We can only hope that someone steps in to at least ensure that no more damage is done beyond what has already taken place.

In the world of Ancient Aliens there are many questionable theories and ideas, and while most have generated a good deal of support among fans, there’s one that’s allowed a particular Ancient Alien Theorist to cash in on the internet’s obsession with trinkets.

The Golden Flyer pin or pendant, as is peddled by Georgio Tsoukalos on his website Legendary Times Books, is an homage to his theory that ancient peoples, with the help of aliens, were able to fly.  This, of course, is not supported by archaeological findings.

While not exclusive to Tsoukalos this theory gained much of its popularity following a segment of the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens which originally aired on April 20, 2010 (Ancient Aliens – Episode 1, Season 1: The Evidence).  Basically, the theory says (as you might imagine) that aliens visited our ancestors in the distant past and taught them how to build and fly various types of aircraft.

In that episode the ancient aliens team investigated several artefacts and documents that supposedly show examples of ancient flight, from Indian Vimanas (mythological flying machines described in Sanskrit epics) to Egyptian and pre-Columbian iconographic representations that supposedly depict actual ancient aircraft.  Well, the Golden Flyer is an incarnation of the latter.

The Golden Flyer, as it is now commonly known, is an example of pre-Columbian Incan funerary artwork and it is, among its counterparts, almost unanimously held by archaeologists to be the stylized depiction of reptiles, birds, insects and other animals.  They are most often made of gold, which makes dating them difficult, but most experts agree that they were made somewhere between 500-800 CE.  While ancient, they are relatively common, with several examples held in both private and public collections.  Though, to be clear, Tsoukalos’ Golden Flyer is a replica, as is the version he is peddling (in case the lapel pin mechanism fooled you).

Tsoukalos and his followers point to the aerodynamic structure of the flyer and its apparent stabilizing tail fin as proof that this cannot be an insect or a bird, because neither insects nor birds have such features.  As was suggested on the show by Tsoukalos, UFO Hunters (also on the History Channel) undertook to replicate the flyerin wood to see how well it

would fly.  Using a sort of catapult type device they launched their model and achieved some measure of success, though even the most non-aerodynamic block of wood will fly for a short while when flung out of a launcher.

These little gold trinkets are not alone in their supposed depiction of ancient airplanes though.  Discovered in 1898 in Saqqara, Egypt a model of a bird was found in an ancient tomb, and like the Incan artefacts it has been the focus of ancient alien theorists who claim that it cannot be a depiction of a bird, because it’s clearly an aircraft.  Unfortunately, that’s the really the extent of their argument in both cases.  Based on a visual inspection of the piece in question, they grandly declare that these things cannot be what mainstream science says they are, because they closely resemble modern airplanes.

The Saqqara model is thought, by some credulous Aerospace Engineers, to be a scaled down version of an ancient glider that could have been propelled by giant catapults, even though no evidence of such catapults exists.

There’s also the Egyptian “Pharaoh’s Helicopter” hieroglyph (scientifically known as the Abydos-Hieroglyph), which shows what admittedly looks very much like a modern helicopter, but is actually an ancient hieroglyphic typo caused by re-carving or over-carving of hieroglyphic symbols that have the cumulative effect of providing a distorted view of the intended message, as has been confirmed by several prominent Egyptologists.

The Abydos-Hieroglyph demonstrates the main culprit of this ancient alien problem – amateur interpretation of complex archaeological subjects.  Something one might call cultural-chauvinism presents itself when those who are less familiar with the historical and cultural significance of various stylizations that are found in such artefacts take it upon themselves to interpret the meaning of such items.  The untrained eye will automatically draw parallels between observed characteristics and modern culture, when such comparisons are highly questionable and unfounded in the context of the ancient culture in question.

Basically, people tend to interpret things using the iconography of their own modern paradigm, rather than seeing the artefact in line with the views and customs of the artefacts makers. Often the amateur will ignore elements of original cultural significance in order to classify an object or image according to their own cultural ideology.  As is the case with the Saqqara bird, wherein the model’s carved eyes and bird-like beak are often completely overlooked in favour of the ancient aircraft theory.

This may be why so many people are jumping on board the ancient alien bandwagon.  The counter-intuitive nature of much ancient culture, especially when compared to modern culture is confusing and misleading, and perhaps this should be pointed out as a flaw in modern science reporting.  If scientists were more interested in popularizing their results, maybe these types of misunderstandings would disappear.  Unfortunately for the masses, much of science, and in particular archaeology, doesn’t lend itself well to public understanding, what with the need for much higher education and all, and the need to actually look into these issues rather than blindly following the theorising of unqualified nut bags (myself excluded!)

To be fair though, there is something to be admired in viewing things differently than the establishment, in fact this is how progress is made, but to ignore accepted wisdom is to blindly accept credulity.

Voice your opinion on ancient human flight in the comment section below.

Some time ago I read a book titled Evil: A Primer: A History of a Bad Idea, from Beelzebub to Bin Laden, and while I’m not a particularly philosophical man, I found the underlying point to be intriguing.[1]  The author, William Hart, explores the nature of evil as an idea, and in light of the horrible events of this past week (the Boston Marathon Bombing, poison being mailed to government officials and the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion) it seems a relevant topic for discussion.

The book in question, described as a primer, is understandably thin, though it didn’t have to be.  Hart goes through the motions of identifying the archetypal characters of evil, from the ultimate evil entity Satan or the Devil to the more esoteric streak of evil that hides within all of us.  He provides the reader with a comprehensive listing of evil in all its various forms.

His overarching point was that evil, as an idea, is ultimately subjective.  That evil is untenable and is the hiding place of bigotry, oppression and fear.  I think Hart to be right, but to my mind, he didn’t take his conclusions far enough.

I will posit today, that evil does not exist.  This will be an unpopular notion, but with some thought, it may just prove to be correct.

First, what is evil?  As an adjective it means profoundly immoral and malevolent, and this is frustratingly vague.  In religious context, evil is often perceived as a supernatural force that sits in contrast to the divine.  In Eastern spirituality, evil is the antagonistic counter-part of good, balancing the Yin and Yang.  But without the linguistic gymnastics needed to fully explore what evil is in philosophical terms, its simpler to say that evil is an idea, a judgement of the actions and attitudes of others.  And in that simple definition may lay the key to understanding that evil does not exist.

Actions, whether evil or not, are the product of life experience and mental conditioning, they are the outcome of choices.  These are the countless choices with which every person on earth is faced on a constant basis, each one holding the potential to be judged good or evil.  But what if our choices aren’t really our own?

In another small but powerful book, Sam Harris, noted atheist, neuroscientist and celebrated author, explores the concept of free will.  The book titled, aptly enough, Free Will[2], presents a somewhat unorthodox view of the issue of free will.  Instead of trotting out the usual destiny or fate tripe, Harris offers a unique perspective on the notion that our choices are not really our own.

Harris posits that free will is an illusion, but not the product of perceptual limitations; he says simply, that any given person’s choices are dictated by their neurochemistry, which is in turn moulded by their genetics, their life experiences and their environment.  They make choices based on the perfect storm of neurochemistry found in their brains at the moment the choice is presented.   Even deliberate choices, ones we carefully measure are subject to the make-up of our brains.  This goes beyond mere influence, as the neurochemistry of our brains is the actual stuff of our thoughts.

Harris argues that free will is negated by the fact that any persons with the same neuro-chemical make up, drawing on the same life experience and mental conditioning would make the same choice as any other.  That is to say that a person who chooses to, say, plant and detonate a bomb, has been led to that decision by an inescapable litany of causal events that ultimately led to the mental conditions necessary for making that decision.  And that any other person who had undergone the same conditioning would inexorably make the same choice.  This inevitability of neurology seems to disprove the idea that we, as sentient beings, are in control of the progression of our lives.

If our choices are the cumulative effect of our experiences coupled with the specific neurobiology of our brains at the time of choosing, then what control do we really have over our will, our free will?

To make it perfectly clear, I am not saying that we are not responsible for the decisions we make, but the idea that our choices are dictated biologically rather than through the careful (or not-so-careful) deliberation of facts and outcomes does cast a different light on the notion of evil.

No one person views themselves as evil, their actions and motives, as known only to them, are the product of that same neural conditioning.  As observed from the perspective of another person, their choices and hence their actions can be judged to be good or evil, but isn’t that judgement voided by the notion that any other person, given the same neural conditioning, would make the same choice?

As Newton said, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and our choices do have consequences.  Those consequences have an impact on our neural conditioning and therefore they have an impact on our decision making process in the future.  But at the moment of the choice, we may not be as free to guide our own lives as we thought.

Evil is a perspective, the person who chooses to do an evil act is drawing on their own life experiences and their choice is the inevitable culmination of countless states of matter over time, that ultimately become the person in question, making the choice in question.  Basically, if you were to walk a lifetime in their shoes, you would be making the same choices, and therein lays the problem.  If the choice to set and detonate a bomb is one we are all capable of, given the right circumstances, we can hardly call it an act of evil.  As I said, evil is a matter of perspective and from the perspective of the offender, the act or the choice is justified, if not selfish, and skewed by cultural or personal idiosyncrasies, but it is not evil per se.

In the end, I’m not sure I made any sense here, this is a subject my mind has wrestled with for years and I anticipate that the battle will rage on for many more.  Again, I do not condone or support the actions of the people responsible for such tragedies, and I believe that the consequences of such action should be swift and severe, but I’m not entirely sure that they (the people or the actions) can be labelled evil.

I invite anyone and everyone to voice their opinion on the above in the comment section below.

Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yowi, Skunk Ape, Wood Ape…these are just some of the names of North America’s most famed and mysterious cryptid.  Millions of people hold a belief in Bigfoot and there are countless amateur researchers looking for a way to prove the creature exists.  From nightly excursions into the wild, hoping for a fleeting glimpse of Sasquatch (or Squatch as he is now commonly known), to the scrutinizing of video footage and photographs, to analysing potential sources of Bigfoot DNA, much is being done to legitimize the pursuit of evidence for Sasquatch.

In amongst all the speculation that surrounds the legend of Bigfoot, there are many hypotheses in circulation that attempt to explain what Bigfoot or Sasquatch might actually be.  This doesn’t speak to the potential of its existence, but simply expounds on the origin of the legend.  What follows is a brief examination of the most popular theories, presented in two categories: Biological and Supernatural.

Biological:

Gigantopithecus – Perhaps the most popular hypothesis for the origin of Bigfoot, if not the most plausible, is that the creature is a surviving example of the Palaeolithic great ape known as Gigantopithecus. This giant ape existed between 9 million to 100,000 years ago, fossils of which have been found in China, India and Vietnam.  Some researchers believe that Gigantopithecus’ territory covered much of Asia and even Western Europe, but all agree that it was the largest ape ever to have lived.  This big fella topped out at 9-10 feet tall and weighed up to 1200lbs.

Many Squatchers believe that Gigantopithecus survived extinction and evolved into what we now know as Bigfoot.

Lemurian Origins – A relatively new hypothesis, one made famous by the alleged Bigfoot DNA genome project conducted by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum published in 2013.  Ketchum has claimed that Bigfoot’s mitochondrial DNA is that of an unknown species of lemur.  Some researchers have adopted this idea and believe that Sasquatch is in fact the product of hominin / lemur cross breeding from approximately 15,000 years ago.  This hypothesis is reported to be highly specious and is not widely accepted.

Neanderthal – Much like the Gigantopithecus hypothesis, the Neanderthal hypothesis posits simply, that Bigfoot is a surviving population of Neanderthals who have evolved to posses the characteristics of the modern Bigfoot legend.

Feral Human – The feral human hypothesis suggests that the Bigfoot legend may in fact be the misidentified collection of human individuals that have retreated from human civilization and literally become wild men.  This doesn’t say that we’re seeing a cohesive population of wild men, but rather that sightings show disparate individuals which presents an illusory pattern that is in turn interpreted as a population.

Shaman Hypothesis – This is the suggestion that sightings of Bigfoot are the result of first nations’ shamans in the wild.  Some Native American people still participate in the practice of sending out young shaman candidates to live in the wild, subsisting on the land, wearing skins and growing long hair as a ritual right of passage.  While there are several tribes or communities in both the U.S. and Canada that do participate in these types of rituals, the idea that men somehow become giant hairy ape like creatures through this process is questioned loudly.

Supernatural:

Alien – At one time the Bigfoot Alien Hypothesis was the most popular explanation for the existence of the creature.  Many Bigfoot sightings coincide with or are accompanied by UFO sightings and as a result many people are sure that the creature is in fact an extra-terrestrial.  This theory is split down the middle with one camp believing that Bigfoot is an intermittent visitor; that it doesn’t actually live in the wilds of North America and is just visiting.  The other camp believes that Bigfoot, while alien, is perhaps stranded and is breeding and growing a population base in the forest.

Inter-dimensional Being – As the heading suggests, this is the idea that Sasquatch is actually the manifestation of an inter-dimensional being, popping in and out of our realm, leaving little tid-bits of evidence here and there.  This hypothesis would account for the fleeting nature of Bigfoot sightings and would quell the sceptics claim that there isn’t enough wild territory in North America to support a breeding population of real beings.

Spirit – In this case Bigfoot isn’t considered to be a ghost, but rather a spirit, akin to Native American stories of gods, demons and other spirit type entities.  In this same vein, some people believe Sasquatch to be an angel or similar angelic presence, citing the sometimes reported psychic abilities of the creature as evidence that it is more ethereal than physical.

 

This, while not an exhaustive list, includes the most prevalent hypotheses for the identity of Sasquatch.  No doubt there are other theories, some more plausible than others, but the wonderful thing about studying cryptozoology is that there’s always someone to disagree with.

Know of another Bigfoot hypothesis?  Want to discredit one of the hypothesis listed…say so in the comment section below.

Billions and billions, that’s what Carl Sagan was quoted as saying when he was asked how many stars there might be in the universe.  He didn’t actually say billions and billions, but Johnny Carson latched onto that sound byte and it became one of his most iconic comedic expressions.

A more accurate estimate puts the number at somewhere near 10¹² stars in our galaxy and perhaps 10¹² galaxies in the universe, or 9×10²¹ stars in the known universe, which is approximately 9 sextillion (that’s 9 x 10 with 21 zeros after it).  Suffice it to say that there are many more than billions and billions, but one can hardly blame anyone for thinking in those terms.

Those numbers are all but inconceivable; the human mind can scarcely comprehend what a billion of anything is, let alone a sextillion.  It becomes somewhat easier to understand when we pull back to the Milky Way Galaxy (our own galaxy for the less informed), where cosmologists estimate the manageable number of approximately 400 billion stars, but things get a tad more complicated when we start counting planets.  Not every star has a planetary system in orbit around it, and some (or most) stars have multiple planets, much like our own solar system.  So there is no practical way to measure the abundance of planets in our galaxy, other than to make educated guesses.  Some scientists estimate the number to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400-500 billion planets, and as technological capabilities expand the estimate comes closer to at least one planet per star.

Now ponder if you will the likelihood that life has found a way to pop into existence on any of those planets (other than Earth).  It’s a mind-boggling notion for sure.

As I’ve written before, the Drake Equation – postulated by the inimitable Frank Drake in preparation for a symposium on detecting extraterrestrial life at the Greenbank Observatory in West Virginia in 1961 – is the preeminent tool in use for estimating the likely number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.

The equation (N= R^* x f_p x n_e x f_e x f_i x f_c x L) uses plugged-in variables such as the rate at which stars form, the rate at which planets form and the likelihood that life will develop on said planets, to formulate an estimate for how many intelligent civilizations will or have developed.  Criticism of the Drake Equation points out that the values plugged into it are at best educated guesses and that the adjustment of individual values has a drastic impact on the outcome of the equation.

The original value for N, as derived from the original variables, was less than 1, meaning life is most likely quite rare.  But over the years our best guesses for the variables in question have improved and depending on how you view the progress of each area of study the value for N can be greater than 1…much greater.  Some have suggested that the magic number is as high as 10,000, while others say it’s merely 10.

This disagreement provides for some heated debate, and is the basis for what follows.

Over the years, since June 1947 and before, people have been reporting sightings of UFO’s and while the extraterrestrial hypothesis isn’t the only proposed explanation for these sightings, many people speculate that ET is in fact visiting our little planet from the great beyond.  Questioned in all this speculation is the reason for their visit(s), and the answer may just depend on the values one might plug into the Drake Equation.

The leading and most common sense explanations for the presence of extraterrestrials on Earth are: the search for resources, colonisation, investigation and socialization.  These explanations range from viewing Earth as a super-market for passing aliens, to an alien anthropological expedition site, and one might be persuaded to see this question along the following categories:

Category 1 – Malevolent:

While it’s easy to see alien contact as something Orwellian, to be feared and set on fire, the reasons for their coming may be entirely selfish and inconsiderate (from our perspective at least).  If their mission is to pillage and burn our planet in the search for resources, or to sweep us aside and colonise our spinning blue ball, this can be viewed as malevolent in nature, but a more pragmatic view might suggest that it’s merely indifference, to our plight and even to our existence.  Whatever the underlying basis for their visit, those reasons that we might include in the malevolent category are certainly not in our best interests.  They ultimately result in our collective demise and/or enslavement.

Category 2 – Benevolent:

Much more agreeable to our population, these possibilities offer us opportunities for technological, social and scientific advancement.  While the notion of meeting an alien may leave one feeling somewhat xenophobic, it can hardly be said that a helping hand from above is bad thing, but why would they want to assist us?  Whether for reasons of scientific curiosity or pure exploration, or to welcome humanity into a galactic collective of cooperating civilizations (my favourite), we could be sure that our future is in good hands.

It’s anybody’s guess which of these two categories is more likely, but it may be possible to reason our way to a conclusion or two, and it seems to relate to the number of civilizations that exist in our galaxy (or universe as the case may be).

If our estimates are low, meaning that life, intelligent life, is more abundant than we think, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that any alien force that makes it to Earth has encountered and dealt with a number of other civilizations before stumbling across our doorstep?  If this is the case, isn’t it more likely that such a force has had to learn to coexist with those other civilizations?  Thus making the likelihood that there exists a compendium of alien life that wishes to welcome us into their folds a real possibility.  Does this line of reasoning suggest that with more life in the universe comes more chance that said life is benevolent?

In contrast, if our estimates are high, meaning that life is relatively rare in the galaxy, does this mean that such alien life would bear an inherent irreverence or indifference for other life, a selfishness that values material resources over socialisation?  Does this, in turn, suggest that with less life in the universe comes more chance that such life is malevolent?

If looking at our own history and progress is any indication, with more life comes a mix of both benevolence and malevolence.  More so a selfish and ingrained indifference to the well being of other life forms, including our own, interspersed with compassion and genuine empathy for our fellow creatures.  As a species we are indifferent, even malicious, but individually we show a great capacity for munificence.  And it is entirely possible, even likely, that any alien life that may visit Earth will be as conflicted as we are, if not a tad more enlightened.

What do you think about the likelihood that extraterrestrial life is either malevolent or benevolent?  Is there middle ground or should we expect the prophecies of Hollywood to come true?  Voice your opinion in the comment section below

Some time ago, I read a book titled The Watchman’s Rattle, Thinking Our Way Out of Extinction, written by Rebecca D. Costa.  The book examines the effect of ever increasing complexity in our society and the preponderance of over-specialization and silo-thinking we now face.  At the time, I wasn’t overly fond of the book, I thought Costa’s conclusions were based on authority arguments rather than facts, but over time I’ve come to appreciate the insight she shared and am seeing signs of the extinction she spoke of already taking place.

Early on Costa discusses the demise of both the Mayan Empire and the Khmer Empire of ancient Cambodia (the builders of Angkor Wat).  Both societies, Costa argues, were dependent on the flow and availability of water, and in their prime both societies were the pinnacle of technological advancement in that regard, building hugely complex irrigation systems and aqueducts.[1]  So successful were they that both empires grew to populations numbering in the hundreds of thousands, bringing demand for access to water and for the removal of waste, and for the protection of homes and villages from flood waters to an all time high.

Costa argues that an imbalance between beliefs and knowledge began to arise.  With the increase in complexity came a decrease in understanding among the masses.  She claims that spiritual or superstitious beliefs began to overtake technical knowledge and even the pursuit for that knowledge, and ultimately the people began looking for supernatural means to solve their technological problems.  She claims that this dichotomy was the impetus for ritual animal and human sacrifice, seeking action from gods for protection from floods and for blessings in the growing season.  Ultimately, according to Costa, this resulted in the eventual collapse of the entire society.

Costa talks about the availability of facts as a measure for how complex a society has become, and points out that where facts are unavailable, we tend to make up our own facts or explanations.  The more difficult it becomes to differentiate between facts and pseudo-facts; the more prone we are to accept the more readily available answer.  Accessibility becomes the deciding factor between belief and knowledge, and it is the separation between belief and knowledge that threatens our own society today.

Recently there has been a virtual battle raging between facts and pseudo-facts in our culture.

For decades the medical community has been vigorously searching for a cure for what is arguably the single greatest killer of our modern society, cancer.  And while progress has been made with the treatment of symptoms and with the techniques used to remove cancerous cells from the body, the medical community at large tells us that a cure is still far away.  Millions, even billions of dollars have been spent on medical research and millions if not billions more will be spent in the future.

If you take a look on the internet, you’ll probably find a good number of so-called cancer cures, from faith healing to shark cartilage, all of which are most certainly quackery.  You’ll also probably come across at least one website claiming that the powers-that-be have already come up with a cure and are keeping it under wraps for financial or political gain.

This, it seems to me, highlights the divide between facts and pseudo-facts, between belief and knowledge.  There are two teams in this battle, on one side the medical community and on the other the masses looking for the easiest answer.  Again, as Costa suggests, the accessibility of facts is the determining factor in the victory of this battle.  One side here, and I’ll let you guess which one, is based on knowledge, or facts, and the other is based on belief, or pseudo-facts.

So why do so many people choose to put their faith in pseudo-facts?

In all areas of modern life we are faced with this dilemma, our lives require that we seek out knowledge.  We need facts in order to live our daily lives, and while every fact requires a certain level of faith or belief, the sources of those facts are not all created equal.  In the case of the cancer cure, is it simple mistrust of the medical community that drives the quackery?  I don’t think so.  While mistrust may play a role, I think it’s the availability of the facts at hand that impedes our knowledge.  A deep and successful understanding of the complex facts offered by the medical community requires a good deal of effort.  And let’s face it, it’s much easier to go online and latch onto the first plausible, or seemingly plausible answer instead.

The same is true for so many different subjects and at the heart of this argument may seem to be a theological conflict, disparaging religion in favour of science, and I offer no denial that those two institutions are in conflict with one another, but I truly feel the issue is really one of knowledge vs. belief.  With greater knowledge, belief holds less sway over our lives.

Unfortunately, as attractive as pseudo-facts may be in the moment, they offer no real solutions and ultimately put us at the top of a slippery slope, one that starts with unsupported answers and ends with full blown spiritual superstition and maybe animal sacrifice.  There is a difference between belief and knowledge, and it’s dismaying to see so many people putting value on the former in spite of the latter.

And I think that difference is nicely caricatured by the following quote found on RationalWiki.org:

“Because cancer and other forms of deformities are the results of the curse of sin, I believe that scientists are probably wasting their time in trying find cures. In the end, their efforts will either amount to nothing or they will invoke God’s wrath.”  —Rapture Ready, “Does God approve of cloning and genetic research?”

This is not a question of whether God exists, it’s a question of where do we put our faith?  In the supernatural, hoping for the right answer delivered by means of magic, or in the empirical, knowing the answer is right because it’s been tested and verified?

The internet is a powerful tool, you have a world of information at your fingertips, just remember that the facts you come by the easiest, may not be the right facts.

Hot off the presses, Dr. Greer announces the release of his preliminary report on the analysis of the Atacama Humanoid!

Making headlines in the paranormal and scientific community alike over the last few weeks, the Disclosure Project, headed by Dr Steven M. Greer MD has been hyping up their planned release of the Sirius UFO “documentary” on April 24, 2013.  Apparently in that effort, Greer has today released a special preliminary report on the analysis of the Atacama Humanoid, said to be the focal point of the documentary.

UFO and paranormal enthusiast have been going nuts with anticipation for information on this little whatever-it-is.  As the story goes, a six-inch long humanoid figure, highly desiccated but preserved in mummy-like fashion, was found in the wilds of the Atacama desert of Chile in 2003.  Greer became aware of the figure in 2009 when he was invited to examine the remains.  Then in 2012 Ramón Navia-Osorio Villar, President of the Instituto De Investigaciones Y Estudios Exobiologicos allowed Greer and his team to take x-ray, CAT scans and biological samples from the remains for analysis.

Photos of the figure are included in the report along with comparisons to fetal skeletal structures and the like.  Looking at the photos, which have been available online for some time, one is struck by the look of the creature.  It appears almost sculpted, which brings up some doubt that it isn’t an elaborate hoax.

In the report Greer identifies Dr. Garry Nolan as the lead expert to have examined and analysed the samples.  Nolan, the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine, is quoted in the report discussing his untested conclusion that the creature is definitely a biological entity (apparently not hoaxed) and is not the result of any known skeletal dysplasia or other deformity (including anencephaly).

The report goes on to describe, briefly, the protocols used to identify and process the DNA of apparent bone marrow samples taken from the creatures rib (of which it apparently has 10, which is not consistent with known hominids).  Some scientific terminology is used throughout the report, lending some small measure of credibility to the story, but as Nolan points out late in the report, these are preliminary findings that have yet to be confirmed through peer review, which will reportedly take place in roughly a year.

Greer is careful not to draw premature conclusions based on the data provided by Nolan and others, but he does offer some speculation about other specimens that may exist in and around Chile, and even the possibility that there are living examples of this creature in the Atacama Desert.  Greer asks several questions in the “Hypothesis and Thoughts” section at the end of the report, and he seems to suggest that this creature is not of extraterrestrial nature.

It is clear that more analysis is required, but the tantalising nature of the report holds parallels to the Ketchum-Bigfoot debacle of late 2012 early 2013.  Is this the future of scientific reporting where controversial topics are concerned?  Is hype for the story more important than scientific credibility?

Greer is a medical doctor, having received his medical license (Virginia) from the University of North Carolina.  In 1990 he founded the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) and then The Disclosure Project in 1993, eventually giving up his career as an emergency room physician in 1998 to pursue government disclosure of alien contact on Earth.  He has appeared on multiple television programs dealing with the extraterrestrial question, including Larry King Live, and is an outspoken member of the UFOlogical community.

Greer enjoys a good deal of credibility in both the paranormal and scientific community, and the Sirius documentary is said to contain life-altering information, but have his efforts now been mired by the premature release of information that should have been published traditionally, in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

As mentioned, the preliminary report says, explicitly, that there are yet no answers regarding the identity or origin of the creature and that the results of their six-month long study are due to be published in the future, but this is all too familiar and makes one hesitant to accept that his speculations are anything more than the fantasies of a man who’s passion for the topic at hand is heightened, to say the least.

With the release of the film only days away, the world will finally see what all the fuss is about, and if this preliminary report is any indication, we might all be disappointed by a lack of concrete information.

The preliminary report can be found here: Stanford University Research: Atacama Humanoid Still A Mystery