DaSkeptic's World

Conspiracy Theories

2010-07-06T15:38:00.000-07:00

Nearly two-years since my last post. Hell, I haven't even looked at this blog in that time. As with many blogs on the Internet, they are often abandoned by their authors for one reason or another. In my case, life just got in the way. I know, it's shocking to think people have lives offline, but they do.

I'm posting now to address something that made me laugh. While searching for something unrelated, I happened across this blog and noticed a pair of comments. The first one I don't really care about -- it's basically one long argumentum ad hominem. The second, however, is a classic example of a conspiracy theorist's mind at work.

According to this individual, I somehow became aware of their initial comment, I read it, I somehow tracked down their email address, I attempted to circumvent the security of their account, then they became aware of my attempts, and they wrote another comment in response ... and all of this happened within three-minutes. That's some damn fast work. Assuming this is even likely, why would I do it? With all of the other things I have going on in my life, why would I go out of my way to make trouble for this random nobody on the Internet?

Several years ago a person I know had money stolen from their bank account. Turns out they had fallen victim to an email phishing scam, but before they knew this their initial reaction was to assume it was government retaliation for purchasing a book critical of the then present administration. Why would the government do such a thing? With everything that's going on in the world, with the myriad of things they have on their plate, why would they even look at this totally unremarkable person?

The common element in both stories is a completely ordinary person to which something extraordinary has occurred. In fact if you look at nearly any conspiracy theory you'll find the same general pattern. Some people just cannot stand being average. They have difficulty accepting the mundane routine of daily life. They want there to be more, but rather than getting off their ass and actually doing something about it they invent wild tales. They may not even be conscious they're doing it. It's quite sad really.

So, Mr. or Ms. Thozman, I did nothing to your email account. Until today, I didn't even know you exist. Except perhaps to serve as a warning to others, you are entirely insignificant. Odds are you will always be so. Deal with it. The rest of us do.

Detecting Paranormal Bullshit

2008-09-03T16:27:00.000-07:00

In contrast to my prior experiment ideas, this is one that actually has a reasonable scientific basis and can produce meaningful results.

Assemble a group of paranormal investigators. One at a time, send them into a site with purported paranormal activity and have them investigate. Allow half of them (group A) the opportunity to gather advance knowledge of the location (talk to the proprietor, research historical background, etc.). Prohibit the other half (group B) from having any such knowledge. Analyze the investigation reports for commonalities. Group A will tend to show strong and consistent correlations to the site's official story, whereas group B will tend to have little consistency even amongst themselves.

An EVP Experiment

2008-08-21T00:48:00.001-07:00

Same disclaimer applies as with all of my paranormal experiment ideas.

Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) are defined as sounds heard on an audio recording that were not heard by those present during the recording session. Ignoring the obvious subjectivity and lack of testability in that definition, I propose an experiment that MIGHT cause me to consider the validity of the subject.

Two recording devices, one analog and one digital, both calibrated and tested to rule out any internal anomalies, are each placed within their own Faraday cage. The cages are placed on a well-isolated and "floating" soundstage. Nothing capable of generating sound-pressure waves within the detection range of the recording devices is allowed on the stage during the experiment. This includes people. The experiment runs for as long as possible, several days at the least.

If the above experiment yields the same voice-like audio signal on BOTH recording devices AT THE SAME TIME, only then will I give the EVP concept any serious consideration.

How to Properly Conduct a Paranormal Study

2008-08-14T23:37:00.000-07:00

Before I begin my post, I need to add a disclaimer. The subject of the paranormal currently lacks any established empirical basis, and thus any experiment conducted is inherently futile. I submit the following purely as an exercise in experiment design.

Paranormal investigations, like many studies, contain a number of extraneous variables that one must take into account if their data are to be trusted. To do things right, one really needs to perform a randomized controlled trial. My suggestion for such is as follows.

First, the personnel are organized into three groups: investigators, historians, and analysts. Each investigator visits a site only once, sometimes in a group and sometimes on their own, to gather data much as one typically sees on television shows like Ghost Hunters. They do so, however, without any prior knowledge of the site or its history. They also never interact with any staff or other people from the location (except of course in emergency situations, in which case the study is probably a lost cause anyway). Historians investigate the history of the site, but they do so without ever visiting it or seeing any of the collected data. Analysts take the output of the other two groups and look for correlations. This group is the only one that ever sees the whole picture.

It is important that none of these groups ever directly interact or even see each other during the study. Ideally they don't even know about one another or their involvement. All passage of materials is conducted via some non-personal means (e.g. parcel depository). This strict compartmentalization is designed to eliminate the possibility of preconception affecting the results.

Second, unbeknownst to the investigators and historians (but known to the analysts), some of the locations are control sites. These are places that have been pre-established as having no paranormal activity. This is designed to identify individuals who, intentionally or otherwise, might taint the data.

Correction: The Invention of the Quartz Battery

2008-08-14T20:07:00.001-07:00

In my last post I stated some incorrect data. My apologies for any confusion. Chemically speaking, quartz IS silicon dioxide. It seems the information I had been given contained an ambiguity that I subsequently misinterpreted. Nevertheless, there is still no basis for quartz crystals storing any sort of electronic information.

Let me just take this moment to identify two important lessons. First, everybody makes mistakes and is wrong from time to time. It's inevitable. How one deals with being wrong, however, makes all the difference. A good scientist will admit their fault and move on. Second, ambiguity is bad. It is very bad. This is precisely why scientists are so damn precise and nitpick over wording. A single word out of place can change the entire meaning of a conversation.

The Invention of the Quartz Battery

2008-08-13T20:29:00.001-07:00

Tonight on Ghost Hunters International (GHI), the crew visited Predjama Castle in Slovenia -- quite a beautiful location in my opinion. While there, one of the investigators (Andy Andrews) took it upon himself to give a lesson in the science of a quartz battery. Below is a transcript of his words followed by an analysis which I posted to the official GHI discussion forum.

Quartz crystal, you know, you have to look at it from the standpoint of a quartz battery, say, in a watch.

It can hold energies.

They use quartz in creating computer chips that actually store information.

So, we have got huge deposits of quartz crystal, natural iron, salt, water, and limestone. Basically what we have here is one giant quartz battery, able to store information, feelings, in the quartz, it's being powered the weak electromagnetic field that's being generated from the salt, affecting with the limestone and natural iron that we're finding here.

OK, let's start with the basics. First of all, there is no such thing as a quartz battery, not in the electrical sense anyway. A quartz battery is an industrial tool used in the milling of quartz. Second, no crystal of any known kind stores any form of electrical energy. The piezoelectric properties of quartz are often used by electronic circuits, in conjunction with other components (a power source for one), in the generation of highly-stable timing pulses. A "quartz watch" is simply a watch that employs such a crystal-based timing circuit, as opposed to being spring-wound which is much less accurate. Third, quartz is not used in the creation of computer chips. They're made from silicon, which is procured from silicon dioxide (silica). While silica can be found in quartz, it is not the source used by the semiconductor industry. Fourth, salt produces no net magnetic field of any significance, let alone an electromagnetic field (from where is the electrical component supposedly arising?). You can demonstrate this yourself by trying to pick up salt grains with a ferrous (iron) implement of some sort, like a knife or a metal paperclip.

So, while it is reasonable that that the basic chemical elements he identified were really there in the cave, there is no basis whatsoever to declare anything a "quartz battery," let alone one that can store information or feelings. I'm sorry, but he was feeding everyone a line. I only hope for his sake that he was just parroting what someone else told him.

Considering this line of obvious bullshit (sorry, Penn and Teller, but I'm stealing your favorite word), in conjunction with all of the other misuses of terminology and other failings of which I've mentioned, I fail to see why these individuals should be seen as having even the slightest bit of credibility.

Update: Does TAPS Silence Their Critics?

2008-08-13T15:20:00.000-07:00

The saga continues, this time with additional correspondence between Brian (the former moderator, a.k.a. Beez) and his superiors at Sci Fi. The opening salvo is from the latter:

Hi, Beez,

I've shaded your thread about no longer being a moderator. I think you know that publicly disclosing my private communications with you is crossing a line.

I previously explained that I didn't have much information to share, and that remains true, but I will tell you specifically that the complaints did not originate with Jason or Grant, and that the complaints encompassed more than the attendance at the event that I mentioned. So please allow yourself to enjoy the forum as a member and if that can't be an option for you right now, I will have to ask for your voluntary absence from the forum until you reach that point.

Brian responded as follows:

I did not think disclosing the reason for my removal was a violation of TOS in any way. You just happened to be the source of the info, the same as including a link to any other information as is common practice on this board.

As for the other part of your message, " My boss has passed along to me not very much information, only that chop1's appearance at a live event was not well taken by the cast members, and I have to be the one to break the news, which is that you can no longer be a moderator", the highlighted part of your message contradicts this first and only reason you gave me in your original PM. It sounds to me like a case of trying to close the barn door after the horse has left.

I have also received messages from both Jason and Grant denying they had anything to do with my removal at all. So somebody someplace is lying to me. So let's just cut through the BS and get to the truth.

I will await the truth.

Beez

Right back at him came this:

Actually, Beez, I was not told to share any information with you at all, just told to remove you as a mod, and if you created problems, to delete your account. This is just not the way I want to behave toward someone who has been such a positive force in the forum, so it leaves me in a very uncomfortable position. I'm sorry that I can't do anything more and I hope that you can understand.

From this dialog it seems clear that Sci Fi isn't necessarily pleased about this matter becoming public. It is also interesting how, when challenged, they not only failed to address the apparent contradiction, but also went so far as to suggest further action may follow. Personally, I'm eagerly awaiting the next chapter of this little drama.

Tachyon What?

2008-08-12T17:10:00.000-07:00

About an hour's drive north of San Francisco lies the city of Santa Rosa, California. It is not a terribly special place -- just your average northern California town, albeit one whose metropolitan area includes nearly half-a-million people. On the west-side of town, tucked away within a typical light-industrial park, is a completely unremarkable building. Within this building, however, lies the answers to some of science's biggest questions ...... or so it is claimed.

This is the headquarters of Advanced Tachyon Technologies, Inc. (ATTI), founded by one David Wagner. Mr. Wagner claims to be a scientist who has discovered a way to harness the power of tachyons so as to improve the health of human beings. His Tachyonization process can supposedly turn any object into an "antenna" of sorts that .... well .... let me use ATTI's own words:

The use of Tachyonized products normally results in a natural detoxification, increased absorption of available vitamins and minerals, increased energy for physical activities, increased awareness of subtle energies, increased brain function, increased circulation, and exceptional improvements in athletic abilities and muscle recovery. When athletes use these products, they notice a significant decrease in fatigue, allowing for increased performance.

Throughout our history there have been those who purport to have developed quick and easy remedies to that which ails humankind. By and large these individuals have been charlatans, preying on our fear of pain and mortality. This alone is no reason to discount Mr. Wagner's claims, but it does reinforce the scientific community's demand of evidentiary support. With so much bullshit out there one needs a way to identify that which has merit. A person's word just isn't good enough.

So what sort of corroboration is there for the legitimacy of Tachyonization? For starters, Mr. Wagner needs to have shown that tachyons even exist. As far as the community is concerned they are purely hypothetical -- the math suggests something should be there but it has never actually been observed. Has Mr. Wagner managed to do so? Well no, but he does suggest others have:

In 1966, Gerald Feinberg defined Tachyon Energy as a "faster-than-light, subatomic particle" in order to unify the scientific world’s view and nomenclature of faster-than-light energy.

He then goes on to say:

The problem is no longer in proving the existence of Tachyon Energy. Rather, it is in harnessing the energy.

What is telling about these claims is that Gerald Feinberg never proved the existence of anything. The paper he published was entitled Possibility of Faster-Than-Light Particles. The keyword here is possibility. Even the abstract is clear about the idea being nothing but pure hypothesis. For whatever reason, Mr. Wagner has chosen to ignore this and claim tachyons really exist. This alone is sufficient to discredit his entire body of work, but it gets better.

Let us assume for the moment that Mr. Wagner really has discovered something significant. Why has he not published his findings? Why has he not patented his process? Why does nobody outside of ATTI seem to know anything about how this stuff works? To address these questions, ATTI has stated the following:

The Tachyonization process developed by Wagner is 100% patentable; however, after much deliberation, the decision was made to keep the process proprietary. Wagner speculates that this has saved millions of dollars in patent infringement lawsuits. Consequently, it has also assisted in keeping the cost of goods as low as possible. There is a limit to what can be discussed about the Tachyonization process because it is proprietary. Not everyone’s desire for a full understanding of the process will be satisfied. Although we cannot disclose how the Tachyonization process functions, how it does not function can be shared.

The Tachyonization process:

Is not a frequency, spin manipulation or transfer
Is not a high frequency coil technology
Does not use sound
Is not a radionics or SE5 transfer
Does not use sacred geometry to inform products
Does not require prayer or meditation
Is not a photon-based technology
Does not use crystals or orgone technologies
Does not use magnets
Is absolutely not operator sensitive

Let's start with the idea of patent infringement. Who would be suing whom? If this stuff is really as revolutionary as is claimed, what other thing is being infringed? Would Mr. Wagner be suing himself? Perhaps the Tachyonization process really isn't all that special and it would infringe upon some other vendor's mundane technology.

Now consider the list of things the process isn't. This doesn't really tell us anything, which I surmise is the whole point. In this regard one could say almost anything:

It does not make jelly beans.
It does not run on cheese.
It uses no ladybugs.
It does not cause flatulence.
It is not a means of sexual gratification.
...

Another area of puzzlement is that of security. I've known people who worked for ATTI -- this is in fact how I learned of it. According to what I've been told, somewhere within ATTI's Santa Rosa headquarters is a room into which nobody may go, save for David Wagner himself (and perhaps his son too, although this point is unclear). Within this room is "the machine" which supposedly Tachyonizes nearly any object. The operation of this machine is kept a secret. Assuming this is all true, and assuming the technology is so revolutionary, would not people be trying to steal it? Would not others want to take this discovery for themselves to gain fame and fortune? Would not ATTI need to take significant steps to protect their asset? Would it not make sense to utilize one of the many other buildings within Santa Rosa that are far more secure (and which house things of presumedly lesser value)?

Let's talk about healing for a moment. The medical industry is huge, and much of it is proprietary. This would seem to be the ideal playground for Mr. Wagner and his "discovery." Why has he not provided his technology to medicine? Why can I not go to my general practitioner and ask for tachyon therapy? It has been argued by some Tachyonization proponents that the contemporary medical community does not accept the tachyon concept as legitimate. Why is that? If it's really a valid technique and can be demonstrated as such, it would be accepted. That's how science works. No matter who you are, no matter what your credentials, no matter where you come from, if you make a compelling case the community will listen. Einstein was a patent clerk. Tesla was a college dropout .... twice! One doesn't need anything more than a brain to be taken seriously. The ONLY reason for widespread rejection of an idea is because it lacks merit.

All in all, none of Mr. Wagner's claims hold water. Not one of his arguments is consistent with the realities of the scientific world. His entire premise is based upon a misinterpretation. He is, as far as one can tell, no different than the snake oil salesmen of old. He appears to be continuing a long-standing tradition of exploiting the fear and naivety of in ill-informed public. He is NOT a scientist.

Update: Does TAPS Silence Their Critics?

2008-08-12T15:15:00.000-07:00

TAPS has responded to the allegations mentioned in my prior post. As before, I reproduce them here in their original form.

The first is from Grant Wilson, co-founder of TAPS:

Wow. I met him sure, but I honestly had no idea who he was. I stopped visiting or caring about the Scifi boards 6 months after re show started and I haven't been back since.

I have no issues with him and I answered his questions openly and honestly.

I didn't even know he was a moderator until he told me at the event.

No big deal. Thanks for the heads up though. I am happy to answer any question/allegation posted against me. I sleep well at night and have nothing to hide.

Thanks again.

The next is from Jason Hawes, co-founder of TAPS:

Funny thing is, we truly have no idea what he is talking about.
Yes I met him for a matter of 2 seconds.
If we wanted him gone he would have been banned not just demoted.
His issues lay with someone else, though he is welcome to blame us for what ever he sees fit. People will assume something no matter what is said.
We never visit the Scifi boards so rarely we ever know what is being said there.

Now to be perfectly fair, it is entirely possible they are being honest and had nothing to do with the moderator losing his position. If that's the case, why then did Sci Fi claim the action was taken in response to "chop1's appearance at a live event [that] was not well taken by the cast members?" Is this a contradiction? Perhaps it was not Jason and Grant that were upset but someone else? Regardless, there are other concerns.

First, Grant says he has nothing to hide. If this is true, why has TAPS never released their data for independent (and anonymous) review and criticism?

Second, Jason says, "If we wanted him gone he would have been banned not just demoted." Is this not an acknowledgement that TAPS has, and under the right circumstances might actually use, the power to silence their critics?

Last, are not Jason and Grant worried about how they are being portrayed on the official website of a television show in which they star? If they really have the kind of clout to which they allude, would they not contact someone at Sci Fi and inquire as to why representatives of the studio are saying things about them that are supposedly untrue? One would think a short phone call or email would suffice in this regard.

In short, TAPS', response does little to address the concerns put forth to them. Rather than actually address the criticism, they have deflected it. I therefore repeat my prior challenge. TAPS needs to put up, because the scientific community and other critics are not going to shut up.

Does TAPS Silence Their Critics?

2008-08-11T23:48:00.000-07:00

I have, in recent days, been spending time on scifi.com, specifically the discussion forums for Ghost Hunters and its spin-off, Ghost Hunters International. Earlier today the moderator of those forums (chop1) wrote to inform everyone of his being fired from that position, allegedly at the behest of the Atlantic Paranormal Society (TAPS). A fairly rapid discussion ensued which saw believers and skeptics alike questioning the legitimacy of TAPS. Not too long thereafter the thread was deleted. As luck would have it, however, the former moderator was able to publish a copy of his story in a location outside the reach of Sci Fi and TAPS. In the interest of maximizing the availability of information, I reproduce this story here, verbatim and in its entirety.

Positive proof that Jay and Grant are Bullies and Prima donnas

Let me preface this post by saying I appreciate all the supportive messages I have received from forum members. This group really is a community, and even though we may not agree on everything, for the most part we really do respect each other. I also want to sat that even though the news came from her, I do not blame ScifiAdmin1 for this action, she has been very supportive over the last 8 months or so that I have been a moderator on SciFi.

So, last Thursday I received a PM from SciFiAdmin1 that stated

I've received instructions, Aug 7 2008, 02:14 AM
and I'm really sorry about this, Beez, because you've put so much wonderful energy into the forum as a moderator.

My boss has passed along to me not very much information, only that chop1's appearance at a live event was not well taken by the cast members, and I have to be the one to break the news, which is that you can no longer be a moderator, but you can remain as a forum member if you wish to and with the understanding that your participation will not cause any concern to the cast members.

That's all I know, and it's very little, but I have to follow my instructions. I think you've been a great moderator here for the GH forums, and have many times brought peace and handled many situtations. I'll really miss your contributions, and I'm sorry this happened.

Sincerely,
SciFiAdmin1

I, of course, have a serious problem with this action. I posted that I was attending this even several times before the event. I have also been very clear that I am skeptical of Jason and Grant since before I became a moderator. I posted back in February, when I bought the tickets, that I was going to attend and invited some other skeptics to come along (JBowl and Dreamsinger were two I invited). I can't seem to find that particular thread in the search I did, but I am sure many of you can verify that it existed and the content of it. I also posted about a week and a half before the event, http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showtopi...mp;hl=Lily+Dale, as well as the day of the event, http://forums.scifi.com/index.php?showtopi...mp;hl=Lily+Dale .

In the last post, I also outlined exactly what my exchange with Jason and Grant entailed.

I am back, actually I wore my Bruins T shirt like I said I would. I even got to aske a question when they wandered throught the audience doing the Q&A session. Grant handed me the mike, and I asked them why if their stated purpose is to help people, it seems that the amount of shows dealing with homes has dropped off dramatically since the first season and been replaced with commercial ventures. They assured me that there are still home sessions being done, just not on camera. Jason chimed in that it is tougher to find people that will sign the release to be on TV. I then followed up with Grant, privately, asking him, who is it that TAPS helps investigating a commercial venture. He kinda evaded the question by saying it helps if staff or customers are scared, or that they are responding to alot of request to investigate these places that come from their fans.

I did get to do the meet and greet, my brother has the pics on his camera, so as soon as he sends them to me, I will post. They did know who I was, though Grant says he rarely checks the sci-fi site, LOL

All in all, it was an entertaining seminar, nothing overly earth shattering tho

To make it clear, I did identify myself as Chop1 only after the program in the face-to-face meet and greet. It was not done publically during the event when I asked the question, nor did I use my position in any way to get to have my question answered or to get in line early for the meet and greet. I waited just like everyone else.

I do not think my question to them was an especially difficult question or controversial. I did nothing to disrupt the program. I was there with my brother who is much less skeptical of them than I am, and my nephew who is a big fan, he even got a T-shirt and had Jay and Grant sign it.

There is no posted rule or TOS on the SciFi website that states members can not attend live events. There are no rules that apply only to Moderators that they cannot attend live events. I gave almost 6 months of notice that I was going to attend this event, then subsequent notice as the event approached. If my appearance was not going to be taken well by cast members, they had ample opportunity to contact me BEFORE the event. It is not like my viewpoint on them was a big secret. Basically I see this action as a couple of prima donnas who do not like to be questioned, only fawned upon. I also see it as a couple of bullies who use their clout to attack someone, then hide behind their momma's skirts, rather than face up to the person they blindside.

So, I know that either Jason and Grant peruse those boards, or at least those that report to them do. I challenge one or both of those "cast members", to come tell me what about my appearance at the event was not taken well? I was man enough to come up and identify myself to you, face-to-face, are you man enough to defend your actions? Please don't send any of your TAPS lap dogs to attack me, they will be ignored. I await your response.

This account would seem to suggest that TAPS takes action against those who are critical of their efforts, an allegation which is not entirely new. Not too long ago, a multi-year veteran of the aforementioned forums had their account cancelled and their posts removed, also allegedly at the request of TAPS personnel. These actions do not inspire much confidence in the legitimacy of TAPS and their work. For a group that prides itself on being scientific, they seem to forget about the openness and honesty so strongly demanded by the community. Scientists thrive on criticism. It's the mechanism by which progress is made. To avoid it is an insult to the very nature of science itself. Their failure to recognize this gives immense weight to the argument that TAPS is little more than an organization of pseudoscientific bullshit artists.

I echo chop1's challenge to TAPS. If they want their research to be taken seriously, they need to face their critics and not run away. They need to come out into the open and let everyone see them for who they really are, whatever that may be. They need to take a chance and risk their work being discredited, just like any other scientist would do. If they cannot do that, they have no right to call themselves scientific.

Welcome

2008-08-11T22:11:00.000-07:00

I welcome you, reader, to my world of study and exploration. I have established this blog for a single purpose: to review the claims of others that I find interesting. Before I begin I wish to establish a few basic rules by which my research will be conducted.

I adhere to the principles and philosophies of the scientific community. By this I mean the real community, not the pop-science folks. For a detailed explanation of the differences I urge you to read Carl Sagan's book the Demon-Haunted World.

Nothing I claim is definitive. Contrary to popular belief, science is tentative. Anyone, regardless of their credentials, who says something is irrefutable or proven beyond doubt is not speaking scientifically.

I will never claim something does not exist. By the rules of logic, no person can ever truly do so. To say something does not exist is to say nowhere in the universe, in all of space and time, can the thing be found. Humanity presently lacks the ability to know this. As such, nobody can definitively say that god, ghosts, or even Santa Claus do not exist out there somewhere. We can say such things are extremely unlikely, but we lack the knowledge necessary to say they aren't so.

I do not consider personal observation to be a reliable means of gathering data. Dishonesty aside, people's perceptions are subjective and faulty. There just isn't any credible means of verifying whether a person experienced anything at all, let alone what they experienced.

This is by no means a complete list of my rules of operation. I may return to this post down the line and adjust things.