Possibly 1, given that we have to be here to ask the question.

Bump for -Remembering Henry Gordon, Magician, Skeptic, Debunker:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/rememb...ptic_debunker/


From the above article:


"He opened a school for magic in the store, which thrived for nineteen years. Having always referred to magic as a fine art and to himself as an honest fraud, he became very annoyed by the famous magicians who cashed in on the psychedelic period by calling themselves psychics and destroying the integrity of magic.

One of the earliest debunkers, in the 1970s he (with Zita) performed magic and debunking on cruise ships. “It proved to be very successful, particularly when sailing through the Bermuda Triangle,” Henry joked in his article in the book Skeptical Odysseys, edited by Paul Kurtz. In 1978, Kurtz attended a skeptical symposium in Montreal, and shortly afterward Henry was elected a scientific and technical consultant to CSICOP.

For two years Henry wrote the debunking column “ExtraSensory Deception” for the Toronto Sun, which was the first such column in North America. He went on to write a regular column called “Debunking” for the Toronto Star’s Sunday paper.

Editor Gerry Hall, who wanted to introduce facts and science to counter the generally pro-paranormal tone of many newspapers, was attracted to Henry’s work because of his diligence and care for detail. “He was a skeptic who was willing to do the work to track something down,” says Hall. “There were a coterie of people who made yearly predictions and he would have probably had a complete file on them and he would find the twenty things they predicted that were wrong.” Henry turned his critical eye to everything from UFO sightings to psychic detectives and chiropractors."

__________________________________________________ __________


-Zeno

After seeing the film "2012" I understand better why that year awakes feelings. Impressive. Maybe the most overwhelming megadisaster film I´ve ever seen. So untrue, but...wow. Thoughts? No?

Until I see and communicate with aliens, I don't buy those Dome of the Rock UFO sightings as intelligent, extra-terrestrial life.

It's very strange, I'll give it that much, but I'm sure there's some reasonable explanation.

/science-math-philosophy/isreal-ufo-983015/

This post just made my day. Thank you sir!

Thread's been too much Outer Limits and not enough Debunking IMO. Get to work, boys.

Roots of the 'Chinese Fleeceflower'.


Potentially disturbing one.





Now, the impeccably-credentialed publication that brought these to my attention doesn't say a lot about them (not even worth your while clicking tbh), the Wiki page included in the article has nothing like the pictures shown, and I can't find a word about them on Snopes.

The impression we're given is that the roots grow like this very frequently. Don't buy that, it just seems too implausible. My guess would be the roots grow in a central trunk which forks periodically, and that some low number in a large enough crop will simply happen to turn out this way. If people are willing to take pictures, presumably someone somewhere will take steps to ensure they turn out that way. They're still pretty freaky, though.

So does anyone have better info, or the skillz to find it? I will go so far as $10 on Stars to whoever can lay these horrible things to rest for me. I need sleep.

Why do they all have the bulge?

This made me remember the technique for making pear snaps my grandfather told me about.
When the pear is still small, and still attached to the tree, you put a clear glass bottle over it,
and tie the bottle to the branch, so that the pear is now in the bottle.
You then leaver the bottle until the pear has matured, and pour snaps over it.
The point to this story is that the pear takes shape after the bottle.
That lead me to this blog post:

http://stoneartblog.blogspot.com/201...e-know-it.html

(shudder) I don't know...

This, combined with the fact the roots are apparently sold as remedies for various ailments - many of them presumably bulge-related - might actually be good enough for me.

All the ones pictured are different, though. I suppose the moulds could be once-offs, also, or the pictures chosen so no cast would be shown more than once. But then why would someone make something like the one in spoilers?

I think it's hilarious.

Once you get over the initial close resemblance to a pair of dead babies that were left in the garbage for a week in high summer, the picture is sort of funny. If the resemblance remains when you're holding them in your hands, probably less so.

Isn't this the funny part?

They look like Emmet Till's younger brothers, man. It's funny after the first half-second or so, and yeah, for much the same reason as it's initially jarring.

Information on the Roswell Incident including references, from the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, 2009:


http://www.csicop.org/si/show/return_to_roswell/


A 1997 article from the same magazine:

The Roswell Legacy-http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/roswell_legacy/


By the way, Joe Nickell, the author of the above articles, has a been a paranormal investigator and debunker/skeptic for many years. He has a website:

http://www.joenickell.com/


-Zeno

At least this one definitely looks too symmetrical to have been done purely by nature, imo. Maybe they use some kind of forms to achieve them. The other ones may be a bit assymmetrical on purpose, just to get them look authentic. Probably they have to select the most successful ones too. Don´t think you get something like this from a random material during a whole farmer´s lifetime

Yeah, I didn't really think it through on the small percentage of a large crop idea. Unless there's some other reason to grow all those plants, there's no way that could work.

So the middling mundane explanation is gone, leaving only outright fakery and... whatever natural explanation might conceivably exist.

I wouldn´t call it total fakery though. Those roots really have grown in that way, even inside a mould. Somewhat amazing. Maybe the roots originally have evolved in a stony environment, so they adapt extremely well to if there is something stopping them, choosing another way to grow.

I think the following website deserves a link in this thread (if already linked then a repost is in order):The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) -

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...oundation.html


JREF also has a standing one-million-dollar prize paranormal challenge:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html


-Zeno

Zeitgeist's Claims Debunked (1 of 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKeKSlXBmR0

Zeitgeist's Claims Debunked (2 of 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDab5MOLjpM

purpose of experiment: test whether mediums can indeed interact with the dead.


design an experiment which one could carry out after his death to test that claim. In the process make sure you control for other mechanisms of information transfer such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and scamming. Obviously the experiment has to be prepared before you die.

I would tell the medium to tell people I'm alive after I died. "Just feel it" I would tell the medium.

But I don't want to look like a liar, even after my demise.


But OK. I would tell the medium he/she is going to levitate for five minutes when the year changes the following new year's eve after I'm not among us anymore, and that I will repeat that trick every new year's eve until the whole world believes. Imagine the control systems developed by the sceptics the new years following the first!

serious question, no one liners please

I added the four last lines already in my first answer, when editing, maybe you didn't see them.

It may not be possible to design that kind of experiment relieably, if it's just about what the medium tells verbally. Either you can have discussed what the medium ought to say, or then the medium just imagines what you are saying after your death and tells about it. Everything you know, when designing the experiment, you could also tell the medium, and because of that you can't get an experiment thet would convince others.

But if you can break through into the mind of the medium (how are you going to make the chemical reactions and neural impulses in the brain of the medium to change?), why not make the levitation thing, if you are breaking the known laws of nature anyway.

think vaults and envelopes and such

There is no known law of nature against psychic phenomena AFAIK

Hodini actually atempted one but his experimental design was poor. Sadly you don't get to try again