Art of the Skeptic

Art of the Skeptic: Where is Your Moon Now?

2011-10-13T11:04:00.000-07:00

When you look at the moon through the eyes of a skeptic, things are different. Have you ever looked at the moon? Hopefully everyone answers yes, but if you have you might have noticed something odd: You've only ever seen one face of the moon. The moon rotates around its axis so as to be in sync with its orbit around the Earth, as well as the Earths rotation. Additionally, it's orbit is exactly circular,* the only one like it of known celestial bodies. In short, the orbit of the moon is... Perfect. So are we really to believe this orbit just arose because of it's "natural" formation? The freak meteorite happened to perfectly blast the moon to circle like this? Or did the molten material that broke off early earth have exactly the right amount of mass to be held in a perfectly synchronous orbit? Believe it or not: I. Am. Skeptical.

The first and biggest issue with the moon being a natural offshoot of the Earth is that the moon is older than the Earth. Yep, that's a problem. That and the previously mentioned perfect orbit, does the moon really seem natural? Think about it skeptically, how likely is it that a cosmic body would just happen to fall into this perfect orbit? Needless to say, it's not very likely. However, all this just shows that the moon did not originate from the Earth. But what would you say if I told you there was evidence that the moon was actually constructed, perhaps by some extraterrestrial civilization.

The evidence for this includes the fact that the moon rings like a bell. Seriously, lunar landers hitting the surface of the moon caused seismographs brought there on previous expeditions to register a ringing like that of a bell. The "earthquake" lasted approximately an hour. This would seem to imply that there is a metal shell inside it that rings. On that note, testing of density shows that the moon is actually HOLLOW, and there is a layer of dense metal deep down. In the end, it's really up to you, so what do you think, is the moon natural?

*To a reasonable degree of accuracy, there are of course some minor changes, because when it is "above" a mountain or a valley, the gravitational force is different because the equation for gravitational energy involves the square of the radius. However these changes are minimal, and can be rounded off without issue.

Art of the Skeptic: Thornley Confession

2011-09-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

There are many conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, and if I weren't a SKEPTIC, I might believe them. The way I see it however, the men far wiser than I, as well as far more numerous seeing as I am only one, have decided that there is no conspiracy. But hey, why not question it? after all, they could have been wrong... or lying.

Skeptical? Click the post title to read more!

In 1963, on November 22nd, one of the most beloved of the U.S. presidents was assassinated. He was in Dallas, Texas at the time, and Lee Harvey Oswald was charged as the assassin. He was killed by supposed mobster Jack Ruby two days after the crime, before he could be put on trial. Many people think this is evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, and kill the assassin before he could say anything that would indicate involvement of the others. One man later even admitted to being part of a conspiracy. This man, Kerry Wendell Thornley, does have a history with Lee Harvey Oswald. So, let's look into the possibility, after all, maybe we'll discover something.

Thornley's history with the assassin was a friendship that formed during his time as a marine. He actually wrote a book using Oswald as the foundation for the main character, and later published The Idle Warriors, notable for being the only book regarding Oswald before he became known as the assassin. After, he published a book titled Oswald which defended the theory of it's namesake working alone as the assassin. Could this be a sign that he wanted to reduce interest in looking for conspirators, in an attempt to keep himself safe? I must say think not. I think it was more to try and preserve his friend's name, attempting to convince people that his friend was a revolutionary rather than a pawn. In fact, I would not be quick to say there was a conspiracy at all, I really believe that Oswald may have been the lone assassin. Later, he admitted to being involved in a conspiracy with Oswald to assassinate JFK. I find this difficult to believe, unfortunately evidence is hard to come by, because the url hosting his supposed posthumous confession returns a 500 error. For those of you who do not know, a 500 error returns when there is no other specific error. Now the types of errors are very detailed so 500s are not usual... spooky! Was it perhaps censored because it revealed Illuminati secrets? Well... not necessarily, no. More than likely it's some code error or other normal issue.

Next let's think about the Jack Ruby, and his supposed connection to Oswald. If he was part of the conspiracy, and Thornley was part of the conspiracy, then why don't Thornley and Jack know each other? I will admit, they may actually know each other and we simply are not aware. Another, even less likely possibility is that Oswald was involved in two conspiracies for different groups.

In conclusion, I think Thornley's confession was either intentionally untrue, or he managed to convince himself it was true, when actually it was not. It should also be noted his confession was posthumous, and toward the end of his life had began to act very odd, changing religious beliefs frequently turning his back on the one he started, and claiming he was part of CIA plans and other strange happenings. So it seems reasonable that he became mislead in his later days, and just thought he was involved.

Art of the Skeptic: I Buried Paul

2011-09-04T13:24:00.000-07:00

There is a relatively popular theory that famous member of The Beatles is dead, and in fact was long before the band split or he began his solo career. There is considerable history to the theory, but I'm still not inclined to believe it. Why? Because it's my job to be skeptical, that's why. Anyways, in September of 1969, a group of students from American college published a series of articles citing evidence that Paul had died in a car crash in January of 1967, and was replaced by a look-alike. They had all sorts of reasons to back up their claim, and a frenzy of "clue-finding" quickly began. To me this part sounds like a gritty re imagining of Scooby-Doo, but still, I have to had it to the kids they have some pretty convincing points. Such as hidden messages in songs by The Beatles. and secret meanings in their album covers. Perhaps the most popular example, and the namesake of this post, the infamous, "I buried Paul" line.

Skeptical? Click the post title to read more.

Toward the end of The Beatles' song "Strawberry Fields Forever" John Lennon can be heard saying something that sounds disturbingly like, "I buried Paul." Paul, (Or should I say, Paul 2.0!) went on record saying the line was "Cranberry sauce", but said all funky-like, "Cran berry sauce" As if it were three words rather than two. I find this explanation quite satisfactory myself, because it is easy to see how the two phrases could sound alike, especially with proper inflection. However, I will bring up other points against it for the benefit of my readers. So, to do this, I ask you all to look at this, from a marketing perspective: Why in the hell would Parlophone, or Capital (The Beatles' record producers at that time, UK and US respectively.) ever let them give away this big secret, even if the truth were obfuscated? The answer is they wouldn't. It would ruin The Beatles, as half their success was their image, and their image was a group of friends getting together and jamming out. No one member could be replaced (Well... alright, Paul and John couldn't be replaced) And they wouldn't be able to sneak it in if the approximately two hundred million people living in the U.S. in 1967 DID notice. Not to mention that the two million people living in the U.S. weren't listening to music on sophisticated sound equipment. No, not even if it was a Beatles song. And, believe it or not, they didn't get to hear the recording session live, you know for incomparable clarity. But hey, Maybe the sound guy and record executives present just happened to mishear, despite their greatly increased sound quality. Anyways, I want to move on to the realism of the idea.

Think about this, so your top selling band loses a member, but you managed to keep things quiet about his death, cause, y'know, it's easy to fake police reports and buy out neighbors etc. Anyways, you've come this far, but the band is gone if you can't replace the bandmember, but the bandmember is irreplaceable... or is he?

Yup, he is. Whaddaya wanna do, find a look-alike who has equal instrumental talent and the same voice? Well, you're gonna have to come to grips with the fact that that isn't happening. A look-alike? yea okay. Equally talented? sure. Same voice? Ehhh... getting unlikely, but possible. All three? Nope. Not happening. Sure you could have the singer sing, the bassist play ( it should also be noted that Paul played instruments other than the bass, but that was a major instrument for him. Also, he played left-handed.) and finally, the look-alike appear in photographs. But what happens when the look-alike gets interviewed? And Paul suddenly sounds eight? Hmm that's odd. Well I guess he might be sick and just lost his voice. Oh wait that interview was a month ago, and he stills sounds like that. Yet he can sing bass. And that's where your tower of lies comes crashing down. Still, let's look at before and after photos, maybe they aren't even replicas.

Paul circa 1966

Paul circa 1968

Well, uh "they" and by "they" I mean "he" looks prettymuch exactly the same. Admittedly with a different angle, and I would say slightly longer hair. So I find it unlikely there was a look-alike. Admittedly this photographic analysis is nowhere near as detailed as some have been, even going so far as to check for scars. In case you're wondering, they came to the same conclusion. An extremely old photo showed Paul with a scar in the same place as a very recent one. So I hope that matter is settled. Next, let's discuss The Beatles' recording before and after Paul's "death"

I've been applying makeup in the exact same spot daily, for 44 years!

Now, Paul is undeniably tied for the most important member of The Beatles. Sorry George and Ringo, You'll have to learn to live with that. Anyways, him and John were the group's most prolific songwriters. Without one of them, albums would not be finished in as quickly, and would be of far lower quality. Isn't it odd then, that Paul died during the recording of what is debatably The Beatles' best album? That's right. The album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was recorded from December of 1966 to April of 1967. Needless to say, April of 1967 is after January of 1967, the month of Paul's supposed death. So given that one of the greatest contributers to their musical quality was suddenly lost, I don't think that The Beatles could have produced their best material. Especially if they had to deal with the trauma of his death.

Need I go on? I really don't know what else to say, Paul is alive, has been since June 18^th 1942, and to be honest shows little sign of slowing down. So there you go, he didn't die, The Beatles still did, and there are more important conspiracies to worry about. If you want to form your own opinion, look at the Wikipedia article. On another note, PLEASE let me know of any theories you want me to look into, I need something to chew on.

Art of the Skeptic: Under Control

2011-08-31T18:56:00.000-07:00

Firstly, I want to apologize for my absence, hurrican Irene put me offline for awhile, but I'm back. Next, I want to answer a question I'm sure you're wondering, "What's with the post title?" Well I'll tell you. There are many theories that a group called "The Illuminati" controls everything from governments, to the press, to even influencing our actions! They supposedly do this through nearly unlimited resources, so they can sway the media as they please, and adding subliminal messages into videos and music we see all the time. Here is a related video, that also has more information. Part two should not be hard to find.

Click post title to read full article

Now the first issue I notice with these theories is that subliminal messages have been proven time and again not to work to any important degree.^[1] Needless to say this severely diminishes Illuminati power, seeing as the primary use of full media control would be subconsciously swaying the public. Certainly, they could also feed false reports of what they wanted, but that would then require them to actually make it happen, lest someone in the area mention that nothing happened. For instance if the news said there was a bombing in my hometown, they would have to actually bomb a target, otherwise it would require VAST amounts of (ineffective) subliminal messaging to convince me. As for politics? They would encounter snags, no matter what.

While money is a powerful tool in political campaigning, the most important parts are charisma and having an opinion everyone agrees on. Now being the mightiest of skeptics, I struggle to believe that the Illuminati could, for any sum of money, gain complete control over government. The Illuminati would frequently encounter people coming to power that would not work for or with them. Now the obvious response would be to take them out of power. Most likely by assassination. This is a favorite of many Illuminati conspiracy theorists, who claim our unseen masters have killed numerous politicians, musicians, and really anyone who could influence many people that refused to work with them. Well, yes, presidents have been assassinated, but think about how often someone the Illuminati disagrees with would have come into power, more than once right? Exactly. Another issue, the video above mentions Eminem as someone who has spoken against the Illuminati. I certainly don't need to tell you he isn't dead, and his influence is more than great, it's quite possible that it's nearly unparalleled. Now you don't see people listening to his opinions on abortion or gun control. Or at least you don't think you do. You might say, "Politicians give press releases all the time, but Eminem never does, so ha! He doesn't have as much influence!" If you said this, I would be forced to respond with, "YOU AREN'T BEING SKEPTICAL ENOUGH!!!" First off, his songs are his opinions, that's just how it works. Next, he has an immense fan base, who are all affected by his opinion. Now I want to clarify the difference between this and subliminal messaging. Subliminal messaging involves images lasting fractions of a second or messages that people cannot hear. Eminem does neither of these things (At least not in the context I'm discussing, I haven't viewed all his music videos frame by frame or done a sound analysis of his songs) But he says things, and people listen, they may or may not agree with his opinions, but it has affected them either way. Now I have to admit I have digressed hugely, but it was for a reason. The point? Eminem is a powerful public figure, and if he spoke against the Illuminati, he would be removed. By this logic, I have to say there is really no way the Illuminati kills such people.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say the Illuminati is real, and does control many aspects of our life. Is it really an issue? Now certainly, the idea of us all being controlled by just a few is somewhat worrisome, but you have to notice that they clearly aren't (hugely) malevolent. Now certainly things are unfair, but I would compare this to the Matrix, where the machines, even with their complete control over "world" affairs, must make things imperfect. So while some people live in luxury, others rot. This might be an unfortunate necessity, lest we become aware of the mutually beneficial, albeit parasitic, relationship the Illuminati has with the world. Some people lose, but humanity as a whole is theoretically kept in a fairly stable situation. Some people would still be displeased, because they feel that no matter how well-intended someone is, another's life is not theirs to control. I would have to agree, I would rather have freedom than stability. After all, i think changes, bad or good, benefit both the individual and society, as they teach adaptability. All in all however, I'm going to have to say the Illuminati does not, and could not exist. If they do however, be ready to tear them down in my opinion.

Art of the Skeptic

2011-08-27T06:43:00.000-07:00

Now many of you will quickly learn from my blog that I am extremely difficult to please. I will settle for almost nothing short of perfection. In addition to that I require a great deal of evidence to accept anything as fact, especially if it's something like ghosts or telekinesis (at this point, I don't believe in either, though they would provide a neatly fitting explanation to many phenomena) So, I will start a post "series" I ask my readers to give me a link to a Youtube video, picture, or passage, regarding the paranormal. Add it in your comment on this post, and I will form my analysis on it. Now I'm not going to say ANYTHING is REAL, but I will tell you what flaws I see with it, and whether or not it is obviously fake. So, please comment with a link to a video of some paranormal phenomena, and I'll take a look!

Forsaken Technologies

2011-08-26T14:20:00.000-07:00

Society has managed to forget numerous earthshaking technological breakthroughs, in it's development. This is quite a feat, considering the numerous inventions and discoveries that we have left behind over the years. The list is endless, and cannot be completed, mostly because some of them have been forgotten in full, not just their methods.

Click post title to read full article

A prime example of lost technology that could have changed life as we know it is the process of ligaturing a blood vessel shut during surgery. This process was developed around the turn from B.C.E. to C.E. That's right, approximately 2011 years ago, at the time of this writing. Now, it IS used today, but after it's ancient discovery, it was forgotten until sometime in the 1500s, and again ignored until the late 1800s, when it became part of modern medical technology. Had this been used earlier, who knows how the world may have turned out? Influential leaders may have been saved from an untimely demise, soldiers dying on the battlefield, who would have been destined to make other great discoveries. Another example is the unmatched legacy of James Black's bowie knives, which have yet to be replicated.

When designing the knife, Jim Bowie carved a model out of wood. This he gave to a blacksmith named James Black. James Black produced many of these knives, and as their fame grew, he continued to refine them. His blades were known for being unmatched in many regards, being very tough, yet flexible, an extremely desirable combination as many will tell you. Some even believe he may have recovered the process of making Damascus steel, as we will discuss next. In 1839, James Black was assaulted by his father-in law, he survived but his eyesight was damaged. It was later damaged even more when he sought out medical attention from a Cincinnati physician. His father-in-law had also sold his property illegally while he was away, and dissappeared. Years later, he tried to pass his techniques onto Daniel Webster Jones, but found he had forgotten them, thus ending the storied Black knives. On then, to the metal he supposedly used, Damascus steel.

Coming from the city of Damascus, Damascus steel was known for it's perfect balance of strength, flexibility and just about all other traits desirable in a metal. The swords composed of Damascus steel were renowned in the ancient world, with reports claiming they were even capable of cutting through stones. Admittedly, part of the steel's amazing traits may have come from the ore it was mined from. There have been theories that it's ore contained metals such as vanadium, which gave it greater strength. Whatever it was that made it so effective, the technology has been lost to time.

A Meditation on Drive

2011-08-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

All things in life require focus, dedication. But from where does that come? In my opinion, the sources are innumerable, and some are better than others. The "best" depends on the person, at least in my experience. Some work for themselves, others work for a greater good. Another important thing to consider when selecting the "best" source of drive for the situation is what requires attention. For instance, your inspiration would come from a different place when creating art than studying for a final exam. Now I'm not gonna try to sugarcoat this, I lack drive. I rarely put in enough effort, and quite simply waste my abilities. However one thing has remained fairly constant in it's ability to demand my attention: Fitness.

People choose to start getting in shape for a myriad of reasons. Maybe they are given a particularly worrisome checkup by their doctor, maybe they want to feel in control. Or, as it's been in my case, maybe they had someone they wanted to impress. Now, this has not always been my sole source of inspiration, rather the most prevalent one. Now I won't go into detail, but several years ago, there was a girl I fancied, and I thought to myself, how attractive am I? Upon looking in the mirror, I realized that by my reckoning, the answer was: Not very.So, I set out to change that. Looking back, I find my methods just plain funny, my workout routine was simple: A hell of a lot of crunches. Back then I thought all I had to do was get abs. Well, I started to figure out that first off, I needed more than a six pack, otherwise I'd have some odd proportions. I also found out that I could do as many crunches as I wanted, and still I would never get abs. That's because crunches make your abs stronger, and sure that gets the rock hard feel you here about so much, but there was still a layer of fat over them, so they were invisible, I had to lower my body fat percentage. So then came running. Now, it didn't take me long to figure out that I HATE running. It's just hugely boring to me, and takes too long. So, I got into weightlifting.

Some people have trouble getting into a workout routine. But I found it easy, I had something, someone, to get fit for, so it was worth all the pain. However, I eventually came to the harsh realization that this girl I had worked so hard to please, would never feel about me the way I felt about her. Then came the anger phase. I was an angry young man, pissed at her, me, pissed at the world. So I worked out to burn off some steam. While the intensity of my workouts was perhaps greater, i.e. faster plyo. The length was reduced, because while I was working on trying to impress someone, I could lift larger weights, and put in more reps/sets. As I began to mature, I realized as well that being in shape would do little to affect my attractiveness. I needed something else, something you can't build the way you can muscle. I needed swagger, confidence. I was naturally a reserved kid, and not very extroverted, though I had for years sucked it up and smiled, and to many appeared extroverted. But as I got into shape, I began getting compliments on my physique. This actually worked to boost my confidence. I began to actually enjoy new settings and new people, I had no problem talking to someone I'd never met, and finally had become truly extroverted.

So I think what's most important to understand is that everyone's drive, they're engine, must come from a different place. This place also changes with time. So if you are starting a routine, or trying to keep one alive, I suggest finding that place of inspiration, and making a point to remember that during your workouts.

An Introduction

2011-08-19T20:09:00.000-07:00

My name is Bluestrings, and I started this blog not to give hope to people in need, nor to tell of the devastation war has caused my family and home. No, I started this blog because I forgot the password to my previous ones. Yea pretty lame reason, but pretty tough one to fix (before you ask, yes I applied for password recovery, and no it was not successful, otherwise this wouldn't be here.) The more curious readers would ask why blog at all, and to those who asked said question, I commend you. The answer is as follows: I have to give my opinion, on any and every subject I come across. That's just how I'm wired. Luckily for you, I will... censor, shall we say, my posts, so I don't waste our time, and Google's server space.