Take it away, Mark!
——————————————–

Off the top of my head I don’t remember the exact year I started having New Year’s Day Prediction Parties. It may have either been for 1999 or 2000. I just moved into my own apartment and was eager to have guests. Many people I knew either worked New Year’s Eve or had plans. So, inspired by the annual opening of predictions on the Art Bell radio show, that I was a big fan of at the time, I took the idea and made a theme party out of it for New Year’s Day. The parties are usually mildly attended, so far we’ve had no more than 9 or 10 people, but they are always pretty fun.

These are the general guidelines for the Mark Plaid’s New Year’s Day Prediction Party. The predictions made the prior year are not to be viewed at any time after they are made at the prediction party until the following year’s prediction party. The only predictions filed are ones made by those attending the party, no phoned, texted, emailed, or any other way of sending prediction from outside the party will be filed.

Two lists are made. Neither list should have anything personal about the attendees or anyone they know, unless the attendees know famous people. One is a list of 100 celebrities that might pass away in the coming year. Celebrities are pretty much anyone who is in the public eye, be they entertainer, political figure, athlete, author, artist, etc. Although this may seem morbid to some, when we didn’t make a separate list for celebrity deaths, the prediction list will fill up with them. This streamlined the predictions and it is quite strongly stressed that the list is neither a betting pool nor a wish list. Either way, I’m not a superstitious person and if you have a problem with talking about death, don’t come to my parties. Avoiding talking about death isn’t going to eliminate death, it’s a part of life no matter how hard you deny it. This is more disclaimer than necessary.

The second list is a general prediction list which can have things that range from disasters to pop culture fads and all sorts of things that are not celebrity deaths. We don’t have a limit on the number of these predictions they just go until we get tired of making them.

I’m not going to name those who attended the party, but if they choose to reveal themselves that’s okay. This years party had nine total people including me.

There were 6 correct predictions out of 100 for celebrity deaths made at the 2010 prediction party for 2010, they are:

1. J. D. Salinger
2. Rue McClanahan
3. Dino DeLaurentis
4. Dennis Hopper
5. Norman Wisdom
6.Peter Graves

There were 6 correct predictions made out of 52 for general predictions, they are:

1. Recession continues.
2. Public option for health insurance.
3. New Popeye movie announced.
4. An “I love the…” show aired on VH1 about the past decade
5. Sasquatch still unavailable for comment
6. The 2010 list will be opened in 2011 (This has been a standard last prediction made for many of the parties).

As you can see the numbers aren’t too big. There are thankfully few correct celebrity deaths and a lot of fun is had in reading incorrect general predictions like:

-Canada chic!
-Disney buys Catholic church
-Dan Quayle comeback!
-Big Monkey news!
-Sarah Palin defects to Russia!
and more

Thanks to all who attended. It was a blast and I hope to have you again next year. The one thing i find it hard to predict is where in the hell it will be then.

– Mark Plaid

First, I want to talk for a second about my own takes on both Atheism and Skepticism. What does each one mean to me, and how do I use each one of them in my daily life?

Let’s start with Atheism. Atheism has been defined many ways, and I’m sure there are those who will disagree with my definition, but I define it as a lack of belief in the existence of a god. How does Atheism inform my daily world view? How do I make decisions from an Atheist viewpont? How do I choose to treat others based on my Atheism? How do I live my life according to Atheism? The short answer is: I don’t.

Atheism has no place in my decision making process. I am an Atheist because I do not believe that there is a ‘god’. There are a multitude of reasons to be nice to people, or to make certain decisions, but the absence of a god isn’t one of them. Good decisions and bad decisions are irrespective of my lack of belief in a god. The only relevance that Atheism has on my life, is that I have one less variable to consider in my decision making process, that being “How does ‘god’ want me to act?” And wow, talk about a variable. Not only would that depend on my particular flavor of religion, but on my own personal views of what ‘god’ wanted. So no, I don’t consider my Atheism anywhere outside of a religious discussion.

Skepticism, though, is an all-together different matter. Skepticism is the process of applying critical thinking skills to, well, just about everything. Note that in this case, I’m talking about scientific skepticism, and not philosophical skepticism, which are quite different, in my opinion. I would encourage the study of both, but please don’t get the two of them confused.

I live in a skeptical frame of mind. I apply it to everything. Being in the IT world helps, where troubleshooting and experimentation are part of my daily course of events. Determining where the faults are in a complex system takes an analytical touch, and my training as an IT professional and a skeptic tend to compliment one another quite well. In fact, I find examples of places where skepticism serves me, just about everywhere. Grocery shopping, reading the news, studying for tests, talking with others, being a parent… there’s no limit to the things that skepticism can inform and benefit.

Here’s the crux of my argument. Skepticism is applied critical thinking. However, to apply something is a choice. You can certainly choose not to apply critical thinking if you don’t want to, and ‘go with your gut’. I do this a lot. You have to have some training or ability to think critically about things. How much training does it take to be an Atheist? How much research does one have to do in order to say, “I don’t believe in god.’ None. In fact, it is entirely possible to be an Atheist, yet accept all manner of thinks which most skeptics would otherwise eschew. Likewise, there are many scientists who practice scientific skepticism in the lab, yet attend church on Sunday. Are we to dismiss them or their work, because they believe in a god? Of course, not. So why do we dismiss skeptics who are not Atheists? Put simply, we have four possible quadrants in our skeptic / atheist matrix. Skeptical and Atheist, Skeptical and NOT Atheist, NOT Skeptical and Atheist, and finally, where most people unfortunately lie, NOT Skeptical and NOT Atheist.

Put even more simply, Skepticism is a method. Atheism is a position of belief,or non-belief, if you prefer. One may include the other, but they certainly do not require each other. You can be a Skeptic without being an Atheist. Sadly, many people disagree with that but the position does exist. Even worse, some people resort to non-skeptical arguments to belabor that point. See if you can spot the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy in Hemant Mehta’s piece on this very topic.

Skepticism requires testable evidence. What testable evidence is there for religion?
Can religion be discussed? Sure. Should it be a focus? If you’ll pardon the expression, “Hell No”. (Sorry. The Devil made me do it.) Talk about intercessory prayer studies. Talk about faith healing. Talk about the cop-out explanation that is, “god did it.” In fact, I encourage you to talk about any place where religion attempts to enter the scientific arena. But to just tear down religion as a topic in and of itself makes us look a bit silly, as skeptics. How do we apply the scientific method to religion? You can argue that Atheism is the Null Hypothesis, as Jen McCreight does, but without evidence either way, where do we take the discussion?

Jen also mentions the separation of Atheism and Skepticism as a PR move. If we’re honest with ourselves, I think that both of them could use a bit of PR assistance. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could bring more people to Atheism via Skepticism? Of course it would! But in order to do that, we have to start with the Skepticism, not the Atheism. Most people who practice any sort of debate, know that you have to lead people to a conclusion, not start with the conclusion, especially if someone is predisposed to the opposite conclusion. If every gathering of Skeptics turns into a denouncement of religion, as I have seen many of them do, there’s little chance of us creating any new Skeptics, let alone new Atheists.

In conclusion, I’ll just reiterate that yes, Atheism is a part of Skepticism, but it is a conclusion of Skepticism, and not the method of Skepticism. Since it leads you to the conclusion, the method is the more important of the two.

Thanks,
-David.

The Chandra X-Ray observatory was placed into orbit by the space shuttle Columbia on July 23, 1999 and at over 45 feet, was the largest satellite ever deployed by the shuttle program. Chandra flies over Earth at a distance of around 128,000 km at apogee, or one-third of the distance to the moon, has a resolution fine enough that it could clearly read the letters on a stop sign, at a distance of 12 miles, but it uses no more power than it would take to run the average hair dryer.

Chandra was launched in order to to observe X-rays from high-energy regions of the universe, such as the remnants of exploded stars, like pulsars, quasars, nebulae, or… black holes. In fact, Chandra can observe xrays from particles up until the last second before they cross into the black hole.

So where am I going with all this? In an article published by PR Newswire, Astronomers using NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory have found evidence of the youngest black hole known to exist in our cosmic neighborhood. Now, young, on a galactic time scale, could be measured easily in millions of years. and bearing in mind that this black hole is located in the galaxy M100, which is approximately 50 million light years from earth, you would be correct in saying that the age of this black hole, is greater than 50 million years, relative to itself. (There’s that pesky relativity getting in the way of our self-centered view of the universe again.)

However, this is a remnant of supernova 1979C, placing the birthdate of this particular black hole at just about 30 years ago. Data from Chandra, NASA’s Swift satellite, the European Space Agency’s XMM-Newton and the German ROSAT observatory revealed a bright source of X-rays that has remained steady during observation from 1995 to 2007. This suggests the object is a black hole being fed either by material falling into it from the supernova or a binary companion. In a study led by Daniel Patnaude of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass. scientists have theorized that SN 1979C formed when a star about 20 times more massive than the sun collapsed.

Many new black holes in the distant universe previously have been detected in the form of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). However, SN 1979C is different because it is much closer and belongs to a class of supernovas unlikely to be associated with a GRB.Abraham Loeb, also of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics “This may be the first time the common way of making a black hole has been observed. However, it is very difficult to detect this type of black hole birth because decades of X-ray observations are needed to make the case.”

The idea of a black hole with an observed age of only about 30 years is consistent with recent theoretical work. In 2005, a theory was presented that the bright optical light of this supernova was powered by a jet from a black hole that was unable to penetrate the hydrogen envelope of the star to form a GRB. The results seen in the observations of SN 1979C fit this theory very well.

Now, there are other hypotheses in play: Although the evidence points to a newly formed black hole in SN 1979C, another intriguing possibility is that a young, rapidly spinning neutron star with a powerful wind of high energy particles could be responsible for the X-ray emission. This would make the object in SN 1979C the youngest and brightest example of such a “pulsar wind nebula” and the youngest known neutron star. However, there is not yet sufficient evidence to support this claim, and falsify the hypothesis that this is indeed, a very young black hole.

There are quite a few things to like about this. First, there is the idea of being able to study an astrological phenomenon from near it’s inception, giving us further clues as to how these objects are formed, and further reason to continue observing. It’s one thing to reason backwards by inference, but quite another thing altogether to be able to observe from the start. Another thing to like about this article is to see how scientists are not, as many science-naysayers would like to believe, “sticking to their story”. The scientists involved admit that there is more than one hypothesis that would fit the facts, and they are allowing for other possibilities. This is, what I like to call, “Science in Action”. Obviously, the only way to go from here is further observation, painstaking data collection and analysis, and following the evidence to it’s own conclusion. I know that I, as a neophyte astronomer myself, am thoroughly excited to see what becomes of this event in my own lifetime, and am thrilled for the opportunity of others to see how the story develops.

I only wish that there had been more mainstream media coverage of this important announcement. Three days later, on a google search for “Black Hole in M100″, the first page of results lists NPR as the only major news organization covering the story. Even on the next morning after the discovery, I checked sites like USA Today, Fox News, MSNBC, and a few others to see if any other big-time operations had anything to say. Only Fox had any mention of it at all, and this was buried under a whole host of links, two thirds of the scrolling distance down the home page. MSNBC’s “Science and Technology” category led instead with articles on the XBOX Kinect, new cell phones, and streaming music services, leading me towards the conclusion that MSNBC seems to think that science only serves a purpose when it’s entertaining us.

I for one, find the idea of studying an infant black hole immensely entertaining, if not enthralling, and that, is news worth writing about.

If anyone knows of some big news organizations that are giving this story it’s due – feel free to post about it in the comments below.

Thanks,
-David.

The article was edited, which I expected, and the three references I sited were left out. Here is the original version:

Dr. Phillip DeMio wrote an editorial for the Dispatch on October 27, 2009, entitled “Better Think Before Getting H1N1 Vaccine.” In his editorial, Dr. DeMio gave no evidence to support his claim that the H1N1 vaccine is dangerous.

Judging from the links provided on Dr. DeMio’s website (www.drdemio.com/links), it appears that his concern is with thimerosal and squalene. Thimerosal (ethyl mercury) is used in multi-dose vials as a preservative but is not used in the single-dose vials or the FluMist nasal spray. Numerous scientific studies have shown there is no link between thimerosal and autism, but if you still have concerns, you can specify your preference for the FluMist if appropriate for your child. Squalene is a naturally occurring substance found in plants, animals, and humans. It has been used in vaccines as an adjuvant for years without adverse side effects; however, there is no squalene in the 2009 H1N1 vaccine.

The H1N1 vaccine will not cause autism, brain damage, or immune dysfunction. All H1N1 vaccines used in the United States are licensed by the FDA and are made in the same way as seasonal influenza vaccines. Vaccines save lives. It is irresponsible for a medical doctor to advise the public not to get vaccinated. This advice puts the entire community at risk.

If you still have concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of the H1N1 vaccine, please talk to your family physician and/or
pediatrician.

Central Ohioans for Rational Inquiry

http://www.ohioskeptic.com/

References:
Miller L, Reynolds J., “Autism and vaccination-the current evidence,” J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2009 Jul;14(3):166-72.
Scahill L, Bearss K., “The rise in autism and the mercury myth,” J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. 2009 Feb;22(1):51-3.
DeStefano F., “Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association,” Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Dec;82(6):756-9. Epub 2007 Oct 10.

Thank you to all the CORI members who gave me input on the letter. I very much appreciate it.

First of all, this particular piece – the only one that I’ve seen passed around about this issue – is not giving the entire story. Here’s a key phrase to look at: “according to its producer.” This means that the majority of the article’s quotes are coming from the one person who has a deeply vested interest in explaining why he wasn’t able to get it in American theaters. American film distribution, especially when the film is produced by production companies overseas and very especially when the film doesn’t have extremely well-known A-list stars, is a tricky business. The current economic situation has made the business even more risky, and that puts films like Creation – not a summer blockbuster or genre flick, but a thoughtful, independent period piece – at a huge disadvantage. For example, the film Slumdog Millionaire, last year’s Oscar winner, which already had demonstrated success and critical acclaim, nearly never even got distributed in theaters. Films wanting to succeed in America without the support of a big, firmly-established American studio are fighting an uphill battle from day one. To get a better idea of the larger picture of what independent and other small films face in the distribution battle, you can read the comments from Sundance Film Festival director Geoff Gilmore, those on the subject by film writers and commenters at the industry-respected film criticism and news blog GreenCine Daily, and a brief description of how, in recent years, Hollywood product dominates the US cinema.

This has been the case in general for the past few years – but even more interestingly, in just this past week, within the film industry and specifically within the Toronto Film Festival (where Creation just screened), critics have signaled a final, crushing defeat for the independent film distribution market.

The battle for film distribution can often be won or lost by one factor, the other important point to look at in this question of why we Americans are not currently expecting Creation in theaters – whether or not the film in question is any good. If a film produced outside of a major American studio sucks, it stands even less than a chance than it had before for widespread American distribution. Despite the Telegraph’s glowing review (it claims a vague collection of positive “early reviews” and mentions only one review by name), just about everywhere else, the film has been panned.

Let’s ask this: f the only issue in distributing this film is controversy, why on earth would an American distributor NOT jump at it? Controversy sells tickets. Both religious and non-religious audiences would come, each with their own agendas. The most controversy, the bigger the audiences. Ask Michael Moore, or Bill Maher and the others behind Religulous. To a distributor, that’s nothing but profit, which is what they’re in it for in the first place. But if the film quality itself can’t sustain the interest, the risk of inevitably failing is high, perhaps too high to merit buying it. The website Cinematical, writes about exactly this.

None of these outside factors are precisely the Creation producer’s fault, and his point in general does stand. I personally think America’s emphasis on religion is far too heavy and that it interferes with many good things – including, of course, the teaching and acceptance of evolution. I also know that many Christians have been denouncing the film because of its subject matter. But I hope that the skeptic movement has not been willing to accept this single article as truth just because it aligns with what we already think. It may be true. But I really don’t think there’s enough evidence out there to support the claim that the film is not being shown in this country because of America’s religious attitude. In all things, I would like to be careful of not jumping to a conclusion that fits in with my particular mindset without thinking it through critically beforehand.

(Addition – I just remember that Amateur Scientist has a similar, if more irreverent, take on this here.)

Talk with you later!

-David.

My husband and I packed up the kids a couple weeks ago and went to the Ohio State Fair.  My favorite part of the fair–aside from the fried food and rides–is the marketplace building.  They sell all sorts of wacky things, and I love walking up and down the aisles seeing all the weird stuff.  This year I saw something particularly weird: a booth selling Ionic Foot Detox Baths.

There were a good number of people surrounding the booth, watching in awe as two women had their feet in water baths that were hooked up to machines, and were having “toxins” removed from their bodies through their feet. According to a color chart, the water color indicates the type of toxins being removed and/or the part of the body from which the toxins are being removed.  Both women were apparently producing an orange water with black flecks, and after a while the water had a brown sludge forming on top.  According to the chart they were detoxing from the joints and liver as well as removing heavy metals.  Here is a link to a similar color chart…I can’t make this stuff up. Here is a you tube video of a ionic foot detoxer in action.

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

From foot toxins

This is a combination of two posts written by Jonathan Weyer, a SkeptiCamp 2009 presenter, for his blog The Thomas Society. With his permission, I’m reposting them here for the OhioSkeptic.com audience. Please visit Jonathan’s blog for more writing!

PZ Myers and the Love of the Natural World

So, I got to meet the (in)famous PZ Myers this weekend. As has been said on on numerous blogs, he is a much nicer guy in person than on his blog. I liked him.

And, I’m sure there are going to be times on this blog where I take serious issue with some of his comments. But, today is not that day. Instead, I want to comment on his fire and love for the natural world. I actually found it quite beautiful.

His talk at the SSA was about how you should stand up for what you think. A good piece of advice. But what struck me is what really lit him up. It wasn’t taking on people he calls “igits”. It wasn’t not believing in God. It wasn’t even Ken Ham. It was his love for his beloved Cephalopod. His eyes lit up. He started to actually bounce. Yes, PZ Myers, the king of smart ass cynical comments began to bounce. Sorry, PZ, I outed you.

I dug that. I love to see that kind of passion. But, he said something that I took issue with. He said that atheists are the only ones who take a real interest in the natural world.

I would completely disagree with that. As I posted below, my son and I love science. Even more, we love the natural world. In my point of view, God made the natural world for us to enjoy, explore and take pleasure in. It’s our playground and we should freakin’ make sure we take care of it.

Sorry, that’s a line for another post.

Anyway, PZ, I didn’t know if we would have anything in common, but we do. We love the natural world. We love the beauty and all the things we haven’t found out yet. That we can agree on and it’s certainly a starting point for discussion for all of us who love the natural world and science.

As Calvin said to Hobbes, “Let’s go exploring.”

That Is So Science

I love science. Everything about it is just awesome. I’m not a scientist by training. I’m a historian. So, it’s safe to say I’m a pure fanboy, rather than being “on the field.”

And it seems my love has passed on to my six year old. He got into trouble recently with his Grammy over mixing together very expensive beauty products. When asked if he had anything to say for himself, he replied, “I’m disappointed it didn’t turn blue like I wanted.”

So, we look for things to do together along those lines. I love fossils and in case you didn’t know, Ohio is a huge fossil hunter state having been covered at one time by a shallow, warm sea. There are actually places here where you can go and chisel fossils out of the cliffs.

Turns out, we didn’t even need to go there. My wife and I bought a house in Columbus that was built in 1929. Someone around that time built a fountain/pond area in the back corner of the yard. Now, it’s a garden for us, but the original stones are still there.

One day, my son and I decided to take a closer look at the stones. We were both thrilled to find that they were chock full of fossils having been taken out of one the previously mentioned fossil beds.

And so we found this one:

As I said, I’m a science fanboy, so I had no idea what kind of fossil this was. So, since my ministry is with college students from Ohio State, I decided to email the professors in the geology department.

Side Note; If you ever get to Columbus, Ohio State has a cool, little geology museum in Orton Hall.

Anyway, here is what they wrote back.

“Your fossil is a snail, probably Pleuronotus. I’m guessing that it comes orginally from the Columbus Limestone. (Devonian, about 395 million years old)”

My son couldn’ t believe that he was holding a rock that old in his hands and that you could make a living studying fossils. His response?

”That is so science.”

I’m making plans to attend the Nobel Prize for Science awards in about thirty years.

TAM is the largest official gathering of skeptics in the world, and, for a skeptic, it’s a pretty fun and comfortable place to be. There’s over a thousand people in one place to whom you know you can talk freely about those certain things you might have to censor at work or with family. You can also trust them to challenge you to keep thinking and questioning. They also, generally speaking, know how to throw a party.

Of course, as with any community, even one created with a common mindset, there’s plenty of room for dissent and discussion about just what we’re trying to accomplish, and, even more often, how exactly we should accomplish it. We all have slightly different backgrounds, passions and goals. I heard a lot about these at and in connection with TAM. Some were disappointed with the choice of speakers, or the variety of sessions. Some disagreed with others’ politics, or dress, or tendency to party. Some are wary of the larger personages of our movement falling into a hero worship trap. Some want to talk more about God (or the lack thereof) rather than science, and vice versa. Some are more concerned with strategic skeptic outreach rather than internal community-building, and vice versa.

None of these are inappropriate topics for discussion, nor are they at all unfamiliar, because I’ve heard many of the same things mentioned in the central Ohio skeptic group, and often I’ve wondered what was the best way to resolve them. I’ve now begun thinking that there’s nothing I can do myself to work toward resolution that isn’t already being done by myself and the rest of you. I feel that I want to step back and congratulate us all on the larger picture – which is the fact that we already have a community together that cares enough to discuss these things and that cares so much about for which we’re working.

In our particular little group, we’ve talked a lot before about how we as a society would solve problems, both minor and major, if we were suddenly without a religiously-based support structure. Where would the benefits, both material and otherwise, of community, morality and law come from if not from traditional spiritual guidelines? But, while removing the current non-skeptical structure like magically pulling out the tablecloth out from under a full place setting without disruption is impossible, it seems we are already, on a small scale, slowly building an alternative that could conceivably one day smoothly supplant that structure. We’re already building bonds, forming friendships and layering conversations. We gathering together for conferences, meetings and parties. We’re celebrating secular marriages. We’re discussing how to raise our children with critical thinking skills. We’re helping out when others’ loved ones are lost. We’re kind, enthusiastic, passionate and giving, and we’re all that normally, without a supernatural impetus or threat to be so. We’re proud of our like-minded skeptics who are writing books, producing television shows and educating the mainstream through entertainment and performance. We’re already out there, creating a new structure that is flexible enough to allow for our desirable differences while still strong enough to build on our common conviction that we can construct worthwhile lives for ourselves and our families based not on unquestioned tradition or superstition, but on our human capacity for reason and rational thought.

And that’s what I learned at TAM7. The more time we spend together, however seemingly frivolous the activity, the more we are reinforcing and establishing a different way of living, and proving in the process that it’s fulfilling and rewarding. The details, I think, will resolve themselves as we keep building.

I decided on a likely site a short walk away from campus proper. The President’s house was being remodeled, and had basically been gutted for the purpose. Being either courageous or stupid, I wandered over to the construction site. The first thing I noticed was that I felt a little cold and unnerved, but I figured, “Hey, it’s a spooky looking place. Just got to shake off the nerves.” I walked up to where the front door was supposed to be, and, placing a hand on either side of the frame, leaned inside to begin surveying the room. (This will be important in a minute.)

What happened next is a bit blurry, of course, but as best as I can remember, I had the sensation of a hand, grabbing me by the chest, and shoving me backwards with an almost audible “Oooooouuuuuut!” The command seemed to come from inside my head, rather than to my ears. I didn’t pause to ask why, but had run halfway across campus before remembering to breathe. I spent almost the entire night, wide awake, both afraid to sleep and trying to figure out what happened.

It wasn’t until years later, all the while believing that I could communicate with spirits, that I started finding more mundane explanations for the things that happened that night. I found through various medical misadventures that the cartilage in my chest is very loose around my sternum. I can, to this day, ‘crack’ my chest if I do it the right way, such as… placing my hands in a door frame and leaning through, stretching my chest out. I thought, “…if there’s an explanation for that, then maybe I could make sense of the other things.” There was some large, industrial equipment on site at the time, perhaps the voice could have come from one of them? Not too long after I had that thought, I was in the presence of an air mover, and it did indeed make a similar sound to that low, drawn out, “Oooooouuuut!” Not sure if that was actually it, but if one machine can make that kind of sound, I would think others can as well. Perhaps it was a compressor?

It wasn’t until just a few years ago that I found out where that strange feeling of coldness and anxiety could have come from. I read an article on infra-sound, and it seemed to me to be a much more likely explanation than anything supernatural. Indeed, if something can be proven to occur naturally, then it’s much more likely a source than a supernatural one, isn’t it?

Well, not everyone would agree with that statement, and there is a whole industry around it. “Ghost Hunting”, or as most prefer it to be called, “Paranormal Investigation” is the art of seeking out and gathering evidence for supposed paranormal phenomena. In previous ages, a psychic or mystic, and a good holy book were standard equipment. These days, you can find modern paranormal investigators using everything from basic EMF meters to modified radios, radiation detectors and more.

One local group that has been getting some attention lately is ORBS, the Ohio Researchers of Banded Spirits. ORBS performs investigations all over the state of Ohio using it’s widely dispersed team of 18 investigators. The teams comprise both people who make use of the technical equipment, as well as ‘sensitives’ or mediums who supposedly communicate with spirits on an intuitive level. ORBS was recently featured in an article in the Brunswick Sun-Times for an investigation that they performed at Heritage Farm in Brunswick, OH. According to the article, they had confirmed, though the evidence that they had gathered, that there was definitely paranormal activity on the farm. I reviewed the article, and the small tidbits of actual information presented therein, I remained skeptical. The ‘evidence’ of the psychics or sensitives cannot be confirmed or not, because it is anecdotal in nature, even if there is blinding going on. With that, I ignored it. There’s no scientific test that can be done to prove or disprove what any of them say.

That left me with the technical information gathered, specifically the Ghost Radio and the Radiation Meter. Now, I’m fairly certain that I understand what is going on with the technical information gathered, but I wanted to know how it was understood by ORBS, and so I contacted Chris Page, one of the founders of ORBS, and spoke with him at length about his organization, and about Heritage Farm. While we obviously did not agree completely on everything, Chris was very forthcoming about ORBS and paranormal investigation in general, as well as what was experienced at Heritage Farm.

Chris, a 34 year old government employee has had multiple paranormal experiences throughout his life, having experienced multiple visits from his grandmother, who passed away in 1980. Chris founded ORBS with co-worker Amy Cobb in the year 2000 after she experienced some strange things in a house she was staying in at that time. In the last few years, the now 18-member organization has grown to doing around 2 to 3 investigations or more per month, with increasing frequency in central and Southern Ohio. Even with the rising time requirements, including spending up to 30 hours on each client, Chris refuses to charge for ORBS’ services. “We are a non-profit, and everything is out of pocket.”, Chris states. “Your typical paranormal investigator has the belief that you don’t charge. Because, how do you put a price on something like this?”

Another service that ORBS offers is a blessing or ‘cleansing’ of the location where the haunting has allegedly occurred. Although Chris claims a 100% success rate on their cleansings, he also states that any mention or thought of the previous situation by the site’s residents can bring the spirits back. To avoid this, ORBS tries to educate the client on how not to cause that to happen. As a psychology student, he has had some investigations that he classified as more environmental or mental in nature, rather than paranormal. One particular case in a small town involved 5 college age girls sharing a house. “It turned out to be mass paranoia.”, said Chris. “One person thought that they had seen something, and that freaked out the other person, and then that got the other ones scared. Then every little creak or bump they heard was something ‘paranormal’.” Indeed, on an average of 1/5 cases, ORBS receives a call for a suspected haunting, but finds no evidence of any paranormal activity.

Speaking about the equipment used, Chris stated that the equipment isn’t specific to paranormal investigation, but is usually intended for use in other professions. As far as the success rate of the equipment, Chris says it’s, “…kind of a hit and miss.” The bulk of the evidence that they tend to gather is in the form of either visual, meaning photographic or video, and audible, usually making use of the Ghost Radio, or “Frank’s Box” as it is sometimes called. A Ghost Radio is a standard AM/FM tuner which has had it’s ‘scan’ function modified. When in scan mode, a Ghost Radio does not stop on the next strongest signal, but scans the entire band, back and forth, without stopping. To use the Ghost Radio, an investigator or two will begin scanning the airwaves, and then ask questions aloud. The audio received on the radio is assumed to be manipulated by ghosts into answers that the investigators can understand. For example, when asking the question, ‘Who would you like to talk to?’, the radio may respond with the name of one of the investigators. “What is the mathematical probability that a radio station, in the town that you’re in, at that exact same moment, would broadcast your name? It’s almost impossible. It never happens.”

I asked Chris if he was familiar with audio pareidolia. He was not, so I roughly explained that pareidolia is the ability of someone to see a pattern where none actually exists. Humans being pattern seeking creatures, we tend to see things like faces or other recognizable shapes where they really aren’t. Examples would be the Face on Mars, or the Virgin Mary in the grilled cheese sandwich. We can also hear things that aren’t there, as demonstrated by a study reviewed in the journal Science in 1981. Subjects listened to a series of generated sine waves meant to mimic speech, and were able to pick out complete sentences from the seemingly random noises. When told what the sentences were supposed to be, there was no mistaking them, even though the actual sounds were still randomly generated.

I put the proposition to Chris that maybe pareidolia was what made the audio evidence seem so convincing. “Well, anything’s possible.”, said Chris. “You’re going to believe it or not. That’s really what it comes down to.” From the skeptic viewpoint, however, it’s not about belief. It’s about how reliable and plausible the evidence is. Given the two explanations, it would certainly seem that if I want to hear something specific, and I concentrate on hearing something specific, then if anything remotely resembling what I want to hear comes out of a radio, my mind is going to say, ‘Yep, that was it.’

On the subject of orb photographs, which also figure significantly on the ORBS website, Chris said, “In my personal opinion… at least 90% of all orbs are just dust.” In fact, Chris has even duplicated orb photographs by beating a pillow, or going outside and throwing pepper into the air. “If you can recreate it, it’s not paranormal.”, states Chris. Chris also opined that ball lightning may account for some orb photographs as well. On this topic, we appeared to be in close, if not exact, agreement.

However, I do want to focus on what I think is the most important thing that Chris said in the preceding paragraph, which is: If you can recreate it, it’s not paranormal. I think this is the fundamental thing to remember when discussing paranormal phenomena. Every piece of evidence that I have seen on the ORBS website, be it audio, video, or photographic, can be easily recreated by natural means. Given, that, I don’t think there’s really any reason to take any of the evidence that has been gathered by ORBS so far as evidence of paranormal activity. Again, Chris said it best when he said that it really comes down to what you believe.

In closing, Chris said that in order for the true skeptic to become a believer, all it takes is to experience the paranormal once. My question would be to the reader, is how would you know if what you were experiencing was genuinely paranormal or not? Given the experience that I related at the beginning of this post, I could easily see having written that off as unexplainable, or even paranormal. In fact, I did so for a number of years. However, it turned out in the end that all of the things I thought were paranormal were, in fact, normal. In skepticism we often say that unexplained does not mean unexplainable. Something like paranormal investigation is a perfect place to remember that mantra, and use it wisely.

Chris stated that currently, ORBS is not working with any outside scientific or skeptical organizations on their investigations. However, they would be open to having some members of CORI accompany them on investigations in the future. Any takers?

Thanks,
-David.