Zahi Hawass Walks Out of Graham Hancock Debate; Nick Redfern Defends Ant People Article

4/24/2015

On Wednesday fringe historian Graham Hancock was to debate former Egyptian Antiquities Minister Zahi Hawass on the origins and function of the Giza pyramids. However, when Hawass discovered that Hancock would be making reference to the Orion Correlation Theory and using a picture of fringe theorist Robert Bauval in his slideshow, Hawass loudly demanded Hancock remove all references to the work of a man Hawass considers a “thief.” When Hancock refused to do so, Hawass stormed out of the theater and refused to engage in a debate. Instead, both men gave separate lecturers without interacting. Their interaction was caught on tape:

Special thanks to John Hoopes for sharing the YouTube video with me.

What we see here seems to be a case of misunderstanding. From one perspective, Hancock is completely correct that the Orion Correlation Theory exists independent of Robert Bauval, its creator, and must be judged on its merits, however slight. Hawass, however, almost certainly viewed Hancock’s use of Bauval’s image as a personal provocation due to the history that Hawass and Bauval have with one another. Hawass suspected that Bauval was behind the vandalism of two German fringe history believers who scraped part of the ancient paint from a cartouche within the Great Pyramid a few years ago as part of a clandestine effort to prove the pyramid was 10,000 years old. Hawass also claimed that Bauval was secretly advocating a Jewish agenda to strip the Egyptians of credit for the pyramids. Bauval, in turn, announced that he was suing Hawass for libel, though so far as I know the suit went nowhere.

If you haven’t seen the comments on my Wednesday blog post about Nick Redfern and the ant people, be sure to check it out. In the original article, I wrote that the academic literature and Native sources don’t seem to support the claims made for a godlike race of humanoid Gray-like beings living under the earth, keepers of knowledge about coming earth changes, and possessed of flying machines. In the comments, Redfern stops by to take issue with my presentation of his article, and his defense says quite a bit about fringe writing. Redfern admits that he gleaned his information about the Hopi myth of the Ant People from ufological sources and did not consult any ethnographic or Native American primary sources. But more importantly, he fell back on the defense we hear so often from fringe figures: “This was simply a small article, not a multi-thousand word paper dissecting every aspect of the controversy.” Of course Redfern did not suggest there was a controversy at all, presenting only one view of the Ant People. Redfern appeared to suggest that he viewed articles as a lesser form of work that excused accepting secondary sources and ufological opinion at face value because, according to him, he was merely reporting what other ufologists believe, regardless of its accuracy. It is perhaps the weakness in Redfern’s writing that he lards his pieces with so many rhetorical questions and conditional tense verbs that it becomes difficult to determine which parts Redfern means for us to take seriously and what is… I’m not sure exactly: What is the point of reporting something you know or believe to be untrue without indicating its untruth? Entertainment, I suppose.

Just to be clear: My problem with Redfern’s writings is hardly confined to his passage on the Ant People. I have repeatedly taken issue with areas where he seems to make superficial connections or missed out on important information through failing to pursue a story to its logical conclusion. That occurred in his flawed piece on Mikel Conrad’s Flying Saucer movie, his uncritical acceptance of UFO claims, his uncritical and low-research presentation of what an anonymous source told him about government ancient astronaut research, and his silly idea that a horror movie could help us understand underground Bigfoot. (Does Bigfoot eat Ant People? Those tunnels must get crowded with the all the Vril-Ya, Nephilim, Atlanteans, etc. down there!)

It’s the one question I can’t form a clear answer to: Why do so many fringe figures feel that when writing about what ought to be the most important scientific discovery in history—contact with other, unknown sentient beings!—they don’t need to reach for the highest standards of research and reporting? Doesn’t the audience deserve the very best with each piece? We saw this with Micah Hanks and the uncritical book report on a Jim Marrs opus that he passed off as an “article” on alien contact in Texas. Now, granted, I don’t always live up to the impossible standard of perfect accuracy and universal research, but I do try to make every blog post, article, and book the best, most complete, and most informative it can be. Why wouldn’t the people who claim to be working to change our very understanding of reality?

Do check out the entire conversation. I found it most enlightening. And, seriously, I do want to thank Redfern for taking the time to discuss his writing process, despite our differences. It was good insight into how fringe material is assembled.

Our conversation reminded me very much of Dr. Mehmet Oz’s appearance on the Today show this morning to defend his work on the Dr. Oz Show after a group of doctors sent a letter to Columbia University, where Oz teaches, criticizing him for offering bad advice and endorsing questionable medical treatments on his daytime talk show. This was followed by a letter from six Columbia faculty doing the same. In his defense. Oz claimed (and I wish I were making this up) that the graphic design of his show logo was sufficient indication that he doesn’t believe the things he says, because his name, “Oz,” is rendered in a much larger type size than “Dr.” According to Oz, this conveys the message that this is a personality-driven show in which Oz acts as cheerleader for “wellness” products rather than as a doctor offering sound advice. In other words, he is a doctor but doesn’t play one on TV.

In the case of Dr. Oz and all the many fringe claims, I get the sense that no one cares at all about the impact on the audience. The argument that audiences are sophisticated enough to tease out information from graphic design or to distinguish between facts, inferences, and opinions through a complex rhetorical analysis is belied by the facts. Surveys find time and again that the majority of audiences can’t distinguish facts and opinions, and don’t see a clear difference between, say, The O’Reilly Factor and the CBS Evening News, or Ancient Aliens and Nova. The average American reads at only an eighth grade level, and 50% of Americans read at only basic or below basic levels, according to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Just 15% can read at the level of complexity needed to sustain the argument that an audience can tell when a fringe writer doesn’t mean what he says; in fact a full 1 in 4 adults cannot “locate information in a text” or make “low-level inferences” from written materials. I wish that weren’t the case, but I can’t change audiences. I can’t make them information literate. Communicators hold great power to shape their audience’s attitudes and beliefs, and with that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. I guess I have trouble imagining cranking out incomplete or questionable material just to fill air time or column inches. But then I also have seen seven seasons of Ancient Aliens, so it shouldn’t be that much of a surprise!

213 Comments

Nick Redfern link

4/24/2015 08:44:47 am

Whatever! I'll say and do what the fuck I like and when the fuck I like! I used UFO sources for the story, and then I gave people links to click on that clearly told the Hopi side. I gave people both sides.

Jason Colavito link

4/24/2015 09:21:20 am

So you're Cartman from South Park? ("Whatever... I do what I want!") No one has ever denied you have the right do "what the fuck [you] like," but that shouldn't exempt you from criticism for what you get wrong or leave out, any more than it does anyone else (including, often enough, me). Ultimately, the purpose of criticism is twofold: to inform the audience and to help make the writer better. Has no one ever criticized your writing or reporting before?

As for the links: You linked without indicating what you were linking to or that the links contradicted what you were writing.

4/24/2015 09:34:09 am

Yes, of course people have criticized me before, it's one of the things that go along with being a writer! And I hit back as I see fit!

You say: "As for the links: You linked without indicating what you were linking to or that the links contradicted what you were writing."

So fucking what, man? When people click on those links they will clearly see that there is a very different approach to the Ant People controversy than just the UFO side of things.

Do you think people are so stupid that they can't see that I am openly giving them both sides of the coin, even if I don't explain everything step by step by step by etc etc etc.?

Seal Ion

4/25/2015 07:36:00 pm

"I gave people both sides."
So, which slogan are you going to adopt for your own blog?
The classic "Nick Redfern: Fair and Balanced" or the updated "Nick Redfern: He Reports, You Decide"

4/26/2015 04:13:09 am

I would say a combination of the two: "Nick Redfern: Fair, balanced, but not at all beyond sharing with his readers information that remains unverified until (or even if) we get more data and can prove the story or dismiss it."

4/24/2015 09:28:25 am

On the matter of that immortality article you brought up, I fully acknowledged (in the article) that the story was problematic.

I noted in came from just one source, and I said (quote): "On more than a few occasions, I have been the recipient of fantastic accounts of a mind-blowing nature. The problem, however, is that no matter how deeply I pursued the relevant story, I reached nothing but an endless brick wall."

I also said (quote): "Of course, I can’t say for sure that it isn’t the work of nothing but a fantasist or a hoaxer, one with an agenda of the very obscure kind. But, by at least putting the data out there, I also figure it may well provoke debate."

I made it very clear the story came from one source, that it could have been the work of a hoaxer, that it could have been the work of a fantasist, and that I hit nothing but a brick wall.

I was clearly not championing or promoting this as an amazing revelation.

I did dig into the story, I found nothing, it stalled, I admitted the source might be unreliable, and then I shared it to see if someone could fill in any gaps.

If I admit all that (as I did), warn people it may not be valid, and then share it with others under those terms and circumstances, that is totally 100 percent fine. No-one is being deceived and no-one is being lead to believe the story is anything more than a one-source account that lacks any verification. And I am being brutally honest about the weaknesses in the story and the source etc.

What I did with that article was 100 percent fine.

4/24/2015 09:55:43 am

Yes, Nick, I know: I mentioned in my own piece that you admitted that the story was a one source wonder from a possible hoaxer. It wasn't totally 100 percent fine, though, because your ignorance of the origins of the many claims used by the hoaxer led you to monger a mystery that research would have shown you could not be true. I get people telling me all the time about how they think they've discovered Atlantis, or how the government implanted something in their butts, or how they had revelations from Vishnu (it's weirdly popular). My criticism of you is that your research tends toward the superficial and you seem to lack expertise while promoting yourself as an investigator. Can you talk about the chemistry of monoatomic white powder gold, for example? How might that substance, which does not exist in the world as we know it, work? What possible Mesopotamian sources could discuss such things given that not a single extant text references anything to do with space aliens or powdered gold? It's warmed over Laurence Gardner-Zecharia Sitchin speculation, which was based on a mountain of easily disproved lies. Repeating those lies doesn't make them any more believable. I laid out other criticisms in my article, but the long and short of it is that your investigations and explorations seem to skim along the surface and lack the deep background and expertise that would produce genuine answers.

4/24/2015 10:01:51 am

Yes, of course I can talk about all those things, but instead I chose to refer the reader to 3 links in the article that dealt with the matter of immortality. I don't believe that is skimming. I take the view that I am writing an article that is concise and to the point, and which I then allow the reader to learn more about by checking out the links that expand on the things I have mentioned.

4/24/2015 10:09:56 am

You implied that there is such a thing as a "White Power Gold conundrum," when the substance doesn't exist. The link you provided was a mystery-mongering link made up of fringe speculation without factual basis. That is skimming the surface. Can you point to a genuine ancient text that discusses white powder gold? That is the difference between skimming the surface (repeating secondary sources) and providing true investigation (original research and primary sources).

I'm not criticizing you for the sake of criticizing you, Nick. I'm genuinely trying to show you how you can improve the quality of your work by going beyond recycling others' bad conclusions. And along the way you might discover that the secondary claims you like to report on may not be worth the pixels they're displayed in.

4/24/2015 10:17:32 am

The link took people to a white powder gold article. The reader can use that article to make up their mind what they think of WPG. No, I cannot point to a genuine ancient text that discusses WPG - that's why I used that link!

4/24/2015 10:27:29 am

But that's the problem, Nick! The link was to BAD information. By linking, you've told readers that you found this useful, even though it's WRONG. You'd know that if you had actually gone beyond the secondary literature. To use another example, if you linked the Simon Necronomicon, that doesn't suddenly make Cthulhu real, or something for readers to make up their minds about. There is just as much support for Cthulhu as white powder gold. In short, you need to be more than just a recycler of other people's bad ideas. You need to actually know and understand where they came from and whether there is any truth to them.

Tara Jordan link

4/27/2015 11:26:03 am

"The reader can use that article to make up their mind what they think of....".
No,most of your readers cant,especially since you appeal to a crowd that possesses the collective IQ of a bag of doorknobs.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the UFO/paranormal community.

Clete

4/24/2015 10:03:20 am

Dear Mister Redfern, if you cannot respond to criticism without the use of profanity, then in my view you have no business being on a public forum. You, if you consider yourself as a professional, should realize that as a writer you open yourself up to critics and should respond to them as a professional would.

Nick Redfern

4/27/2015 11:33:41 am

Tara, you say:

"...a crowd that possesses the collective IQ of a bag of doorknobs..."

Can you cite the source for your sweeping comment? I would like to see it.

4/27/2015 01:55:40 pm

Nick.
Unfortunately there is no real statistics regarding the failure of Social Intelligence and deficit of Fluid Intelligence,among fringe-pseudo history aficionados,mysteries seekers,UFO buffs and believers in the paranormal.

I can only resort to actual observations and interactions.Usually, individuals who are eager to believe or to delve in these topics,have extremely poor analytic and critical thinking skills.
But unlike other debunkers,who may also have their own unscrupulous motivations for doing what they do (I am not taking about Jason but professional community skeptics),I wont blame you for taking advantage of people`s gullibility.I am not concerned with moral or ethical issues.I think you have enough talent to be a good fiction writer (and there is probably a bigger market in fiction writing).You should think about it.

4/28/2015 01:16:14 am

Add addendum.
Nick.You have the courage to face criticism and personally respond to your detractor,and I respect that.In the end it doesn't really matters what a man does,that`s the way he handles himself, that counts.

Hypatia

4/28/2015 04:57:15 am

"In the end it doesn't really matters what a man does,that`s the way he handles himself, that counts."

'It's the selfies that count,' said Narcissus. 'Fuck what I do. I do I.'
'Fuck the non-objectivist Good Samaritan,' repeated Ayn Rand.

"Then woo thyself, be of thyself rejected,
Steal thine own freedom, and complain on theft.
Narcissus so himself himself forsook,
And died to kiss his shadow in the brook."
(Shakespeare, of course.)

4/28/2015 05:27:12 am

Tara

You say: "Nick.You have the courage to face criticism and personally respond to your detractor,and I respect that.In the end it doesn't really matters what a man does,that`s the way he handles himself, that counts."

Yes, and here's another thing that really matters: I am totally, 100 percent fine with how I handle myself. If other people disagree with how I handle myself, it doesn't matter in the slightest to me, nor will I change my approach.

You also say: "I can only resort to actual observations and interactions."

No, what you resorted to was to say that a specific group of people have "the collective IQ of a bag of doorknobs."

You also say: "I wont blame you for taking advantage of people`s gullibility."

I'm not taking advantage of anyone! I publish what I want to publish and, in the process of publishing whatever I want, I certainly don't force it on anyone. I make it clear that something may be my opinion that I can't prove - rather than demand people accept it as hard fact. How can I take advantage of people? I can't force anyone to read a book of mine, or an article!

4/28/2015 06:16:38 am

Hypatia.
You magnificent ignoramus,I was not talking about sheer narcissism (Please stop projecting your own pathologies on everything that comes in contact with you),but about a situation where an individual faces adversity.

4/28/2015 06:53:20 am

let me try to rephrase the "I wont blame you for taking advantage of people`s gullibility.". Maybe its about the subjectivity of your readers?.

Of course you are not suicidal,Nick,you cant agree with me in regard to your readership deficit of fluid intelligence,and lack of analytic and critical thinking skills.I stand by my previous statement.
The larger community of individuals you appeal to,have fractured psyches,short attention spans,and a penchant for anything that can momentarily lift them out of their fuzzy world view.

Milan Kundera: "maturity is the ability to detach yourself from symbolism".Any of your readers capable of doing that?.
An adult individual who indulges in mechanisms that rely on superstitious,magical,paranormal,extraordinary beliefs,is dysfunctional.That doesn't mean he doesn't have his place in society,but there is a problem,these individuals are taking more and more space in the public debate recently. Thanks to them,we have reached a remarkable level in the "cretinization" of society

4/28/2015 07:16:23 am

Tara
I would have to disagree. And not because of your reasoning, which I'll quote for others:

"Of course you are not suicidal,Nick,you cant agree with me in regard to your readership deficit of fluid intelligence,and lack of analytic and critical thinking skills."

The reason I disagree is simple: I get a lot of feedback from people who read my books and who come to hear me lecture.

Yes, OF COURSE, there is always the occasional oddball. But for the most part, they are normal, every day people who just happen to have an interest in UFOs, or Bigfoot, or the Yeti, etc.

It's like with me: yes, I write books, lecture, write articles, etc on very controversial issues relative to the paranormal. But, that aside, I have a perfectly normal life:

I watch a lot of soccer, go and see a lot of bands play, hang out with friends (more that a few who have no interest in the paranormal), have girlfriends, go down the pub, like to build furniture, the list goes on.

I think - from what I have seen - the media particularly likes to pick up on the image of the UFO researcher who is 45 living in their parents basement and having no life beyond an obsession with the paranormal.

Are there people like that? Yes, I'm sure there are. But, the unfortunate thing is that this image becomes the dominating one - the socially inept nerd obsessed by aliens.

Maybe I'm mixing with different people to you, but just about everyone I hang out with who is interested in the paranormal (including people who read my books) is like me - they have good social lives, they have relationships, they hold down jobs just fine, they aren't socially awkward in company and - perhaps most important of all - they are able to switch off and do normal, every day things, like go to a sports game, see a band, have friends over, etc etc.

4/28/2015 08:36:46 am

Nick.
I am not saying these people are insane,but merely dysfunctional.
I understand the appeal for the "mysterious" or the "unknown",but there is a big difference between curiosity and belief.This is where I draw the line.If you cant draw that line and follow a rational course,then there is no boundary at all.This is a dangerous path.

Anyway thanks for the feedback and your courtesy.It would be interesting to have an off channel conversation with you.You can hit me through my Facebook page,if you wish.

4/28/2015 08:49:27 am

But, Tara, the whole point of my previous comment was to point out that all of the people I referred to clearly are NOT dysfunctional. My personal experience is that the dysfunctional imagery is exaggerated by the media and then the assumption of the weird, 40-year-old virgin with a giant telescope in his backyard creeps in. Okay, maybe I'm generalizing here - but I'm using it to demonstrate that such assumptions are made, or embraced, by people who don't take the time to personally get to know the ones they assume are dysfunctional.

As I said, pretty much everyone I have met in the paranormal field have, like me, normal lives away from paranormal interests, and they, also like me, have families, relationships, hobbies, social lives, going out and hanging out on weekends, sports, having friends over, going to gigs, etc.

I don't deny the occasional eccentric pops up, but I think it's a sweeping statement to suggest that a dysfunctional factor is a dominating one in people involved in paranormal beliefs, interests etc.

"It would be interesting to have an off channel conversation with you.You can hit me through my Facebook page,if you wish."

Yeah, that would be cool.

4/28/2015 09:51:59 am

@ Tara
I hope that you are not a teacher, or don't plan to be one. I fear that most of your students would only learn what hopeless morons they are.

4/28/2015 10:26:49 am

Hypatia

We are making progress.That`s actually the first time you generate a comment which makes sense ;).
I am quite arrogant indeed.Life is too short,I am too young to be patient (outside my professional activities) and not old enough to be diplomatic.
And I am blaming it on the patriarchal nature of society (snark).
I work in an environment where men are predominant at 90 something percent. There is no place for candy girls.But don't worry,I'm not a teacher and don't have any plan on teaching.

4/28/2015 02:05:48 pm

@ Tara
Well, I hope you won't apply your philosophy on your children, your husband, or your elderly parents. Re-quoting your previous quote: "Two wrongs do not make a right."

4/24/2015 10:14:21 am

Clete, "profanity," as you word it, is my every day language. Why should I moderate myself and pretend to be someone I'm not? Of course, I acknowledge that a writer is ripe for criticism - my writings do get criticized from time to time. And, yes, I have a bad temper and aggression and that can come out in a debate like this. It's who I am, and I don't apologize for it and if people don't like it or are offended, that's just too damn bad.

Only Me

4/24/2015 10:52:52 am

Damn time traveling space lizard. :)

Rick

4/24/2015 04:11:01 pm

Websters publishes a book that can help you articulate yourself better than profanity ever will. By using that book you will be able to get your point across more effectively and will not polarize part of your audience and make you revert to the tired old excuses of doing and saying what you want when you want and not censoring yourself for anyone, instead of admitting your vocabulary needs expanding, and doing what needs to be done to accomplish that goal. It will help you in debates like this.

4/26/2015 10:08:25 am

Rick, I articulate just fine.

Dora

4/25/2015 08:48:32 pm

"Clete, "profanity," as you word it, is my every day language. Why should I moderate myself and pretend to be someone I'm not?" It sounds quite immature, and quite unprofessional. Unless someone is a teenager with problems of impulse control, any adult person should be able to control emotions to such extend that he/she will not use profanities in disputes. Public disputes are not some sort of domestic temper tantrums, it is time to realize that.

" It's who I am, and I don't apologize for it and if people don't like it or are offended, that's just too damn bad. " It is quite immature too, and has quite a lot of hot air of narcissism, to be honest. Those things can be made better, if someone is willing to work on it. That one is incapable of doing so, (as is suggested by"it is how I am") is nonsense. Public discussion requires certain level of communication skills, which yes, also means not using profanities, and not being so easily offended that one feels compulsion to use profane language. Reality check is good, this is real world.

4/26/2015 09:01:21 pm

Dora:

I don't, as you state, get easily offended. I get easily angry. There is a big, big difference.

Uncle Ron

4/24/2015 11:30:29 am

As for the Jason/Nick conversation: it's obvious that we are dealing with two different objectives in their respective writings. Jason wants to reduce everything to discoverable facts (the laudable approach in my personal opinion); Nick likes intriguing stories even if they include explanations that are (with research) demonstrably untrue or, at least, unprovable. You can't expect Nick to want to do depth research which would disprove or at least shed doubt on his tales. It's obvious from the repetition of themes in their conversation that they will never agree.

""Just 15% <of Americans> can read at the level of complexity needed to sustain the argument that an audience can tell when a fringe writer doesn’t mean what he says; in fact a full 1 in 4 adults cannot “locate information in a text” or make “low-level inferences” from written materials.""

It's worse. Check out "The Carbonaro Effect", a TV show where a magician poses in everyday situations, such as behind a store sales counter, and pulls off outrageous tricks on unsuspecting customers. Far too many people, when faced with an illusion which clearly violates the laws of physics simple accept the hilarious double-talk explanation of the host. Even those who are perplexed by the illusion don't seem to reach the conclusion that it was simply a trick.

4/24/2015 11:35:21 am

You're right that we will never agree, Ron. I'd like to think that a point made well might cause Redfern to see things a bit differently, or at least recognize that what he's doing is essentially telling campfire stories. Of course, the guy who tried to investigate the "truth" behind campfire stories got mad at me for discussing that, too... Nevertheless, I hope that by discussing this we can learn a bit more about how fringe writers assemble their work and what goes into the thinking behind the mystery-mongering.

4/24/2015 01:29:19 pm

Of course we will never agree!

4/24/2015 01:38:35 pm

Uncle Ron: I don't have an "objective." I just do what I do, when I want to, and how I want to. There's no big master-plan! It's not a matter of me not doing research. Note (as I said in an earlier comment in the other thread) in the Ant People article, I based the article on what the UFO people thought of the Ant People. But, in the links (where people could learn more) I linked to an article on the traditional Hopi beliefs. So of course I did my research, and I presented both sides of the coin in my article - the Hopi belief (via links) and the UFO theories in the text.

4/24/2015 03:15:13 pm

Nick- I didn't mean "objective" in the sense of a "master plan." I just meant that you and Jason have different reasons for writing what you write.

4/24/2015 05:11:12 pm

Well, I dont think we have differing reasons. I think we have a different approach. For example, I think it's totally fine to offer readers a campfire-style story, providing that's made clear. Take that immortality article Jason refers to. Had I presented it as hard fact that would be wrong. But I showed that it was a one source story, that no second source was found, that the source could have been nuts or a liar, etc etc. Now, Jason may feel that all those potential issues are enough reason not to publicize the account. But, I feel that if I hit a brick wall, there's nothing wrong with me putting the story in the public domain in the hope it might open a door. It might not. But, if it's just stored away in some filing cabinet, then it definitely wont go anywhere. I suspect where me and Jason differ significantly is on differing levels of criteria that make a case worth sharing with people or not, based on levels of back-up data, second sources. I have no qualms about openly sharing controversial stories online that lack second sources and that have hit a wall. It's the possibility that something may come from it that directs me decision to do that.

4/24/2015 11:27:21 pm

The issue I had, Nick, isn't that you told a story you can't confirm (I've done that myself) but that you didn't show your work in "hitting a brick wall." In what ways did you try to confirm or refute it? You leave us to guess and provide too little information for us to try ourselves. Essentially, we're left to evaluate based on your word, and that's not good enough.

4/25/2015 03:17:08 am

Jason, you say: "Essentially, we're left to evaluate based on your word, and that's not good enough."

Interesting, we may not agree on much, but that's the first time in a long time my word has been questioned. We're questioning that, are we? Some people may not like what I write or say etc, but I'm not a liar.

My "word" in that article told things as they were - I was given a story, the guy could have been a nut, it went nowhere, so I shared it with MU readers in case - granted, slim - that it might cause someone else to come forward (which it did not). You aside, it seems everyone else was fine about accepting my word on the weak nature of the story.

Mark L

4/25/2015 07:26:37 pm

Nick, do you never feel like you want to prove or disprove any of the things you write about?

4/26/2015 04:08:33 am

Mark, you say:

"Nick, do you never feel like you want to prove or disprove any of the things you write about?"

Well, of course I do! That's the goal of everyone in this subject. But I am the first to admit that some of the things I investigate, write about are extremely difficult to prove.

I can do my best to prove that Bigfoot is a Tulpa (which I think it likely is, but could be something else). But show me how to prove Tulpas are real or aren't.

I've proved lots of things over the years. One example of many, in 2006, I wrote a book called "On the Trail of the Saucer Spies." It included the testimony of a man who I called the "Sandman" who had previously worked for the British Police Force's Special Branch.

He claimed (with no evidence, just his word) that in the 1990s Special Branch opened files on, watched, and investigated, two British UFO researchers, Matthew Williams and Robin Cole.

Certain people in Ufology said it was nonsense to think Special Branch would waste its time watching UFO researchers.

Lo and behold, a few years later, Special Branch released its files on both men. The files reflected exactly what the Sandman had told me - namely that Cole and Williams were watched not for their UFO research, directly, but because Special Branch feared the pair were being used and manipulated by dangerous and subversive groups with political agendas and much more.

Getting verification like that happens all the time to me, so saying "...do you never feel like you want to prove or disprove any of the things you write about?" is fucking ridiculous. The above is one of many over the years.

4/24/2015 12:25:32 pm

Dear Mr. Redfern: if you don't even know how to do what a high school student can do, I'm not sure I can agree that you are in fact "a writer." I know an entire class of third graders who know to look deeper than you do for their five-paragraph research essays, and clearly how to better evaluate their sources for use. If you are incapable of doing those things, then you are uneducated. If you refuse to do them because you don't want to, then you are a lazy hack. In either case, you do not belong in the same category as people who actually qualify as real writers.

Of course, I fully expect you'll respond to this post with all the righteous, profanity-laced fury you can manage, so now I'm going to cheat you of your prize: you can't "hit back" at someone who isn't there. Having said what I'm going to say, I will not be returning to this post, so you can swing wildly at empty air as much as you want.

By the way, your profanity only proves that you're a hack. Real insults don't need profanity. If I called you a dirt-eating, fire-worshipping, chinless, beardless half-ape who needs to be barefoot in order to count to two and wouldn't understand logic if he got a brain transplant, you would probably drop dead of an apoplexy before you could get one word of profanity out in response, so it's a good thing that I'm telling you that I'm not calling you that, huh? I mean, that makes it 100% fine, right? You're not being deceived and misled into thinking that I was insulting you, right?

4/24/2015 01:40:39 pm

"By the way, your profanity only proves that you're a hack." No, it proves I have a violent temper.

4/24/2015 03:02:54 pm

I wouldn't consider that a selling point.

4/24/2015 05:16:16 pm

Jason, a selling point? It's just who I am. Nothing more, nothing less.

Platy

4/24/2015 05:21:35 pm

"No, it proves I have a violent temper." Yeah, that's probably not a helpful comeback.

4/25/2015 09:01:39 pm

"No, it proves I have a violent temper. "If someone has a violent temper , I agree with the other poster, this is hardly a selling point.

It is annoying how often people with violent tempers show very little respect to others, (for ex. they use profanities) but excuse themselves very easily, in a manner "this is how I am" and this kind of nonsense, expecting the others to put up with bad temper. Why?

4/26/2015 03:17:06 am

Dora, I'm not making an excuse for my temper/behavior. I'm simply being honest with people. That way they know what they get from me. I don't "expect" people to "put up" with my temper, I just speak as I speak and do as I do. There's no agenda of me making excuses or expecting this or expecting that. If someone pisses me off, I respond by blowing up. No big mystery, it's all very black and white.

4/24/2015 05:18:09 pm

V: after that tantrum of yours you should probably get your blood-pressure checked.

4/24/2015 05:24:30 pm

To be honest, you really should calm down a bit. That first comment on the board was pretty unnecessary.

4/24/2015 05:34:27 pm

Platy, Nope, I'll say whatever I feel like saying and whenever and wherever. Next!

JimR

4/25/2015 08:16:33 am

Mr. Redfern and Mr. Colavito, if we simply agree that Redfern is an entertainer/entertainment writer with no credentials which even remotely resemble true scholarship, then I believe that you could both agree upon, at a bare minimum, the right of each other to exist without damaging the public discourse or offending the tenets and standards of true scholarship. I pop the popcorn and put my critical brain on hold as I enjoy the entertainment value of Ancient Aliens, for example. ("Ancient Astronaut theorists say 'yes'"; that one cracks me up every time). The problem is that when a person (I strongly resisted the urge to say, "douchebag") tries to shortcut his way to a few cups of fame via face time on basic cable and The Internet, they attempt to leverage perceived credibility to future enrichment. Redfern and his ilk are a product of The Internet. In the 1970s he would have been relegated to the back pages of a comic book.

4/25/2015 10:52:35 am

JimR:
You say: "they attempt to leverage perceived credibility to future enrichment."
Nope! I don't attempt to leverage anything! I do what I want to do and if people think I have credibility or don't have credibility, that's how it goes; no big deal.
"Enrichment"? You're joking right?
And why resist the urge to say what you think? To me, that's a weakness.

4/25/2015 09:10:35 pm

@ Mr. JimR:I would have no problems with people who are what you describe as entertainer/entertainement writers. I think there is place for entertainment. However I have problems with gossip, for ex. Ancient Aliens program is not entertainment, it is kind of expanded gossip, the same way fringe theories are.

Dave

4/27/2015 09:30:48 am

Why did you put a dog a pony show on about a violent temper when you come out down here as saying what you want when you want? That's the classical easy way out of formulation of debating principals that logically follow an order.

You should really quote the 14 year old Facebook user you stole that line from "you can't judge me, I'll do what I want when I want". What a joke. Good job deflecting most of the arguments away from the waste of text you published and onto what you want to do and when. As if anyone cared.

4/27/2015 10:02:33 am

Dave, I actually don't think most people DO care - at all. And that's fine. My attitude and approach isn't to deflect anything. I spent plenty of time responding to everyone's comment in this thread (unless I missed a few, which may be possible, as I don't have the comments sent to me as notifications - i Just check in here to have a look). But here's my point: I admit I'm not the nicest person around. But I dont think of it as a flaw, it's just me. And if someone pisses me off, my anger-driven response probably does overwhelm the point being made, or the reply. But so what? The important thing is that between my rants and expletives, I still answer the questions.

4/27/2015 10:17:02 am

Dave, and when you bring up the dog and pony comment, that's ridiculous. I don't need to play games etc. And I don't do things to deflect. You are way over-analyzing what I'm doing. If people say things about me and I don't like what they say, I tell them to go and fuck themselves. There's no dog and pony, and no deflection. Just me firing back in the way I want to. And that's all.

John R.

4/24/2015 12:27:51 pm

Anyone been offered stolen Egyptian artifacts at Hawass' dinners?

Pacal

4/24/2015 01:04:18 pm

Hawass and Bauval have not been getting along for sometime. Although I didn't know about Hawass' idea of Bauval advancing a "Jewish Agenda". That is rather an unpleasant element in their personal dispute.

I do know that Hancock has repeated in the past the nonsense that in the early 19th century a British explorer had put some fake royal names of Khufu in chambers in the Great Pyramid. It is a standard trope among some fringe believers that this is true. Of course it is not true at all. The names are authentic and occur in chambers above the Kings Chamber that had been sealed since the pyramid was built until the early 19th century.

Hancock I believe has abandoned this notion.

Jamie Eckles link

4/26/2015 08:29:06 am

Why would Hawass even bother to waste time with a pseudohistory nut like Hancock in the first place?

4/24/2015 01:27:44 pm

Well, interesting comments!

V: "Lazy hack," "uneducated," Nope, no apoplexy, just amused! I can't even summon up one F word.

4/24/2015 01:33:50 pm

Yes, the immortality article definitely was the equivalent of a campfire tale (even though I didn't use that term). I fully admit in the article that it has no secondary back-up, the source could be a hoaxer or a fantasist, and it led nowhere! I made no attempt to suggest it was anything majorly important - just a story told to me and which went nowhere. If I had tried to present it as something else that would be different. But I pointed out all its flaws very closely.

...

4/24/2015 02:01:06 pm

Sooner or later Colavito will slander or defame a "fringe" author who has money.

4/24/2015 02:37:24 pm

First, it would be considered libel. Second, as minor public figures, such an intent would be difficult to prove. Third, Jason has tackled them all for years, beginning with Graham Hancock, and nothing has come from it.

Please go back to Scott Wolter's blog, so we all can enjoy the silence of your absence.

4/24/2015 11:46:24 pm

Only me: go suck Colavito, you know you want to! Or you already have.

4/25/2015 05:29:05 am

You do realize your comment heavily implies Jason is guilty of slander or libel and defamation in the past, but he's gotten away with it because no one with money has bothered to file suit.

So, it's perfectly okay for you to stop just short of outright, false accusations?

Does this stem from the fact 9.9 times out of 10 Jason has been forced to delete your rambling, textual atrocities posing as commentary? Or have you drunk so frequently from the fringe industry grog bowl that you think it's acceptable to suggest he's engaged in criminal behavior?

4/28/2015 02:30:15 pm

Only Me, I'm pretty sure you're dealing with an impostor :)

4/28/2015 03:53:49 pm

Yeah, and it shows just how absolutely sad this moron is. Of all people to imitate, why "."?

Judith Bennett

4/24/2015 02:07:54 pm

Hancock really didn't help by saying "shame on you" to Hawass. It's a fairly innocuous phrase in English, but concepts of honor and shame are taken far more seriously in Islamic cultures. I wonder if Hancock was aware of that, and being deliberately provocative, or if he was simply unaware that he'd inflamed matters.

4/24/2015 05:07:18 pm

From Wikipedia article on Nick Redfern:

"His 2005 book, Body Snatchers in the Desert: The Horrible Truth at the Heart of the Roswell Story, purports to show that the Roswell crash may have been military aircraft tests using Japanese POWs, suffering from progeria ..."

Kind of speaks for itself.

4/24/2015 05:31:12 pm

No, it talks about the specific Roswell crash as being a high-altitude balloon with regular, normal Japanese people. The progeria angle has nothing to do with what came down on the Foster Ranch. My Wiki entry is a total joke. I have no idea who wrote it, but it's filled with errors. It says I was born in Pelsall. I wasn't. It says I live in Dallas. I don't. It says my books are best-sellers. They definitely are not best-sellers. I'm not a feature writer or a contributor to Phenomena Magazine (it closed down a decade ago!). I didnt attend Pelsall Comprehensive School from 1976 to 1981. And I didn't start working for Zero magazine in 1981. I have repeatedly tried to have Wiki take that page down. No luck. If anyone can find a way to remove it, go ahead.

David Bradbury

4/24/2015 11:33:23 pm

"Education:
Pelsall Comprehensive School, Pelsall, West Midlands, England, 1976-1981.
Walsall 6th Form College, 1981-1983."
[from Web Archive copy of www.nickredfern.com/bio.htm ]

The Wiki article has much out-of-date material and some plain errors, but it just needs revising, not removing (which would be almost impossible as Nick has passed the test of "notability", unlike numerous other ufologists etc. who had articles about them created by "Arthur Warrington Thomas" [probably not called Arthur, but possibly from Warrington] ).

4/25/2015 02:47:56 am

David, that original link is not mine either (the .com address I mean). As for the reference to "Walsall 6th Form College, 1981-1983," I began work in 1982, so I certainly wasn't at any college in 1983, and I'm not even sure that anything called "Walsall 6th Form College" even ever existed!! I've never heard of it.

4/25/2015 02:56:14 am

And, for the record I have never attended any college, ever! I left school at 17, gave them the finger, with no academic qualifications worth a shit, no college, no university - nothing. Worked variously as a writer, fork-lift driver, van-driver, plumbing, and in the house-painting field. All of which is far more relevant than just about anything on that Wiki page!

4/25/2015 03:23:42 am

Curiouser and curiouser.
Do you mean that you are not the Nicholas Redfern, sometime of Garland Road, Dallas, who registered the domain name back in 2004?

4/25/2015 03:35:06 am

David, yes, that was where I used to live, and I registered the name. But the site was then given to someone else, as I'm certainly no expert in website design etc, who screwed it all up. and I wasn't able to access it as the passwords etc were changed, and it took someone else to finally be able to close it down.

4/25/2015 07:54:03 am

You're right, of course, about the non-existence of Walsall 6th Form College. That line in the bio on nickredfern.com appeared when the site started in 2004, but was removed in 2008 (presumably when your fellow Staffs-States emigré Paul Robinson became site administrator), at which time the next item in your bio:
"1983: Employed for 12 months as a full-time staff writer for Zero - a British-based music and fashion magazine."
became:
"1982-1984: Employed as a staff-writer for Zero – a British Magazine on rock music and fashion."

lurkster

4/24/2015 05:07:20 pm

Anybody who rips Hancock a new one is OK by me.

4/25/2015 08:31:49 am

David, Correct re Zero dates amending, changes to site, and Paul as admin. I asked Paul to close the site a couple of years ago (or thereabouts, I think).

4/24/2015 05:43:36 pm

"I'll say and do what the fuck I like and when the fuck I like!"
"Platy, Nope, I'll say whatever I feel like saying and whenever and wherever. Next!"
That's all fine and good, EXCEPT IF YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING RESEARCH! You can research whatever topic interests you, but you don't take the evidence you want nor do you come to the conclusions you want. Also, acting like that won't exactly help your case.

4/25/2015 03:29:44 am

Platy:

I didn't "take the evidence" I want (or even don't want). I gave people both sides of the argument: I presented the UFO theory in the article, but I specifically linked to articles that reinforced the Hopi beliefs, so that people WOULD be able to see there are differing views on the validity or otherwise of the Ant people story. If I was being deliberately selective, I would hardly add links that were totally at odds with the data in the text of the article!

And when you say, "acting like that won't exactly help your cause," so the hell what? Fuck what people think of my attitude. Jason said I am (quote) "...one of the most aggressively unpleasant fringe writers I've dealt with." I'm 100 percent fine with that. And that's not sarcasm on my part.

4/25/2015 03:41:48 am

David, When I said, "David, that original link is not mine either (the .com address I mean)," that is correct. Yes, anyone can see (as the official record shows) that I registered the website, that's public data! But that bio link I referred to is indeed not mine. It's littered with errors. Nothing on that site was ever done by me, because I couldn't access it after I made an unwise decision about giving it to a certain woman. Then it took a while to get it closed down, which, thankfully, it now is.

4/25/2015 12:53:39 pm

Gee, I was betting on you saying the dog messed up and ate the website; but it turns out it's a 'certain woman.'

4/25/2015 01:25:15 pm

Sarcasm. Yawn. Yep, bad judgement. At least the site is now closed down, which is the most important thing.

4/25/2015 08:38:56 pm

Shouldn't it be "bigfoot ate the website" in Nick's case?

Thorwald C. Franke link

4/25/2015 05:31:20 am

This is really a rare event. Usually, such a clash never happens, because everybody knows in advance what will come, so a personal meeting is avoided. The clash happens via newspaper articles, only. But this is hard. Here we can see which energy can be in such controversies.

Concerning the theft of the two Germans:

As far as I understood the case they did not take the sample directly from the cartouche and acted not by a plan but by an unexpected opportunity -- they did not expect that it would be so easy to have a private access to all rooms in the pyramid without any watchmen and just took the opportunity without much thinking about how silly they acted.

I never understood what the two Germans wanted to show with the sample, because: If they really could show that the sample was 10000 years old, who would have believed this? Such a sample is a proof only, if it is taken under scientific observance. It is safe to say that an Israelian plot with Mr Bauval would have acted more wisely.

Mr Zahi Hawass has a right to be emotionalized about the matter but exaggerations do not help, either.

4/25/2015 06:51:49 am

Oh, Dr. Hawass!

:swoons like a teenage girl:

4/25/2015 09:52:31 pm

Graham Hancock shouldn't indeed not use words lie "shame on you" toward Dr.Hawass. What an ignorant behavior! And than he still comments, probably in Dr. Hawass hearing range "shame for egyptology." If he wants to deal with matters and people relating to the Middle East, he should get some cultural brokering, in order to know what behavior or words may be very offensive in this cultures. Ignorant behavior, sorry to say, on Hancock's side. No wonder 0:31 Dr. Hawass says "don't say this word to me" ("shame")

4/26/2015 01:59:54 am

Entertainment is fine, but fiction should not be presented as a documentary on channels that call themselves 'History,' and the shows should have a warning that it is not a documentary, but opinions and fiction presented in a documentary form; otherwise it is a form of fraud on gullible audiences, which, as Jason noted:
""Surveys find time and again that the majority of audiences can’t distinguish facts and opinions, and don’t see a clear difference between, say, The O’Reilly Factor and the CBS Evening News, or Ancient Aliens and Nova.... Communicators hold great power to shape their audience’s attitudes and beliefs, and with that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely."

Nick's answer:"I just do what I do, when I want to, and how I want to."
Putting a footnote link to information that contradicts everything said is not balanced presentation, but covering one's ass.
And Nick, give us one example of a 'story' you ever presented, that you claim to have rescued from obscurity, that generated anything else than more tall tales or just repeating your story as evidence?
One out of five Americans believes that the sun orbits the earth. If one of those fraudulent documentaries were claiming it too and increased that number to one out of four, would you claim it a success and wash your hands off of any responsibility?

4/26/2015 03:09:44 am

Hypatia, no it's not "covering one's ass." Why on earth would I even need to do that? I decided to show both sides. It's all very simple. I dont write articles and think about how to cover my ass. I just write them!
I can give you dozens of stories. One example: Years ago, in the late 1940s, the USAF investigated the issue of Mikel Conrad and his "Flying Saucer" movie. I wrote about it, as the files have been declassified . It brought forward 2 people who added interesting info. Nothing amazing or super-important, but things that were interesting and took the story a bit further. One of them was the daughter of a woman who worked in Hollywood and had known Conrad.
What the hell does the issue of the sun orbiting the Earth have to do with me???

4/26/2015 10:06:22 am

Hypatia

You said: "And Nick, give us one example of a 'story' you ever presented, that you claim to have rescued from obscurity, that generated anything else than more tall tales or just repeating your story as evidence?"

Another example (to answer your question) that I mentioned in an earlier comment that I am copy-pasting below in case you didn't see it.

COPY-PASTE

I've proved lots of things over the years. One example of many, in 2006, I wrote a book called "On the Trail of the Saucer Spies." It included the testimony of a man who I called the "Sandman" who had previously worked for the British Police Force's Special Branch.

He claimed (with no evidence, just his word) that in the 1990s Special Branch opened files on, watched, and investigated, two British UFO researchers, Matthew Williams and Robin Cole.

Certain people in Ufology said it was nonsense to think Special Branch would waste its time watching UFO researchers.

Lo and behold, a few years later, Special Branch released its files on both men. The files reflected exactly what the Sandman had told me - namely that Cole and Williams were watched not for their UFO research, directly, but because Special Branch feared the pair were being used and manipulated by dangerous and subversive groups with political agendas and much more.

END OF COPY-PASTE.

So, what we have here is a story I published in my "Saucer Spies" book in 2006, from a source who refused to speak on the record, and who made highly controversial statements about the British Police's monitoring of British UFO researchers in the 1990s, Williams and Cole that, at the time couldn't be proved and some said was unsupported by anything credible.

It was a controversial statement, backed up by nothing but the words of an unnamed person. But then, years later, Special Branch's files on Williams and Cole are not only shown to be real, but declassified.

Things like that happen to me all the time, where a story that may admittedly be vague, controversial, and which might provoke skepticism because the source isn't named, turns out to have merit after all.

I can give you dozens of such examples, rather than just one. The idea that things I investigate and present go nowhere is way off the mark.

4/26/2015 12:55:27 pm

Good example, Nick, I'll agree with you on that one. But it is reporting on the claim that government agents are spying on individuals, and proved to be right rather than paranoia, and deals with reality: government agents have been spying on people ever since central governments have existed. I don't object to reporters who cover undisclosed source stories, as long as it is not libel or propaganda. I object to TV shows which pretend to be documentaries on 'facts' about Ancient Aliens, Big Foot, paranormal phenomenons, ghosts, poltergeists, giants, mermaids, etc for which there is not a thread of evidence and keep dulling gullible audiences. As Jason remarked, most people do not know the difference between 'Ancient Aliens' and 'Nova.'
Interviewing believers is fine and can be interesting, as long as it does not turn into a freak show, and studying myths is a field in itself. But neither should be employed to spread the myths. That's propaganda.

4/26/2015 02:29:17 am

And, may I add, investigating and presenting the truth is a lot more fun, diverse, surprising, less conscience-gnawing and not so boring for an audience as the same old same old 'the aliens did it.'

4/26/2015 03:31:16 am

Hypatia:

Of course I always try and provide the truth. I also feel it's 100 percent fine to present the reader with a story that is very controversial, but that lacks evidence, - providing of course that I make it clear to the reader it's verging on campfire territory.

Which is exactly what I did with that immortality story: there was one source, never a second source, could have been a hoaxer!

I said all that in the article to show the reader the status (or lack of) of the source.

If I hear rumors of something, I'll present it for people. If I have a theory that I personally think could be genuine, but which I can't prove is genuine in the slightest, I'll publish it (such as Bigfoot possibly being a Tulpa - I think it could be, but I can't prove Tulpas are real, any more than I can prove Bigfoot is real. But I think it is).

I also think it's totally fine for me to put out unverified rumors, in the event (large or small) that doing so might bring in new sources who can verify the rumor. That's exactly what I did with the immortality story.

It was a bizarre story, it had one source, so I shared it to see what might happen in terms of anyone else being able to add anything. No-one ever did, which speaks volumes.

But, I wrote that article to see what might surface. Sometimes, putting something like this into the public domain does provide me with additional info on something utterly unverified. Other times it does nothing at all.

Yes, my approach is different to others. I don't disagree with that, and I don't apologize for taking a very different approach to others.

4/26/2015 03:44:29 am

We can debate on all this forever and a day, but what it comes down to is this:

It is, of course, 100 percent correct to present the reader with a story that is proved and factual and with no speculation.

I also believe there is nothing wrong with providing the reader with a campfire-style article, providing that's pointed out what it essentially is.

I also believe it's 100 percent fine for me to put out my personal beliefs that lack ANY solid evidence, providing I admit I can't prove them (like the aforementioned Bigfoot is a Tulpa, or my belief that the MIB have paranormal origins - however we term "the paranormal" - or my thoughts on so-called "Alien Big Cats" seen in the UK).
My approach is different to Jason, which is the crux of this thread: Jason concludes my approach is wrong, flawed, etc etc. I, however, see my approach as being different.

4/26/2015 06:06:24 am

I never said your approach is wrong, Nick, only that you don't do what you set out to do as well as you think you do. I fault you for failing to do the necessary deep research and failing to develop a better understanding of the topics you discuss. You're too trusting of what other fringe writers say, and don't know enough about the underlying material to make your speculations valuable. If you want to write about the "controversy" over powdered monoatomic gold in ancient times but can't point to a single source from ancient times, the fault is on you, not on a difference of opinion. Even speculation must be grounded in facts, and I fault you for lacking a familiarity with those facts.

spookyparadigm

4/26/2015 05:03:10 am

Speaking of tulpas, interesting discussion of the intellectual/folkloric history of tulpas, and how they've changed meaning from their original meaning to how they're used in Western occulture (I don't have any connection to either the Monster Talk folks or to the guests, it's just a good interview)

http://monstertalk.skeptic.com/slenderman-and-tulpas

Like a lot of people, my first exposure to the tulpa concept was through The Mothman Prophecies, which is unsurprisingly not completely in touch with a more detailed understanding of the idea. The takeaway is that we have another example of a western occult concept (the elemental) being given greater "authenticity" by appropriating and warping a concept from a non-Western source until it is unrecognizable. Which for the topics discussed on this site is like saying "Dog bites man, film at 11" I guess.

4/26/2015 06:29:47 am

The trouble is, campfire stories are the sort of things you expect from hacks with some space or time to fill. Nick Redfern, on the other hand, is regarded as a:
"Monster expert" "paranormal expert" "UFO expert" "recognized expert in areas of UFOs, Bigfoot, conspiracies, and other unsolved mysteries" "real expert on anything he decides to investigate" [etc.]

4/26/2015 09:46:50 am

David, how other people view me ("paranormal expert," "UFO expert") is their opinion. I never, ever say "I'm a UFO expert" or "I'm an authority on Bigfoot." I just do what I do. How others perceive me is down to them.
I publish campfire stories not to fill space or time, but in the hope it might bring someone else forward who may know about it. I have consistently said that is my motive regarding campfire-style accounts, such as the immortality one that has been referenced at this blog. I get it that you take a dim view of people who promote campfire tales. But, rather than do it for pure entertainment, I do it to try and open doors - if there are doors to open. As I said with the immortality article, promoting it did no good and provided no more info (good or bad). That's the downside of promoting such a tale.

4/26/2015 11:31:02 am

Also, in the case of the "immortality elixir" tale, there is a more serious problem not mentioned by Nick, or any of the people who did respond to his 21 February blog. There is an actual commercial firm in Utah, selling "white powder gold", founded in 1998 by alchemist Jason "I tried college, but it didn't work for me" Davis (since sold). A Chinese Whispers version of that firm's publicity is almost certainly the origin of the "campfire tale".

4/26/2015 07:03:02 am

In the case of tulpas, the original Buddhist concept is, if anything, pretty much the opposite of the bastardized Western occultist concept. The whole point of tulpas is that they are illusory and that to believe them to be real is to be deluded. Which, if you know anything about Bhuddism, should not be surprising in the least.

I think Slenderman is cool, though :)

4/26/2015 07:18:59 am

Which is pretty much what the interview points out, though it specifically does so in relation to the Western occultist perspective.

It isn't my favorite episode of the show, as it gets a bit split between the more interesting tulpa discussion, and the less interesting Slenderman material. The format of the show is to get whenever possible actual experts on topics to address fortean topics, even if they don't end up talking too much about the fortean legends (their Loch Ness episode transitions after about five minutes into a more interesting discussion of actual evidence for how plesiosaurs lived). The hosts wanted to do a Slenderman episode, but about the only way in other than to just point out it is a clearly documented manufactured legend was to address the idea that it had taken on reality as a tulpa.

They've had one of the two guests, Joe Laycock, back on to promote his book on the Satanic Panic and D&D, and that was enough to get me to buy the book. I've only skimmed it so far, but one of the chapters near the end points out something regarding our previous discussions, just how many of the Satanic Panic mongers were straight up lying vs. interpreting the world through alternative eyes. That's not entirely the thrust of the book, but seeing so clear liars laid out one after the other was intriguing.

On that same note, and on the larger note of Laycock's thesis (that one reason fundamentalists went after D&D is that it was so similar to the shared fantasy of demonology they were practicing themselves), I've recently been following a thread about the idea that Bigfooters (specifically, though it applies more broadly) are LARPing, or as it is called here, BLAARGing (Bigfoot Live Action Alterlative Reality Gaming). I think some of the commentary in this thread is too cynical (s you know I don't see much value in the back and forth performance by both sides in a "skeptic" vs. "open-minded" debate) and underestimates how both individual belief and group dynamics can create a shared and believed fantasy experience. But specifically with the material aspects of bigfooting, some interesting suggestions are made. Just as it would benefit any student of modern ufology and ancient aliens to examine how the Victorians obsessed about faeries (ala Carole Silver's book on that topic, or for the primary material, Evans-Wentz), it would probably benefit anyone interested in how people engage in paranormal/etc. field investigation, to go back and read up on seances.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290442

4/26/2015 07:36:05 am

Oh, God! Don't even get me started on Victorians (and Edwardians) on fairies, it's the creepiest shit! (In addition to Silver's book, I'd recommend Nicola Bown's.)

I don't know Laycock's work at all, but a glance at a couple of his articles suggests that he is worth a closer look...

4/26/2015 07:42:29 am

I'm particularly interested in the science interface, hence Silver's book, but I'll keep the Bown one in mind. The big difference between the Victorians and fairies and the post-WWII societies and UFOs is that a century earlier, the fairie-ologists were inside the academy or at least in its more acceptable fringes (the seriousness that the "pygmy race" theory of prehistory could inspire is amazing). A century later, only a few isolated eccentric scholars could be counted actively amongst the ufologists etc.. Which is, of course, solid evidence for the efficacy of the Illuminati conspiracy to hide the Nephilim.

4/26/2015 07:47:54 am

...or, for the rest of us, the consequence of the rise of organized science and the decline of the horror that was the combination of antiquarianism and Naturphilosophie.

4/26/2015 01:01:48 pm

@ spookyparadigm
What is BFF ? Big Foot Fetishism ?

4/26/2015 01:17:15 pm

http://bigfootforums.com/

gabriel

4/26/2015 08:05:29 am

Mr. Redfern admits he left off organized education at the age of 17 and never looked back. What he fails to realize is that education without an overseer or mentor to provide intelligent and meaningful direction and feedback is a worthless attempt at scholarship besides a waste of time. Years spent mulling through trash articles does not make a person an expert of anything.

Nick Redern

4/26/2015 09:52:37 am

Gabriel, I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. I'm very interested in Forteana, and I write about it. I would argue that it's practically impossible to be an "expert" on Bigfoot or UFOs. You can be a collector of data on such things and you can analyze the info and try and reach a conclusion. But, how can someone be an expert on something no-one has proved exists?

4/26/2015 10:16:10 am

"I have never claimed to be an expert on anything."

So all those friendly people on the Internet who describe you as, for example:

"an expert in the paranormal"

"an expert in the field of UFO research"

"an expert at separating fact from fiction"

or, my favorite,

"an expert on how and why government agencies have, for decades, taken a clandestine and profound interest in numerous archeological, historical and religious puzzles"

are misrepresenting you? Good to know.

"You can be a collector of data on such things and you can analyze the info and try and reach a conclusion. But, how can someone be an expert on something no-one has proved exists?"

I like how you answer your own question just before asking it. LOL

4/26/2015 10:19:48 am

So... I have a question: Is it worth going through all of Nick Redfern's comments to get myself up to speed? Or is he just a less unintentionally hilarious version of Scotty Roberts?

4/26/2015 10:30:45 am

EP: Probably not. Here's the quick summary to get you up to speed: I get angry quickly, I swear a lot, I have aggression issues, I have no academic education worth a shit, I disagree with just abut every comment leveled at me, and I think I'm right. I think that about covers it.

4/26/2015 10:32:36 am

I wasn't really addressing you there, but if you insist you forgot to mention your apparently utter lack of humor.

4/26/2015 10:39:34 am

EP: Nope, I have a fine sense of humor. And it doesn't matter if you were addressing me or not. If you mention me, of course I'm going to reply.

4/26/2015 10:45:52 am

You just keep on keepin' on, mang.

Just don't flimflam the zimzam.

Dave Lewis

5/5/2015 02:41:41 pm

I enjoy listening to Nick on Coast to Coast AM. He spins a good yarn. I don't believe much I hear on C2CAM.

4/26/2015 10:25:44 am

What I'm saying is that people have wildly varying opinions. Someone might call me an expert. Another person may call me a hack. A third might call me an authority. A fourth might say I'm full of shit. What this demonstrates is that people come to their own conclusions.

Yes, I did answer it, because it's the correct thing to do.

I ask again: how can you be an expert on something that hasn't been conclusively proved to exist? You can't! You can be a collector of data and you can study it and, if you so choose, you can then write about what you conclude, what you believe, what your opinions are, and what you think may be going on. NONE of that makes anyone an expert when we are dealing with unknowns.

I'm not saying no-one ever could become an expert in Bigfoot etc. Of course they could. But you would need something tangible (beyond photos, audio recordings etc) to allow you to study it and analyze it.

We can't do that, which is why - at the end of the day - we are all collectors of data, people who try and figure it out, and present the data and conclusions and theories we have reached. And that's all we are. And, yes, me included.

4/26/2015 10:30:30 am

Yo Nick Redfern, I'm real happy for you, I'mma let you finish, but if you're right, then no one could ever be an expert on, like, deep space. Think again about what you just said:

"I'm not saying no-one ever could become an expert in Bigfoot etc. Of course they could. But you would need something tangible (beyond photos, audio recordings etc) to allow you to study it and analyze it."

Also, a word of advice. If you want to make yourself marketable to anyone other than gullible illiterates, go for "so bad, it's good", not for "stubborn and repetitive". You're not putting your best foot forward here is what I'm saying.

4/26/2015 10:37:17 am

EP:

Jesus, of course you can be an exert on Deep Space - it's there, we can analyze it. In the same way we can have an expert on Alzheimer's, or on why people get lung cancer, or why someone can have blue eyes and someone else brown eyes.

People in those fields are experts because they have solid data to work with - such as people with Alzheimer's or people who have lung cancer. Same with the Sun or the Moon, they are there to be studied and understood. That makes the people who do that as experts.

AGAIN: how can you be an expert on a creature (Nessie, Bigfoot, Ogopogo, Mothman etc etc) or on UFOs, when we have no scientific, hard data to analyze (for the most part)?

ALSO AGAIN: The answer is you can't. You can just be a collector of data that is unproven and possibly even unprovable and try and make some sense of it. Doing that is valuable and good but, as I see it, it doesn't define an expert.

4/26/2015 10:48:44 am

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Ultimate+facepalm_17894b_3394513.jpeg

4/26/2015 10:44:36 am

EP: So, you think that the people who read my words are, to use your words, "gullible illiterates"? Interesting...

4/26/2015 10:53:12 am

(1) That doesn't actually follow from what I said.

(2) If you're quibbling with my use of the word "illiterate", I mostly meant your work in other media. I have serious doubts about your written work actually getting read much...

4/26/2015 10:54:56 am

EP:

Congrats!!!! That's the quickest example of a panicked back-track I have seen in a long time!

4/26/2015 11:00:52 am

Confirming that whenever I point out logical flaws or express my low opinion of someone's work, I am actually panicking and backtracking.

LOL

(Also, in addition to needing to look up "expert", you clearly need to look up "illiterate". Which is kinda ironic, no?)

4/26/2015 11:07:49 am

No, wrong.

You said: "If you want to make yourself marketable to anyone other than gullible illiterates..."

When I questioned those words, you replied: "I mostly meant your work in other media."

Riiiight. Back-tracking then, back-tracking now.

And let's be clear on something, you did NOT use the word "illiterate." You used the word "illiterates," meaning in terms of people. Check it out, it's only just a few comments above!

4/26/2015 11:10:22 am

"And let's be clear on something, you did NOT use the word "illiterate." You used the word "illiterates," meaning in terms of people. Check it out, it's only just a few comments above!"

OK, I take back my initial reservations. You ARE quite unintentionally hilarious after all.

As you were, then.

4/26/2015 11:15:12 am

I am what I am, but I don't go around making sweeping statements about who knows how many people being "gullible illiterates."

4/26/2015 11:25:45 am

Good for you. Biting the hand that feeds, etc., etc.

4/26/2015 11:29:55 am

Nope, dead wrong.

4/26/2015 11:33:34 am

I see that your dialectical prowess is only matched by your scholarly credentials...

4/26/2015 11:36:33 am

Sarcasm...yawn....

tm link

4/26/2015 04:38:57 pm

So, you're angry, aggressive, uneducated, and manipulative. In other words, it makes more sense to talk about you than to try to talk to you...yawn...

4/27/2015 07:51:26 am

I mean... as long as you're going to bother with Nick Redfern at all...

4/26/2015 07:03:38 pm

TM: Angry? Yes. Uneducated? Definitely. Aggressive? Yep. Manipulative? Nope. Why would you want to talk to me? I sure as fuck don't want to talk to you.

4/26/2015 07:16:55 pm

Oh! He's manipulative AND dumb...yawn...

4/26/2015 07:18:34 pm

Something else, I don't hide behind a pair of initials.

4/26/2015 07:25:26 pm

Attempting to distract is a form of manipulation...yawn...

4/26/2015 07:27:13 pm

Not distracting. Besides, you do a poor job of hiding yourself. A very poor job. Do you not know what I mean?

4/26/2015 07:38:39 pm

Denial, followed by a vague accusation is a form of manipulation. The open ended question at the end is a very sophisticated touch. It attempts to sucker the target into accepting the manipulation and a change of subjet...yawn...

4/26/2015 07:45:12 pm

Not at all! I'm not accusing you of anything, other than hiding your name! When I said that you hide your name, but don't do a good job of it, I meant it. Jason assures the people who comment here that their email address won't be published. Move your cursor to touch on the "tm" of your first comment to me which begins "So, you're angry..." Doing so reveals your email address. You're now public. Methinks you need to have a word with Jason. Unless you are fine with everyone seeing it, of course, in which case you can ignore this.

David Bradbury link

4/26/2015 08:25:02 pm

Evidently tm entered his email address in the "Website" space of the reply form, so Jason's assurances remain valid.

4/26/2015 08:52:55 pm

Again, an attempt to manipulate and distract from the subject at hand by assuming I'm not bright enough to use one of my SPAM email addresses when posting to a public blog, and using that assumption to feel superior while trying to embarrass either me or Jason. Identifying info doesn't exist and replies to that address go into a black hole I specifically designed for junk. Mr. Redfern proved my point. He is angry, aggressive, uneducated, manipulative, and not very bright...yawn...better to talk about him than to him...yawn...time to go to bed.

4/26/2015 11:24:49 pm

Jason doesn't assure anything. My service provider, Weebly, is responsible for the policies and management of the blog comments software and coding. It works the same across all blogs powered by Weebly, and I have no control over it.

4/27/2015 03:04:24 am

In that case, good for Weebly!

4/26/2015 08:28:41 pm

Good for Jason. I'll sleep sound tonight knowing that.

4/26/2015 08:41:50 pm

tm entered his email address in the website space and he then calls ME "dumb." I'm not sure there is anything I can add to that, it's just perfect!

4/26/2015 09:03:50 pm

And, remind me, who was it that put their email address in the website box? Oh that's right: You!

4/27/2015 03:32:38 am

Oh my God. I made clerical error? At 3am? :P More distraction...yawn...

4/27/2015 03:34:03 am

Nope, not distraction. Just pointing out...

4/27/2015 04:03:05 am

yawn...

Joe Scales

4/27/2015 04:42:17 am

Though O'Reilly is obviously editorial in nature, don't pretend the CBS Evening News isn't just as slanted in its own presentation. It's just less noticeable the more you view their slant as reasonable; which was Bernie Goldberg's point.

4/27/2015 10:36:14 am

While Nick Redfern keeps saying how doesn't call himself an expert, he is refusing to say whether all the promotional materials and friendly reviews that describe him as an expert are misrepresenting him.

But what's a little bit of dissembling among fringe writers every now and again?...

4/27/2015 10:44:02 am

I'm not refusing at all! My view is this, so there can be ZERO mistake: I find it very hard to call anyone (myself included) an expert, when we are dealing with phenomena that no-one can prove exists, when we don't have a bit of "alien metal," when we don't have a Bigfoot body etc. I think those of us that investigate these things (when they specifically lack proof of any kind) are collectors of data who try and understand it, comment on it, and share it. Now, if I do a lot of investigations in one area (let's say the Puerto Ricah Chupacabra, as that's an area I have studied a lot), and I speak about it, comment about it, and offer theories, someone else may think I am an expert - by their definition. So, no I don't think they are misrepresenting me. I think they have a very different opinion to me on what defines an expert - or what doesn't define an expert.

4/27/2015 11:37:08 am

So, in effect, you ARE saying that you ARE an expert in the proper sense of the term (i.e., one that is in accordance with standard English, as opposed to your own unschooled pseudo-intellectual idiolect).

Nick Redfern: "I'm not claiming to be an expert because I use the word differently from how everyone else uses it."

LOL

4/27/2015 10:45:37 am

I mean Puerto Rican

4/27/2015 11:48:05 am

AGAIN:

How can a person be an expert on a subject (Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, etc) when there is no solid evidence?

We are people who study, try and understand, and share data on something that lacks hard evdience. Studying, trying to understand, and sharing, does not make a person an expert (and that includes me). It makes us people with a lot of data that others have taken note of.

Now, if, because I collect, comment on, and share data and the person who reads it thinks that my actions make me an expert, that is their opinion.

But, to get back to your point, if I think I'm a collector of data, and someone else thinks that makes me an expert, that someone else is not misrepresenting me - they have a different view as to what an expert is. Or is not.

4/27/2015 12:21:13 pm

A person can be an expert on the example subjects you list because an expert is defined as:

"A person with extensive knowledge or ability in a given subject".

The data that composes that knowledge is irrelevant; if you have collected, organized, shared or offered an opinion on data focused on the chupacabra, for example, you can still be an expert. It matters little if the data is mostly folklore. Not everyone will have access to what you already have in your collection.

That's the point, Nick. You can say you're not an expert, but really, you are...at least for those subjects where you've done the data collection, etc.

4/27/2015 02:34:50 pm

Nick Redfern: "I collect data concerning things of which there is no evidence. Therefore, I couldn't possibly be an expert."

LOL

4/27/2015 12:39:20 pm

Only me:

But this is where you, me and EP differ and we will continue to differ - I absolutely guarantee it.

Everything I write about, and everything that everyone in ghost-hunting, or UFOs, etc writes about, is theory without hard fact.

If someone goes to a doctor because they have blood coming out of their ears, and the doctor says, "well, I have a lot of theories why that might be happening, but no hard proof, and I have no way to provide hard proof," that person would probably not consider that doctor an expert. I sure as hell wouldn't!

But, if by studying case-histories that have real data (rather than unproved data, which is all we have) the doctor can make a diagnosis in a few minutes or hours, I would say that does make them an expert.

All this comes down to how people view what an expert is. And yes, I totally 100 percent get that there is an accepted definition of what an expert is, namely, as you point out: "A person with extensive knowledge or ability in a given subject".

But, in a subject like Bigfoot or Nessie, etc, the data has not been verified (in terms of it leading to hard proof of the existence of the creatures), so that's why I, personally, am reluctant to use the word "expert" - because the idea of saying you're an expert on something that STILL can't be shown to even be real sounds absurd in the extreme.

I would say you can only be an expert on Bigfoot when you have examined a Bigfoot and finally figured out what it is. Same for Nessie, Ogopogo, etc. Until, or even if, that ever happens, I prefer to be someone who collects data, does what they can to understand it, and publish/talk about my thoughts.

If you think that makes me an expert, then fine, that's your view. It's all about opinion on the meaning of a word and what defines that word.

4/27/2015 02:37:12 pm

Nick Redfern: "I won't deny that I'm an expert in the ordinary sense of the word. I'm not an expert though."

LOL

4/28/2015 10:17:07 am

The problem is, I suspect, that Nick is an expert on claims about unusual experiences, but, as he has been the first to acknowledge, far from expert on the reality behind the claims.

4/28/2015 10:30:27 am

Exactly! We may not have agreed on much in this thread, David, but that hits the nail on the head of what I have been saying.

Regardless of what the dictionary description of an expert might be, I'm not an emotionless robot that looks at things from a rigid black and white perspective. I have opinions and interpretations.

And, in my opinion, an expert is someone who doesn't just collect, write about, and present theories on something. I view an expert as someone who has proven answers that further our knowledge, and which resolve things.

We haven't resolved what Bigfoot is, what Nessie is, what the MIB are, what Mothman is - so, as I see it, when we are STILL struggling to find answers to ALL these riddles, how on earth can we be considered experts?

We're collectors of data who analyze, research, share, and try and make sense out of anomalies. That's all we are.

4/28/2015 10:44:08 am

You are continuing to exhibit failure to grasp the meaning of the English word 'expert', and saying, in effect, "Screw the dictionary! I'll use words however I want!" does nothing but make you look ridiculous.

But hey, you make a living pretending that there are mysteries where there aren't any, so it's par for the course.

Which is why there is little to no chance of you ever "furthering our knowledge" of anything non-trivial.

4/28/2015 12:10:55 pm

David:
"...Nick is an expert on claims about unusual experiences...but...far from expert on the reality behind the claims"

Nick:
"Exactly!"

And that is the point *I* was making. That observation, to which you agreed, Nick, is most likely the reason why you are referred to as an "expert" on various topics by people on the Internet. You are an expert on the claims themselves, but not on the reality/substance of such claims. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

4/28/2015 12:23:52 pm

David:

When you say: "You are an expert on the claims themselves," I do totally understand what you are saying. And I totally understand why someone might interpret that because I collect and share a lot of claims and I try and make sense of them, this might lead them to call me an expert.

But, again, I personally would take a dim view of someone who said they were an expert on something when the subject is primarily claim-based. Me included.

4/28/2015 12:30:35 pm

I guess the following really sums it up for me:

For me, to say someone is an expert on claims is doing an injustice to the word "expert" and to what I consider an expert to be.

That's really what it comes down to for me. I know the dictionary says otherwise. But, that's how it goes.

4/28/2015 12:34:38 pm

As per last night, tonight is a soccer night too, so I'm now gone until the morning.

4/28/2015 08:31:28 pm

@Nick Redfern
"If someone goes to a doctor because they have blood coming out of their ears, and the doctor says, "well, I have a lot of theories why that might be happening, but no hard proof, and I have no way to provide hard proof," that person would probably not consider that doctor an expert."

But, if somebody 30 years ago went to a scientist because they didn't understand how particles come to have mass, and the scientist said "well, I have a lot of theories why that might be happening, but no hard proof, and the best hope of getting that proof will be to build the most complex machine in history, because ....", that person would probably consider that scientist an expert, and add his advice to the list of reasons for building the Large Hadron Collider.

4/29/2015 04:11:27 am

David,

Yes, I do see what you mean, but again, it all comes down to one very simple thing: we have different opinions on what defines an expert. You have your view and I have mine.

That won't change, even if the number of comments to this post reach 1,000, which they may well do.

It's kind of like if someone asked me to comment on "my work." I would say: "You mean my books, my blog posts, and my articles, right?"

The term "my work" sounds like overblown pompous crap. It's just writing about the paranormal and that's all, not curing cancer or reducing global warming.

And I mention that as a parallel as to why I have an issue with the word "expert" in the field of Forteana - collecting unverified info on Bigfoot does not warrant an important term like "expert" being applied to the collector - in my personal opinion (this last point about it being just my opinion being very important, because it's the crux of it).

4/27/2015 01:06:40 pm

And, with that said, tonight is soccer night, and so I'll return to this joyous conversation in the morning.

4/28/2015 10:52:22 am

EP:

I totally grasp the dictionary description. I just happen to disagree with it! Are we clear now?

You say: "But hey, you make a living pretending that there are mysteries where there aren't any, so it's par for the course."

Wrong. I don't "pretend" anything. And what the fuck does that mean, "pretending that there are mysteries when there aren't any"????

Of course, there are mysteries. Nessie is a mystery. The MIB are a mystery. I write about them. There is no pretending. I just named 2 mysteries! Shall I add more?

I don't "make a living" from writing about mysteries. I earn around 30 percent of my income from mystery-based writing.

4/28/2015 11:02:43 am

"Nessie is a mystery. The MIB are a mystery."

How about Slenderman? Santa Claus? The Tooth Fairy?

"what the fuck does that mean, "pretending that there are mysteries when there aren't any"????"

It means either being extremely gullible and self-deluded oneself, or cynically feeding the delusions of the gullible. You know... the sort who still think Nessie could possibly be any more real than Godzilla.

Matt Mc

4/29/2015 01:56:15 am

EP- Say what you want about Nessie but do not bring Godzilla into this, he is an icon and does not deserve to be even considered on the same page as the "real" cryptids that people are searching for.

4/28/2015 11:09:16 am

No, I'm not cynically feeding the delusions of the gullible.

I absolutely DO believe there is "something" in Loch Ness. The plesiosaur theory is absolute bullshit. I think the giant eel theory is an interesting one, as is the giant salamander theory.

I absolutely DO believe in the Bigfoot phenomenon, but the "rogue" cases lead me to believe it's not just an unclassified ape.

I absolutely DO believe Bigfoot could be a thought-form, even though I can't prove - at all, in the slightest - that thought-forms are real.

4/28/2015 11:21:03 am

So you're gullible and deluded, then. Fair enough.

Sometimes getting a real education helps with it, though I your case I suspect it wouldn't have made much of a dent.

Hope you don't go searching for Nessie and find a Popobawa instead. No matter how much the sadist in me is enjoying the mental image.

4/29/2015 06:39:05 am

"I absolutely DO believe Bigfoot could be a thought-form, even though I can't prove - at all, in the slightest - that thought-forms are real"

The point I was making with my Large Hadron Collider comment was that, if such phenomena are indeed real, but none of them can be proved and no effective route to proof can be suggested, then the maybe researchers into those phenomena need to raise their game.

4/28/2015 11:34:31 am

Concluding that Bigfoot exists or that creatures in Loch Ness exist doesn't make a person gullible or deluded. It means I have studied the data and I think there is a body of evidence that is intriguing and suggests the phenomena are real.

You mention Popobawa, which for those who don't known is an evil spirit that sodomizes men and women. You also use the words "sadist in me" and you use the word "enjoying."

Dude, whatever floats your boat is your business. But, do me a favor: keep me out of it.

4/28/2015 11:37:53 am

I BELIEVE IN POPOBAWA!!! IT IS TOTALLY REAL AND IT'S COMING FOR NICK REDFERN NEXT!!!

AND THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME GULLIBLE OR DELUDED!!!

4/28/2015 11:44:53 am

"I BELIEVE IN POPOBAWA!!! IT IS TOTALLY REAL AND IT'S COMING FOR NICK REDFERN NEXT!!!"

That just sounds totally bizarre and even I am stuck for how to respond! Regarding the capital letters: I can practically sense your blood-pressure exploding.

4/28/2015 11:51:20 am

Hey, everybody! Look! Nick Redfern thinks he's "owning" someone on the Internet! More specifically, he thinks he's making EP "mad".

LOL

(Pssst: It's in all caps because it's an acronym.)

4/28/2015 11:36:05 am

"Sometimes getting a real education helps with it, though I your case I suspect it wouldn't have made much of a dent."

Finally, we are in agreement on something.

4/28/2015 11:39:21 am

Nick Redfern: "I'm so hopeless that even getting a real education wouldn't have helped me!"

LOL

4/28/2015 11:41:37 am

Why do you have a habit of putting an "LOL" after so many of your comments? Do you giggle a lot?

4/28/2015 11:44:09 am

I do it to indicate my amusement.

I don't giggle more than the average person. Keep your pants on, sailor.

4/28/2015 11:48:09 am

why do you even need to indcate to people you are amused?

4/28/2015 11:52:37 am

Because if I don't, the MIBs will get me. Duh!

4/28/2015 11:53:39 am

Yep, I do think I'm making you mad. In fact, I'm sure I am.

4/28/2015 11:58:54 am

Are you *more* sure of it than you are that Nessie is real? Or *less* sure?

4/28/2015 12:02:05 pm

Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that I'm more sure I'm making you mad than Nessie is real. I can almost see the clenched fists and the gritted teeth as you hammer out those capital letters.

4/28/2015 12:04:55 pm

Confirming that I type with my fists.

LOL

4/28/2015 01:47:45 pm

Harness your rage, EP. When you can type all you want to say with a single smash of your forehead into the keyboard, you have truly mastered the art. :)

4/28/2015 02:24:31 pm

I shall harness my rage in the form of a tulpa. Of a Popobawa.

You hear that, Nick Redfern? http://i.imgur.com/RSftySf.gif

4/28/2015 02:38:56 pm

"What is the point of reporting something you know or believe to be untrue without indicating its untruth? Entertainment, I suppose."

Jason, I believe that is the nicest way under the circumstances to call Nick Redfern what he really is. A writer of shitty pulp fanficion.

4/29/2015 03:31:13 am

EP: If I investigate and write about something I think is untrue, I always say so and I always explain why. For example, I briefly noted in a comment above that I believe the plesiosaur theory for the Loch Ness Monster is pure bullshit. Why? Two reasons: plesiosaurs are extinct, and they were reptiles, which means they would be regularly surfacing for air. With a colony of plesiosaurs in Loch Ness surfacing regularly for air, they would be seen all the time, not just the handful of sightings we get per year. So, if I were to write an article on the specific subject of how it's not true that Nessie is a plesiosaur, those would be the kind of data I would use to show it to be untrue. So, no I don't publish anything I know or believe to be untrue without giving a reason why.

You also say: "You hear that, Nick Redfern?"

Yeah, I fucking heard. If I start quaking with fear in my converse all-stars I'll let you know. But don't hold your breath.

4/28/2015 03:58:40 pm

So, Nick, you believe that Big Foot might be an ephemeral 'tulpa' entity, yet Bigfootian viewers I've spoken to (total of three -- very normal people, with good common sense and intelligence but with no scientific training) are convinced that Big Foot is a real flesh and bones anthropoid and were shown footprints, videos, noises, reenactments, 3D models, witnesses, how could all this not be real? They showed it on TV, and they have scientists and experts discussing it.

4/28/2015 04:36:50 pm

Don't you get it?! The scientists are also tulpas! How deep does the rabbit hole go?! ;)

(All jokes aside, in addition to not understanding what an expert is, Nick Redfern doesn't have a clue about how evidence works. Which is why his talk of "hard evidence" and such, being a desperate attempt to validate escapist pseudo-journalism, doesn't make any sense.)

4/29/2015 03:47:26 am

Jesus fucking Christ, how many times do I have to say that I DO understand the dictionary definition of an expert - fully!

My point (made time and again) is that I disagree with the definition.

An expert on Bigfoot, when we have no body? Ridiculous. An expert on the Grays of alien abduction lore when we have no body? Crazy. An expert on Nessie when we have no body? Stupid.

It's totally ridiculous to claim to be an expert in these areas with absolutely nothing tangible to study.

And as for being an expert in unproved claims (which is what David Bradbury discusses here), to me that's not what an expert is. It's merely being someone who has collected a bunch of unproved claims and who has studied and tried to understand the data. To me, that's not deserving of the word, expert.

And to me, that's an important thing: someone who calls themselves an expert should be able to prove they are deserving of it. Having filing cabinets of Bigfoot sightings makes you a collector of material who may share it, discuss it, theorize on it, and write about in a book, at a blog, at a website, in a lecture etc. I don't personally think that makes a person an expert.
For someone to say, "I'm an expert on claims relating to things that no-one can prove exist," is a fucking joke.

That's why I think it's crazy to claim to be an expert when we are talking about the world of the paranormal - a subject that lacks evidence, and is only supported by testimony and photos of various degrees of quality or lack of quality - which, again, is a good reason to remove that word, expert, from Fortean investigations.

4/29/2015 03:32:49 am

By the way, it's "Bigfoot" not "Big Foot." At least get the name of the Tulpa correct if you're going to comment.

4/29/2015 03:15:41 am

Hypatia

You say:

"So, Nick, you believe that Big Foot might be an ephemeral 'tulpa' entity, yet Bigfootian viewers I've spoken to (total of three -- very normal people, with good common sense and intelligence but with no scientific training) are convinced that Big Foot is a real flesh and bones anthropoid..."

My answer: Yes!! I already said I think it's a Tulpa, so why do you need for me to state it again? Doing so is a waste of minutes when I have already said it.

4/29/2015 04:26:12 am

In view of your tulpa 'Bigfoot' belief, do you debunk that anthropoid myth on those TV shows on Bigfoot?

4/29/2015 05:08:47 am

I don't "debunk" it. I explain why I think other theories, like the Tulpa, have greater validity. There's a difference.

The one hazard with doing TV is that you can never predict what parts of your interview they will leave in and which will get edited out, and how they can change shit around.

For example, years ago, back in the UK (probably around 1996/97/98, something like that) I was filmed for a show on George Adamski and I was specifically asked to talk about the history of his alleged UFO photos and to give his opinion.

So, I described the stories of how the photos were supposedly taken, where and when, and what they supposedly showed. And, then, I explained why, in my opinion, all the Adamski photos are faked.

But, when the show was broadcast, the scummy fuckers at the studio used the parts of the interview where I told the story of the photos, but they deliberately edited out the portion where I explained why the photos are faked. So, with a bit of skillful editing on their part, it practically looked like I was endorsing the story.

That's one of the reasons I turn a lot of today's TV shows down, because I know exactly where they are going and what the outcome will be for the person who appears on-screen.

4/29/2015 05:10:51 am

Re my comment above, I meant "and to give my opinion," and not "to give his opinion."

4/29/2015 08:03:24 am

Nick, have you come away with the impression Ancient Aliens has edited your interviews in a way that's similar to the UK show you mentioned?

4/29/2015 09:40:13 am

I actually haven't no. The main reason being because they want short, sound-bites, and it's very hard to edit a sound-bite because of that fact they are so short anyway. It's programs where the interviewer is looking for long answers that cause the red-flags, because they can be edited and chopped around easier.

4/29/2015 09:54:46 am

Thank you. I was curious since another guest, William Henry, once complained about how the show used editing to misrepresent him. Usually, if it's happened once, it's sure to have happened again.

4/29/2015 10:03:17 am

Well, I learned my lesson with that 1990s show, and that was one of the first I ever did. So, since then I have always insisted, with all shows, on talking only about things I am comfortable about speaking on, and that I can present my answers in sound-bites that are hard to alter and/or create misinterpretation by editing. I once had a TV show ask me to remove my earrings as they thought it would affect credibility. I said no of course.

4/29/2015 07:58:35 pm

Is there a Bentspoon tulpa?

Assisted Living in Denver link

11/4/2017 01:54:35 am

Thanks for Sharing

mustafagameapk.info link

10/9/2018 03:52:31 pm

I discovered your blog site on google and check a few of your early posts. Continue to keep up the very good operate. I just additional up your RSS feed to my MSN News Reader. Seeking forward to reading more from you later on!?

es file explorer apkz link

10/28/2018 11:35:41 pm

So, since then I have always insisted, with all shows, on talking only about things I am comfortable about speaking on, and that I can present my answers in sound-bites that are hard to alter and/or create misinterpretation by editing. I once had a TV show ask me to remove my earrings as they thought it would affect credibility. I said no of course.

Professional Custom Writing Service link

8/12/2019 08:51:59 am

Getting reliable and competent Online Essay Writing Service writing companies is no longer an easy task as most of the current providers are unreliable and provide poor Custom Research Paper Services that do not let students get high scores.

Employee Displaced link

1/13/2025 11:45:45 pm

Zahi Hawass walking out of the debate highlights the deep divide between mainstream archaeology and alternative theories. Nick Redfern’s defense of the Ant People article underscores the continued fascination with fringe history and mysterious ancient tales.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Zahi Hawass Walks Out of Graham Hancock Debate; Nick Redfern Defends Ant People Article

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives