Skepticism

Skepchick Quickies, 1.19

Jen

Jen is a writer and web designer/developer in Columbus, Ohio. She spends too much time on Twitter at @antiheroine.

Related Articles

24 Comments

  1. It doesn’t seem that preventing disease was the reason for marrying off the two 7 year olds, but to ward off evil spirits (sure, we can translate that as “prevent disease” but that could also mean to prevent crop destruction and a whole host of other nasty things often attributed to “evil spirits”).

  2. Re: $10,000 debunk:

    Debunkers don’t believe they should have to prove anything and that their words should trump scientific proof

    Debunkers have ignored the fact that man has sent space vehicles to the end of our solar system in the last seventy years and believe man is the only species in the universe capable of space travel

    Debunkers ignore all scientific proof of alien existence and when a real challenge arises the debunkers run for cover or try the old tactics of ridicule to achieve their goal of destroying the presenters. A close friend of mine who is a chemical scientist with an IQ of 178 had this to say about debunkers recently…

    wow.

  3. At first I thought it was satire, the article on the NASA photos. I did not think critical thinking skills could be that bad. It was almost like the were not only off, but the polarity was reversed and the lived in bizarro world where everything is opposite.

    Sadly, I think it is not a satire. I would say it could make for a good “Name that logical fallacy” section on the SGU 5×5, but it would have to be the 5×50 to get through all the logical fallacies there.

  4. Re: $10,000 Challenge

    “Debunkers don’t believe they should have to prove anything and that their words should trump scientific proof, but a new dawn has risen and now the debunkers must prove all sighting are not real or they will be considered real from now on.”

    A new dawn? Nothing new about this…they’ve always believed this.

  5. That nasa thing was confusing. They’re language was backwards. The ufo folks have to prove nasa pics are not real, but the burden is still on them to prove their photos aren’t real? As much as I’m not on their side at all, that seems unfair. But the story was so convoluted, and my brain cloudy, that its possible I didn’t understand the message through the nonsense.

  6. “Wouldn’t it be fun to hallucinate on your lunch break?”

    I tried it with the radio and ping pong balls. It was so vivid that I started screaming. I hallucinated reading an article stating that it is not necessary to prove that UFO’s exist, that it is only necessary to prove that they don’t.

  7. @Kimbo Jones: And “They’re” should read “Their” :-)

    “Debunkers have ignored the fact that man has sent space vehicles to the end of of our solar system in the last seventy years …”

    Someone beat Sputnik by 18 years?

    “A close friend of mine who is a chemical scientist with an IQ of 178… ”

    A chemical scientist? You mean a “chemist”?
    Is a “chemical scientist” kinda like a “scientician”? And taking an on-line IQ test over and over until you get a high score isn’t a valid measure of IQ.

    “… but a new dawn has risen and now the debunkers must prove all sighting are not real or they will be considered real from now on.”

    Wow. Just wow.

  8. “Penetrating Photographic Process” sounds like you’re shooting for a porn magazine.

    Anyway, here are two even worse links about Penetrating Photographic Process. It seems to be nothing but repeatedly zooming way past the resolution of the image while simultaneously seeing just how far to the right you can move the Saturation slider in Photoshop:

    Gosh, you can actually see the terrorists in the cockpit of Flight 175:

    http://retecool.com/uploads/mirrordir/flight_175_cockpit_9_11.html

    and…

    http://www.profindsearch.com/storm_ufo.htm

    – Emory

  9. A “chemical scientist” is a scientist made out of chemical. I heard that some evil scientists are working late in a lab trying to construct a new life form out of dihydrogen monoxide and various other additives. Well, that’s what they said they were doing.

  10. @ekimbrough: From your first link:

    The final image, and without doubt the most disturbing, shows what might be the Co-Pilot. However, we must stress that it is difficult to be certain of this because of the quality of the original photograph (on which the results depend on).

    I’m against thought control in general, but it should be illegal to be this stupid.

  11. Well, in trying to find out about “Penetrating Photographic Process” I’ve come up with nothing other than the UFO conspiracy pages already linked.

    It appears that you can pay him to perform this operation on your own photos. I’d like to see a blind study of his method done — have a photos of an object at several zoom levels to provide proof of what the objects actually are and send him a single photo with his interpretation.

    Of course, the results would be off. Probably way off.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close