Are "woo" researchers ever fully discredited?

[desertyeti]

Since Erik VonDaniken's 1970's alien pyramid-builders seems to have faded (mostly) into oblivion, and Uri Gellar's tricks are being done by school children around the world, I was wondering this past weekend about some of the modern-day "researchers" who are being avidly followed by many misinformed and ignorant people in the mainstream. There's a wide variety of con-men and huxters that seem to be cropping up in every corner of the paranormal world. But does their b.s. ever actually catch up to them and stick?

1) Jimmy Swaggart got busted with a hooker, and he essentially vanished. But now I hear he's coming back to some degree.
2) Pat Robertson makes b.s. predictions all the time that are constantly proven fales, yet he's still got an entire t.v. network behind him.
3) Jeff Meldrum's claimed that two hoaxed Bigfoot videos are absolutely the real deal, and tried to tell the world that an elk's body imprint is an ape-man's assprint, but he's still selling books on the subject.
4) Sylvia Brown keeps getting busted on Montel's show making wild claims about dead relatives that aren't even dead yet, but she's somehow paying the bills.
5) John Edwards is still convincing rubes that he talks to dead people even though his show's been yanked from most major audiences.

So I'm wondering how long this residual effect lasts. Are there any spiritualists from the 1950s or earlier, for example, that are remembered and/or followed today? Or does this kind of thing have a shelf-life, so to speak? Witnessing this country's current angel-, demon-, and ghost-absession, I'm afraid I already have my answer, but I'm just curious about what anyone else thinks. Now...back to coffee...

[Ersby]

As far as parapsychology is concerned, one or two: Soal and Levy are both considered largely discredited. And Sargent's work has a question mark over it after Blackmore's revelations.

I can't think of any psychics who've had their career ruined by any kind of debunking.

[volatile]

As far as parapsychology is concerned, one or two: Soal and Levy are both considered largely discredited. And Sargent's work has a question mark over it after Blackmore's revelations.

I can't think of any psychics who've had their career ruined by any kind of debunking.

Popoff? Didn't he file for bankruptcy after Randi outed him?

[kitakaze]

Would Beckjord count?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Some researchers may be discredited, but the topics will never be.

~~ Paul

[Ersby]

I find that quite interesting. In science, topics can be discredited. Ideas like phrenology and eugenics can have a period of popular support, but if the idea doesn't work, it'll eventually fall by the wayside.

In the paranormal, topics are hardly ever discredited. Even when reasonable explanations are put forward, or the hoaxers reveal themselves (take a bow, circle makers) the people investigating the phenomena don't seem able to let go.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Popoff? Didn't he file for bankruptcy after Randi outed him?

Yup, but he's making a comeback. Peter Popoff

[kitakaze]

I find that quite interesting. In science, topics can be discredited. Ideas like phrenology and eugenics can have a period of popular support, but if the idea doesn't work, it'll eventually fall by the wayside.

In the paranormal, topics are hardly ever discredited. Even when reasonable explanations are put forward, or the hoaxers reveal themselves (take a bow, circle makers) the people investigating the phenomena don't seem able to let go.I wish the idea of eugenics would fall a little more by the wayside.

[Mojo]

In the paranormal, topics are hardly ever discredited. Even when reasonable explanations are put forward, or the hoaxers reveal themselves (take a bow, circle makers) the people investigating the phenomena don't seem able to let go.It's the old "well, it may have been faked on that particular occasion, but surely some instances of the phenomenon must be genuine" line.

Another classic pseudoscience dodge is to claim that while properly controlled tests appear to show no effects, this is because they are somehow not appropriate to the phenomena in question. In the case of psi it is claimed that this is because it is "actively evasive". Homoeopaths are producing ever more bizarre excuses for not using dbpc trials to test homoeopathy, the most recent (as far as I'm aware) being "quantum entanglement" between the homoeopath, the remedy and the patient which is somehow undermined by the process of testing.

[Steven Howard]

Some specific paranormal or pseudoscientific effects do go out of fashion, but not very often. Off the top of my head, I can only think of three: slate writing (because nobody has slates any more, for one thing), ectoplasm, and biorhythms.

You remember biorhythms. You did some math based on your birthday and it told you what kind of day you were going to have. Back in the '70s they used to print them in the newspaper right next to the other "woo" features: horoscopes and Ann Landers.

[ObscureReferenceMan]

People still quote Nostradamus. It's the old "remember the hits, forget the misses" axiom.

SH - I think I recall people referencing biorythms on occasion.

[Miss Whiplash]

Verified by author Ray Garton concerning "demonologist" Ed Warren:

Ray Garton on Ed Warren's Hoaxes (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.ghost-stories/msg/4ce9a0178e6c2330)

I passed this on to CFI and Joe Nickell put it in Warren's obituary. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_30/ai_n16834252)

[Doc Daneeka]

You remember biorhythms. You did some math based on your birthday and it told you what kind of day you were going to have. Back in the '70s they used to print them in the newspaper right next to the other "woo" features: horoscopes and Ann Landers.

They were still putting biorhythm charts in some papers here until just a few years ago. Is Toronto some sort of 70's holdout?

[ponderingturtle]

People still quote Nostradamus. It's the old "remember the hits, forget the misses" axiom.

SH - I think I recall people referencing biorythms on occasion.

You just have to be sufficinetly obscure and vague and you never have a miss only hits. I thought everyone knew that.

[Sugriva]

So I'm wondering how long this residual effect lasts. Are there any spiritualists from the 1950s or earlier, for example, that are remembered and/or followed today? Or does this kind of thing have a shelf-life, so to speak? Witnessing this country's current angel-, demon-, and ghost-absession, I'm afraid I already have my answer, but I'm just curious about what anyone else thinks. Now...back to coffee...
I wish it had a shelf-life; unfortunately it just gets repackaged with slight modifications over time. Either the gurus of the paranormal continue their influence by "inspiring" the like minded (Von Daniken spawning the likes of Zechariah Sitchin come to mind) or their popularity continues, albeit somewhat diminished (Edgar Cayce still has his admirers), or their popularity actually grows after death (Mary Baker Eddy and L. Ron Hubbard seem to fit the bill here).
.....Same as the old boss.

[Aepervius]

are "woo" researcher ever really credited, except by media and the "folk" ?

[Comsat Angel]

I believe one of the Randle & Schmidt "investigative" UFO duo who claimed to be a physics graduate was outed as actually being a mailman. He was subsequently dropped, hot-potato like, by the other researcher. Sorry, but I can't remember which was the guilty party.

[carcharodon]

Now...back to coffee...You seem a tad irate. May I suggest a cold shower instead? Wouldn't want you popping a blood vessel old son.

[carcharodon]

Since Erik VonDaniken's 1970's alien pyramid-builders seems to have faded (mostly) into oblivion, and Uri Gellar's tricks are being done by school children around the world, I was wondering this past weekend about some of the modern-day "researchers" who are being avidly followed by many misinformed and ignorant people in the mainstream. There's a wide variety of con-men and huxters that seem to be cropping up in every corner of the paranormal world. But does their b.s. ever actually catch up to them and stick?

3) Jeff Meldrum's claimed that two hoaxed Bigfoot videos are absolutely the real deal, and tried to tell the world that an elk's body imprint is an ape-man's assprint, but he's still selling books on the subject.

Excuse me? Is it established and proven that it is an elk print then? Who proved this? Where? When? Did not Dr Darius Swindler also claim it was an unclassified primate? Did not Dr Esteban Sarmiento also give it plaudits? I seem to recal that every point you made on this particular subject over on BFF was easily refuted and there was some stalemate with neither side budging. Neither side had the monopoly of proof over the other. Hell, for all you know it could have been a clever hoax.

Soooooooooooo.........not making unverified and unproven claims are we Desert Yeti??? :confused:

It's an elk print? Fact? Because YOU say so? Why, as far as I know, you haven't examined the original have you?

I smell arrogance. Ooops, I shouldn't have said that. I should be quiet when the 'great Desert Yeti' is holding court. Oh well.

[LAL]

And what two hoaxed Bigfoot videos? Dr. Meldrum exposed Snow Walker. What other hoaxed Bigfoot video are we talking about here?

BTW, experts can be wrong, but only if they're on the other side. ;)

[Tirdun]

Yup, but he's making a comeback. Peter Popoff

:jaw-dropp No, no, no! Darn you humanity and your short memory!

CynicalSkeptic, you owe me a link to something humanity has done to better itself so I can restore some semblance of respect for it. It better be a good one, too.

I feel sick...

[Starrman]

I guess he isn't really a 'researcher', but neither are some of your own examples. But don't forget about that dorky telekenetic-phone-book-page-turning-ninja' James Hydrick. Who was foiled by the dynamic duo of James Randi and Bob Barker, and eventually confessed to the whole deal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hydrick

[geni]

Some specific paranormal or pseudoscientific effects do go out of fashion, but not very often. Off the top of my head, I can only think of three: slate writing (because nobody has slates any more, for one thing), ectoplasm, and biorhythms.

You remember biorhythms. You did some math based on your birthday and it told you what kind of day you were going to have. Back in the '70s they used to print them in the newspaper right next to the other "woo" features: horoscopes and Ann Landers.

Biorhythms rubbish is still around.

[desertyeti]

Who was the character that claimed to be able to form photographic images on polaroid film using only his "mind", but got busted holding tiny little pictures in his hand as he snapped the pix?
Is he still around?

[joesixpack]

Who was the character that claimed to be able to form photographic images on polaroid film using only his "mind", but got busted holding tiny little pictures in his hand as he snapped the pix?
Is he still around?


If he's still around, he's probably having a hard time finding film these days. Have you tried to buy film for your old Poloroid camera lately?

[desertyeti]

Good point...but I hear there's an opening for a guy who can mind-project into a digital camera...I should start practicing.

[joesixpack]

Good point...but I hear there's an opening for a guy who can mind-project into a digital camera...I should start practicing.


As soon as I made my last post, I knew someone would say that.


Nostrodamus predicted THAT too.

[desertyeti]

Spoooooky...:eye-poppi

[Steven Howard]

Who was the character that claimed to be able to form photographic images on polaroid film using only his "mind", but got busted holding tiny little pictures in his hand as he snapped the pix?
Is he still around?

Ted Serios! I haven't heard of him in ages. Wikipedia says he died around 1990.

[CynicalSkeptic]

CynicalSkeptic, you owe me a link to something humanity has done to better itself so I can restore some semblance of respect for it. It better be a good one, too.

Does executing Saddam count?

[carcharodon]

And what two hoaxed Bigfoot videos? Dr. Meldrum exposed Snow Walker. What other hoaxed Bigfoot video are we talking about here?

Pethaps he is refering to the Redwoods footage? I'm not an avid follower of Meldrum's every word (however much I have been accused of it) so I don't know exactly what comments Meldrum made on the Redwoods footage. I don't know if he actually claimed the Redwoods footage was the real deal.

BTW, experts can be wrong, but only if they're on the other side. ;)

Quite.

[LAL]

Pethaps he is refering to the Redwoods footage? I'm not an avid follower of Meldrum's every word (however much I have been accused of it) so I don't know exactly what comments Meldrum made on the Redwoods footage. I don't know if he actually claimed the Redwoods footage was the real deal.


He said this in Jan.,2004, replying to Scott Heriott:

"Everytime this discussion resumes I see that I really need to write up
this incident and get it out there. If I only had more time ( I shoudn't
be responding to this).

I can't comment on Scott's conversation with the owner of Trees of
Mystery. I have personally interacted with him and while he seems to be
working the angle like any entrepenuer, he struck me as otherwise a
straight-shooter. He readily supplied me with samples of hair he had
been given by a local, which we readily identified as bear. He provided
contact information for local eyewitnesses, and was otherwise spoken of
well by local contacts I made.

Look, I am not out to champion this particular piece of evidence. I just
get weary of people perpetuating inaccurate information. If the video is
to be rejected, then do it on the basis of sound data.

First, it was not a "Playboy crew" -- it was the crew of Adventures
Television. The hostess was a former playmate. So what?

Second, there is muscle definition. Jeff Glickman called them folds in
the fabric, but the "folds" are located along the line of the vastus
lateralis and the insertion of the gluteus maximus. Look at an atlas.
Coincidence?

Third, it walks like it just had a Thorazine milkshake? Where is that
coming from? In the initial footage it is striding away from the RV and
under ideal playback conditions it looks alot like the Patterson film
subject. When overtaken by the RV it reacts to the bright headlights and
glares at the witnessesbriefly before promptly stepping into the bush.

Fourth, "unexplained white lines on the base of the feet" -- As I have
repeatedly explained, it was raining and any smooth wet surface
illuminated by the headlights bounced back enough light to washout the
video image, plain and simple. The leaves on the adjacent bush, the
barkless tree tunk, the whatever-it-was at the crotch, AND the hairless
sides of the soles of the feet, were all washed out and appeared "white."

Fifth, wrong again, -- it did not walk twice in front of a moving RV --
It first came onto the road on the right shoulder some distance ahead
when the RV was attemting to back up and walked down the road away from
the RV around a slight leftward bend in the road. This is a narrow
one-lane road, btw. They drove forward to overtake it, at which point it
headed back to the right shoulder, toward the river, as the RV came to a
halt just short of it and turned on the brights. It was virtually an
equal distance to go right or left at that point and getting back to
the nearby river makes more sense to me as an escape route than going
the other direction. Going randomly through that forest off-trail
presents "momumental" obstacle, even for a nearly 8 foot Sasquatch (Oh,
and that height estimate was independently confirmed by multiple methods
on site).

Also:

"We did get the factory specs on the RV, interior and exterior. We got
the stading height of the cameraman. We could very reasonably estimate
the distance from the RV to the subject by recreation on site. Granted
there is room for error, but the margins are quite small given the
distances involved. The subject stepped directly behind a tree that was
clearly identifiable on site. There was an onvious knob on the trunk
that the subject's head passed reltively close under. That knob measured
8'2" off the ground as I remember (I have to go back to my notes). Our
triangulations based on foreground reference points and then background
reference points converged on 7' 9" tall. I am quite comfortable given
the distances involved, in bracketing the height between 7 1/2 and 8
feet tall.

For another perspective we backed the rangers truck to the spot, stacked
some cases and took a picture from the approximate height of me about to
step behind the tree. I was dwarfed at 6'1".



When people with cameras have sightings and film them, it's suspicious, but when people without cameras have sightings, it's suspicious because they didn't film them. See how that works?

[Steven Howard]

Oh, good. There weren't nearly enough Bigfoot threads.

[Doc Daneeka]

Ted Serios! I haven't heard of him in ages. Wikipedia says he died around 1990.

That's kind of sad, when you think about it. *The guy became obscure enough that even someone interested enough to write a wikipedia page about him couldn't*find*out*when*he*died.

*
.wysiwyg { background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: repeat; background-position: 0% 0%; background-color: #f5f5ff; background-image: none; color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal } p { margin: 0px; }

[joesixpack]

Oh, good. There weren't nearly enough Bigfoot threads.


My thoughts exactly.

I guess that answers the question posed in the opening post of this thread. No matter how many other logical and mundane explinations there are for whatever "woo" phenomina they're discussing, if there is an all-but-zero chance that it's aliens/Bigfoot/psi/Nessie/or 9/11 conspiricy, their belief won't die. There is no stake in the heart for these true believers.

[Ben Tilly]

Yes they do get discredited. It just takes a looong time.

Met any alchemists lately?

You can get an idea how long it takes by looking at a real example. For instance a century ago a big thing was sightings of fairies. There were sightings. There were pictures. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the author of the Sherlock Holmes series) was a very prominent supporter.

While there are still people around who believe in fairies, it isn't a particularly popular belief. Eventually it is likely to descend to alchemy levels. But it will take a long while. (And new ideas will inevitably come along.)

Cheers,
Ben

[joesixpack]

Yes they do get discredited. It just takes a looong time.

Met any alchemists lately?



Sadly, alchemy isn'y quite dead. There are still a few nut-cases around trying to distill "red oil" from urine. I guess that's one of the first steps in making the philosophers stone. :-P

Chaucer said it best;

"Their scientific jargon is so wolly
None can hope to understand it fully,
Not as intelligence goes nowadays.
And they may go on chattering like jays
And take delight in their chatter
But for all they’ll never solve the matter.
If you are rich, it’s easy to be taught
How to transmute and bring your wealth to naught."

The Canons Yeoman’s Tale,
Geoffrey Chaucer

[JJM]

Sadly, alchemy isn'y quite dead. There are still a few nut-cases around trying to distill "red oil" from urine. I guess that's one of the first steps in making the philosophers stone.
Chaucer said it best ...I dare say he did. What I wonder about is- if phrenology is really dead as I think it is (apparently, unlike alchemy); what killed it? I like to give Mark Twain credit for ridiculing it. Can we find another "Mark Twain" to take on today's woo?

[carcharodon]

He said this in Jan.,2004, replying to Scott Heriott:

Thanks LAL. I hadn't read that before.

When people with cameras have sightings and film them, it's suspicious, but when people without cameras have sightings, it's suspicious because they didn't film them. See how that works?

I know what you mean.

[carcharodon]

My thoughts exactly.

I guess that answers the question posed in the opening post of this thread.

No it doesn't really because some of the comments in the opening post were incorrect information. This is what has been pointed out. As you can see, the opening poster hasn't even tried to defend his original incorrect information after I pointed out he was wrong to state unverified unproven opinions as 'facts'.

There is no stake in the heart for these true believers.It would also seem there is no steak in the heart for these true scoftical denialists.

[hipparchia]

Biorhythms rubbish is still around.

I once saw a "lady" mobile phone which had a strange feature- you plugged in your birthday and it gave you a score on how good your day would be. The phone was also pinkish...

[hipparchia]

I dare say he did. What I wonder about is- if phrenology is really dead as I think it is (apparently, unlike alchemy); what killed it? I like to give Mark Twain credit for ridiculing it. Can we find another "Mark Twain" to take on today's woo?

Please find a new Mark Twain and ship him to Bulgaria. We had a phrenologist on a morning show on Bulgarian national television. I am starting to get the pessimistic idea that whatever woo has been discredited in the last 50 years in other countries seems to pop up in this little part of the globe.

Now, phrenology is a tad popular in relation to Petar Deunov. He is something of a sacred cow, a teacher of theosphy and/or anthroposophy in the first half of the 20th century. I am sad to say he was rated among the top 10 greatest Bulgarians (a competition based on the BBC model). His books are still printed. It's terrifying that there is a separate section for young learners. In kid-oriented books, young "occult students" are urged to study astrology and phrenology. It's presented uncritically as a science. In fact, criticism and asking questions is greatly discouraged by Mr. Deunov. "We are not here to find faults, we are here to learn," he says.

So, because Deunov is in the top 10, he will get the reputation of an irreproachable historical figure. His writings will keep poisoning young minds, especially in families who are hereditary followers and indoctrinate their children. The smarter ones will be in for a nasty disillusionment.

Back to the topic of woo still around: Von Danicken is still in print. Muldashev as well. We have the Bible Code fresh on the bookshelves. We have Sylvia Browne translated in Bulgarian, with more than 10 books. Carl Sagan: 3 books, at most.

Sai Baba, Osho are revered and printed. Edgar Cayce is being recycled all the time.

There, ranted and vented. And once again: Giving Deunov the reputation of Levski is horrible. It demeans the real heroes by including in their midst the author of a vacuous and unoriginal teaching.

[desertyeti]

Yes they do get discredited. It just takes a looong time.

Met any alchemists lately?

You can get an idea how long it takes by looking at a real example. For instance a century ago a big thing was sightings of fairies. There were sightings. There were pictures. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the author of the Sherlock Holmes series) was a very prominent supporter.

While there are still people around who believe in fairies, it isn't a particularly popular belief. Eventually it is likely to descend to alchemy levels. But it will take a long while. (And new ideas will inevitably come along.)

Cheers,
Ben


I know the ideas persist (my mother-in-law's a fairy-fan), but I'm not sure she could name the girls who took the photos of the cur-outs in the garden, nor any of the fairy "researchers" from the past. If she knew the root of all this nonsense, I doubt it would change her mind overnight, but it might get her thinking.

I guess it all boils down to if the idea's "cool" enough, then no matter what nonsense or forgery is used to promote it, and no matter how many phoney "researchers" get caught pulling hoakes (like ol' Gellar and his spoons), there's every reason to suggest that the idea or legend will continue. Sad really. Thankfully, no one has yet disproven the Easter Bunny.