Mirrored: 6th of March 2010, 16:30 Original: www.sillybeliefs.com Views: 62 Settings: Loading the mirror...
www.sillybeliefs.com | Homepage | Links | Book & TV List | Contact Us | Blog | Support Science Not Superstition www.sillybeliefs.com Blog Stardate 09.008 Ascent out of Darkness ~ Armchair Philosophy from the 'Silly Beliefs' Team Laughing at other beliefs I recently read a newspaper article that began, "OVERSEAS: More than 250 people in northern Bangladesh have attended a wedding ceremony between two frogs as part of a ritual to bring rain to the parched region". Why does the media continue to feed us stories of this nature? Is it for the humour, where we get a giggle out of picturing little frogs dressed up in a wedding dress and top hat and tails? Or is it to reinforce our superiority and sophistication, where we shake our heads in disbelief that these ignorant peasants still believe in such superstition? Perhaps both, but I suspect for many it is the latter. People want to be reminded that their beliefs must be correct because other cultures and religions believe in really silly things. They fall for the either/or solution. If other religions or cultures are quite obviously wrong then we must be right. It never occurs to them that what they believe might be equally silly. Do newspapers in Bangladesh report stories of tearful Christians prostrating themselves in front of a vague image of the Virgin Mary? Do the locals giggle at people being fooled by a trick of the light in the same way we giggle at the frogs? Of course not all these stories are humorous, many tell of hundreds of Muslim pilgrims being killed in stampedes or busloads of Hindu pilgrims plunging to their deaths into canyons. Any innocent death is a tragedy of course, but these stories go out of their way to emphasise what these people were doing when they died. They were on a pilgrimage to their god, and if you're not safe or protected when you're carrying out your god's wishes, when are you? Of course all this implies that since they were killed, often horribly and in large numbers, then their beliefs were obviously false. And since we're obviously still alive, safe and well to be able to read these stories then it makes sense to some to believe that it is in fact we who are being protected by some god. Thus belief in their particular god is bolstered. Every failure or highlighted ridiculous element of other religions is another reason to believe your religion is the correct one. Are these stories nothing other than Christian confidence boosters? Everyone with a silly belief obviously fails to recognise their own convictions as being childish or superstitious or irrational. Yet strangely they have no problem in recognising numerous real flaws in the beliefs of others, flaws such as conflicts with reason, logic, science and history. They can explain quite clearly and correctly why frog nuptials won't cause it to rain, why having sex with virgins won't cure AIDS, why killing albinos won't produce potent items for use in witchcraft, and why a god called Maui didn't really fish up part of New Zealand. And yet even though near identical flaws exist in their own belief system, they are oblivious to them, and they refuse to acknowledge them even if they're pointed out. They'll willingly agree that gods dressed in Greek togas tossing lightning bolts off Mount Olympus is just plain silly, but see nothing remotely silly in a god turning a woman into a pillar of salt. They immediately dismiss elephant headed gods as primitive superstition but see nothing at all unbelievable in a talking snake. They ridicule witches casting their spells but believe a man spread his hand over the sea and caused it to part. Their overwhelming desire to believe their own fantasy blinds them to its faults, flaws, imperfections and outright falsehoods. And this applies equally to all religious types, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan or Scientologist. All have this ability to consider their own beliefs as entirely rational while marvelling at the gullibility of others. Hence they all enjoy giggling at stories of others organising wedding ceremonies for frogs and following false gods. They could increase their mirth levels considerably by just by looking in the mirror, and by rereading their own stories with their blinkers off. Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Apr, 2009 ~ Add a Comment Send to a Friend Blog Index Return to Blog Index Healing with Christian Science Last week I attended a free lunchtime lecture entitled "Curing the Incurable". Elise Moore of Nashville, Tennessee, would explain about healings of "unemployment, a broken arm, earache, cancer and even a gunshot wound". Only the print at the bottom of their ad hinted at how these amazing healings might have occurred: Sponsored by the Christian Science Church. It seems that prayer alone can cure even unemployment. There were 22 people in attendance, and excluding a reporter and myself, everyone appeared to be members of the Christian Science Church. Interestingly no newspaper article has appeared but I guess it would be difficult to write a positive article about the lecture. Better to say nothing. It was in 1879 that Mary Baker Eddy founded The Church of Christ, Scientist. Or perhaps put another way: The Church of Jesus H. Christ, Phd. Can you imagine Jesus calling Textbookhimself a scientist, dressed in lab coat peering into a microscope or a telescope, performing experiments to understand how the world works? Why would Jesus need to resort to becoming a scientist to understand the world? I thought he - in the guise of God - actually made the place? We humans only need scientists because their bloody god won't give us the handbook. (Click on the righthand image to view a sample page from the new Christian Science Textbooks.) Like most people, I've always been amazed that followers of this church see nothing contradictory in the phrase "Christian Science". It's an oxymoron, as silly as saying square circle or heterosexual lesbian. Of course this name was coined back in the 1870s by a devoutly religious woman with little education, but that its followers in our modern scientific world still call themselves Christian Scientists and Christian Science practitioners without any sign of embarrassment is testament to their delusion. Though not uneducated they seem to be completely ignorant of what science really is, and it seems to play no part in their religious belief. They simply call their belief in healing prayer a "science" because they claim it has been scientifically proven. This just further exposes their ignorance of the scientific method. Their belief has the same scientific support as does a child's belief in the tooth fairy. In one way Christian Science is similar to that other religious cult Scientology. Silly scientologists believe that aliens called "thetans" living in our brains cause our health problems, especially our psychological problems, whereas Christian Scientists believe "false beliefs are the procuring cause of all sin and disease." (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures). It's all in the mind evidently. Scientologists believe that once you rid yourself of these thetans then good health returns, and likewise Christian Scientists believe that simply ridding yourself of false beliefs will cure you of anything - cancer, bullet wounds and unemployment. Scientologists call this mind altering procedure auditing, whereas Christian Scientists simply call it praying, but both believe that returning the mind to its perfect state will cure its owner. Both are deluded. Put simply, Christian Scientists are just a bunch of ineffectual faith healers. They shun medical treatment and believe that praying to Jesus aka God will rectify all problems one might have in life. They are primarily concerned with the health of the human body, but believe prayer can improve anything and everything. As the list above shows, even your employment status can be healed. Thus the entire lecture was used to explain how one can pray more effectively. We learnt about the different 'machete' and 'helicopter' methods of prayer. One especially silly prayer was this: "If it's true for God, then it's true for you. If it's not true for God, then it's not true for you." This prayer can be used for all manner of complaints. For example, if you suddenly find you've been stabbed with a large kitchen knife, you ask yourself this: Is it true that God has a large kitchen knife protruding from his chest? Answer: No. Therefore if it's not true for God then it's not true for me. Thus I do not have a large kitchen knife protruding from my chest. Keep saying this prayer over and over until the problem disappears. End of medical problem. While this particular example wasn't offered at the lecture, it is valid. There is no cut off point where you skip prayer and immediately seek medical treatment. Prayer cures EVERYTHING. It should be noted that the Christian Science Church doesn't specifically forbid its members from seeking medical advice or treatment, unlike some other Christian sects, but it certainly doesn't recommend it as a first option. Unfortunately many members are unlikely ever to take up this option due to their blind commitment to prayer and their belief that medicine and doctors are ineffectual and may even cause illness rather than cure it. Also seeking medical treatment would alienate them from the church, and possibly family and friends. This has resulted in many, especially children who have no voice, suffering and even dying of preventable and curable conditions. Although the Christian Science Church is opposed to demonstrating that their health regime through prayer actually works, a few independent studies have shown that Christian Scientists actually have shorter live spans and catch more diseases than others, due to their opposition to vaccination, immunisation, and quarantine for contagious diseases. They don't believe in germs. Remember it's all in the mind. This is where their ignorance actually impacts on all of us, since they contribute to the spread of infectious diseases. But what is praying anyway? Isn't it just wishful thinking or outright begging? Supposedly their God knows everything and is everywhere at once, so why would you have to tell him you have cancer? Does he eventually get sick of your continual pleading and begging and snap, "OK, OK. Enough already. I'll cure your bloody cancer. Just stop bothering me. I've got a universe to run." What happens when two opposing sports teams or armies, all devout Christians, both plead for victory? Who does He choose? Does He flick a coin? And hasn't God got our whole future planned out already, Armageddon and all that stuff? Isn't everything unfolding as He planned? Wasn't the extinction of the dinosaurs, the Black Death and WWII all part of His plan? Surely someone's cancer or unemployment is planned too, and why would God alter His plan to find someone a job and not lift a finger to stop the Holocaust? Why would God suspend or momentarily alter the laws of physics to instantly mend a broken arm - which will heal naturally anyway - but turn a blind eye to all those little altar boys being raped by His priests, and praying for his help? The arrogance of people who pray amazes me, that they believe that they can make an all-powerful, all-knowing God change his mind. That the sophistication of their argument or sincerity of their prayer or outright grovelling will cause him to change reality to suit their prayer. To make the world the way they would like it to be. For Christ's sake, grow up!! Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 30 Mar, 2009 ~ Add a Comment Send to a Friend Blog Index Return to Blog Index Comments: 1. Comment by Bob, 01 Apr, 2009 I haven't particularly studied Christian Science but have read a little. I understood that Christian Scientists are slightly healthier on average than the rest of us. The reason is they prohibit their members from smoking and using alcohol. They eat healthily, in fact do what we all should be doing. However I get angry when I hear of any group rejecting immunisation. I am old enough to remember polio and tuberculosis. I remember the little kids with leg braces. I remember TB sanatoriums. There are often comments on the number of children buried in old graveyards. Most of these died of infections. If I was in government I would deny social welfare to any parent or parents who decline to have their kids immunised. As much as I believe in democracy and personal freedom I also believe in personal responsibility. 2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 01 Apr, 2009 I'm with you Bob. You might find the following articles interesting. They comment on the health of Christian Scientists. This article states that "Gale Wilson was an autopsy surgeon for the coroner in King County, Washington, USA who studied death records in that county from 1935-1955. He (or she) found that Christian Scientists tended to die at a slightly earlier age than non-Christian scientists; that the cancer death rate for Christian Scientists was twice the national average, and that at least 6% of Christian Science deaths were medically preventable." In this article "Two studies suggest that Christian Scientists who rarely consult doctors pay a high price for avoiding medical care. The first study, study published in 1989, compared alumni records from Principia College, a Christian Science school in Elsah, Illinois, with records from the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas. Even though Christian Science tenets forbid the use of alcohol and tobacco, the death rates among those who had graduated from Principia between 1934 and 1948 were higher than those of their University of Kansas counterparts (26.2% vs. 20.9% in men, and 11.3% vs. 9.9% in women). The second study compared Christian Scientists and Seventh-day Adventists (who also are admonished to abstain from cigarettes and alcohol but use scientifically oriented medical care) and found even greater differences in the death rates." This page describes some unfortunate victims of Christian Scientists. Promoting Creationism Why is that in the 21st century do we still have creationists? In a letter to the editor last week in the Otago Daily Times (Mar 20), Gordon Miller wished that science would stop "speculating" about life and the universe and simply accept that God the Creator is the answer for everything, that we should "accept the real and satisfying evidence both in nature and in Scripture of a special creation". But we've already tried religion, and it didn't work. It seems Mr Miller was born several centuries too late. He claimed that many scientists are rejecting evolution, which is as misleading and demonstrably false as if I was to claim many scientists now think the earth is flat. He attempted to mislead the layperson by distorting the facts of evolution, providing confused descriptions derived from books on religion rather than science. It's obvious from the phrases Miller uses that his arguments come from creationists, not scientists. He talks about "molecules to man evolution", DNA, chance and the "mathematically impossible" nature of evolution, yet no real scientist believes that random molecules in some primordial soup simply joined together by chance to make man. It's the same silly argument as the 747 junkyard story, that a hurricane going through an aircraft junkyard, throwing parts every which way, wouldn't by chance leave a working 747 in its wake. Everyone realises that this would be nigh on impossible, and if humans were supposedly formed in this same random fashion, then obviously evolution is wrong. Or would be if this were what evolution actually claimed, but of course it doesn't. But then those who can't see flaws in stories about talking animals can't really be expected to understand evolution. His first problem is that he believes the Bible is actually true, fact not fiction. His second problem - and that of all creationists - is that he mistakenly expects to understand science by reading Scripture, which tells us of a universe that was made in six days by an invisible fairy some 10,000 years ago. Life, among which were two nudists and a talking snake, was created instantaneously on a flat world in the middle of this universe, and all these feats were performed merely by uttering phrases such as 'Let there be light'. We learn that dinosaurs and saber tooth cats lived alongside man al la The Flintstones but were deliberately slaughtered by this deranged fairy in a worldwide flood, destroying all life bar an old sycophant, his family and their boat load of numerous pets. We're told about the sea parting on command, men returning from the dead, the sun stopping in the sky and stars falling to earth. We're told that bats are birds and hail is kept in storerooms. We read about a virgin giving birth to a man who could make nice garden furniture, walk on water, instantly clone fish and bread and magically turn water into wine. We read that this deranged sky fairy is the man's father but that he has nothing to do with the child until a planned meeting some three decades later, which goes horribly wrong. The fairy suffers another outburst and has his son beaten and executed, supposedly on the pretence of teaching the rest of us a lesson. Christians now live with the fear that if they misbehave again he'll slaughter another one of his children. All these "facts" derived from Scripture have kept mankind ignorant for thousands of years. In addition to ignorance about the real world, relying on Scripture has given us intolerance, inquisitions, crusades, witch burnings, pogroms and pedophile priests, whereas accepting science as a description of reality has put us on the path to true knowledge, and to increased equality and tolerance. Not to mention men on the moon and rovers on Mars, antibiotics, safer childbirth, a greatly increased lifespan and the abolition of both fairies at the bottom of the garden and big ones in the sky. We'll stick with the proven success of science and if we want a book with magic in it, then we'll read Harry Potter. Creationists should have gone the way of the dodo by now, but still they persist. Is the ODT itself one reason we still have them and their silly belief? Even though their letter limit is 150 words, Miller was permitted around 350 words to promote his creationism, whereas letters challenging his nonsense were much shorter, the first 196 words and the next three abridged by the editor down to 105, 88 and 132 words respectively. Then we get a convoluted letter supporting creationism by the use of mathematics, which the editor didn't abridge, publishing around 345 words. Does someone in the ODT have a creationist agenda, happily publishing against its own rules the full unabridged text of letters promoting creationism while editing and watering down those that try to support evolution? I would ask them but like most spineless newspaper editors they refuse to "enter into discussion about selection or editing". Creationists are people who steadfastly refuse to enter the 21st century. Yet they have no chance of convincing scientists that religion is true and science is false, that's why all their effort is put into placing their bogus arguments in front of laypeople, the general public. That's why they publish letters in newspapers, magazines and books read by laypeople, and why they don't publish articles in scientific journals. That's why they spend their time sending their promotional material to schools and politicians and not to scientists. They may convince someone's granny or an eight-year-old or some uneducated shift worker that evolution doesn't make sense, but these same people probably believe in vampires, homeopathy and the healing power of crystals as well. Conning them into believing one more silly thing requires no great effort. Creationists just want others to share their delusion with them. Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 27 Mar, 2009 ~ Add a Comment Send to a Friend Blog Index Return to Blog Index Comments: 1. Comment by Bob, 04 Apr, 2009 Mr. Miller doesn't want to think preferring to have simple certainties. Some years ago now when Paul Holmes had the 7 O'clock slot on TV1 a small fundamentalist group in the South Island made astounding claims. During their services gold dust floated down covering them and their prayer books. They claimed a 13 year old girl had rotting teeth which were miraculously repaired through prayer giving her a perfect set. Holmes, an atheist, picked up on it and invited the church leader into the studio. He asked him for some gold samples but none were forthcoming. Holmes pointed out fine dust must have settled in their clothes and books but no it didn't survive outside the door. Then Holmes questioned him about the girl. He asked if he could have the girl's teeth examined which was agreed. A dental nurse did the examination comparing them with the chart of bad teeth. It appeared the bad teeth were the girl's baby teeth. When her new ones grew they were perfect. The leader had the grace to admit he was wrong feeling very embarrassed. A woman member of the church was upset saying claims of what happened in church should never be questioned. If Miller had his way there would be a lot of stuff like this because no one would do the investigation to rubbish it. Just as a matter of interest I think science is getting to the point of outdoing Jesus in miracles. Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and himself. Putting the Resurrection aside think how many people medical science has raised from the dead. Everyday people clinically dead are revived. Research is going on now to find how to turn on DNA in the body to become active and start growing new limbs and other body parts. I have little doubt it will succeed. Jesus wasn't reported as miraculously replacing arms and legs. 2. Comment by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 04 Apr, 2009 Yes Bob, I do remember that Holmes show about the gold and the teeth. And there is a law that stops us questioning the church, as that woman wished. It's called blasphemy. I think Britain had it struck from their law books recently, we should do the same. And you're right, science is starting to outdo Jesus. It is this blatant success of science that will cause more people to reject religion than anything else. Religulous - The Movie To steal a cliche from the film critics: If you only see one movie this year, Religulous should be that movie. Religulous It's very funny and enlightening. You can laugh and learn something at the same time. This is how the DVD blurb describes the movie: "In this new comedy from director Larry Charles (Borat, Seinfeld), comedian and TV host Bill Maher... takes a pilgrimage across the globe on a mind-opening journey into the ultimate taboo: questioning religion. Meeting the high and low from different religions, Maher simply asks questions, like "Why is faith good?" "Why doesn't an all-powerful God speak to us directly?" and "How can otherwise rational people believe in a talking snake?" For anyone who's even a little spiritually curious, this divine entertainment will deepen your faith... in comedy!" Maher interviews Christians, Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons etc and lets them explain and defend their faith in their own words. In doing so they unwittingly demonstrate just how little they really know and just how little they've thought about their religion. If Maher had simply told us some of the ridiculous things religious people believe, we would have thought, 'Don't be silly, no one could be that stupid or that naive or that ignorant', but hearing these silly statements come out of their own mouths makes one realise just how ignorant and deluded most religious believers are. Often their belief rests on claims that are demonstrably false and their depth of knowledge of their faith is wafer thin. They were given a religion as a child and their knowledge of it remains at a child's level. A not very bright child. While many of the funny bits naturally come from Maher and the editing in of various images to highlight certain comments, the real strength of the movie comes from the comments of the interviewees themselves. They do untold damage to their various religions and their own credibility. It just goes to show that if you force a religious believer to focus on specific questions rather than just letting them waffle on with vague statements or feel good promises - God works in mysterious ways or God loves you - they soon demonstrate that their religious faith is as well thought out as their belief in Santa Claus was. Here's one example from the movie of a Christian fundamentalist who was also a US Senator unwittingly making a fool of himself. Bill asked him something along the lines of: "It scares me when senators such as yourself, who are almost running this country, say they believe in talking snakes. I don't understand how intelligent people can believe things like that." "Hey, no one said you had to pass an IQ test to become a senator." The ODT had an excellent write up on the movie: Bill Maher slaughters some sacred cows As for the movie title, since Religulous appears to rhyme with ridiculous, I'm guessing it's a play on statements such as 'religion is ridiculous' and 'Its ridiculous to be religious'. Religulous is screening as part of the World Cinema Showcase 2009 in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin during March and April. For those of you that don't live in these cities, my commiseration. You'll be missing a great movie. I went and saw the movie in Dunedin and would go back and watch it again but unfortunately I will be in Invercargill and petrol isn't cheap. But I definitely will watch this movie again. One hopes that it will be picked up by the regular movie theatres, and that a TV channel might eventually screen it. But I won't hold my breath. Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 20 Mar, 2009 ~ Add a Comment Send to a Friend Blog Index Return to Blog Index Feng shui and safer driving Yesterday I heard an announcer on one of our ubiquitous commercial radio stations - The Breeze I believe - tell us how we should use feng shui to pick the colour of our next car. She was relating an article she had read in Saturday's ODT. According to Melbourne-based feng shui practitioner Nadia Lapaduia-Merino, green cars are going to be the new black. Evidently "every 20 years was represented by a number, which in turn was represented by a particular element and its corresponding colour". This reality challenged person reckons feng shui forces have a "subconscious effect on the colour choices people make". "It sort of reflects the overall consciousness level of people," she claims. She provided a formula and chart that allows us all to pick our own "good fortune" colour - based on the year one was born - which if we pick a car of this colour will evidently prevent accidents and considerably reduce our vehicle maintenance bills. Yeah right, sure it will. What would make a green car safe and cheap to own this year, but not last year? Of course certain colours do improve vehicle visibility and hence make them safer. However the present popularity of grey, black, silver and other asphalt coloured cars that blend into the road under certain lighting conditions are just what we shouldn't be driving. But according to this feng shui expert these have been the safe cars to drive up until now. But now it's green. What's changed in the world? Nothing has physically changed, the environment that we drive through is the same and our eyes respond in the same way to different colours. So why would I be safer in a green car, a car that now tries to blend into the lush green paddocks of Southland, imagining it's an army tank on manoeuvres? Why aren't fire engine colours changing over the years as different colours become safer? Why aren't very expensive to maintain Formula One racing cars painted feng shui colours to reduce maintenance bills? This utterly stupid notion that mystical forces are influencing our lives should have died out long ago. Why did we get to keep this and lose the dodo? I've long thought that commercial radio stations could easily improve their product immensely and save themselves a fortune at the same time. How? Just fire most of their announcers. I don't care if there is a recession. Think of the children! We all hate the thought that there might be a pedophile or nuclear power station moving in next door, so why don't we have the same fears over the utter rubbish being propagated by superstitious, intellectually challenged radio announcers? And also newspaper editors, remembering that it was the supposedly reputable Otago Daily Times that first published this prominent article with colour photo and helpful chart so we could all work out our own lucky colour. This was important stuff that we need to know evidently. And don't bother looking up the chart, they've obviously got the formula wrong as it returns numbers that don't match the chart. A chart that indicates that these morons believe the world is composed of five elements - earth, water, metal, wood and fire. I was going to work out the colours to see if it was safe for my partner and I to both ride in the same car. Imagine if Dad gets a new car that is a safe colour for him but not for the wife and kids? Could he be accused of endangering his family? And if your safe car colour is based on your year of birth, why are we moving into a green car phase, which suggests that green should be safe for everyone? Quite frankly, the piece of toast I had for breakfast had more brains than these idiots and their silly beliefs. Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 17 Mar, 2009 ~ Add a Comment Send to a Friend Blog Index Return to Blog Index Ghost hunter spots alien probe Mossburn UFO Invercargill's freebie weekly newspaper the Southland Express recently carried a story entitled "Strange light in southern skies" (Feb19). It published a photograph of the "strange light" taken by Kathy McBride late at night in the cemetery in Mossburn, in Western Southland. (Click on the photo to view a larger image). Why was Kathy in a position to take such a photo you might wonder? It seems that "on a clear night in January" she and seven others were out hunting ghosts. Unlike ducks or fish, ghost hunting season extends all year round, and evidently you don't need a licence. It wasn't made clear what they intended doing with a ghost if they ever caught one. Would they, like some fishermen do, release it back into the wild, or would they roast it with an orange sauce? Kathy McBride is a medium or clairvoyant and hails from Masterton, so whether she was using her claimed abilities to lead this merry group or merely accompanying them wasn't revealed. Anyhow, they notice a white light in the sky and Kathy takes up the story: "We thought maybe it was a satellite, but we noticed it was going very fast and going the wrong way and moving off in different directions". Annoyingly this light moved behind a cloud and wasn't seen again. Or did the cloud simply move in front of the light? At night it can be hard to tell. And confusingly, how can there be clouds in the sky on a "clear night"? We are then informed that "Shortly after Kathy noticed two puncture wounds on the back of her hand which had begun to bleed, and sheep making odd noises in nearby paddock". Let's see... in a cemetery and two puncture wounds? Well, that's simply vampires, nothing mysterious there. As for the sheep, maybe they were just unsettled by something strange nearby? And I don't mean the vampires or ghosts, they would be used to them. I mean a bunch of loonies sneaking about in the dark, randomly lighting up the night sky with bright camera flashes and no doubt tittering nervously every time a beetle coughed. This brings us to the photo in the article. Kathy says, "I was snapping away casually and I looked down and I'd taken a photo of this thing which looked like a moth. But it looked too big." The article said that, "Kathy suspects the object was an alien probe, with the original light possibly the main spaceship". Kathy added, "I had heard stories of people seeing UFOs in the sky, but even though I'm a clairvoyant it was odd for us." I know it should be obvious, but it needs to be highlighted that no one, not Kathy or any of the other seven in the group, actually saw this big, bright object. Kathy only noticed it when she looked at the image displayed on her camera. Remember that it was dark, and this group was scanning the sky specifically looking for unusual glowing objects. They'd already detected a light that they initially thought might have been a satellite, and satellites are quite small and not all that bright, and yet no one noticed this big, bright light right in front of the camera. The object is so bright no detail can be made out other than a rough outline. It also appears to be casting a light downwards, but obviously this is an illusion, because since no one saw it then obviously it wasn't glowing right there in front of them. But perhaps the light wasn't being emitted by the object but it merely reflected back the light from the camera's flash? Before and after the flash the object would have been hidden by darkness. However many people grossly overestimate how powerful their camera flash is. If you look below the object you can see a line of dimly lit headstones and beyond that all is darkness. The object would have to be at least this close to the camera and highly reflective to light up as much as it did. But again, if it was this close, this big and this reflective, it's unlikely that none of the group noticed it light up. Also note that the scene is illuminated exactly as one would expect the camera flash to do. If such a large, bright light - that appears to be directing light downwards - really was hovering above or beyond the visible headstones then it would illuminate the area beneath it, just as streetlights do, but there is no extra light on the ground "beneath" this object. The foreground, headstones etc are evenly lit from the flash and the area beyond the headstones is in complete darkness. This would suggest that the object is either quite distant, in which case the flash wouldn't be powerful enough to illuminate it, or much closer than any other object visible in the photo. And when Kathy looked down and saw it on the screen - remembering that this is the very thing they were looking for - why didn't she immediately take another photo? After all, she hadn't seen the object depart so it might still be there. Or did she take another photo and it revealed nothing this time? The unfortunate thing with unidentified objects in a dark sky is that there is no scale, nothing by which to judge how big they might be. Is it a large object far away, a small object up close or something in between? If we could identify it as a Boeing 747 then we could say it had to be much further away than those headstones, but if it was obviously a bat then it was quite close, and if it was a moth, then it was very close to the lens indeed. Unfortunately it's not clear from the small photo what the object is, but if I had to take an educated guess, I would go with Kathy's first impression. She has photographed a moth. What would a moth look like photographed at close range? Since most cameras can't focus up close the moth would be completely blurry. Depending on how reflective moths are, much of the flash could reflect back into the lens washing out any detail. Depending on the "shutter speed" of the camera, duration of flash, camera movement etc, light reflecting from moving wings and body could show up as a sweeping arc Mossburn UFO or blob rather than as a sharp, identifiable shape. Also a moth would have been almost invisible before, during and after the photo was taken, hence no one would see anything. And if a second photo were taken, the moth would have been long gone, the poor little guy fleeing the flash, screaming "My eyes... my eyes!" And no doubt they were using torches that would attract moths. Also the published photo appears to have been cropped, so I wonder how big the object was in the original, and what magnification or focal length the photo was taken at? If you look at the blob of light, it's relatively easy to imagine wings, body and two feathery antennae at the top, as my red outline shows. I'm not saying it definitely was a moth, but this explanation must rank highly. There are many more reasons to suspect moth rather than alien probe. So what might lead someone who is a clairvoyant and who admits that they have merely "heard stories of people seeing UFOs in the sky" reach the conclusion that it was an alien probe? Where does this knowledge or even the phrase "alien probe" come from? Frankly I suspect someone has watched one too many alien movies and has failed to grasp what the word fiction in science fiction means. Why would an alien probe be skulking around a cemetery at night? And please don't say it was observing the ghost hunting humans. We have satellites with camera and detection technology that can observe us from hundreds and thousands of kilometres away. Surely advanced aliens having technology several orders of magnitude better than ours don't still have to hover a few meters away? This is a major flaw with many UFO believers. They insist aliens are highly advanced compared to us and yet they have their craft using technology equal to and sometimes inferior to ours. If aliens want to observe humans, why not just log onto YouTube or one of many satellite broadcast TV documentary channels? And why do alien spacecraft, like the "main spaceship" spotted earlier, evidently need to be brightly lit up to fly, and yet the alien probe can move about with its lights off? Even though this group was hunting ghosts and even though they claim to have some expertise in ghosts and none in UFOs, there is no suggestion by them that this unidentified apparition might be a ghost. It's often said that people see what they expect to see. These people were expecting ghosts and saw - to a non-ghost hunter anyway - what would usually be described as a ghost. I mean, one of the favourite camera images often claimed to be ghosts are the so-called orbs, just small blobs of light, so why are they so convinced that this blob of light wasn't a ghost? What identifying characteristics does it exhibit that clearly say "Not a ghost"? It was glowing, it was floating, it was there one minute and gone the next, it only showed up on "film", it was sighted in a cemetery - all ghostly signs it would seem. What screams alien probe rather than ghost? There was no coloured flashing lights, no high speed manoeuvres, no reported hum of the hyperdrive, no evidence that they had been scanned by an alien technology, no observed docking or connection whatsoever with the aforementioned "main spaceship". And why does one even go to a cemetery to look for ghosts? Is there some sort of spectral "power cord" that limits how far ghosts can roam from their resting place? Is there a curfew that sees ghosts returning to their graves similar to that of vampires and sunrise? Letters printed the following two weeks in the Southland Express have commented on the original article. One from Lloyd Esler of the Southland Astronomical Society simply expressed skepticism of claims of alien craft and the supernatural and requested more details about that sighting and any others. Another from electrician Winston Bowes suggested that the strange image might have been caused by the flash bouncing back from the reflector in a pole mounted floodlight that was nearby but switched off. Quite plausible but a further letter from an Andrew and Kathy Morahan maintains that there is no lighting at the cemetery. They state that "As ghost hunters we make sure we are familiar with skeptics explanations for phenomena, ghostly or alien." They also stated that "Whilst working on a Mossburn dairy farm... it was common to see satellites travelling across the sky on a south to north direction. But four times I saw a light heading east from the West Dome that was definitely not a plane or satellite. Strange lights are not uncommon in the area." For people that claim to be "familiar with skeptics explanations", the Morahans should be aware that satellites can travel in any direction, not just south to north. There is nothing strange about a satellite travelling towards the east. Remember that in the original article clairvoyant Kathy McBride said, "We thought maybe it was a satellite, but we noticed it was going very fast and going the wrong way and moving off in different directions". She is incorrect in stating that there is a "wrong way" for a satellite to move or orbit, but she is correct in that they don't suddenly move in different directions. However I'm not sure why the Morahan letter mentions satellites. It is blatantly obvious that the captured image is not a satellite and there is not one reason or iota of evidence that connects it to any satellite that might - or might not - have been observed earlier in the night. While I initially thought the Morahans might have been part of Kathy McBride's ghost hunting group, a little research revealed that Kathy Morahan is actually clairvoyant Kathy McBride, and Andrew is her husband. An online article describes Kathy McBride (or Kathy Morahan) and Andrew Morahan joining with psychic investigator Kelvin Miller to hunt for ghosties in the Wairarapa. Of course I have little confidence that a clairvoyant or a psychic could conduct a believable investigation, and my confidence in Andrew Morahan as being able to objectively and rationally investigate ghosts (or aliens) was convincingly destroyed when he stated, "I have been sceptical in the past and I was an atheist for three months, but that was all the faith I could manage." If Andrew Morahan was to ever say something like, "I'm not convinced that that light or sound was a ghost", he would be expressing skepticism, yet he says he is no longer skeptical. If you're not skeptical about ghostly sightings, then you're a believer in ghosts, and every strange thing you see or hear must be a ghost. Only a "skeptic" can say it might not be. And to say "I was an atheist for three months, but that was all the faith I could manage" is one of the silliest claims I've ever heard. It demonstrates that he must have put as much thought into his choice as I do when deciding whether to have the chocolate or the banana cheesecake. It demonstrates ignorance that he actually believes you need faith to be an atheist, when it is the religious who must rely on faith to believe. While in Mossburn medium/clairvoyant Kathy McBride put on a show called "MESSAGE'S FROM BEYOND". Tickets cost $10 but you did get a "light supper and tea & coffee", so it wasn't a complete waste of money. I mention this because since Kathy works as a medium getting "messages from beyond" you'd think she'd be a little bit better informed about future events than your typical skeptic. Yet another newspaper article I came across informs me that "A flooded home on Sunday night has not dampened the spirits of Eketahuna couple Kathy McBride and Andrew Morahan." If no one from the other side is going to warn you about a flood driving you from your home, then these alleged messages from beyond are only telling us things we already know. Do medium/clairvoyants never worry about why they can allegedly get messages about other people's fortunes but never their own? Do their dead relatives not care about them? Mediums, clairvoyants, psychics, ghost hunters and their ilk have unintentionally demonstrated that they are really pathetic at what they do, and they have failed miserably to provide any evidence to support their flaky claims. Yet these dismal ongoing failures haven't dimmed their confidence in the slightest, and don't cause them to be reticent in making authoritative claims about fields in which they have no experience, such as UFOs and aliens. It's pretty obvious that Kathy McBride would have approached the Southland Express with her photo. But why? Was she simply hoping a reader might be able to explain what caused the strange light in the photo, or was she trying to alert us to alien activity in Western Southland? It's not rare for people to see strange things in the sky that they can't identify, and they shouldn't be afraid or embarrassed to ask what it might have been. However it's hard to take people seriously when they express ignorance of what it was and knowledge of what it was in the same breath. Remember that Kathy told the reporter that she "suspects the object was an alien probe, with the original light possibly the main spaceship". UFO observers that immediately make the unwarranted leap to aliens - or ghosts - cause other members of the public to be reluctant to publicly query their own strange sighting or photo, fearing ridicule. Thus many strange lights that have prosaic explanations remain mysteries in the public eye, and all we are exposed to are the silly beliefs of the hunters of aliens and ghosts. We have made several requests to Matt Maley, the journalist who wrote the Southland Express article, as to whether it would be possible to view the original digital photo and/or whether he or McBride can provide further details. We have had no reply. This demonstrates a scenario that UFO investigator Philip J. Klass has labelled as UFOlogical principle #4: "News media that give great prominence to a UFO report when it is first received, subsequently devote little if any space or time for reporting a prosaic explanation for the case when all the facts are uncovered." Media hate to admit they might have been wrong or been a little too gullible or that they failed to investigate the story with the same integrity that they would report a murder case. If they didn't believe the story for a minute but still reported it, they don't want to reveal that they sometimes mislead their readers for the sake of their advertisers. And in the case of this particular story, they were in hog heaven, with not just ghost hunters or mediums that talk to the dead or UFOs and aliens, but all three combined in one story. The silly punters will just love it. For the record, there was no mention that any ghosts were found that night. I'm not surprised. Posted by the 'Silly Beliefs' Team, 14 Mar, 2009 ~ Add a Comment Send to a Friend Blog Index Return to Blog Index Comments: 1. Comment by Andrew & Kathy, 14 May, 2009 Hi, came across your site a while ago, only just getting time to comment on your blog. We like to go ghost hunting for paranormal research purposes, fun, education, etc.. Your claim that we were "...tittering nervously...", is a fantasy to substantiate your own beliefs. The sky was mostly clear with patches of cloud towards the eastern horizon, their was still some light in the sky. Another wild claim, we dont watch alien movies. We were expecting ghosts not UFOs so the expectant/fulfilment theory is baseless. Yes ghosts are in cemeteries, but they are not always bound there. From what I read most satelites from Cape Canaveral go east/west. Others launched elsewhere north/south. Its easy enough to check this. Another fictitious claim to support your beliefs, "...every strange thing must be a ghost", is just plain wrong. I stand by my claim based on my experience, most spiritual belief systems (which I include athiesm etc..) are faith based. Your blog and website show evidence of this. Blind faith in the religion called "scientism". Except, when Uri Geller apparently could fool the scientists. Unfortunately, the future is not fate, or set in concrete. You confuse clairvoyance with fortune telling. If we knew the future with absolute certainty, we would be the only ones winning Lotto. We do have the original photos. Please dont believe with ab