Closeted Beyond Belief...

Some people make a living forming declarative statements without holding back fear of ridicule or offensiveness. But even such individuals can struggle with telling everything. And this weekend, a well-known skeptic and disbeliever in all things supernatural who built a career on being blunt made one of the biggest leaps of his life. It came in the form of two words, written in a post on his blog.

"I'm gay."

It was a major leap for 81-year-old James Randi, best known for his "Million-Dollar Challenge" offering a hefty prize to anyone proving parapsychological phenomena. He has written various books on psychic fraud and paranormal hoaxes and helped found the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). For some, he's a hero. To paranormal enthusiasts, he's a naysayer. Yet no matter what your stance is on ghosts might be, he is now a brave man. After watching the film Milk and realizing the shift in climate and attitude toward sexuality, Randi broke his 70-year silence.

I applaud Randi for his public announcement. While we may disagree on various points and hold differing views on a variety of topics (and agree on many points at the same time), what he did took a lot of courage. When you're in the public eye making such a simple statement about who you are as a human being can be the biggest challenge in your life. You face ridicule and the possibility of losing disapproving individuals in your life. The world suddenly views you not for who you are but who you love.

Whether you're a skeptic or a paranormal investigator, admitting who you are and saying those two words is the ultimate example of speaking the truth. But it's up to the individual to make such a statement on however public a scale. Some people believe the more visible and famous you are the more important it is to come out of the closet. I personally understand the reservations that come with these things and while I may not be thrilled when someone decides to keep their private life private I can respect his or her reasoning. It's a sad truth that most people decide to keep quiet as not to face the small-mindedness of society which could destroy life as they know it. Like a haunted house, people fear the unknown and that with which they are not familiar. Rumors and misinformation are accepted as fact. Stereotypes are taken to be reality. Fact and fiction blur.

So now, the skeptic community has James Randi and Derren Brown. But who do we have in the paranormal community? Well, Ian Shillito makes one. Where are the others? Where are the big-name paranormal celebrities in the North America? Does the predominance of straight, white, Christian males on ghost hunting programs make coming out too terrifying? Quite possibly. Hopefully, that too will change. As Harvey Milk said in his final audio recording, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let the bullet destroy every closet door..."

"Hello. I'd Like to Have an Argument."

It's been another one of those crazy weeks. People disappearing, people popping up out of nowhere, health problems with people around me, and the usual insanity I call my life. And then, I made the mistake last weekend of answering a question on an online forum: do you believe in ghosts? I said more than just 'yes'.

In hindsight, it was a bad idea. Many people respond in grunts, syllables, or not at all to statements that they know will lead to arguments or complaints. One-word responses leave little to fight over. But some people just like arguing.

What followed was a prolonged attack since, apparently, stating that I'm a "paranormal investigator" automatically means I speak on behalf of every parapsychologist, researcher, professor, scientist, writer, ghost hunter, and anyone else (alive or dead) in any way connected to the field. The same old arguments rehashed a billion times flung at me, demanding ultimate "proof". But, of course, it wasn't in a polite discourse; it's the typical heckling of someone who, no matter what is presented to them, remains convinced that you're an idiot.

I see we haven't changed much since the Puritans. Witch hunts are still happening. Different is bad. In only a few sentences stating my opinions, I instantly turned into Frankenstein's monster. What do you do? If you walk away, you're supposedly admitting "that they are right", but if you stand and defend yourself, you're "absurd". It's a lose-lose situation. But it comes from speaking your mind and being a part of this field. Opening your mouth makes you a target of torch-bearing townsfolk rallying to "burn the witch".

I hate arguing. Especially when it's pointless or when someone belittles your words because "they know everything". Real stupidity comes from believing that you're omniscient and omnipotent. Only wise people know that they don't know everything. but I let it go on for a while before stopping and thinking, "what the hell am I doing?" Discussing something with someone who can't see beyond their own window to the world is the most wasteful thing anyone can do.

I like letting people make their own informed opinions, as everyone should. Don't just spit out what someone else told you; review everything and form your own opinion. And if it's different from someone else's, big friggin' deal! Guess what? Everyone has an opinion, a belief, a perspective. Being loud doesn't mean you know more than someone else; it just means your mouth opens wider.

Humankind has the capacity to become rabid dogs. People like to gang up with viciousness to feel inflated about their own superiority. But, when the attack is on them, everything is very different. That's just mean! Well, that's just human nature. Evil doesn't come from supernatural demons, it comes from the depths of humankind. Humanity has a tendency to be inhumane. And it circles itself; call it karma if you wish, but the stream of putrid words we sometimes spill out come back at us in a different form. And when they do, we have no right to complain. We did it once ourselves.

Agreeing to disagree or seeing another viewpoint is a challenge for many people. But we all see the world differently. Every man or woman is the product of his or her collective beliefs, experience, and thoughts. More time is wasted on pointless back-and-forth banter than actual reasoning. In a way, it's comical. If people could see the humor in it, of course.

I guess what bothers me most is, being an open-minded person, I expect to be treated as I treat others. I could be cruel and nasty many times, but I choose to let most things slide. I try to make people think and reason, prepare for what is coming, yet it is labeled "non-conformity". So what? I'm not a conformist. I'm an individual. If I'm the only one not running with the herd, it makes me an independent thinker not an anarchist. Different is good; different brings about revolutionary thought and ideas. If it weren't for outcasts, nothing would ever change. Ideas are what separate us from our inner animal. If being a non-ape makes me a bad person to somepeople, I'll settle for that.

"Sometimes a Cigar is Just a Cigar"...

Let's face it: the paranormal community can be confusing and filled with misinformation. "Ghost hunting" organizations are a dime a dozen, competing for attention, praise, and even cash. For every website offering the "facts", there is another "true" website out there telling you the exact opposite. The only certainty with the paranormal is that nothing is certain. No undeniable scientific proof of ghosts. No one piece of footage or audio verified to be a ghost. No college-degreed expert in the field with a PhD in ghosts, hauntings, and all things paranormal (sure, some people have more experience and there are a few scattered parapsychologists with degrees, but there is no true degree in "ghost hunting").

We hear a lot of things from a lot of people, amateurs and professionals, saying what they believe. Some speak from personal experience, others from books and websites they've read. There are those who claim to make contact with the deceased. Others are more scientifically-minded, carrying around enough electronic equipment to blackout a small Kansas town. The best psychics in the world are never 100% accurate; even the most tech savvy individuals don't always understand their own equipment or what it detects exactly. Yet everyone is an expert in their own mind. Everyone knows the "right way", what's "undeniably true".

And then, you delve into the muddied waters of speculation and faith-based principles. Some people label certain spirits "demons", or even practice "demonology", often needlessly frightening clients and business owners with unverifiable information biased by their religious beliefs. Another small segment of the field promise to evict a ghost or spirit from a property by "sending it to the light" or making it disappear in a puff of smoke. Still more produce "photographic evidence" which, to the trained eye, is nothing but cold breath, glare from lights, or flying dust-bunnies and mosquitoes. They fail to mention that each above-mentioned item is refutable. There's no proof of demonic entities (and using the term implies a Christian view is the only "right" answer). It's impossible to guarantee the removal of a ghost (how do you guarantee something without proof it exists in the first place; furthermore, if you're dealing with a person having a mental illness and they still "see the ghost", you're up a creek without a paddle). Many pieces of evidence can be replicated quite easily using non-supernatural means, making it impossible to prove that orb is a spirit, that misty smoke covering the lens is a phantom.

There is one person out there shedding a bit of light on the latter: Patrick H. T. Doyle. This author and paranormal investigator noticed that his YouTube promotional videos were being misinterpreted as ghosts when they were mere parlor tricks. So, Doyle set out to create a short series showing how "paranormal" footage you might find online can easily be faked or misinterpreted. Does this make him a non-believer? Hardly... just observant. In fact, he does investigate hauntings and believes he has experienced supernatural things. But what we see isn't always what we perceive. It's important to learn the difference between natural occurrences and spooks.

Here's a clip from his series... discussing the one topic that annoys me so: orbs.


Now, understand that I'm not saying there can't be balls of light seen by people or cameras (I witnessed a blue ball of light myself one night drop from the sky and rush through a field; not a likely behavior of swamp gas), but please, for the sake of humanity, people, stop calling every "orb" a ghost! Don't add fuel to the fire of paranormal paranoia. Think. Research. Educate yourself. And if you're serious about wanting to capture photographic "proof" of a ghost, put down the digital and pick up a 35mm camera. At least that was you have some hard copy that can be scrutinized by photographic experts.

Seeing is Believing...

After an interesting discussion this week on skepticism and the paranormal, I have come to a grave and unfortunate conclusion: in the eyes of true skeptics, I do not exist.

I don't mean to say that my beliefs are unfounded or my views are ignored. I mean that as a gay male, I am as fictitious of an entity as a phantasm.

According to the American Psychological Association, " There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors."

In other words, while scientists and experts have diligently attempted to prove the existence of homosexuality in a legitimate, biological manner, they have failed to find any concrete evidence. Therefore, under scientific scrutiny, the existence of homosexuality is bunk.

Following the CFI's method of inquiry, based on the work of Bertrand Russell in his essay, "The Ethics of Belief", :

1. "we should not accept a belief as true if there is a preponderance of evidence against it, or if it is found to be rationally inconsistent with other well-founded beliefs, or both. To cling to beliefs for which there are abundant evidence and reasons to the contrary is irrational. Another application of this rule is reasonable, that is,
2. that we ought not to accept a belief as true if there is inadequate evidence and insufficient reasons to do so, and conversely,

1. we should accept a belief claim only if it is based on adequately justifying reasons and sufficient evidence. A corollary of this is that
2. where we do not have adequate grounds for believing that something is the case, then we should, wherever possible, adopt the stance of the skeptic and suspend judgment."

So, let's examine the evidence, shall we?

There are websites, books, and social groups from around the globe openly discussing homosexuality. These can be quite misleading to the general public. People claim to be homosexual, yet science cannot back up these claims with hard evidence. An abundance of people know of or have witnessed homosexuals, but this is mere hearsay. And then there are the photographs and videos of homosexual people and acts. Seriously, these can easily be faked.

How can any logical human believe we really exist?

As a society, we must learn to be more critical thinkers and not merely follow blindly the beliefs and ideas passed along to us by others.

But don't take my word for it. After all, I'm not real.

The Land of Unbelieve...

Remember when summer camp meant ghost stories by a campfire, swimming, games, and group hikes?

Better toss those archaic notions out the window, you narrow-minded fools.

Camp Inquiry is a new, different sort of summer camp. Sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, is an environment void of the supernatural and religion. Skepticism and critical thinking are encouraged. Aliens, bigfoot, and urban legends are debunked by experts and the kids, ranging from 7 to 16 years old, are taught to demand proof.

While religion isn't openly discussed, it seems to be a topic left for free time. The majority of the children are either atheist or secular humanist. The camp provides a stark contrast to Bible study programs, allowing them to discuss their disbelief without fear of ridicule.

Austin and Jordan Fischer, brothers from New York City, learned of the camp from an advertisement in Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry (magazines coincidentally published by the Center for Inquiry). "All the other [camps] are team building, physical stuff, a lot of playing," said Jordan. "This is more intellectual."

Thankfully, cooperation, exercise, and imaginative fun won't be ruining the summer months for these kids.

While I'm all for encouraging children to make up their own mind on many philosophical matters of life, this just doesn't seem "unbiased" to me. Teaching children thought, reason, and science is a wonderful thing, but what lines do you draw? Do you tell the seven-year-old that he's a moron for believing in Santa Claus? If a child wears a cross, is he or she shunned by the counselors or deprogrammed? Does the child who believes she saw a ghost have to go in for a brain scan?

What's so wrong with leaving a little mystery and imagination in the world? And does science really have the answer to every, single, solitary question possible in the universe at this moment in time?

When Psychics Meet Modern Thought

To say that last night's meeting went smoothly would be a prevarication. Once more, I opened my mouth and allowed a personal opinion to tumble forth... leading to vivid discussion and complete confusion on my part.

All I said was, "It would be nice to have a way to tell how accurate the psychics in the group are. Maybe we could test them somehow."

In the ensuing discussion, the line between scientific evidence and psychic impressions became more of a tug-of-war than open discourse.

Frankly, I have no problems with psychic ability. I have some belief in it. Everyone has some type of extrasensory perception, however minuscule. That doesn't mean all psychics are reliable or even trustworthy. Plenty of people (even some well-known names) use manipulation to pull information out of people and spit it back to them under the guise of channeling or communicating with the spirit realm. This makes the work of the honest, true psychics more difficult and often the target or ridicule.

In my 13 years of investigating ghosts and hauntings, I've worked with over a dozen psychics. Some have left me feeling thoroughly unimpressed, though I always remained polite. Others left me shocked and speechless at the information they had no way of knowing. I hold a deep respect for the tried-and-true psychics and sensitives of the world. However few there are.

Most of the best psychics don't flash themselves around. They're the ones you rarely see on television or see advertisements about in newspapers. They're modest and sometimes doubt their ability. They're humble. They're normal or a little goofy. They welcome technology and scientific verification. And best of all, they're great company.

Still, many psychics will occasionally have issues with my methods. I don't blindly trust people to tell me the truth. I need proof and validation. I want to rule out natural phenomena and mental illness. I want to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a real reason to investigate a haunting. And if someone rids a place of a spirit without this validation, what proof will there ever be that there was something there in the first place? Is it really necessary to evict every single ghost on the planet? Is the role of a psychic a landlord and housekeeper?

I can't help my rational mind. I walk a very thin line. I'm open to things beyond normal human perception yet I need my five senses to be appeased and alerted. Without both sides of the spectrum, all we are is a bunch of freaks wandering around in the darkness with flashlights. And that's all we'll ever be to the world.