Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Well, I wish us all luck then in rubbing our nickels together to make new paradigms.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
The Lance Moody Skeptical Files: We'll Keep the Light on for You!
Free episodes:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
When I get really upset at someone I type it all out and just before I hit the Post Reply button I cut the text and copy it into a text file and sit on it for a day.. I often decide not to post it after I cool down.
ProphetofOccam
Paranormal Adept
I'd hate to see what some of those text files look like.
Getting caught in arguments here is the worst. It always takes me too many exchanges to remember that the argument won't go anywhere and that I don't actually care that someone disagrees with me. It's really weird.
Getting caught in arguments here is the worst. It always takes me too many exchanges to remember that the argument won't go anywhere and that I don't actually care that someone disagrees with me. It's really weird.
Who Is Buffaloing Whom? Sharon Hill, Ketchum’s Foolish References and That Alberta “Sasquatch Hair” Analysis
[As promised, here's is another "skeptical" look at a paranormal claim. I started this thread not as a joke or to giggle and goad Lance Moody for being banned, but rather to provide the Paracast w/ legitimate critiques of so-called paranormal claims. In the following article we find more problems w/ Melba Ketchum's DNA study that was recently "published" in what appears to be a vanity journal. If you are going to cite papers Melba, at least read them! —chris]
Article HERE:
In a summary posting of Hill’s findings (here), she points out that various people at the JREF forum found that a paper used as a reference in Ketchum’s publication is problematic.My congratulations to Sharon Hill and the folks at a skeptical forum for discovering some new problems with Dr. Melba Ketchum’s self-published paper.
Ketchum lists:
Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)
It appears that Ketchum or her coauthors never fully read this paper. There are quotes from TinTin, and reflective comments within that paper about Perissodactyls being located between Yetis and Primates. Even Herge seems to be off here, of course, as odd-toed ungulates include the Rhinocerotidae, Tapirus, and Equus. Most serious skeptical insights into Yeti reports have referred to even-toed ungulates, such as serows. If Ketchum thought there was some merit to this paper, she didn’t read that paper closely to see that it was a prank. But as Hill and others point out, this paper is an April Fool’s Day hoax.
“Who is pranking whom” is a good question to start asking. Sharon Hill writes, “HORSES! Now I’m certain that Melba has CERTAINLY pulled a funny one over on us because she MUST HAVE read this paper and since she is a veterinarian specializing in horses, she ABSOLUTELY knew what this paper said.”
Good point. Of course, I understand Hill’s tone, and I think many people are today questioning how the references were developed for Ketchum’s paper. It almost seems if a Google search was done with “DNA” and “Sasquatch” in the search window. Perhaps whatever came forth was tried out for the Ketchum paper to make it sound more “scientific.” No matter, some faults are being revealed.
Hill updated her alert to the April Fool’s citation with this:
“More hoax papers cited in Ketchum’s references-
“6. Coltman, D and Davis, C. Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21:60–61. (2006)
“9. Lozier, J D, Aniello, P and Hickerson, M J. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling. Journal of Biogeography 36:1623–1627. (2009)”
Rest of Article HERE:
[As promised, here's is another "skeptical" look at a paranormal claim. I started this thread not as a joke or to giggle and goad Lance Moody for being banned, but rather to provide the Paracast w/ legitimate critiques of so-called paranormal claims. In the following article we find more problems w/ Melba Ketchum's DNA study that was recently "published" in what appears to be a vanity journal. If you are going to cite papers Melba, at least read them! —chris]
Article HERE:
In a summary posting of Hill’s findings (here), she points out that various people at the JREF forum found that a paper used as a reference in Ketchum’s publication is problematic.My congratulations to Sharon Hill and the folks at a skeptical forum for discovering some new problems with Dr. Melba Ketchum’s self-published paper.
Ketchum lists:
Milinkovitch, M C, Caccone, A and Amato, G. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31:1–3. (2004)
It appears that Ketchum or her coauthors never fully read this paper. There are quotes from TinTin, and reflective comments within that paper about Perissodactyls being located between Yetis and Primates. Even Herge seems to be off here, of course, as odd-toed ungulates include the Rhinocerotidae, Tapirus, and Equus. Most serious skeptical insights into Yeti reports have referred to even-toed ungulates, such as serows. If Ketchum thought there was some merit to this paper, she didn’t read that paper closely to see that it was a prank. But as Hill and others point out, this paper is an April Fool’s Day hoax.
“Who is pranking whom” is a good question to start asking. Sharon Hill writes, “HORSES! Now I’m certain that Melba has CERTAINLY pulled a funny one over on us because she MUST HAVE read this paper and since she is a veterinarian specializing in horses, she ABSOLUTELY knew what this paper said.”
Good point. Of course, I understand Hill’s tone, and I think many people are today questioning how the references were developed for Ketchum’s paper. It almost seems if a Google search was done with “DNA” and “Sasquatch” in the search window. Perhaps whatever came forth was tried out for the Ketchum paper to make it sound more “scientific.” No matter, some faults are being revealed.
Hill updated her alert to the April Fool’s citation with this:
“More hoax papers cited in Ketchum’s references-
“6. Coltman, D and Davis, C. Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21:60–61. (2006)
“9. Lozier, J D, Aniello, P and Hickerson, M J. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modeling. Journal of Biogeography 36:1623–1627. (2009)”
Rest of Article HERE:
[I hope Lance will appreciate that I've had my eyes open for skeptical articles that debunk popular subjects related to the subjects that the Paracast covers—chris]
Crystal Skulls Deemed FAKE!
Article HERE:
Humans seem to have a predilection for fake quartz-crystal Aztec skulls. Since the 1860s, dozens of skull sculptures have appeared on the art market purporting to be pre-Columbian artifacts from Mesoamerica, that is, created by the indigenous peoples of Mexico and Central America prior to Spanish exploration and conquest in the 16th century. Three such skulls have graced the collections of major museums on both sides of the Atlantic: the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., the British Museum in London, and the Quai Branly Museum in Paris.
As early as the 1930s, some experts began to have doubts about the authenticity of the skulls, says Margaret Sax, a conservation scientist at the British Museum. But for a long time researchers “didn’t have the scientific means to follow up” on their hunches, she adds. Over the past two decades researchers at all three museums have capitalized on analytical science innovations to show that these peculiar skulls are not unusual Aztec artifacts but post-Columbian fakes.
Nowadays the market for crystal skulls is limited to Indiana Jones fans, New Age devotees, and people in the goth and punk subcultures. But in the 1860s, when the skulls appeared on the market, many people in Europe sported little skeletons on rings, pendants, or other personal trinkets to remind them of their own mortality, says Jane Walsh, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.
It was a French dealer named Eugène Boban who capitalized on this fascination with the macabre, as well as Europe’s growing interest in and ignorance of Mesoamerican artifacts, to slip some of the first sham skulls into museums.
Walsh has traced fake crystal skulls at the British Museum and the Quai Branly Museum back to Boban, who sold them to art dealers who then sold them to the museums more than 100 years ago. The Smithsonian skull, however, showed up in the mail in 1992, as an anonymous donation. Its arrival motivated Walsh to contact the British Museum to discuss the skulls. That conversation catalyzed the scientific and historical research that finally proved the objects were phonies.
The British and American team were particularly suspicious of the skulls because they hadn’t come from documented archaeological sites. And something was wrong with the skulls’ teeth. Although skulls do appear as motifs in Aztec art, most representations of teeth in authentic pieces reflect the dentistry—or lack thereof—of the time. The teeth in the suspect skulls seemed too linear, too perfect, Sax explains.
So the team took a closer look at the skulls’ surfaces. As a benchmark, they borrowed a legitimate Mesoamerican crystal goblet from the Museum of Oaxacan Cultures, in Mexico. Then they used scanning electron microscopy to compare these surfaces.
It turns out that the surface of the authentic goblet has irregular etch marks, a sign that the pieces were carved with hand-held tools. But the surface of the suspect skulls have regular etch marks, evidence that they were made with rotary wheels and hard abrasives, which appeared only after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, Walsh says. Rest of Article HERE:
Crystal Skulls Deemed FAKE!
Article HERE:
Humans seem to have a predilection for fake quartz-crystal Aztec skulls. Since the 1860s, dozens of skull sculptures have appeared on the art market purporting to be pre-Columbian artifacts from Mesoamerica, that is, created by the indigenous peoples of Mexico and Central America prior to Spanish exploration and conquest in the 16th century. Three such skulls have graced the collections of major museums on both sides of the Atlantic: the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., the British Museum in London, and the Quai Branly Museum in Paris.
As early as the 1930s, some experts began to have doubts about the authenticity of the skulls, says Margaret Sax, a conservation scientist at the British Museum. But for a long time researchers “didn’t have the scientific means to follow up” on their hunches, she adds. Over the past two decades researchers at all three museums have capitalized on analytical science innovations to show that these peculiar skulls are not unusual Aztec artifacts but post-Columbian fakes.
Nowadays the market for crystal skulls is limited to Indiana Jones fans, New Age devotees, and people in the goth and punk subcultures. But in the 1860s, when the skulls appeared on the market, many people in Europe sported little skeletons on rings, pendants, or other personal trinkets to remind them of their own mortality, says Jane Walsh, an archaeologist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.
It was a French dealer named Eugène Boban who capitalized on this fascination with the macabre, as well as Europe’s growing interest in and ignorance of Mesoamerican artifacts, to slip some of the first sham skulls into museums.
Walsh has traced fake crystal skulls at the British Museum and the Quai Branly Museum back to Boban, who sold them to art dealers who then sold them to the museums more than 100 years ago. The Smithsonian skull, however, showed up in the mail in 1992, as an anonymous donation. Its arrival motivated Walsh to contact the British Museum to discuss the skulls. That conversation catalyzed the scientific and historical research that finally proved the objects were phonies.
The British and American team were particularly suspicious of the skulls because they hadn’t come from documented archaeological sites. And something was wrong with the skulls’ teeth. Although skulls do appear as motifs in Aztec art, most representations of teeth in authentic pieces reflect the dentistry—or lack thereof—of the time. The teeth in the suspect skulls seemed too linear, too perfect, Sax explains.
So the team took a closer look at the skulls’ surfaces. As a benchmark, they borrowed a legitimate Mesoamerican crystal goblet from the Museum of Oaxacan Cultures, in Mexico. Then they used scanning electron microscopy to compare these surfaces.
It turns out that the surface of the authentic goblet has irregular etch marks, a sign that the pieces were carved with hand-held tools. But the surface of the suspect skulls have regular etch marks, evidence that they were made with rotary wheels and hard abrasives, which appeared only after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, Walsh says. Rest of Article HERE: