Forget Nasty, Noisy Negativists: Here Is The Best Way To Dismiss Debunkers


Every now and again I say something so universally brilliant on my podcast The Experience  that I can’t afford to let it slip into audio heaven virtually unnoticed. Rather, the universe can’t afford it. Take, for example, what I said last week. I don’t remember what it was, but it was so brilliant I thought I should write about it and didn’t. Now it is lost forever. God knows I’m not listening again for it.


Well, I’m not making the same mistake this week. On this week’s episode… I think… it’s a two parter–I think this happened in part 1. If not, part 2. The point is, at some time over the next two weeks listeners of The Experience will hear me say something brilliant. You get to read it now. You’re welcome. And it is this….

We live in the Stone Age of our own culture. What that means is, although we’ve advanced our knowledge since Newton of how things do and don’t work in physics, on the day-to-day level, we still live like Einstein never happened. We still think and behave mechanically in a fluid world.

That’s not the brilliant thing. In fact, it’s kind of offensive to those cultures who already had a handle on the fluidity of existence before our scientists dismissed them as savages while they “discovered” for themselves what was already well-known in different languages and with meanings our scientists cannot acknowledge because they believe in objectivity devoid of any meaning even though such a thing, they admit, does not exist.

That’s not the brilliant thing either, but it’s closer. The brilliant thing?–The thing you can use to shut up debunkers with their arrogance, their smarm, and their tiny penises (yes, including Sharon Hill) is this: There is no such thing as scientific proof.

Reality works the way it does–oh, let’s give it a number–99.99999% of the time. This means that in a fraction of a fraction of instances, it does not work that way. The laws of physics are not fixed, they are probable. Don’t take my word for it.  Allow “scientific fundamentalist” Satoshi Kanazawa to explain:

We all get that, right? I mean whether you clicked the link or not. We get that there is no such thing as scientific proof, only probabilities great and small. If we all get that then by its own logic there will be points in time when improbable things happen–and this is where paranormal, ufological, and miraculous stuff come in. Therefore, it is unscientific to exclude the impossible not because we need to keep an open mind or because anything is possible in the let’s-pretend-not-to-make-judgements New Age way, or the “See? I told ya! Evolution’s a stupid theory! Gawd made us!” way, but because by its own internal logic this is how reality works. Reality includes the unreal. The unreal we’ll define as the thing that probability dictates likely won’t happen because everything we currently know as a rule says it won’t but it does anyway at least once because… probability.

And fractally speaking, this is the way it works in paranormal data, too. Take ufo sightings, for example. We know that a high percentage of UFO reports are explainable. They are hoaxes or mistaken aerial phenomena, planets, satellites, reflections, birds, insects–go down the list of knowns. Let’s be generous and say that 99.99999% of all ufo reports have a mundane explanation. That leaves a fraction of a fraction that are not. The classic debunker answer is that the unexplained cases are just unexplained, not unexplainable. Someone will crack those cases eventually, fitting them into our known physical “laws”, unless the facts have been lost to history and it’s too late to investigate properly–but it was likely a kite or something because 99.99999% of reports are.

But they are wrong. By their own logic, there will be a fraction of a fraction of instances that are unexplainable because they originate from without our reality box. They trickle through a hole in the wall, barely perceptible unless you leave a bucket underneath and collect the instances. Which is what researchers, historians, and storytellers do. But then debunkers dismiss witness reports as anecdotal as if that dismissal is itself wholly meaningful. It’s only meaningful 99.99999% of the time.

So we know improbable aerial phenomena exist and we know it’s not enough to poo-poo all of the reports and stories in anticipation of a mundane explanation. What I’ve presented here is the mundane explanation and if we acknowledge it, we may just have that paradigm shift so many people are waiting for. The irony is, it’s been with us in our society at least since Einstein, but we refuse to evolve into what we know to be true. In fact, in the article I cited above, the author still refuses to get what he himself is saying. Let’s take a look at the last paragraph from Kanazawa’s piece:

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.”  What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven.  Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false.  But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow.  In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

Yes, unlikely. But possible. And if you replace your ass with your bedroom closet and normal monkeys flying out of it with monkeys and/or clowns and/or aliens doing acrobatic flips, you’ve just described an improbable situation that has been reported numerous times from confused, often embarrassed people who admit such things because they happened. And based on your own logic, it’s your job as a scientist or science writer to embrace that.

In closing and to belabor the point, it is likely that every time I stub my toe it will hurt. A lot. But someone somewhere in the world has or will report their toe moving through the furniture when they should have stubbed it. They might be lying. They might be wrong. They might be delusional. Or it might have happened. That it will happen to you or me is less likely than winning the lottery, so it’s good to remain skeptical. But to those who have won lotteries, the likelihood was 100%. Debunking has no place. Not even within the debunker’s own “rational” framework, for even there the improbable situation breaking all of the rules we think we know has a probability factor. And that fact only need be pointed out to render the debunker’s input moot in any false argument. Probably.

What are the odds I wouldn’t end on that?

The Trickster Has A New Home

If you care at all about ufology or any of the other paranormal categories we entertain, you need to check out Jeff Ritzmann’s new blog The Numinous Den. In it, he breaks down and dissects George Hansen’s Trickster Theory in every situation where it rears its head. It’s superb. It’s easy to grasp. And he’s only a handful of posts in so it’s easy to start at the beginning and catch up.

In honor of Jeff’s latest accomplishment, I offer my two cents on the Trickster element at work in the psyche….


‘Trickster’, by Bill Lewis

You could easily mock people who report experiences that fall outside the range of normal awareness if they occurred only a handful of times or in a few cultures. That they happen with frequency throughout all time and in every culture means normal awareness is being mocked at every turn, and so to mock high strangeness experiences is to ignore that fact with high prejudice.

The whole feedback loop is one big knowing smirk, but those limited to normal awareness aren’t conscious of the joke. The debunkers don’t know what they’re laughing at but they know they’re being laughed at, so they guffaw as bullies and demean experiencers and anyone who takes experiencers seriously. Their arrogance is from ignorance. Not miseducation or lack of education, but ignoring. On that deeper ignored level, they understand the joke is on them. In this sense they deserve pity for they’ve not had an experience which forces them to question reality in any sustainable way past being born.*

We’re all living in a facade in which and with which we self-identify. Some of the unhealthy impulses beneath the surface are sadistic because they are psychotically detached. Some of the healthy impulses may feel sadistic because they are compassionately detached and we are not consciously equipped to tell the difference.

Perhaps there is an intelligence trying like Hell to help us tell the difference. Perhaps there is a unifying principle that shocks its way through all cultures in all times like a jagged lightning strike through clouds.

Perhaps that raw, unfiltered consciousness messing with us is also us.

*There is a reason all children question reality and it’s not because they don’t know anything. By the time they’re able to articulate questions, they’ve been filled with knowledge. But knowledge doesn’t answer the unknowable and they haven’t yet given up on the questions, repressed, or handed them over to personal and cultural authority figures with fake answers. Really, what bigger paranormal experience have we normalized than popping into existence from out of nothing? And if the appearance of form from formlessness isn’t a fractal version of the ultimate forms-within-formlessness transcendental bubble, I don’t know what is.

The Untold Limits of Science In “Alien Abduction”

ImageThe sciences are all about repeatability and categorization. This is how scientists come to know the world. But if there is an independent (or interdependent) intelligence behind so-called “alien abductions” and associated phenomena, two things and only two things are clear about it: It doesn’t care what we call it. And defining it has no bearing on our relationship with it. Our wondering at its facade is our own hangup. What unfolds between us is what we share.

No, the enigmatic other doesn’t give a whit if we think it’s an alien, a time traveller, a demon, a fairy, an angel, a ghost, schizophrenia, a dream, alive or dead. It doesn’t care to correct us, and truly, our interactions with this intelligence have nothing to do with categorization. Repeatability is a different question we’ll get into shortly.

In fact, let’s go one step deeper. It does not matter what experiencers name these beings, think we know about them, where they’re from, and all that. The thing that does not matter, then, is our certainty and our uncertainty. If you handle your experiences with certainty that these are alien doctors studying us and I handle mine by saying I don’t know anything, that these beings are a mystery… does it matter to the beings at all? Do we not end up in the same place?

If what we claim to know about them or not know about them doesn’t affect the experiencing of these things at all, then perhaps science as it currently stands cannot give us a proper framework to explore this, for our “objective” and “subjective” stances carry equal weight in the eyes of these beings. Perhaps that’s why they engage equally with one who thinks they’ve got it all figured out, one who believes they know at least something about it, and one who says they don’t know anything. At the end of the day, maybe factual knowledge has little correlation with our personal growth. This is a different kind of school than we’re used to–intellectual education need not apply. Maybe that is because these interactions transcend the rational and so cannot fully be captured by intellect.

Can’t be captured by it but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an anchor point in the rational. Nature unfolds along a “transcend and include” model. Transrationality, then, has a rational component to it. Perhaps repeatability is that component but it is hidden beneath the multitudes of subjective facades, individual and cultural. Perhaps we’re studying the wrong thing, trying to figure out what a ghost is, an alien, a mothman, and so forth. If these are subjective masks on the walls of our personal caves in our personal hero journeys then we need to look elsewhere for the objective thing. Might it be found in the result of the interactions? That is, the result of walking through the cave of masks and coming out the other side?

Who is that person? How does s/he differ from the one who tiptoed in?

When dealing with the seemingly unknowable, theories based on facades always crumble into belief. This is because researchers tend to stick to their theories until proven wrong, which they will not be, by definition. So if you believe, for example, in malevolent space vampires feeding off our negative emotions then any positive outcome for the experiencer will be seen as a trick from the advanced ghouls. But I haven’t known anyone who hasn’t grown more empathetic at least toward Earth and Nature as a result of their experiences be they positive or negative. Be they following the script of “alien doctor”, “space vampire”, “space brother”, friend, foe, or indifferent. How have we ignored this for so long?–That people whose experiences do not logically lead to empathy for Nature do just that? It’s a non sequitur that has been overlooked because it is a clue to an answer that is culturally more uncomfortable than even the dreaded “alien abduction” Hollywood punchline.

It all ends the same. The experiencer ends up caring deeply about the fundamentals of us all. Literally, our roots. The ground itself is sacred ground. People we can take or leave–but plants? Animals? The air? We cared before global warming was cool. But we didn’t care and mostly still do not know how to care as deeply as First Peoples around the world–and perhaps that’s why we have a different relationship with this enigmatic other than do they. We have different needs in terms of growth.

It is taken as a given that if intelligent beings far more ancient than seems possible given the track we’re on discovered us, they’d ignore us, kill us, enslave us, inject their technology into our system to help advance us, or observe us at a distance. The more hopeful among us believe they’d share information with us. That’s all fantasy based on the notion that how we are right now is the pinnacle of what it means to be human. It’s the fallacy of the intellect being the priority of the universe. I submit to you that what we are actually observing is an interaction wherein the importance of intellect is being negated.We are being show that the wholeness of being has an intellectual component, but it transcends this component. Perhaps knowledge, that most sacred grail of science, is only ever a local phenomenon. It is… ironically… subjective to our species and our time.

If the universal constant to sentient life is not a restless intellectual learning by doing and repeating, but a fuller, wordless intelligence and complete satisfaction in being… then if I were such a being I would only be interested in creating equals out of people from wherever who had that same spark. Because being is indivisible. That spark is the light. That light is one light. One light beaming out from behind different masks whether we’ve discovered it or not. And when we do discover it… What happens when we do? What happens when the faces we wear slough off?

What happens when they don’t?