Gone to the Dogs: Doggerel For a Title

Decided to watch "Lock and Load" with R. Lee Ermie last night. I liked Mail Call, and enjoyed the new show and the history lessons about various weapons. Unfortunately, I was treated to another of History Channel's forays into woo, and it's pretty bad when it's got Doggerel #18 for a title: "I Know What I Saw!"

It's about aliens.

So Much for Keith

Orac's got the story. It seems Keith Olbermann let himself get played by the antivaxxers. He let his hatred for Rupert Murdoch override any critical thought he might have had. I liked some gems of his I saw on YouTube, which were generally limited to denouncing obvious evils, but if he's so vulnerable to genetic fallacies, I think I'll be ignoring him from now on.

This antivaxxer manufactroversy is a science matter. You go with scientific consensus and use the scientific method to debate it if you want to know what's really going on. There's no other rational way to look at it. It doesn't particularly matter what other journalists say on the matter, unless they've really looked at the matter scientifically.

So, unless Olbermann really shapes up and admit the full depth of this failure, I think I'd be inclined to favor something like Orac's view. This story makes him into another Bill O'Reilly, only in a different spot on the political spectrum.

What's Up With Apocalypse Movies?

Downloaded some trailers on my PS3 and saw some TV commercials.

Got some movie called "Knowing" where it seems some numerologist finds a list of numbers and finds it lists the casualties of various disasters, and predicts the end of the world based on the remaining numbers.

Got "2012", which you can already guess. Trailer I downloaded featured some Tibetan mountaintop monks urgently ringing some bells, followed by an enormous tsunami rolling completely over the mountains and washing away the monastery. Another commercial implied that the world's governments won't try to help, and encouraged you to "learn the truth" at the movie's website.

And I think the third one was called "Angels and Demons" and had more DaVinci Code conspiracies. Don't know if it was really apocalyptic, but I groaned anyway.

And I just now saw History Channel (ugh) starting a show on some new Nostradamus predictions about 2012.

What the hell is it with woo-prophecized Armageddon? Hell, I don't really understand the deal with disaster movies in general. With woo prophecy, however, my suspension of disbelief is broken right away. With that 2012 super-tsunami, it was pretty well shattered before I got anywhere near the theater. Where'd all that water come from? Magic?

Personally, one thing I'd like to see sometime: Take the apparent premise of "Knowing" with a numerologist who predicts the end of the world. He predicts the end down to the day. Nothing happens. He thinks he forgot to carry the one, and calculates the "real" time. Nothing happens. Rinse and repeat right up to the credits rolling, with the lead getting more disheveled as time progresses. Wonder if that'd plant any possible seeds of skepticism.

Illuminati plot with a twist: It turns out it's just twelve guys sending codes to one another as an in-joke inflated into a hobby, having fun pretending they have an influence on world events. When the "hero" confronts them, they laugh derisively and point out the impracticalities of worldwide conspiracies, especially if anyone of average intelligence like him could break their code.

Looks Like TV Will Suck on Halloween

Just started skimming my little TV guide for marathons, since I don't have a costume or a party to wear one at. Not really a party person anyway. I'm used to Sci-Fi running Twilight Zone marathons (of the black and white variety, when they had it down right) during holidays, but they're doing Ghost Hunters, which would probably bore me to death. Cartoon Network's doing Goosebumps, which is crap, up until canceled series and pilots on Adult Swim. Fair bit of mixed woo on History. Discovery's pretty plain-looking.

Guess I'll have to find something else to do. Suggestions?

Gone to the Dogs #1.2

Well, I wasted 20 minutes. Watched part of a Discovery Channel show called "Beyond invention" that dealt with 'the Hutchison effect'. Here's how I would have done it: Maybe 5 minutes background, followed by very carefully controlled test with excruciating detail on the test controls, and what alternate explanations they're designed to eliminate. Bam. Done. No conspiracy theories. No appeals to authority. No pretending that government interest means validity. No pretending that corporate interest means validity. No one claiming that maybe Hutchison is really using psychokinesis. Heck, why not just hand it over to the Mythbusters. They would have gotten it down pat, and we'd have some funny skeptical wisecracks along with way.

More foam below the fold.

What really annoys me is that they talk about a 'lack of interest by mainstream science'. Well, now that this crank's got some media coverage, why not apply for the Randi Challenge? Have Randi consult with one of those guys who levitate frogs and strawberries with magnets. If you're wondering how that works out, it should be noted that you non-metallic organic critters are very slightly diamagnetic: Repelled by magnetism. If something really freaky is going on, he should honestly test it under tightly controlled conditions, and I didn't see any controls in the footage they shot. All the nuts with the network's cameras did was drum up the conspiracy theories and let the psychic guy ramble.

Also had a thing on a 'zero point' battery that involves ground up crystals in a cylinder that can light up an LED and supposedly last forever. Got some gullible Japanese corporation interested, but they noted nothing's come of it yet. Gee, I wonder why. My guess: It's just a crude chemical and/or pietzoelectric battery, and it runs out. No signs of anything unexpected.

I can already hear some of the doggerel coming up. I suspect some will say that I'm afraid of anything weird. That's the problem though: This sort of crap is routine for me. Some videos shot under improper viewing protocols, a lack of desire to test when it matters, and rampant conspiracies to explain why we've only got sloppy movies. All to explain why the woo of the moment won't just take something simple like Randi's test, and that I should just take everything at face value.

Yeah, and the face value of the Earth tells me it's flat. Real science, done with incredible rigor, however, lets me know that it's really round, so I'm not one to take 'shocking' things at face value.

Gone to the Dogs #1.1

Just found out about this via Infophile. "UFO" is on the list for Doggerel entry ideas, and I should probably get around to it, since there are a lot of people out there who don't seem to understand what the U means.

Phil goes in-depth here.

"I just talked to Buzz Aldrin on the phone, and he notes that the quotations were taken out of context and did not convey the intended meaning. After the Apollo 11 crew verified that the object they were seeing was not the SIVB upper stage, which was about 6000 miles away at that time, they concluded that they were probably seeing one of the panels from the separation of the spacecraft from the upper stage. These panels were not tracked from Earth and were likely much closer to the Apollo spacecraft. They chose not to discuss this on the open communications channel since they were concerned that their comments might be misinterpreted (as they are being now). Apparently all of this discussion about the panels was cut from the broadcast interview, thus giving the impression that they had seen a UFO." -Dave Morrison

Gone to the Dogs #1: The Discovery Channel

I was too afraid to watch, and according to Hokum-Balderdash, it seems my fears were justified. I recognize that Discovery's taken plenty of forays into the dark ages, but this is pretty well beyond my tolerance. That's why I chose to stop watching ABC, after all. I'll need to take the time to write up an appropriately angry letter. I'll probably do it after a few more entries this week, when I have the personal time I need to get my mouth appropriately foamy.