Real life might take me away from the computer for a few days this week, so if that happens, I'll apologize in advance. My fiancee is having surgery first thing tomorrow morning, and should be home recovering for a few days after that.

So, in case I'm unable to sit here at the computer and type away for the next few days, I'll leave you with some great articles to read. Book of THoTH has had some great ones on the front page over the last few days, and I just haven't gotten a chance to read them all and respond.

Regan Lee of the Orange Orb Blog posted an article on UFOs, and why she thinks "they"(whoever "they" might be) seem to want to put on a show, but not have any more contact than that. Many of the things which Regan says seem so obvious until you realize that her common sense approach to the UFO enigma is in many ways missing from the field far more than it should be.

They Want to be Seen, Not Discovered

Michael Bourne, aka THoTH, posted an article he wrote about Daniel Dunglas Home. I'd never heard the name before, and was interested to read about all of the paranormal activity which seems to have surrounded him. Even skeptics who took their time to research the phenomena seem to have agreed that there was something to the stories.

Daniel Dunglas Home - Who?

SolAris has then posted an amazing tale, in two parts, about his hunt for the Grail. This is not your traditional hunt, either. He begins by taking a very close look at a murder mystery in Virginia, possibly solves that 30-plus year old mystery, and follows the clues right through the eastern US seaboard in a style which only Sol is capable. If you've ever read anything by him before, you know his writing style is very engrossing. I always feel like I'm right along with him whenever I read one of his stories.

How to Look for the Grail
Some Notable Roadways to the Virginia Grail

Regan Lee, of the Orange Orb Blog, has recently posted a short front page article on Book of THoTH. Her article "What Is A Real UFO?" is a basic explanation of the term. Unfortunately, the term really is misused on a daily basis. It's always been one of my pet peeves, so I'm glad to see someone else taking up the cause! Good job Regan.

Regan Lee has a very nice article on Binnall of America about all of the dedicated UFO researchers who give so much of their time and effort for free. She also lists Book of THoTH as one of those sites where people can share their experiences and discuss such topics everyday in the forums. Thanks for that Regan!

I started thinking about it, and it's true. I don't know as much about most of those sites as I do BoT, obviously. I've been doing what I can on BoT for years now, and the group of people who spend their time to help out and give a free information resource, as well as a place for people to discuss just about anything in the world, really is special. I know the owner and webmaster of BoT, Michael Bourne, quite well by this point, and I know that doing what he does is certainly not free. However, until a few days ago during our recent server issues, no one's ever even persuaded him to solicit donations, much less put up advertisements or make a subscriber service.

That kind of dedication, by each of the sites which she lists, and so many others, certainly shows how important it is to people, and is really quite unique and special. So, following Regan's lead, I have to say THANKS to all the people who spend so much time, effort, and even money giving everyone free information resources. When you sit down and think about the enormity of the web and the information contained therein, it really is an interesting time to be alive if you always want to learn more, like myself.

Regan at The OrangeOrb Blog has added another post into the recent swarm of posts on skepticism.

This one's from UFO researcher Gordon Kaswell.

Regan over at the Orange Orb blog has expanded on her thoughts about "skeptics" and that "other" class of skeptics that takes it a step beyond. She really does a good job explaining some of the things that I was attempting to explain.

It's funny how many people are talking about such topics these days with myself, Regan, Greg Bishop and Nick Redfern all weighing in recently. Maybe we can all get together and figure out what terms we should really be using since everyone seems a little perturbed about it these days.

Regan from The Orange Orb Blog has posted some of her recent writings on skepticism.

I completely understand what she's trying to say, and the bullying tactics used by many to discredit whatever topic they dislike is difficult to deal with. In my opinion, she's right on with what she's saying.

Being a critical thinker, however, I think it paramount. You can't just go around believing everything that you read on the internet, or you'll certainly be misinformed. In that context, being a skeptic is actually a good thing, but one that many, if not most, people end up taking too far. So, perhaps, defining "skeptic" a little better is what's needed.

Mac Tonnies once wrote a little article titled "Skeptics, Debunkers and Believers" in which, I think, he defined skeptics quite well:

Skeptics are thinkers. Skeptics evaluate evidence, realizing that there is no absolute plane of reference on which to cling. Skeptics neither debunk nor believe--unless they are able to establish that a given phenomenon deserves to be debunked. “Belief” is not a luxury the true skeptic can afford; the mechanics of skeptical thought are rooted in probability and open-mindedness. Being a skeptic requires courage and intellectual flexibility. What looks like a neat idea may turn out to be unsubstantiated nonsense; conversely, it might be the real thing.

He continued with "debunkers" which is where I believe the skepticism goes too far, and is actually the class of people that I believe Regan was writing about:

Debunkers comprise the most virulent of contemporary self-described “skeptics.” There is nothing inherently unsound about debunking, contrary to the many appeals on behalf of the “pro” side of any given paranormal controversy. But in order to debunk, the subject being debunked must be bunk. Valid, substantiated evidence cannot be debunked until new evidence supplants or alters it.

The term “debunker” is often taken as a negative word, perhaps best personified by orangutan scientist-theologian Dr. Zaius in “Planet of the Apes.” But there’s nothing wrong with being a debunker as long as the debunker can back up his or her claims. Of course, this doesn’t mean that some commentators won’t abuse the urge to debunk--usually in the name of “skepticism.” For example, astronomer Donald Menzel “debunked” countless UFO sightings based on his scientifically baseless a priori conviction that there were no UFOs. Veteran ufologist Philip Klass continues in Menzel’s role, correctly debunking many spurious UFO reports but erroneously “debunking” others. This is inevitable, as Klass’ self-stated maxim is that all UFO reports can be attributed to prosaic causes. His personal bias manifests again and again in his proclamations, and one wonders what genuine contributions he could provide if he parted ways with the sloppy (if intellectually fashionable) debunking community to pursue uncorrupted skepticism.

So, if we take Mac's definitions to heart I think most people would end up classifying themselves as skeptics in the end. However, there are people out there, such as Randi whom Regan mentioned, or Philip Klass, mentioned by both Regan and Mac, who take that skepticism to a level which simply defeats their supposed purpose. Rather than being the "voice of reason" and espousing the truth, they end up shooting down everything which they'd rather not take the time to think about. It's entirely likely that many times this ends up putting these debunkers on the wrong side of the truth which they are claiming to stand for.

All of which leads up to a little article I saw on Fate Magazine's website from Robert Goerman titled "Never Has it Been Harder to do Good Research" which points out the lack of progression in the ability to do paranormal research. As he says, the same problems exist now that existed 15 years ago. For whatever reason, and there's probably many, the study of "fringe" topics occasionally gains scientific ground, generally only to be pushed back by the antics of a few.

It's unfortunate that there's very little "mainstream" research into cryptozoology, UFOs or the paranormal. Much of that is due to the bullying tactics of a few debunkers. Much of that is due to the way the paranormal community continues to bicker and in-fight instead of pushing forward. Much of that is due to a few true believers(defined by Mac as having "no pressing need for facts; a few vague correlations or anonymous “insider” remarks will suffice") who will shout about any story, believable or not, until they get attention.

In the end, I say be skeptical, be critical, but when there's evidence of the strange and/or unknown, don't throw it out just because it doesn't fit the current paradigm. The "truths" of today won't necessarily be the truths of tomorrow. There's nothing wrong with thinking for yourself.