IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags crop circles , Kevin Randle , William Levengood

Reply
Old 18th July 2011, 02:48 AM   #1
the blue raven
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 25
Did William Levengood of the BLT crop circle research team fake his PhD credentials?

Given the recent revelations by Lance Moody that ufologist and researcher, writer Phil Imbrogno lied about his MIT degree, and the resulting kerfluffle in ufological circles; I think it worth revisiting the claim that William Levengood, one of the 'leading' scientific investigators - among the believers that is - of crop circles, faked his own PhD credentials.

Levengood is part of the BLT research team (Burke, Levengood, Talbott) that is the most noted for undertaking scientific analyses of the plant and soil material in affected crop formations and claiming that there are physical and physiological effects that differ from the untouched and unaffected crops ie the crop circle phenomenon is a real mystery even if many of them are also hoaxed. Well that's the BLT line anyway, along with all the croppies who trek to south-west England every year for the season's displays (the summer harvesting months, right now is peak season). John Burke, also a scientist, passed away recently. Nancy Talbott is the group spokesperson, she has a background in psychology. I don't know if the team still exists thus in any meaningful sense or if other investigators do the research and pass on their results to Talbott who continues to publicize the findings under the BLT umbrella or what.. Their website is BLTResearch.

It is well-known among those seriously interested in the crop circle phenomenon that ufologist Kevin Randle claimed that William Levengood, who apparently taught plant science as a biophysicist at Michigan State, lied about his PhD qualification.

Firstly even though Randle is a well-known ufologist believer and writer (who unfortunately takes the Roswell nonsense seriously); to his credit, he has written some excellent stuff debunking the alien abduction phenomenon. Randle is a US military veteran who served in Vietnam and Iraq (can't be many who served in both wars, on the ground!). He also needs to be credited for uncovering Levengood's deceit (if he has done so), which I have noticed has been completely ignored by the croppie believers.

Now here's the thing though, when I wanted to check up on Randle's own remarks in this regard, I couldn't find them at his blog or in any of his writings elsewhere on the web. There is no mention of Levengood at all if you do a search at his blog. It's all second-hand in other words, the words of James Moseley, editor at Saucer Smear, (from the December 2002 issue of Saucer Smear) not Randle himself. Likewise skeptics have repeated the charges from Saucer Smear, yet I can't seem to find anything at all from the source of this exposť - ie Kevin Randle himself, at his blog 'A Different Perspective' or anywhere else.

Here is the relevant portion from the Saucer Smear issue, written by Moseley:

Finally, we have a hilarious story from the (cursed) Net, regarding "Doctor" William Levengood of BLT Research Team, Inc., a small group that has done a great deal of useful research on crop circles and cattle mutilations, with rather spectacular results.

When Levengood's doctorate was recently called into question by Dr. Kevin Randle, (of Roswell fame) and others, LeVengood said that in reality he has a "Ph.D. equivalent" from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This would be fine if it were true, but when that prestigious body was contacted, they made it known that the NAS is not a academic institution and does not issue "degree equivalents" of any kind. This sort of leaves "Dr." Levengood out on a limb!

Another problem is that BLT's spectacular results have not been duplicated elsewhere, either because of lack of funding, lack of interest, or possibly because these results are not valid! We don't know who the "B" in "BLT" is, but the "T" is a lady named Nancy Talbott. We have met her and seen her slide show, and she makes a very good presentation indeed, based mainly on the research of "Dr. Levegood. Stay tuned!


Well that's near nine years ago now and nothing else *new* has been heard about it since..

Maybe we need somebody of the calibre of Lance Moody to get to the bottom of this. Skeptics need to make a bigger deal of the William Levengood fakery (if indeed he faked his credentials) than arguably even Imbrogno, because Levengood has or had far more status and credibility than Imbrogno (whose stories were prima facie ridiculous and absurd). As Moody points out, even before the revelations of Imbrogno lying about his MIT background were uncovered by him, Imbrogno obviously could not be taken seriously given the outlandishness of his storytelling (just like Steve Greer and Bob Lazar and Colin Andrews in croppie circles for that matter). Levengood is actually a different kettle of fish, given he actually has carried out research and scientific analyses of the crops in the formations, from around the world. In fact he may well have done more analyses here than any other investigator and he does appear to have taught plant science at the University of Michigan. He is an expert on glass chemistry and has published in the professional literature in this regard. He has also done research on cattle mutilations.

I did locate his thesis:
Bioelectric currents and oxidant levels in plant systems : a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Science-Forestry (1970).

Of course a thesis is not a PhD.

My point is - why have skeptics not made a bigger deal about Levengood? He is a big fish here, a big catch. All I could find on this forum, was a single reference by 'Stray Cat' to Levengood's fakery, but he didn't provide a source. This is from the twelve page thread 'Crop circle debuking help needed', the most extensive thread dedicated to crop circes at this forum, as far as I have ascertained.

There is very little about the Levengood fakery, from skeptics that is. In fact many noted skeptics haven't said anything about it publicly as far as I could find out. This is somewhat surprising and somewhat disappointing.

Is it because the guy who exposed Levengood, Kevin Randle is not a skeptic, but a UFO believer and a Roswell believer and promoter at that? So what, let's give credit where it's due, even if we roll our eyes at Randle's lack of skepticism with the Roswell myth. Any first-class skeptic knows though you need to get to the source, the original exposť, you need to hear from the horse's mouth so to speak. And I can't find this with Randle's exposť of Levengood, it's all second-hand. I can't find anything from Randle himself to repeat myself. Why does Randle have no mention of it at his blog, or anywhere else (unless I missed it)? Why haven't skeptics trumpeted this out far louder?

Also did Levengood really think that he could get away with this remark:
"Levengood said that in reality he has a "Ph.D. equivalent" from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)"??

I mean anybody who knows anything basic about the US scientific community knows the NAS is a prestigious scientific association that you have to be elected to, it doesn't hand out degrees, PhDs or even a BSc for that matter. It's not a university or tertiary institute. It's like saying you got your medical degree 'equivalent' from a professional medical association rather than a university med school. Who would fall for that?

The thing is I can't find the 'smoking gun' evidence for Levengood's remarks here, that is not from Randle himself, it's all second-hand like I write above. Can anybody help here? Maybe contacting Kevin Randle himself? I think one may have to resort to that to get beyond the smoke here, and find the dead body so to speak. Also why has nobody put the feet to the fire of other noted croppie researchers and notable writers here, making them squirm, asking them to comment on Levengood's apparent fakery of his credentials - that would include more than anybody else Nancy Talbott, also Michael Glickman, Andy Thomas and others? Why have they been let off the hook?

Levengood has not appeared to respond to Randle's or Saucer Smear's accusations, so I assume that Randle is correct in his charges. Why else would Levengood stay silent? Surely he hasn't answered the charges because they are true - Levengood lied about his PhD and then compounded his lie by telling another one - he got his PhD equivalent from the NAS, what a howler. Still it would be nice if I could find the original claims/evidence from Randle himself, and I have not been able to do so.

People's thoughts here? I hope others concur with me that it is necessary to get to the bottom of this and that it hasn't been done properly (that is Randle's commentary here is not available for perusal. Well I can't find it). Also that skeptics need to be making a bigger deal of this than they have done so far (yes I know it has been near a decade since the revelations, so what?) and that this is frankly a failure of organized skepticism to have not done so. Ironically it's a UFO believer who did the exposť here, not a skeptic!

PS Randle is making a mention of the Imbrogno affair at his blog. More details of Imbrogno's confabulations have come to light.
the blue raven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:37 AM   #2
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
Given the recent revelations by Lance Moody that ufologist and researcher, writer Phil Imbrogno lied about his MIT degree, and the resulting kerfluffle in ufological circles; I think it worth revisiting the claim that William Levengood, one of the 'leading' scientific investigators - among the believers that is - of crop circles, faked his own PhD credentials.

Levengood is part of the BLT research team (Burke, Levengood, Talbott) that is the most noted for undertaking scientific analyses of the plant and soil material in affected crop formations and claiming that there are physical and physiological effects that differ from the untouched and unaffected crops ie the crop circle phenomenon is a real mystery even if many of them are also hoaxed. Well that's the BLT line anyway, along with all the croppies who trek to south-west England every year for the season's displays (the summer harvesting months, right now is peak season). John Burke, also a scientist, passed away recently. Nancy Talbott is the group spokesperson, she has a background in psychology. I don't know if the team still exists thus in any meaningful sense or if other investigators do the research and pass on their results to Talbott who continues to publicize the findings under the BLT umbrella or what.. Their website is BLTResearch.

It is well-known among those seriously interested in the crop circle phenomenon that ufologist Kevin Randle claimed that William Levengood, who apparently taught plant science as a biophysicist at Michigan State, lied about his PhD qualification.

Firstly even though Randle is a well-known ufologist believer and writer (who unfortunately takes the Roswell nonsense seriously); to his credit, he has written some excellent stuff debunking the alien abduction phenomenon. Randle is a US military veteran who served in Vietnam and Iraq (can't be many who served in both wars, on the ground!). He also needs to be credited for uncovering Levengood's deceit (if he has done so), which I have noticed has been completely ignored by the croppie believers.

Now here's the thing though, when I wanted to check up on Randle's own remarks in this regard, I couldn't find them at his blog or in any of his writings elsewhere on the web. There is no mention of Levengood at all if you do a search at his blog. It's all second-hand in other words, the words of James Moseley, editor at Saucer Smear, (from the December 2002 issue of Saucer Smear) not Randle himself. Likewise skeptics have repeated the charges from Saucer Smear, yet I can't seem to find anything at all from the source of this exposť - ie Kevin Randle himself, at his blog 'A Different Perspective' or anywhere else.

Here is the relevant portion from the Saucer Smear issue, written by Moseley:

Finally, we have a hilarious story from the (cursed) Net, regarding "Doctor" William Levengood of BLT Research Team, Inc., a small group that has done a great deal of useful research on crop circles and cattle mutilations, with rather spectacular results.

When Levengood's doctorate was recently called into question by Dr. Kevin Randle, (of Roswell fame) and others, LeVengood said that in reality he has a "Ph.D. equivalent" from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This would be fine if it were true, but when that prestigious body was contacted, they made it known that the NAS is not a academic institution and does not issue "degree equivalents" of any kind. This sort of leaves "Dr." Levengood out on a limb!

Another problem is that BLT's spectacular results have not been duplicated elsewhere, either because of lack of funding, lack of interest, or possibly because these results are not valid! We don't know who the "B" in "BLT" is, but the "T" is a lady named Nancy Talbott. We have met her and seen her slide show, and she makes a very good presentation indeed, based mainly on the research of "Dr. Levegood. Stay tuned!


Well that's near nine years ago now and nothing else *new* has been heard about it since..

Maybe we need somebody of the calibre of Lance Moody to get to the bottom of this. Skeptics need to make a bigger deal of the William Levengood fakery (if indeed he faked his credentials) than arguably even Imbrogno, because Levengood has or had far more status and credibility than Imbrogno (whose stories were prima facie ridiculous and absurd). As Moody points out, even before the revelations of Imbrogno lying about his MIT background were uncovered by him, Imbrogno obviously could not be taken seriously given the outlandishness of his storytelling (just like Steve Greer and Bob Lazar and Colin Andrews in croppie circles for that matter). Levengood is actually a different kettle of fish, given he actually has carried out research and scientific analyses of the crops in the formations, from around the world. In fact he may well have done more analyses here than any other investigator and he does appear to have taught plant science at the University of Michigan. He is an expert on glass chemistry and has published in the professional literature in this regard. He has also done research on cattle mutilations.

I did locate his thesis:
Bioelectric currents and oxidant levels in plant systems : a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Science-Forestry (1970).

Of course a thesis is not a PhD.

My point is - why have skeptics not made a bigger deal about Levengood? He is a big fish here, a big catch. All I could find on this forum, was a single reference by 'Stray Cat' to Levengood's fakery, but he didn't provide a source. This is from the twelve page thread 'Crop circle debuking help needed', the most extensive thread dedicated to crop circes at this forum, as far as I have ascertained.

There is very little about the Levengood fakery, from skeptics that is. In fact many noted skeptics haven't said anything about it publicly as far as I could find out. This is somewhat surprising and somewhat disappointing.

Is it because the guy who exposed Levengood, Kevin Randle is not a skeptic, but a UFO believer and a Roswell believer and promoter at that? So what, let's give credit where it's due, even if we roll our eyes at Randle's lack of skepticism with the Roswell myth. Any first-class skeptic knows though you need to get to the source, the original exposť, you need to hear from the horse's mouth so to speak. And I can't find this with Randle's exposť of Levengood, it's all second-hand. I can't find anything from Randle himself to repeat myself. Why does Randle have no mention of it at his blog, or anywhere else (unless I missed it)? Why haven't skeptics trumpeted this out far louder?

Also did Levengood really think that he could get away with this remark:
"Levengood said that in reality he has a "Ph.D. equivalent" from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)"??

I mean anybody who knows anything basic about the US scientific community knows the NAS is a prestigious scientific association that you have to be elected to, it doesn't hand out degrees, PhDs or even a BSc for that matter. It's not a university or tertiary institute. It's like saying you got your medical degree 'equivalent' from a professional medical association rather than a university med school. Who would fall for that?

The thing is I can't find the 'smoking gun' evidence for Levengood's remarks here, that is not from Randle himself, it's all second-hand like I write above. Can anybody help here? Maybe contacting Kevin Randle himself? I think one may have to resort to that to get beyond the smoke here, and find the dead body so to speak. Also why has nobody put the feet to the fire of other noted croppie researchers and notable writers here, making them squirm, asking them to comment on Levengood's apparent fakery of his credentials - that would include more than anybody else Nancy Talbott, also Michael Glickman, Andy Thomas and others? Why have they been let off the hook?

Levengood has not appeared to respond to Randle's or Saucer Smear's accusations, so I assume that Randle is correct in his charges. Why else would Levengood stay silent? Surely he hasn't answered the charges because they are true - Levengood lied about his PhD and then compounded his lie by telling another one - he got his PhD equivalent from the NAS, what a howler. Still it would be nice if I could find the original claims/evidence from Randle himself, and I have not been able to do so.

People's thoughts here? I hope others concur with me that it is necessary to get to the bottom of this and that it hasn't been done properly (that is Randle's commentary here is not available for perusal. Well I can't find it). Also that skeptics need to be making a bigger deal of this than they have done so far (yes I know it has been near a decade since the revelations, so what?) and that this is frankly a failure of organized skepticism to have not done so. Ironically it's a UFO believer who did the exposť here, not a skeptic!

PS Randle is making a mention of the Imbrogno affair at his blog. More details of Imbrogno's confabulations have come to light.
"organized skepticism" doesn't exist. Could be that no one cares about a very small storm in a very small teapot.

I fear your next move will be to rail at us pseudo skeptics.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 07:41 AM   #3
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Firstly, hi there Blue Raven.

And now, Re: Levengood, I'll do some digging around today and get back to you.

And as for the others... Well Nancy Talbot needs shutting up with her constant promotion of fake psychic Robbert van den Broeke for a start. And as far as I know Talbot's background isn't in Psychology, she was a music producer prior to getting into paranormal guff, according to her bio at the BLT website:
"Nancy Talbott, a music producer with a research background at the University of Maryland and at Harvard College"
Source here

As for Andy Thomas, he rarely speaks about crop circles anymore, he's moved in to conspiracy theories and Illuminati type nonsense.
Glickman is still a silly old man and a few years ago teamed up with Gary King who was the fraud who claimed to see the 07.07.07 Eastfield formation forming in front of his eyes (video footage of the event taken by Winston Keech and investigated and truly debunked)...
Other crop circle researchers: Even Colin Andrews keeps turning back up having been drummed out of the scene when he made his 'cover my arse' 80/20 statement before leaving to live in the US to join the UFO conference circuit.

It's really a big deal over nothing though, the world of crop circles is in disarray due to certain actions of certain people over the last few years and there are very few people actually doing anything that could be called basic research let alone pseudo-science.

Of course Talbot still adds to the BLT website mostly with the Robbert vd Broeke nonsense and Levengoods published paper is still cited by a few die hard b'leevers who hand wave away any accusations of his fraudulent use of the Phd title.

But I'll stop gossiping now and get looking for that info.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

Last edited by Stray Cat; 18th July 2011 at 07:43 AM.
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 09:31 AM   #4
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
OK, I've been digging around a bit and I think the reason you can't find mention of Levengood on Kevin's blog is because it wasn't him who broke or investigated it (or maybe he did amongst other people who were following the same trail).

I've got this exchange including an email response from Talbot, kind of confirming that Levengood didn't have a PhD.
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2003/jan/m06-003.shtml

Levengood's claim to have a Phd equivalent seems to be centered on his having given a lecture at the National Academy of Science (for which he was supposed to have a Phd), he presumed that since they allowed him to give the lecture without a Phd, that the MAS must consider his body of work to be equivalent to having one... complete nonsense of course.

Further to this fraud, people who are regularly and legitimately entitled to say they have a Phd equivalent are still not allowed to have the title 'Dr.' And as we know from countless documents (despite claims from Talbot that Levengood never "requested" being called Dr. Levengood, he was quite happy to sign all of his crop circle reports and analysis with that title, many examples of this can be found here:
http://www.iccra.org/levengood/international.htm

Well that's a starting point for you Blue Raven, to what end I can't figure out, there is a big enough evidence trail to follow and it's not new news for anyone nowadays.

If you need any more, just ask.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 10:25 PM   #5
the blue raven
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 25
Stray Cat, thanks a stack!

I really appreciate it. Wow I thought I knew a lot about the whole crop circle scene, but Stray Cat really knows his stuff.

Yeah I knew that Andy Thomas had moved into conspiracy theories - he's a 9-11 truther and he believes the moon landings were hoaxed, all in his latest book. To give credit to Glickman, at least he won't have anything to do with Colin Andrews, the latter is really a despicable character. Glickman actually comes across as a pleasant old man, whose health appears to have deteriorated the last few years - a harmless eccentric old guy whatever weird notions he may have about the crop circles.

Stray Cat, one of the most 'notable' loonytune crop circle believers who has written a book on the subject, Nicholas Kollerstrom, actually has a background in the history of science and is a former honorary research fellow in Science and Technology Studies at University College in London. I've even seen him interviewed in a documentary made by one of the croppie believers. Thing is he is a Holocaust Denier. As wiki informs us:

In "The Auschwitz 'Gas Chamber' Illusion," first published on the CODOH website in June 2007, Kollerstrom wrote that there were no "lethal gas chambers" in the Nazi's concentration camps, that cyanide gas chambers operated in Auschwitz only for the purpose of hygiene and disinfection, and that "the only intentional mass extermination program in the concentration camps of World War Two was targeted at Germans" in French and American-run concentration camps.

There is more on Kollerstrom's Holocaust Denial at wiki, with the refs. He also wrote a book Terror on the Tube (2009) in which he put forward the notion that the 7/7/2005 London bombings was orchestrated not by Muslim extremists (who were the 'patsies') but some cabal of higher-ups in the UK govt and British Secret Service blabla. A kind of homegrown British version of 9-11 fruitloopery. In other words, a real nutcase and a very sinister one at that.

Thanks again Stray Cat for all the info. tsig I beg to differ on 'organised skepticism'. It does exist - what is the former CSICOP and now CSE and other organised skeptical groups and societies, disorganised skeptics?? Also what's with people on internet forums across the board, quoting somebody's lengthy post in its entirety or nearly so, and then just adding a line or two? Why do so many people do this? It really isn't necessary, just write for example (in the context of this thread): re the blue raven's post above, I have the following to say in response... Why quote the whole bloody thing, it's already up there, right up above. Just saying..
the blue raven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 10:43 PM   #6
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Re: finding his thesis. That thesis is not for a doctorate unless he messed up his statement. It says (your quote) that it is part of his Master of Science (a Masters degree, not a PhD or any equivalent) degree. Should be at least as easy to find his Doctorate if he ever did one. If you did not come up with one but found his for the MS, it is likely he did not get a PhD or other legitimate doctorate.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 11:06 PM   #7
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
Stray Cat, thanks a stack!
Pleasure.

Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
I really appreciate it. Wow I thought I knew a lot about the whole crop circle scene, but Stray Cat really knows his stuff.
I've been studying it almost full time for the past 10 years... I don't know everything, but if there's something I'm not familiar with, I know where to look and who to ask.

Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
Yeah I knew that Andy Thomas had moved into conspiracy theories - he's a 9-11 truther and he believes the moon landings were hoaxed, all in his latest book. To give credit to Glickman, at least he won't have anything to do with Colin Andrews, the latter is really a despicable character. Glickman actually comes across as a pleasant old man, whose health appears to have deteriorated the last few years - a harmless eccentric old guy whatever weird notions he may have about the crop circles.
I'd never liked Glickman (his only redeeming factor being that he dobbed Matthew Williams in, but ultimately, even that's not turned out to be good thing!), he's always come across as very bitter in his denial of the human aspect of circlemaking. However, last time I heard him on the Radio (it was a BBC Radio 4 programme, I don't remember which one though), he seemed to have mellowed and promoted 'mystery' rather than 'humans can not do this', which is a better position from my PoV. Yes, his health isn't good, it's a shame he's got mixed up with King really.
Yes, Colin Andrews... The master of having a lot of words coming out of his mouth and yet saying nothing.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hELDaF_WSE

Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
Stray Cat, one of the most 'notable' loonytune crop circle believers who has written a book on the subject, Nicholas Kollerstrom, ...[snip]... In other words, a real nutcase and a very sinister one at that.
Indeed, thankfully not a major player in the world of crop circles.

Oddly enough the apparently most dangerous crop circle research at the moment is Andrew Pyrka. His realisation last year that he had been barking up the wrong tree for all those years has lead to a really ill thought out, pseudo-sceptical attack on the crop circle world. His belief now is based upon the same blind belief methodology that he used when he was convinced that alien were making them. So now not only does he have a history of woo (most of which he clings to re belief in Aliens, Orbs and stuff), but he can now add using really bad reasoning to support his newly found "Santa Claus doesn't exist" revelation and he's giving scepticism a bad name.
I'm not sure he clings onto his UFO at Barbury Castle video (that I thoroughly investigated and debunked), he never seems to mention it anymore. Needless to say, he banned me from his Facebook page when I started questioning his scepticism.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 11:10 PM   #8
the blue raven
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 25
fuelair all the info you need that clarifies everything is at the link provided by Stray Cat:

I've got this exchange including an email response from Talbot, kind of confirming that Levengood didn't have a PhD.
ufoupdateslist.com/2003/jan/m06-003.shtml


I can't write in the whole url (yet to reach fifteen posts).

I should have located it and didn't. Kudos to Stray Cat though for that.
the blue raven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 11:31 PM   #9
the blue raven
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 25
Stray Cat you should write a book! Really otherwise so much is just forgotten or scattered all over the place, or it gets distorted over time. You appear as well qualified as anybody to write it, perhaps more so than any other skeptic.

I have to say that I still consider Jim Schnabel's Round in Circles the definitive skeptical book on the subject, although that must be near two decades old now. So much since then has happened! Yeah I know Schnabel appears to take remote viewing seriously! yet it was his book that got me interested in all this, from a cultural/sociological PoV.

I did know about Pyrka's u-turn and found it very amusing. I agree he is no more reasonable now then before. Like watching a car wreck in action..
the blue raven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 11:52 PM   #10
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,829
Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
Stray Cat you should write a book! Really otherwise so much is just forgotten or scattered all over the place, or it gets distorted over time. You appear as well qualified as anybody to write it, perhaps more so than any other skeptic.
Maybe one day... I still just enjoy observing, researching and analysing all the goings on though. It's quite an easy circus to keep an eye on.

If I do write a book, you can bet it will have a lot of pictures in it though



Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
I have to say that I still consider Jim Schnabel's Round in Circles the definitive skeptical book on the subject, although that must be near two decades old now. So much since then has happened! Yeah I know Schnabel appears to take remote viewing seriously! yet it was his book that got me interested in all this, from a cultural/sociological PoV.
Round in Circles is certainly an amusing and informative book and one that I refer to all the time. Jim is an odd character, I know he looked at remote viewing. Didn't he just do the same thing he did with crop circles though? I thought he got all involved with the 'programme' in the US and then wrote a book saying what nonsense it was? I've never read that book though so I'm guessing. I even heard that 'Men Who Stare At Goats', was inspired by his work in the subject.

The other invaluable book of course is The Field Guide

Originally Posted by the blue raven View Post
I did know about Pyrka's u-turn and found it very amusing. I agree he is no more reasonable now then before. Like watching a car wreck in action..
The funniest thing is that because he's in with Matthew Williams, he thinks he's 'in the know'. He doesn't realise that people really 'in the know' wont talk to that blabbermouth.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2011, 03:18 AM   #11
the blue raven
Student
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 25
stray cat wrote
Quote:
Round in Circles is certainly an amusing and informative book and one that I refer to all the time. Jim is an odd character, I know he looked at remote viewing. Didn't he just do the same thing he did with crop circles though? I thought he got all involved with the 'programme' in the US and then wrote a book saying what nonsense it was? I've never read that book though so I'm guessing. I even heard that 'Men Who Stare At Goats', was inspired by his work in the subject.

Schnabel's take on remote viewing was/is not the same as his take on crop circles. I haven't read his book neither, so I can't be 100% sure on what he believes is viable or believable about it; but he appears to think there is something genuinely paranormal in it, or that it can't be ruled out altogether. His page featuring info on his book Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies at his website is here jimschnabel.com/remote-viewers/.

There was a documentary shown on British TV (Channel 4) about remote viewing, written by Schnabel himself where he interviews some of the major players there, 'The Real X-Files: America's Psychic Spies' is its title. You can view it online.

He also wrote an article about remote viewing here, which is anything but dismissive of it
independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tinker-tailor-soldier-psi-1598203.html

So no when it comes to remote viewing Schnabel is something of a believer (not a hardcore believer but he thinks there is something to it)! I know that he was mentored on RV originally by Ingo Swann himself.

As to the movie 'Men who stare at goats', that was largely based on the work of British journalist and writer Jon Ronson (who is a skeptic on remote viewing). Yet I do think Ronson may have drawn some stuff from Schnabel (even a lot of stuff), when researching on the topic. Schnabel apparently did not like the film too much and Ronson's treatment..
the blue raven is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.