In the beginning . . .

I just started a new class this fall at The Art Institute of Pittsburgh–Painting.  I have never painted with oils or acrylics on canvas before, but I have always wanted to try.  I am finding that I have always wanted to paint, but I just didn’t realize it until I started taking art classes at AI.  The trouble is that I get so easily discouraged with my own skill after I see so many great paintings online, on Magic: The Gathering cards, and at various events around town.  I would love to be able to paint amazing fantasy landscapes and scenes, but I have so much to learn.  If any one of you who reads this blog can lend some advice or some encouragement, I would great appreciate it.  This is the time to talk about anything and everything that is painting.  Discuss!

Steven Greer Speaks on ET disclosure – Must listen! 2010

Steven Greer and his fellow researchers are on the way to global ET disclosure and much more.

Please, listen to the following podcast and discuss what you think right here at Willow’s Forest Lab.

Podcast, courtesy of www.redicecreations.com. Enjoy!

Remember:  Always question everything, and don’t be afraid to ask yourself why.

Steven Greer speaks.

Advertising Design – Manipulation or Compelling Awareness?

Recently, I have been thinking about the ramifications of powerful ads that compel people to join a cause, buy a product, or request a specific service or charitable donation.   Almost every single good advertising campaign has been designed to not only please the client for which it was made, but it has also been carefully constructed by professional, talented, and educated people for the specific purpose of generating a distinct response from their clients target audience.   Of course, evidence of this is all around us- all the time.  For example, the new Droid cell phones by Verizon Wireless are advertised as being unlimited and all-powerful communications devices.  The tagline/slogan reads (or is spoken on television commercials): “When there’s no limit to what Droid gets, there’s no limit to what DROID DOES.” However, can Droid phones make toast?  Can they change diapers or feed your pets?  Better yet, if Droid does everything, then what is left for consumers, to do?  It seems that the only option is to buy a Droid phone.   Hold on . . . where did that thought come from?  This is powerful advertising at its finest, in my opinion.  The best way to sell anything to anyone is to cause them to feel a need for the product being advertised.  But where is the line drawn between ads that attempt to persuade and ads that seem manipulative or even controlling?  Consider the following possible advertisement:  “The world is ending in 2027.  Buy Mars tickets on sale now, and explore the possibilities.”  Of course, this is quite an outlandish and exaggerated ad, but what do you think the response would be if the ad were coupled with powerfully and strategically constructed imagery; during a time of heightened global emergency?  I think a lot of people would buy tickets to Mars – based on need and as a result of fear.

As a student of Graphic Design, I have learned specific techniques and processes to attempt to generate a specific response from a target audience.  However, let’s look at the situation from the client’s point of view.  Referring back to the “Droid Does” example from earlier, the person(s) who conceptualized and designed Droid phones probably spent “many moons” bringing their unique and technologically advanced ideas to life.  They most likely slaved for hours on end, working out every single detail of their product, in order to make a living by selling it.  I am almost positive that at least one person had to sacrifice personal time in order to find a solution to any problem that may have arisen during the developmental stages of the product.  That being said, and given the current state of our monetary-based global economy, do the people of Verizon Wireless not have a right to promote their products in a strong or even exaggerated manner?

All I have to say is that the proof is in the pudding.  As with prophecy, the evidence for the true nature of a thing cannot be proven until the event has come to pass.  Then, and only then, is it able to be judged.  In other words, the advertisement is “innocent until proven guilty.”  Let’s say that someone buys a Droid phone based only on what they saw, read, or heard in and ad.    If the phone performs above expectation, and the consumer is completely satisfied, then the ad has proven itself.  However, if that person bought the phone and found that it was fairly similar to other phones, he/she would be in doubt that it really was anything more than just a “stupid cell phone.”  This is why I urge people to stop buying on impulse.  Don’t buy anything that you haven’t thoroughly researched and/or tested yourself.  If Droid really “does,” then you should be able to find that out before you purchase the product.  Read reviews, visit Verizon Wireless kiosks and stores, ask questions.  Find a user’s manual online and look over the functions of the product.  Find out every single thing about the product that you can.  Then, start the process all over again by comparing the functions and practical applications of other phones.  You may find that “Droid really does,” but you also may find that other phones “can” as well.  Also, when you buy something without researching it, you forfeit the right to complain that the product was falsely advertised.  Appreciate good advertising for products that you know are fascinating and life-changing.  Be skeptical of any product that has not proven itself to you.  You just might save a lot of money, and you could end up with some of the most useful products that the world has to offer.

Now’s the time to speak your mind.  As always, I don’t care if you have a strong opinion for or against explicit advertising.  Just make sure you stay on topic and add to the experience.  A simple “**** you, I hate this” doesn’t cut it around here.  However, tell us why you think the way you do, and you can flame to your heart’s content.

Always remember to ask why.

Are We Ready? – Extraterrestrial Akcnowledgement (A discussion)

Some friends and I were having an interesting discussion tonight concerning UFOs.  Read the information below, and feel free to add to the discussion with your insights.  Enjoy!

The first argument that was made was that we (as a human race) are not ready to face a reality in which aliens do exist.  In other words, the global society would be cast into a bout of utter chaos if it were ever proven and revealed that highly advanced beings exist beyond the scope of our planet.  However I tend to disagree that most civilized people would not be prepared for such a claim.  I base my opinion on the fact that our society is pretty damned advanced from a technological standpoint, and there is not a whole lot else that could possibly become a reality that we haven’t already dreamed up in the first place.  For instance, spaceships, lasers, strange creatures (both native and mythological),  science fiction movies, and interactive media have opened many minds to the idea of vivid new concepts or realities.

For centuries the human race has been preparing itself  in learning to accept new technology, scientific theory, and all curious people more than likely dream or imagine the possibilities of future technology.  Although, maybe humanity’s common respect for the power of advanced technology is somehow breeding into the fear of someone or some thing else wielding that technological power.  What if all that we have accomplished as a technological, global society is to learn to fear our own devices?  What I do not understand about the main question here (are people ready to accept the existence of extraterrestrial life?) is: Are we afraid of the idea? Or is our fear grounded in a premise as basic as our need to feel secure?

second point of argument:  Whether we are ready or not, proof of alien life could take us by surprise any day.  So, why would the government be hiding what they know about the existence of aliens if the aliens could show up at any moment and proclaim that fact for themselves?  Ah, see? Now you’re catching on.  The fact of the matter is this: If a government truly wanted to hide the existence of aliens, they would have to kill us all in order to keep their secrets; thereby, proving their knowledge of the existence of alien life.  Since we all haven’t been completely destroyed by the government, I am assuming that we have a few intelligent beings of our own, working to hold a better secret for the government to declassify as it sees fit.

Either way, I think that we will someday evolve as a society and find out one way or another.  True? False? It’s all the same to me, but I don’t think that we are ready to hear that aliens do exists.  That is, until we release our inborn fear of the unknown.  For, is curiosity not the antithesis of fear?  However, I do not think that humanity would utterly crumble at the sight of the naked truth.  But, I do think that there would be some amount of chaos involved; it doesn’t really matter when but how. Either way, if we don’t shape up soon, we’re going to run ourselves mad with curiosity when truth presents itself.

Now, it’s up to you to answer the question for all of us.  Are we ready?  Please, feel free to discuss by sharing your thoughts as comments or e-mails.  I will be using the most convincing arguments as edits to the original posting in to show honor among fellow writers.  In other words, if you have something to say, I will add it to this post, with your permission, as a sort of moderation for the discussion.  All flaming comments that do not speak a valid point will be deleted immediately.  Yell, curse, and scream all you want, but you better be adding to the discussion.  I think that anger makes some people honest, so feel free to vent–just do it wisely.  Just stick to the topic. All non-related content will be removed. Hey, have fun, and maybe we’ll learn something along the way. 

Bringing Credibility to the Incredible

A woman, Martha, has just witnessed something incredible.

Earlier, during the afternoon, she was tending to her garden in the warm summer sun.  Suddenly, without warning, the air around her began to chill and Martha noticed that her breath was coming out in visible wisps of vapor.  Confused, she turned and saw what she would later describe—quite vividly—as a tall, imposing figure of darkness that quickly passed through the doorway to her quaint, Midwestern home.  Afraid for her own safety, she ran to the neighbor’s house and called for the police to come and investigate the home.  The officers who then investigated the scene reported that there were no signs of forced entry, and that no one was found in or around the home.  Shocked and in dazed state of disbelief, Martha reluctantly returned to the house to verify their report.

It was as the officers had said.  Nothing in her house was disturbed, and there were no signs that anyone had ever entered the home.  She soon realized that she had become a victim of the unexplainable, and, based on the officer’s prompt investigatory report, she questioned whether or not she had ever seen the figure at all.   She thought, “Did something really happen?  If so, then who should I call for help—a psychologist? A psychic medium? Further still, how am I to explain what happened?  Is there anyone, other than some hack paranormal investigator, that would be willing to help?” Perhaps more importantly, Martha thought, “How will I ever find closure?” To this day, her questions remain unresolved—but, why?

Like poor Martha, people—real people—of all inclinations have reported vivid and mostly terrifying encounters with the unexplainable throughout history; ranging from audible bumps in the night to alien abduction and demonic possession.  Further still, and most disconcerting for some, many people have reported sightings of their deceased loved ones without any credible explanations or theories from science, religion, or the media.  Moreover, many people are left to manage recurring events they cannot possibly resolve because there is no one to direct them to the source of the phenomena—if there is such a thing.  One psychologist, David Marks, wrote an article for the popular science journal, Nature, in 1987 in which he states quite profoundly that “there are no theories that account for paranormal phenomena” (qtd. in Austin).

That being said, modern paranormal investigation groups consist of only a select few educated professionals, but they mainly consist of members who are only interested in the emotional, spiritual, and skeptical side of those events that are considered unexplainable (Aurbach par 1).  To make matters worse, the majority of these “thrill seekers” obtain their knowledge of the subject from mass media; from watching popular television programs and movies, seeking psychical advice, and reading tabloids.  Indeed, the worst aspect of all that has happened throughout the span of paranormal history is the fact that those same people employ their supposed experience with the paranormal during real-world investigations and with real victims, under the guise of scientific professionalism.  The director of the Office of Paranormal Investigations (OPI), Lloyd Auerbach M.S., forcibly states, “Just because people may be interested in psi phenomena and may even write about it for years, does that make them parapsychologists?  No, because interest does not a professional make” (par 1).

In spite of all that has occurred concerning the progression (or lack thereof) of paranormal research, one idea remains intact: there is no proof that paranormal phenomena are physically possible or impossible.  However, the lack of scientific, falsifiable proof does not concede success to those who would fault paranormal researchers based on poor practice and popular belief.  In light of vast amounts of unreliable evidence provided by paranormal researchers and their detractors throughout history, it becomes apparent that accepted methods of scientific research must be applied in order to facilitate the collection of falsifiable data; indeed, paranormal investigation will continue to fail if it continues to be defined on the basis of beliefs, closed-minded speculation, and inappropriate methodology.

A movement for the progression of paranormal research begins with bringing credibility to the incredible.  First, the terminology used to define occurrences of an unexplainable nature are misguiding to all who seek the cause of such events.  In other words, to say that any occurrence is beyond normal is admitting that it has not occurred within the bounds of nature (Vaknin 1).  Consequently, science is concerned only with natural, or normal events that can be proven to be falsifiable—that is, refutable.  Therefore, if such instances of inexplicable phenomena are to be continually defined as being outside the laws of nature (i.e. not falsifiable), then any practice involving the study of those instances can never be considered anything more than pseudoscience; meaning that claims of the paranormal could never be supported by scientific facts.  Author, David Austin concludes that “the trouble in defining parapsychology suggests an easy way to dismiss it as pseudoscience, since . . . precision in definition is a virtue” (“parapsychology”).  This is why redefining incredible occurrences as abnormal phenomena is in order—essentially bringing what is commonly defined as  supernatural into the natural universe.  Case in point; consider the words of Dr. Sam Vaknin: “Nature, by its extended definition, is all-inclusive and all-pervasive” (1).

What is being suggested here is that if something occurs—anything at all—and it is dutifully recorded as credible data by sentient beings, then the occurrence is real and therefore, natural; regardless of whether or not that occurrence has been quantified.  However, since such phenomena are not yet explainable, that does not mean they should be understood to be unnatural.   There is no proof, on either side of the debate, to mitigate such a hastily formed response.  In the minds of the opposition, such observations are held under scrutiny based on premises that hold to the common assumption that what cannot be explained by science cannot be considered normal.  According to James Alcock, quoted in the online Skeptic’s Dictionary (www.skepdic.com), “Parapsychology is the only realm of objective inquiry in which the phenomena are all negatively defined, defined in terms of ruling out normal explanations”(“parapsychology”).  The main argument here is that there needs to be a critical, visible shift toward that of substantiated and scientific methodologies in order to facilitate the acceptance of data collected by paranormal investigators as a source of credible information.

To say the least, it would be miraculous for a group of ignorant but zealously intrigued investigators to capture irrefutable scientific evidence of the paranormal.  The fact is that most self-touting investigatory groups today have minimal experience and knowledge of their own expensive equipment, let alone the ability to use it to acquire a solid piece of data that single-handedly solves some of nature’s most perplexing mysteries (Darkrealm labs).    Still, what “evidence” they do manage to capture seems so amazingly coincidental to what they believe as a group that it often becomes presented in such a way as to discredit any attempt by knowledgeable third parties to disprove what has been collected.  On the other hand, there are many capable physicists, scientists, and other professional entities that could potentially find means to investigate such phenomena. However, a number of them (not all) refuse to accept the possibility that such occurrences are natural; therefore, they only concern themselves with what they believe they can explain.  So, it is asked: What is harder to believe—the theory of special relativity, or that there may be a viable, natural explanation for abnormal phenomena? Case in point: neither concept has yet to be proven, but, as stated before, the latter has no theory whatsoever to which it is attached.  It is this sort of closed-minded speculation that is choking the life out of paranormal research, and it must be put into realistic perspective in order for someone—anyone—to come up with the slightest acceptable explanation for these events.  Even skeptics have come to this conclusion.  According to author and skeptic, James Randy, “Powers of discrimination tend to be lost on those who want to believe, and such is the reason to plan studies of the phenomena in such a manner that bias is controlled or eliminated” (“Twenty Things”).  Conversely, what has been said has yet to be publicly recognized.

Albert Einstein, considered to be one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, said the following: “Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” (Brainy Quote).  Likewise, paranormal investigators who utilize uncontrollable and inordinate methods for collecting data are insane to think that they will achieve anything more than signifying their own ineptness; especially to a crowd of slavering skeptics.  Such dubious methods include the use of psychic mediums to interpret a phenomenon, metaphysical objects, and any equipment that is untested or yields inconclusive results regularly.  Additionally, “without standards of how data is collected [one] cannot compare what one group found and compare it to what another group found at the same location, especially if the equipment’s capabilities differ” (“Standardization”).  Lead investigator and retired detective, Kim Kowalczyk, of paranormalunderground.com states that a move to standardize the methods of paranormal research would, “for the first time, steer Paranormal Investigation and splinter fields, toward being recognized fields of study and make it much easier for those serious about what they are doing to have their information, ideas, methods and findings, scrutinized and recognized as legitimate work in the field” (“Standardization”).  To reiterate, establishing a standardized paranormal research community would be almost as rewarding as providing a scientific theory for the phenomena in question.  Regardless, it is apparent that a call to legitimate, scientific action is being made from all sides of the debate.  From the most formidable skeptics to the least experienced investigators, one goal remains clearly defined among the mob; all are seeking resolution.

Without a resolution toward the standardization of paranormal research methodologies, many clients will continue to feel victimized as a result.   With regard to the case of poor Martha, a unanimous resolution could affect personal closure.  If one were to imagine that Martha finally called a paranormal investigation group to explore her home, one could easily speculate the results given the current disorganized state of modern paranormal research.  However, one theme would remain constant throughout:  No one could refute, nor could they truthfully deny that Martha’s situation was in need of calculated, caring, and sympathetic investigatory action.    Just as Martha’s call to the police constituted professional assistance, the plea for paranormal research ordains a proficient diagnosis.  Likewise, paranormal investigators deal with real people, living in real and distinct places; affecting their personal lives and social networks.  Moreover, they consistently target those individuals who have reported grievous sightings and events under the pretense that the most shocking of events should yield the most intrinsic results.    What’s worse is that, without standardized methods, the result of an investigation will be inconclusive at best, and this fact leaves many clients to feel more confused and less apt to commission another investigation by the same group; if ever again.  Overall, the lack of standardized paranormal research methodologies demonstrates a certain level of disproportionate professional aptitude not only among scientists and skeptics, but also to those people whom they seek to serve.  In other words, real people with real problems deserve respect from real professionals.

Works Cited

“Albert Einstein Quotes.” Brainy Quote. Brainy Media.com. 2010. Web. March 26,2010.

<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html>

Aurbach, Lloyd. “How do You Know You’re Dealing with a Parapsychologist?”

www.mindreader.com/opi . The Office of Paranormal Investigations. N.p. N.d. Web.

March 23, 2010. < http://www.mindreader.com/opi/>

Austin, David F. “Science vs Pseudoscience.” www.ncsu.edu. North Carolina State University. Jul.

14, 2000. Web. March 22, 2010. <http://www4.ncsu.edu/~n51ls801/340scipseudo.html>

Darkrealm Labs. WordPress.org. Feb. 2010. Web. March 20, 2010.

< http://paranormal.darkrealmlabs.com/>

Holzer, Hans. Ghosts: True Encounters with the World Beyond. New York, NY: Black

Dog & Leventhal, 2004. Print.

Kowalczyk, Kim.  “Standardization in the Paranormal Community.” Paranormalunderground.com.

Ghost Breakers.  Jan. 4, 2010. Web. March 26,2010.

<http://www.paranormalunderground.net/site/standardization-in-the-

paranormal-community>

“Parapsychology.” www.skepdic.com. N.p. Feb. 23, 2009. Web. March 23, 2010.

<http://skepdic.com/parapsy.html >

Randi, James. Flim Flam! Twenty Things to Consider When Regarding Paranormal

Phenomena. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1982. 37-41. Print.

Vaknin, Sam. Parapsychology and the Paranormal. www.samvak.tripod.com. N.p. N.d.

Web. March 20, 2010. < http://samvak.tripod.com/paranormal.html>