Sunday, 3 November 2013

Berwyn 40

In less than three months it will be the fortieth anniversary of the Berwyn Mountains UFO Incident, the "Welsh Roswell", probably the most significant UFO event ever to take place in Wales. Coming from Wales myself I'm proud of my country's place in the extraterrestrial annals. On the 23rd of January 1974 the people in Llandrillo and other remote villages surrounding the Berwyn Mountains in north east Wales experienced an earthquake and an explosion accompanied by strange lights in the sky. One witness driving on a high mountain pass saw a strange circular or ovoid luminous object on the ground. There have been several books and films made about the event, varying in quality and accuracy; I review one of them here: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/ufo-down-by-andy-roberts.html. Until recently there was a feeling in much of UFOlogy that this was a "case closed" situation, however I think the case is still very much open and new evidence has come forth in the last few years, despite some shrill protests to the contrary. This new film by Richard D Hall is essential viewing for anybody with an interest in the subject, see: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=170&part=1.

I don't think we should let the forty year mark of the Berwyn UFO pass unrecognized, so I've started a Facebook page on the subject, see: https://www.facebook.com/events/250179091798038/, and a HPANWO Forum thread, see: http://hpanwoforum.freeforums.org/berwyn-40-t4141.html. The word PNH is one I invented; I'm not sure it's proper Welsh. It stands for Peth nid wedi Nabod yn Hedfan, literally an "unidentified (not known) flying object". I could have just used "UFO", but Welsh has too many English loan words in my view; French has the same problem, Franglais as it's known. I'm not sure yet how we are going to celebrate Berwyn 40, but hopefully HPANWO-readers and members of the group can provide ideas. Keep an eye on the links for any updates! 

Saturday, 2 November 2013

Chemtrail Planes Captured

A major diplomatic incident has broken out after the interception of two aircraft over India and Nigeria. Fighter jets in both countries located the two Ukrainian AN 124's and ordered them to land at their air bases. The aircraft were then both impounded and the crews arrested. The authorities then discovered something very strange; the aircraft may have come from the Ukraine, but they were under charter by the US Air Force and are based at the American base on the island of Diego Garcia (from which the native islanders were "evacuated" in order to build it). The US authorities are said to be "panicking" about this incident. The decision to take down the aircraft is said to be based on a Chinese intelligence report that states quite unequivocally that the AN 124's were being used by the Americans to spread "biological agents" in the air above India and Nigeria. Most suspicious of all, on examination the aircraft both had a system installed for spraying liquid from an onboard storage tank to outlets on the trailing edges of the wings and stabilizers. See here for the original article; it came to the website via a source in Mexico and is translated from Spanish: http://chemicalskyfall.com/us-reported-in-panic%C2%9D-after-chemtrail-planes-forced-down-in-india-nigeria/. If this report is true then it means whoever is behind chemtrails has been caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Just because the USAF is operating these aeroplanes doesn't mean that it's a US military programme. The Air Force could simply be contracted in the same way they in turn contracted the Ukrainian operators of the planes. The AN 124 is a transporter aircraft originating in Russia and is one of the biggest aeroplanes in the world; it can carry up to 893,000 pounds of cargo. It was not designed to spray chemicals from its wings and must have been adapted for that purpose. The question is, how many other aircraft are adapted in this way that we never find out about. According to chemtrail researchers like Alix Longman, see: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/programme-30-podcast-alix-longman.html, there are some dedicated chemtrail fleets operating in black secrecy, but that most are just ordinary commercial and military aircraft adapted like these two captured AN 124's and spray chemtrails while on routine flights without the crew knowing. Several airlines have been nominated as being involved; the name Ryanair comes up again and again. This is one of the most successful budget airlines, see: http://www.ryanair.com/en. Could its fares be so low because the airline is being subsidized by "somebody" in exchange for... "additional services"? Also we have a new revelation from Edward Snowden's classified package, see: http://worldtruth.tv/snowden-uncovers-shocking-truth-behind-chemtrails/. The authorities speak quite openly about their plans for chemtrails on a theoretical basis, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/white-chemtrails.html, but we might be reaching the point that they are exposed for already carrying out this project. This is a secret so big that they can never confess to it. I think an irresistible force is about to meet an immovable object!

Friday, 1 November 2013

Illuminati Pamphlet

A friend on YouTube has sent me this pamphlet How to Overthrow the Illuminati by Jason Cortez: http://libcom.org/library/how-overthrow-illuminati. It's a local publication, probably American, and aimed primarily and young black people who are in the process of becoming politically active. It's written by somebody called Jason Cortez and the author believes that what he calls "Illuminati Theory", conspiracy theories in other words, is wrong. He explains that believing in conspiracy theories is a "waste of talent" and that it distracts people from addressing the real causes of the human world's problems. He provides what he thinks is a history of the "Illuminati Theory" and says that it was created in pieces and combined over a long period of time by rich and powerful people who'd been kicked out of authority by mass movements. He claims that the first piece of the puzzle lies with the origins of the Bavarian Illuminati, a secret society established by Adam Weishaupt in 1776. It was an organization dedicated to establishing an international republican and technocratic society, therefore being staunchly opposed to the aristocracy and the churches. When the French Revolution erupted a few years later there were rumours abound that it had been engineered by Weishaupt's Illuminati, this was despite the fact that Weishaupt's group lasted barely a decade. According to Cortez, the conspiracy theory surrounding the Bavarian Illuminati was started by those opposed to the Revolution in order to discredit it. Apparently Weishaupt's men had achieved their goal by infiltrating and occupying Masonic orders. This theory was promoted by people like Nesta Webster, John Robison (The author calls him "Robinson") and the Jesuit priest Abbe Augustin Barreul. According to this theory the Illuminati still existed in Masonic lodges around the world and would unleash the same collectivist regimes against the British Empire and United States of America unless stopped. I recommend a good book to read which will give you a taste for conspiratorial culture in the 19th Century; it is a fictional novel by Umberto Eco called The Prague Cemetery, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prague_Cemetery. Cortez dismisses the notion that Freemasonry is anything other than a "fancy social club" for people who want to feel important and exclusive. Occasionally they were used as meeting places for radical activists, but he sees this as inconsequential. He claims that the Freemasons only originated a few hundred years ago out of the stone masons' guilds of Europe. This is false; the origin of the Freemasons, along with the Rosicrucians, Skull and Bonesmen and many other elite secret societies goes back many centuries, and even millennia, before that. Masonic history is deeply mysterious, but there is a provable link to the Knights Templar, see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Born-Blood-Lost-Secrets-Freemasonry/dp/0871316021. I think that the true birth of the Masonic secret society network lies in the mystery schools of antiquity.

The next piece of the "Illuminati Theory" is anti-Semitism, blaming it all on the Jews because Jews were associated with finance and credit. Again, it was the recently-deposed and second-echelon elitists who are supposedly behind this notion because they ape the big boys at the top of the industrial food chain. Sadly the idea that Jews are behind the New World Order is quite prevalent, it was behind Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime, and Cortez is correct to discredit it; I have done so myself from my own perspective, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/its-jooooozzz.html. Of course there is no doubt that banking and economic control are tools used by the elite to oppress the masses, this is never more obvious than in today's world; but it's wrong to blame a cultural and religious group for it. I address the various truths and lies of The Protocols of Zion here: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2008/02/protocols-of-zion.html. The notion of the Biblical Apocalypse or "Rapture" is widely accepted in some parts of the American conspiratorial community, but has little influence beyond the borders of the USA; it's nonsense, as Cortez and I again agree. It's clear that the author of this pamphlet is a Marxist and he interprets the conspiratorial opposition to the Russian Revolution, the Spartacist uprising in Germany and other leftist bids for power accordingly. He sees them as a coming together of those three theories, essentially serving the interests of the "petit-bourgeois", those who opposed proletarian political movements at the same time as having ambitions of joining the A-list capitalist class themselves. The problem is that Nesta Webster, Robison and others completely misinterpreted the history of the Illuminati, and Cortez simply echoes their distortions in his pamphlet. Firstly, the Illuminati are far older than these researchers, and therefore Cortez, think. Their origin lies in the very dawn of history itself, and even before; in fact the Illuminati arose as a subversive cabal in the civilization known to us as Atlantis, although they operated globally at the time. They were never merely an anti-religious anti-monarchist Enlightenment pressure group. Such pressure groups were numerous in the 18th and 19th centuries and some were used by the Illuminati, which incidentally also controlled the aristocracy and churches, but they were definitely not the beginning of the Illuminati. The ancient history of the New World Order is a complicated one; it involves astrology, the occult and the supernatural, but it can be traced, for example see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-orange-order-marches.html.

Cortez then goes on to describe how black people in his local area, he calls it "the hood", have come to believe in conspiracy theories to explain the mistreatment of black people America, some of which unfortunately still goes on forty years after the civil rights revolution. These ideas are spread by some "black power" organizations like the Nation of Islam. Ideas include AIDS being created in a laboratory to exterminate black people or KFC being set up by the Ku Klux Klan to make black people overweight and unhealthy. There is a lot of truth behind these theories; the mistake made is that these people think the goal is merely the destruction of black people and culture. In truth the artificial creation of disease and malnutrition is not a racist one, but is instead intended to decimate human beings of all creeds and colours, for example see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxyVK3pAiQQ. However impoverished black people took on the idea that the entire New World Order was a black vs. white dichotomy. Cortez is again correct to point out the flaws in this notion, however he does so from his own Marxist perspective; for him it's a conflict of class struggle, the capitalist ruling class trying to keep control of the working class who want freedom. For me, I see the influence of very ancient occult secret societies that can be found in both rich and poor. Cortez also sees William Cooper's book Behold a Pale Horse as just another development of an illusion, whereas I see it as one of the most encyclopaedic analyses of the New World Order to date. Cortez wrongly claims that the "Illuminati Theory" doesn't work because it leaves no room for coincidences or mistakes; not true! Any serious NWO researcher you come across understands that such things to happen. Also we supposedly make out the enemy to be "all-powerful" when this is completely not the case. Many things happen in the world that are not intended by the Illuminati, in fact they seem to be panicking at the moment and trying their best to contain the genuine expansion of human consciousness. Cortez also echoes the concept of the Skeptics that conspiracy theories fly in the face of scientific reasoning; not true at all, and I've said so many times, for example see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/british-humanist-association-conspiracy.html.

Jason Cortez thinks that all the problems people blame through "Illuminati Theory" can in reality be explained by the Marxist interpretation of history and politics. The human world is underpinned by the capitalist system, that there is a ruling class, a "bourgeoisie", of those who own the means of production and they control everybody else economically by taking possession of their "surplus labour". This is a complicated idea and Karl Marx himself wrote about it in his Das Kapital series of books. This is one of the longest political textbooks every written and reputed to be the most intricate. This led to his 1848 publication of the far shorter and more comprehensive Communist Manifesto, see: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf. It's one of the most widely-read and most influential books in history and many people come across it at some time in their life. I myself did when I was a teenager and for a while I was very enthralled by it; I even went along to many meetings of a local socialist group in Oxford. In fact the fictional description of one of these meetings in my new novel The Obscurati Chronicles, is partly based on my own experience, see: http://hpanwo-bb.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/obscurati-chronicles-part-13.html. However I swiftly rejected Marxism; at the time I didn't know why, it was purely intuitive. I soon began to understand that strands exist in society and the world in general that cannot be explained by Marxist interpretation and Marxism doesn't even address them. The principle strand is the influence of black magic, Satanism and of secret societies on history. What's more I question the utopian objective of Marxism: the abolition of private capital, forced egalitarianism, extreme collectivism; it sounds as if society would be turned into some kind of machine... it sounds suspiciously like the New World Order itself! In fact this was the main criticism Henrik Palmgrem and the others at Red Ice Radio had of Russell Brand's interview with Jeremy Paxman, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COMj3Nw2c3M (I share these concerns myself, although my emphasis was a bit different, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/russell-brand-walks-away.html). What's more I've spoken several times before that I'm very worried about cultural Marxist ideas like feminism, "positive discrimination", political correctness and the oppression of white, straight males, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/anti-feminist-demonization.html. So really this pamphlet doesn't explain how conspiracy theory is wrong at all, and it promotes an alternative that I find distasteful. As always I urge readers to look at both sides of the story, including any black people in Cortez' "hood"; read the Communist Manifesto by all means, but don't do so without also listening to the words of the aforementioned late, great Milton William Cooper, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUbFwqglIaA.
See here for more background information: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/my-book-review-who-are-illuminati.html .

BBC- Are Conspiracy Theories Destroying Democracy?

This patronizing and confusing article on the BBC's website is no different to any other more monolithic form of propaganda; it just uses bigger words, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24650841. It may well be a reaction to the recent poll in the USA showing that in the run up to the fifty year anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination conspiratorial awareness is more significant and powerful than ever, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/usa-conspiracy-theory-poll.html. There are many ways of dismissing and trivializing a subject and I've found that one of the most effective is to reduce it to a "psychological study". The phrase "We're not trying to prove or disprove any particular conspiracy theory; we're just interested in their impact on society" is very pat. It's either that or: "... the psychological factors that breed belief in conspiracy theory". It's a tactic that is very crude and tedious.
I've spent a lot of time documenting and exposing these ploys, see: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/on-benefits-and-proud.html.

Tuesday, 29 October 2013

Russell Brand "Walks Away"

During his speech at the Wembley Arena last year (See: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/david-icke-from-wogan-to-wembley.html) David Icke said a few words about the various celebrities whom he'd made friends with; usually these were short term relationships. He said of them: "Talk alone doesn't impress me. Walk the talk or walk away!" I think he was referring to one man in particular, Russell Brand. I knew David and he were getting close after a series of very good interviews Brand did with David on Brand's show, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZXi4hiGuOk. Russell Brand is one of these celebrities who seems to have become famous... simply because he's famous! He's an actor and comedian as well as a bon viveur and high society socialite who has dated many very glamourous women. For some reason that I can't quite understand he has been now made acting editor of New Statesman magazine see: https://subscribe.newstatesman.com/link/PAX?gclid=CKCf09uTvboCFXMRtAodGUoA_A. This turn of events led to his appearance on Jeremy Paxman's show, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYcn3PuTTk. The interview begins with Paxman displaying his extensive qualifications for BBC journalism, ie: complete ignorant naivete, by asking Brand again and again why he doesn't vote. Then Brand describes his own political views and his revolutionary utopian vision, some of which is progressive, but most of which sounds very suspiciously crypto-Marxist, straight out of Zeitgeist.

I do think Russell Brand is being sincere, but this doesn't mean he's not a shill. I think over 90% of those used to disseminate disinformation are "useful idiots" who have no idea what they're being exploited for. What strikes me is that Brand is not professing any of the information he has learned from his friendship with David Icke. He doesn't mention 9/11, Reptilians etc. Why not? Is he scared of being called a loony? Maybe he thinks he can do some good by just giving people "part of the truth" while holding back what he thinks will be regarded as "too far out". The problem with this kind of strategy is that it can lead to a blind alley, and it can happen almost without us knowing if we think we really can juggle facts with political expediency. How much will the truth weigh down on Brand before he has to make the decision: tell it and be called a loony, lose his position in the mainstream? Or keep stacking it up in the attic where nobody can see it? If he chooses the latter then he's wasting his time because he'll end up simply telling the people whatever the dictator of what is sane and insane decides he should say. I think the political structures of conformist society are deliberately designed to lure people in and disarm them like this. My conclusion therefore is to avoid the mainstream media altogether, unconditionally; I've been faced with this decision myself and taken a very different choice from Brand, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/offer-from-channel-4_6.html. I've a feeling that if Brand lets himself be used for long enough he may be allowed to "drop the bombshell" that he's a 9/11 Truther. But if so he'll merely be made to rant about "fermite!" and about "planes 'ittin' da buildinz!" And how they were brought down by "contwolled demolition, know wot I mean, Man!" Any mention of Dr Judy Wood will be strictly off the agenda.

Monday, 28 October 2013

My Cannabis Experience

A few days ago I was effected by cannabis for the first time in my life. Yes, my eighteen year old daughter has been stoned before her father was, much to her amusement! I don’t know why I never experienced cannabis before, I’ve smoked a few cannabis joints in my time, but it turns out all the while I was breathing wrong when I did it. I learned this from a friend Ustane and I went to visit a few days ago who taught me how to take it properly. Soon after I turned up at their house, my friend handed me an ornately-carved wooden pipe and instructed me to inhale from it deeply and to hold my breath for as long as I could. It was difficult for me not to splutter because I’m a non-smoker and my lungs are very sensitive, but I managed it. The smoke from the bowl of the pipe was sweet-smelling and formed beautiful shapes in the air.

Cannabis, aka “marijuana”, “pot”, “dope”, “weed”, “spliff”, “grass”, “blow” and many other names, depending on your location and the nature of its preparation which are many, is a psychoactive drug extracted from the female flowers of the hemp plant. Despite the fact that it’s been in use since prehistoric times, it’s a criminal offence to take or possesses cannabis in many countries, including my own, the UK. However this hasn't stopped it being used by most people at some point, including almost everybody I know. Somehow, I never did myself, even though I’ve been very interested in mind-expanding drugs for some time, see: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/programme-40-podcast-niall-murphy.html. As soon as I’d had a drag on the pipe I expected to feel slightly drunk; because I’ve never experienced it before, I assumed that’s what being stoned was like, just a different kind of drunkeness, but I was completely wrong. Nothing at all happened for about five to ten minutes and I felt completely normal, then I found myself starting to chuckle at things people were saying; it was odd because what they were saying wasn’t necessarily what I’d normally find funny. My chuckling soon dissolved into an uncontrollable state of mirth. My companions told me afterwards that I laughed hysterically non-stop for over an hour; in the morning I had abdominal muscle strain as a result. There were four other people in the room who were trying to have a conversation over my raucous merriment and every single thing they said sounded to me like the funniest joke in the world. I couldn’t help it; I’ve never laughed so much in all my life. It took several hours for me to reach a point where I could even talk properly, but there were other effects of the drug too. When I was finally able to string a sentence together between giggles I found I could only speak very slowly. It wasn’t the aphasic slurring of drunkenness, but just that my vocal organs were stiff and my mental speech processes very slow. And it was strange because at the same time my thoughts were very intense and clear. Memory especially was extremely vivid and recall of events long past was far easier than normal. I remember talking about one of the early David Icke Forum meet-ups which some of us had attended, see: http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-glastenbury-affair.html, and it felt like a much more recent memory. I was careful to steer my train of thought away from less pleasant recollections, which I found surprisingly easy; I enjoyed enormous self-control. At the same time as being under the influence of cannabis I was drinking wine. I was a bit worried about the effect mixing the two narcotics together might have, but I couldn’t help it because the wine tasted so good, and it wasn’t a fancy vintage either, as if I could afford that! It was just a cheap bottle of screw-top red from my local corner shop. When we ate some food, that tasted wonderful too; in fact my sense of taste was supercharged. The same went for my other senses too, apart from touch. My skin felt numb and tingling. Eventually I had to get up and I found movement very difficult at first. Again, it was not like being drunk; there was no dizziness, it was just that I could only move very slowly. When I stood up I felt very steady on my feet, even more so than usual, but I had to take my time with every muscle contraction. As I rose from the comfortable settee I was on I felt I was floating up, as if I were standing up from the bottom of a swimming pool. In fact being underwater is a perfect analogy; the air around me felt very dense, almost like water. When I waved my hand in the air it was like waving it under the surface of a bath. As I trudged labouriously through the house I felt like I was on the seabed in one of those old-fashioned diving suits with lead boots. I had to lean forward to propel myself though what felt like very viscous liquid. My feet and arms felt weighed down but the rest of me was light and floaty. Some people have reported psychedelic effects with cannabis, including out-of-body experiences; I didn’t, although at one point in the evening there was a blackout and we lit some candles. As we sat in a circle with candles on the carpet between us I suddenly got the feeling we were outdoors, sitting on a hillside, instead of in the lounge of my friend’s house. I did however get the sense of strange presences in the vicinity, even though I couldn’t see or hear anybody. At one point I could have sworn somebody was standing in the kitchen through the open door; I looked around at my companions and realized they were all there. At one point I ceased to be able to recognize people; I looked around me wondering where Ustane was when she was sitting right beside me. I went to bed after what felt like days because my passage of notional time was also slowed down considerably by the drug; in reality it was only about six hours after my initial dose. I had a normal night’s sleep with average dreams and when I woke up I realized that the effects of the drug were still lingering, a “stoneover” my friend called it. This is very different from an alcoholic hangover; there was no illness at all, no nausea or headache etc, just the same effects I’d experienced the previous evening but far weaker. In the afternoon we went for a walk in the forest near her home and I felt that strange presence again; I kept looking over my shoulder thinking somebody was following us right behind in our footsteps. In fact I don’t think I returned to “Channel Normal” as Graham Hancock calls it, for the entire rest of the day.

I’m very grateful to my friend for giving me this experience; it was very powerful and pleasurable, far stronger and very different from alcohol intoxication. I feel no urge to do the same again right away, but I’m very glad indeed that I did it this time. I’ve always been opposed to the legal prohibition of drugs. Cannabis when taken properly is not only completely harmless, but it can be very beneficial. It has enormous medical potential and is used by doctors in all countries where it’s not banned to treat all kinds of ailments; many British doctors will recommend it, strictly off the record of course. I think any drug can be abused and can be harmful in some instances, but cannabis has far less potential to do harm than most others, and is certainly far less deadly than the two most commonly-permitted drugs: booze and tobacco. Used sensibly by mature adults, cannabis can give much goodness to humanity… could that be the reason it is banned?

Friday, 25 October 2013

Blackmore's Ladyshave

Dr Susan Blackmore has spoken at the latest TAM- The Amaz!ng Meeting conference, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVR-zcZBE2E. TAM has been running since 2003 and this year they had their fifteenth conference, subtitled Fighting the Fakers! See: http://www.amazingmeeting.com/. Blackmore has been a speaker at several of them in the past because she is one of the world’s most famous Skeptics; in fact for a while she was “rent-a-Skeptic”, to quote herself, always brought onto TV programmes and newspaper articles to present the Skeptical side of the argument with any media story, like Prof. Chris French does today. However she wasn’t always a Skeptic, in fact she began her career as a “true believer” in the paranormal and saw her parapsychological work as a quest to prove it. This was triggered by a very intense drug trip she experienced while a student at Oxford. However, after years of painstaking research she relates that she found no evidence at all for the paranormal and concluded that it does not exist. She therefore became a Skeptic and this of course led to a highly successful second career.

Her speech at this year’s TAM is one of the most interesting that she’s ever given because, after about 27 minutes, she reveals an event in her life that she’s only mentioned before once on stage, her 1979 project with Dr Carl Sargent. She assisted him in his experiments to find out if the Ganzfeld Method could produce proof of “psi”, supernatural mental abilities. This is where one person is placed in one room and a second person separated completely in another and one tries to communicate with the other telepathically. Sargent appeared to have produced some highly significant scientific results which captivated Blackmore and she sped up to Cambridge as fast as she could to supervise him in his laboratory. What Sargent had discovered seemed to be everything she’d dreamed of, however she quickly became suspicious that he was cheating. She writes about what happened on her personal website in this 1987 article from the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, see: http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/JSPR%201987.htm (I don’t know why part of this article has been obliterated by overprinting). Blackmore’s writing style is very professional and cool-headed here; what is absent is the emotionally painful nature of the incident. She has only divulged the extent to which it traumatized her in a previous lecture at TAM London in 2010; unfortunately it was not filmed, but I was there in the audience: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/tam-london-2010.html. In fact Blackmore began weeping on stage during some parts of her lecture. She doesn’t go into all the details in this latest speech at TAM 2013, but she was in fact severely reprimanded by her supervisor for accusing Sargent of cheating. As she saw it, all she was doing was being intellectually honest and trying to expose scientific fraud; why should she be made out to be the bad guy? Sargent was never officially charged for his alleged misdemeanour and continued his career unchallenged; today he has left science altogether and designs role-playing fantasy games.

There’s nothing I despise more than an amateur psychologist (except perhaps a professional one), but if you will excuse me while I indulge myself in what I loathe and speculate that Susan Blackmore might have an axe to grind. If she does then it’s probably a just one, but it may well have beat the trail to her discovery of the Skeptic Movement. Some may find it strange that an individual with the kind of passionate certainty that she used to have could possibly change her mind and become a Skeptic, but it’s no surprise to me at all. In fact I’ve noticed that the people most likely to defect to Skepticism are the most zealous “true believers”, the most doctrinaire and the most chauvinistic towards opposing viewpoints. They either change into Skeppers or they drop off the scene altogether. Those who see things more holistically and introspectively, who feel more sympathy and tolerance for Skeptics, and are willing to listen to their counter-arguments, tend to be far more secure and stable in their ideas. This is because the fanatic is more likely to feel offence and betrayal when reality doesn’t match their narrow and conditional expectations. The same goes the other way round, I doubt not; one of the most intelligent and persuasive Christian critics of Richard Dawkins is Alister McGrath, see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/richard-dawkins-enemies-of-reason.html. Yet he professes to have once been so staunch an atheist that he could not even bear to be in the company of anybody religious. Another interesting observation is that in her lecture Blackmore states how often she gets hate mail from non-Skeptics, yet when she was a “believer” no Skeptic was ever rude to her. How times have changed! See:  http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/sally-morgan-skeptic-fail.html