Reflections on Amityville, Part 1--Parnormal Aspects

It's the eve of what is supposed to be a huge snowstorm, and I have been ridiculously tired and hungry all day. Given the wintry feel of things, an amaryllis that I received as a Christmas gift from a co-worker has suddenly and ironically started blooming with beautiful pink flowers. My Christmas cactus has also started blooming, though one might forgive it for believing it's Christmastime right now. My office has already announced that it's closed tomorrow, so it just remains for me to distract myself and not turn into a glutton over the next 24 hours.

Yesterday I promised the first part of a discussion of the Amityville case, the "paranormal" part of the story. The whole story is very confusing, as it is more difficult than usual to separate fact from fiction.

First, the story in a nutshell: in November 1974, Ronald DeFeo Jr. murdered his entire family--his parents, two brothers, and two sisters, in a Dutch colonial house on Ocean Avenue in Amityville, New York. DeFeo's defense attorney, William Weber, tried a number of tactics to get Ronald off the hook with just a few years by entering an insanity plea. It didn't work--he was found guilty and sentenced to six consecutive life sentences in prison. There were a lot of intense dynamics in the DeFeo family, which I will talk about in Part 2 of my discussion. But for now, the basic story is sufficient.

Thirteen months later the house on Ocean Avenue was purchased by George and Kathy Lutz, who were newlyweds. Kathy had 3 children from a previous marriage, and the family moved into the house in December 1975. 28 days later they fled, leaving all of their personal possessions behind, never to return. They claimed the house was possessed by something evil, that got worse and worse as the days wore on. Attempts at blessing the house seemed to help escalate events. You can read the details of the haunting here.

Once they moved out of the house, things immediately became confusing--I imagine that was even more of a horror than what they lived through, if that was possible. The Lutzes contacted William Weber first, who was interested in what happened as he believed that proving a demonic possession of the house might be able to get his client (Ronald DeFeo) a re-trial. They also contacted investigator Stephen Kaplan to investigate the house. Both Kaplan and Weber disavowed the events described by the Lutzes, claiming it was a hoax. A bestselling book on the event, based on tapes the Lutzes made after moving out of the house, fueled claims that they were trying to make money off the DeFeo murders. As it turns out, the Lutzes never saw any money in connection with "The Amityville Horror" book, and their account was declared a hoax after they had a falling out with both Weber and Kaplan. To complicate things further, demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren investigated the house and claimed it was brimming over with demonic activity. Another psychic who was brought in on the case, Alberta Riley, was apparently so shaken up by what she saw in a deep trance that she never did any work with the paranormal again after that. She said, "I don't want to know anymore." One of the creepiest things that came out of the investigation was this time-lapse video. It is possible it was faked, though I've never heard any confirmation of that one way or the other. In any case, it's creepy:




George and Kathy Lutz are both dead--one died in 2004, the other in 2005--but right up until the end they swore the whole thing wasn't a hoax. However, what makes it questionable is that fact that nothing could really be verified. Subsequent owners of the house experienced no activity. Ed Warren claimed that someone from St. Joseph's Shrine blessed the house when the DeFeos lived there due to frightening activity, but the Shrine has officially stated that no one ever went to bless that house from there. There was talk of a Shinnecock Indian curse on the property, but the Shinnecock tribe says that this is false. Famous ghost investigator Hans Holzer was also on the case, and he believed that there might be a haunting based on past property history, but nothing about that history could be verified.

What hasn't really been addressed is the idea that the area was considered to be some kind of "power spot" by the Indian tribes, even if not necessarily "cursed". Whether this is enough with a combination of other emotional factors to trigger that level of activity is hard to say. My sense is that something DID really happen there, but it's really difficult to separate fact from fiction when there has been so much politics surrounding the case, and so many manipulations and claims by people who had ulterior motives for doing so. But why just the Lutzes? I don't really think the DeFeos were affected by the same phenomena. Kathy Lutz once said that she and George had been practicing Transcendental Meditation at the time, and that this opened them up to the activity, but that's a lot of bunk. While there are a lot of questionable things about TM organizations, it's nothing more than reciting a mantra to focus on a daily basis as a practice. There had to be something else going on in one or more of the family members to draw that kind of activity in. The house may have just been the right conductor for the activity at the right time, if it IS a "power spot" (highly electro- or geo-magnetic), plus the residue of the horrible tragedy that occurred, plus anything going on with any of the Lutzes that acted as a gateway to that activity. A lot of the activity centered around the previous DeFeo murders (family sleeping in the same position as the murdered family, etc.), which could mean they were being affected by the residual energy of that event.

I suppose no one will ever know. But if we give the Lutzes the benefit of the doubt that SOMETHING frightening occurred, I would still suggest it was psychological in origin, released externally under the right environmental conditions. The fact that the activity ceased when they moved--and that they still reported some problems after moving--suggests that it centers around them ultimately, and not the house. An analogy would be a lightning storm--the house could have all the right conditions to be a target/electrical conductor, but doesn't necessarily get hit.

Paranormal Weekends

Weekends are surreal, and Mondays become a representation of order after chaos. From the minute I get home on a Friday afternoon from work, it’s as though I’ve stepped across a boundary where normal rules do not apply. While I always have certain tasks I must attend to, I sort of drift in and out of these activities, as I become restless and drop an activity just as soon as I’ve picked it up. “As long as the required stuff is done before Monday” becomes my mantra.

I am also ridiculously partial to the cat. If I have to wash my bedroom floors, I will refrain from doing so if the cat is sleeping on my bed and looks cute enough. If he’s annoying me, I’ll put on the vacuum just for spite, but most of the time he’s curled up in some obscenely perplexing yoga-like posture and snoring away with little kitty snores. He has me firmly convinced that if I disturb him, I will be struck dead by a vengeful god for daring to mar such apparent innocence. Hence, I look at him and say, “Well, as long as I get the floors done by Monday...”

I’ve been going out a lot less on the weekends because I’ve been cash-poor, and saving my excursions out for visits with friends. While at home, I’m doing a lot more reading and occasionally even watching television, something I hardly ever do anymore. This past weekend I was flipping through the TV listings, and saw that the Biography Channel was having 3 back-to-back episodes on the Amityville Horror case—the murders that took place there, and the supposed paranormal/demonic events that took place afterwards.

I read Jay Anson’s book, “The Amityville Horror” when I was still in high school, and I have to say the book scared the crap out of me. I wasn’t impressed by the James Brolin/Margot Kidder movie that came out based on the book—it was nothing like the book, and the sequels to the movie aren’t even worth mentioning. The book raised a huge controversy, and most people consider it to be a hoax, especially because subsequent owners of the offending house have had absolutely no problems while living there.

I’ve always been on the fence about the idea that the whole thing was a hoax. The Lutz family never claimed it was a hoax. Having Ed and Lorraine Warren investigate the house was probably not a good idea, as they tended to find demons lurking in the corner of every house, at least at that stage of their ghost hunting careers. (Lorraine Warren seems to have gotten over that tendency, or at least it seems that way from her Paranormal State appearances). It didn’t give the case much credibility.

On the other hand, I can’t give much credibility to skeptics who simply dismiss the whole thing outright. I agree that not every strange occurrence can be deemed paranormal, and that questions need to be asked, but one can’t simply dismiss things that don’t fall neatly into categories as “hoaxes” or simply as non-existent. Biases can be at either extreme of the spectrum. At least 95% of so called paranormal or demonic activity can probably be explained by natural causes and/or psychological disorders, but there is that other 5% that defies explanation. It is possible that one day there will be an explanation, but until there is, it falls into the “paranormal” category. As I’ve said before, “paranormal” just means “beyond the normal”. It doesn’t prove the existence of a soul, or life after death. Of course, in the scientific world view, nothing will ever prove that. Any hard data produced is immediately assumed to be faked.

Anyway, I wanted to share thoughts on this case over two blog postings, one on the paranormal aspects of the case, and one on the psychopathology of Ronald DeFeo Jr., the young man who murdered his entire family in the Amityville house. I will post Part 1 tomorrow.

What I will say for now is this—the line between the “demonic” and the “psychological” is often blurry. I’ve listened to skeptics dismiss certain activity as “the product of imagination”, but they really undersell the functioning of the human mind. Yes, it IS in your mind. And your mind is powerful in a very scary way that you often can’t control. You’re just riding along in your boat on the ocean, and are encouraged to stay in safe waters by your society and your religion (if you have one). You have to be pretty skilled in self-discipline and have a lot of real self-confidence (not arrogance) to successfully navigate the deeper, darker waters.

Snow Day Randomness 2010 Version

It's been awhile since I've had a "snow day randomness" post. In fact, I'm not sure I had one last year. But--it's snowing pretty hard outside, and I'm in an extremely random frame of mind (read as: indecisive), so, when you put those things together, it's a bit of a no-brainer. I am glad that I am doing this in February, and not March--March snow just pisses me off, especially when it's around the start of Spring. Winter gets far too much of the year, even here in a temperate zone, so it seriously needs to be evicted once Spring starts. Enough is enough.

So, to let the randomness begin:


After writing my previous post on the "Jersey Shore" reality show, Yahoo posted an article about Jersey Shore "guido" fashion making a comeback among teens OK, teens--listen to your old Auntie Brigid who lived through guido fashion the first time--DON'T. Really. It's like getting tattoos in certain places, or of certain things--one day you will look back and say, "why didn't my parents just opt for the lobotomy instead of letting me walk around like that?" As a teen I never succumbed to guido fashion, though I did almost succumb to the big hair look, which I didn't really succeed at because Nature was kind enough to step in and stop that from happening. My hair simply rebelled; if it could talk, it would have said, "You're crazy if you think we're going to stand up like THAT. And you need counseling or something if you actually want us to stand up like that." My hair still looked pretty awful in the eighties, but it could have been worse. And people wonder why I believe in divine intervention.

The Rumpus recently posted some of Carlo Farneti’s illustrations for a 1935 edition of Baudelaire’s Les Fleurs du Mal. These are absolutely amazing.

Looks like Pope Benedict has more trouble. Last year Benedict created a stir when he made Gerhard Maria Wagner auxiliary bishop of Linz. Wagner has the unfortunate distinction of having much in common with Pat Robertson--he seems to think that major catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and now the Haiti earthquake, as the residents' own fault, because they are "sinful". Wagner did resign as Bishop, but his recent comments on Haiti have just re-kindled a firestorm of criticism against the Pope, who is now accused of bringing the Church "back into the Dark Ages", with Wagner's appointment being the "tip of the iceberg". The latter statement was made by the head of the Catholic lay-initiative, Herbert Kohlmaier. He feels the Church is now more of a "sect" (a term used to describe a group that radically departs from orthodox theology), and people are leaving in droves.

I have to say that I'd regained some respect for the Vatican under John Paul II, who seemed to be very willing in at least some significant respects to be more "inclusivist" than the Church has been historically. (This is not to be confused with "pluralistic"--I doubt the Church will ever be pluralistic, but inclusivist is at least a step in the right direction). Looking at Benedict's track record so far, it's hard to disagree with Kohlmaier. Between Wagner, and Williamson (the Holocaust denier who was reinstated after ex-communication), his questionable statements against Muslims and Jews, his investigation of American nuns (who are the only ones left to give the Church in America a good face after all the priestly pedophilia), and the real kicker--inviting Anglican priests and bishops to "come over to our side" during a major Anglican conference, which was debating the ordination of homosexuals. Benedict may be well versed in theology, but in terms of the world in general, he obviously has been living with his head up his ass. The previous Pope and the Cardinals should have listened to him when he said he just wanted to retire quietly and write a book. He and the world would have been better off. Pope is not a job for everyone, regardless of theological credentials. I think many of these high-ranking officials spend more time writing and reading books than working with people. In the world of libraries--our analogy is the administrator who graduated with his or her M.L.S. and went straight into administration for a large institution, never doing any actual librarian work. Librarians tend to be at odds with such administrators, because they make decisions with no regard for how things really work in their institution. The Church is getting to be the same way (again).

The snow has stopped. It looks like we've only got 3-4 inches of snow, tops. Which means I could probably be out of the house and on the road by noon if I wanted. I shouldn't complain about the snow this year--it's as though Nature is striving to be inoffensive, snowing only at night and early morning, only a few inches at a time, as to provide as little inconvenience as possible--but significant enough to let me sleep in a bit. Of course, my friends in Philadelphia and DC are not singing the same tune at this moment--they had about 2 feet of snow and it's still coming down. Usually the South fares better than the North in the winter--they've gotten the "sh*t end of the stick" this year.

Speaking of the South--one of my fave guitarists who now works for NPR, Carrie Brownstein, recently drove up to New York from DC, and got stuck in...South Jersey. On the Turnpike. Here is her account of that adventure. Just goes to show you that South Jersey is an entirely different animal from North Jersey.

And, speaking of South Jersey again--and animals (sort of)--I understand that next week's "Paranormal State" season finale is a Jersey Devil episode. I hope it's good. "Scariest Places on Earth" had gone to the Pine Barrens with a group of Devil-hunters, and supposedly they saw something, though Weird NJ later reported that the implications of the episode were "misleading" at best. If you have never heard of the Jersey Devil, here is some background. And here is Weird NJ's take on the Jersey Devil.

Lastly--here is a post on "Dangerous Things Kids Should Do". The fact that Mental Floss even has such a post--and that one could seriously ask, "should you let your kids do mildly risky things?" is mind-blowing. Kids today seem to be fenced in and kept on a leash. Part of it is because parents have been fed this extraordinary bullsh*t about how "much more dangerous" it is in the world today, and part of it is because parents are now much more liable according to child "protection" laws than they ever were previously. So, it's hard to blame parents. But you're not protecting the kids from anything--you're basically keeping them from growing up and being functioning adults. Walking out the door every morning is a risk--get over it and just do it. And always be wary of laws passed in the name of "safety" and "protection" of the citizens. They usually don't protect anything--they just take away your ability to freely do something.

I will leave you on that happy note as I go out to shovel some snow...and the phrase, "Sarah Palin's people". Don't think about that for too long.

Jersey Shore?

I’ve been asked more frequently than I would expect about the reality TV show that’s going into a second season, “Jersey Shore”. People ask me about it because—follow me closely here—I’m from New Jersey. Unlike the entire cast of the show, except for one person.

I have to confess that I’ve never seen Jersey Shore. The clips and descriptions I’ve seen of the show thus far would probably give me acid-like flashbacks to my teenage years at the Seaside Heights boardwalk. These would be decidedly unpleasant flashbacks. From what I can see, the so-called “guido/guidette” culture has only changed in the sense that the girls now have flat hair. Just add the “Heat Miser” look, and you could have had this show in 1985.

Seaside Heights itself has always been a bit of a sleaze pit, even though families frequently bring their kids to the boardwalk there to play games and go on the rides. We went there almost every summer when I was a kid. We didn’t stay in Seaside Heights—we stayed in nearby Lavallette—but at least one or two nights during the vacation week were spent at Seaside. The whole guido/guidette culture sprung up sometime in the mid-Eighties; before that, the boardwalk was populated by young men who looked like they were trying out for the Charles Manson lookalike contest. Whether the later development is an improvement or not is debatable.

Let’s talk for a minute about that culture. Apparently there are many Italian Americans who are irate over the rather non-PC term “guido”, annoyed not only at the term, but at the people associated with it. It’s hard to blame them. I’ve seen Italian men and women from Italy, and they are usually so outrageously attractive, there should be an international law against being allowed to be that attractive. The “guido/guidette” look is not attractive. It involves bad hair, fake orange tans, too much gold jewelry, ridiculous clothes, and day-glo nails for the ladies. The personalities and attitudes of “guidos” tends to be more in line with the commonly held notion of “douchebags”. It’s a very chauvinistic attitude.

I think I’m more surprised that Italian Americans are now irate about the whole “guido” idea. It’s not like it’s exactly a new thing—it’s been around for at least 25 years. And—many “guidos” are not even Italian. Asking a show to be taken off the air for the stereotype—well, like anything forbidden, that will likely only create more demand. Personally, I’m more annoyed that this is a look and attitude associated with New Jersey. NEW JERSEY PEOPLE DO NOT LOOK LIKE THIS. There are some areas and towns where this look is popular, but it’s hardly a Jersey-only phenomenon. Similarly, people tend to think of New Jersey as a toxic waste dump, based on their experience of landing in Newark Airport. NEWARK IS ALSO NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF NEW JERSEY. (Also, Newark Airport is not representative of Newark.) In fact, the industria of East Jersey is hardly representative of the state as a whole. It may surprise you to know that most of the state is farmland and forests. I live out in the Northwest, and I get to see cows, goats, and horses on my commute to work. New Jersey becomes more industrial as it approaches both New York City and Philadelphia, and the north and central parts of the state are very suburban, as they are popular places to live within commuting distance of the city.

But Seaside Heights is not all “guido”, either, though that does seem to be a popular hangout for that crowd. There is an equally large goth population, biker population, and...just average families. Even in recent years I’ve been down to visit Seaside Heights, but usually during the day; the night life is more than I can stomach. Of course, now that this show is so popular, I’m betting that there will be many more tourists to Seaside Heights. While this is good for local business there, it’s not very good for me—I don’t find those kinds of crowds enjoyable. I think I’m going to start visiting Cape May instead.

Old VHS Find

Last night I was going through some old VHS tapes. For whatever reason, I wouldn’t label anything after taping it. Alternately, I would label it, and then tape over it, and not change the label. I’ve taped some really weird things over the years—I even had about 30 Betamax tapes, but I’ve lost the ability to play those, so they went into the trash. I ultimately want to separate my VHS stuff into “worth keeping”, “worth tossing”, and “worth sending to Found Footage Festival”. You never know.

Anyway, I came across this documentary film made in 1976 called “The Amazing World of Psychic Phenomena”, hosted by Raymond Burr. It wasn’t half bad all things considered. The portion of the show dedicated to taping EVPs (Electronic Voice Phenomena) was a hoot. I think the EVPs they played were probably a hoax—it sounds like someone whispering into a microphone, and there’s no way you would get sound quality like that with an old Panasonic tape recorder—especially if you’re taping in a cemetery.

But what really got me about this episode was the one haunted house clip they showed. It’s debatable whether or not the house was really “haunted” in the traditional sense of the term. A woman, named as Mrs. Linda Clark, re-enacts a scary thing that happened in her home, while she was home playing board games with her son, and her husband was working late. While they sat playing in the living room, they suddenly heard a strange growl from the basement. Their dog stood up and started barking furiously at the door. She was a little freaked out, but tried to ignore it. Then the sound came again. She got up the nerve to go to the basement door and open it. Seeing nothing, she quickly shut it and went back to the living room. Suddenly it came back again, louder, and it was as though the door was breathing—there was a loud growling and straining against the door. The lights suddenly go out in the house, and she rushes to the phone to call...someone (911? Her husband?). We don’t know who. And that’s it. You can see the clip in this segment of the documentary here:



I found a review of this documentary online where the reviewer expresses the same frustration that I had with that scene. So what happened? Did the door ever open? Did they ever find out what made that sound? Did it ever happen again? I can tell you if I’d been in that house, I’d have grabbed the kid and the dog and fled. It was extremely creepy. But there is no follow-up info whatsoever; it’s as though the director expected us to be satisfied with that.

I tried to find out some more follow-up info on the data in this documentary, but I’ve turned up nothing so far. Pretty much everything in the documentary was a famous case documented elsewhere, so I figure something HAS to be out there somewhere, but I don’t have enough information to find it. I’m just surprised that’s the ONLY clip they had of what is labeled haunted house phenomena, and that they couldn’t document it better than that in a DOCUMENTARY, for chrissakes.

So, if you’re one of my librarian friends, and happen to be reading this post, I would not be troubled at all if you had a slow day on the reference desk and did some research on this one. All the info I know about it is posted above. Seriously. I will give you a prize if you figure this out.

Speaking of creepy and disturbing, I found a couple of weird spider-related things on the web (no pun intended) recently, so I’ll share them with you. Don’t watch the first one if you have a spider phobia. Pleasant dreams.

January Snapshot

The afternoon temperatures attempt to make it to the freezing mark. Compared to the last few days, it feels warm outside. I have just returned from a visit with a friend. She has severe endometriosis; a full hysterectomy will be required. She is a single Mom with 2 kids. I ask her when the surgery is scheduled. I will certainly be taking her for the surgery and waiting with her children; she doesn't have anyone else here, after all. Her family is in another country. I don't mind doing what's needed for her; I just hope that the surgery will solve her issues.

I arrive at home, and find my cat snoring away on the sofa. I mutter to myself, "the cat is asleep". He suddenly pops his eyes open and gives an inquisitive meow, looking at me as if he's heard, as if to say, "Nope, I'm awake!" I have re-stocked the wine rack. I never buy wine that is more than 10 dollars a bottle. If this sounds very plebian, I assure you that I've bought expensive wines before, and most of them taste like shoe polish. At best, they are no better taste-wise than some of the cheaper wines I've purchased. I do prefer French wine, Bordeauxs more than Merdocs. Italian reds are delicious but give me terrible headaches. American reds are my second favorite, particularly cabs. Cracked.com recently did a list of the biggest bullshit jobs out there--wine taster was one of them. They pointed to a test, where wine tasters were asked to taste what was actually the same cheap wine, but one had the regular label, and one had the label of a much more expensive vintage. They all rated the "expensive" wine much higher than the "cheaper" wine. Someone told me once that you had to put a higher price tag on things for Americans, or they wouldn't think it had any value. This is certainly evidence in favor of that notion.

I went to put on some John Foxx CDs today, and found I couldn't listen to them. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but because I've realized that there have been no John Foxx events for almost 2 months. I really can't afford for John to have an event before April, truth be told. But it makes me discontent, because hearing the music reminds me of the person, and then I want to see the person...well, in person. John has often spoken about the "ghosts" created by hearing a song on the radio, or seeing a person on TV, or YouTube, or whatever. For me, it's less of a ghost than it is a pointer--just like religious symbolism is not the actually reality, but points you to something greater, so music is the same way for me. Hearing a particular song can remind me of a time, a place, a conversation, a person--even just a feeling of happiness, or sadness, or loneliness, or discomfort. Some songs remind me of particular years in my life, even if they were not recorded in that year. Evoking the feeling when all it will do is create discontent is problematic for me. I'm a deeply emotional person, and need to be in the right frame of mind. So, I distract myself with other things, and save those CDs for a different time.

Last week I had dinner and drinks with a friend I hadn't spoken to in a long time. We talked about the different interpretations of Aleister Crowley. It's almost a universal thing that people with a "Satanic" opinion of Crowley have never read any of his works. However, that does need to be taken back a bit--some of Crowley's works DO imply a black magic, or seem to condone that practice. Crowley never really condoned black magic; he assumed his readership would be able to see the meaning beyond his words, to understand that it shouldn't be taken at face value. Why else would he go to court and sue someone for slander for referring to him as a "black magician"? (A bid he lost, by the way, because he tended to refer to himself as the "Great Beast 666". While he was referring to the overthrow of the tyranny of Christian institutions of that time, it's hard to blame anyone for making that deduction).

The conversation got me thinking about something I term "literary matrixing", though it's probably not so original or special. It refers to the notion that we take out of texts the things that we want and discard the rest. "Matrixing" as a psychological phenomenon involves the mind organizing imperfections on a surface into an image--pareidolia (seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in various objects) is an example of matrixing. If words are symbols for ideas, why can't the phenomenon occur with those as well? I say that it is not special, however, because everything we read, every object we view, is interpreted in terms of our own experiences. It's not a new idea.

(Why does rigati take longer to cook than ziti? Do those ridges in the pasta really take that much longer to cook?)

I have been reading a lot of M.R. James lately. I have one book of his short stories, and then found another for a couple of dollars at a used bookstore I like to visit. The owner of the store looked at the book when I bought it. "M.R. James! Do you get nightmares from reading this stuff before bedtime? I know I do." I told him no, but now I'm not sure. James writes about demonic creatures that are often awakened by opening certain books, or renovating churches, or what have you. I dreamt last night that such a creature fell out of the ceiling and into my room. I was looking for the most expedient way to kill it. So, maybe it does give me nightmares. But I like James--he was a librarian, and knew a lot about my favorite occupation, cataloguing. Cataloguers often figure into his stories. He's also a medievalist, well-versed in Latin, and an obvious expert on Church architecture. All that in a ghost story. What's not to like?

Speaking of ghosts...I was looking at a photo on a Twitter feed, and one of the comments referred to former Ghost Hunters team member Donna LaCroix. I'd talked about that team in a previous post, so I don't want to repeat myself too much. But there were two articles about Donna, who is no longer on any Ghost Hunters show. She apparently was on a radio talk show with two investigators who call themselves the "Ghost Divas". On the show, she proceeded to rip apart the Ghost Hunters operation, claimed there was some fakery, and blasted the production company. She said that she, Andy Andrews, and Brian Harnois got crappy contracts with the spin-off show Ghost Hunters International, and that all three of them had gotten screwed. She then retracted a large amount of it in a second statement. You can read the first post here and the second post here.

First of all, from what I know from seeing posts elsewhere from Donna, this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm sorry that she's made out so badly from all of this, but two things occur to me. One is that of COURSE Ghost Hunters has faked things. Do I really believe that the scenarios of Jason and Grant at their day jobs, or someone walking into the TAPS office to talk to Donna aren't re-enacted and scripted? Of course not. And I've complained about the overly-slick production in recent shows. I would hope that the evidence caught is not faked, even if it's hyped to a certain degree. She does not claim the evidence is faked. There is going to be a certain amount of hype, but that doesn't discount all findings on the show. The other thing that occurs to me is that Donna and Andy in particular were not stellar additions to the team. Yes, Andy is a great debunker, but he didn't really have the personality for TV. Donna was a great case manager, but I'm sorry, she's just not a good investigator. Maybe on private investigations she's better, but on TV, she tended to make me roll my eyes. I can't say much about Brian--I think he provided great entertainment value--but certainly he and Jason didn't see eye to eye, ultimately. And if they don't get along, maybe he should work with another team. He's not a bad investigator. In short, though--the production company and the network will make the decisions that they feel will make them the most money. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's outright unfair. But it's nothing new. And I agree with the blogger who reported the stories--Brian, Donna, and Andy apparently had a crappy entertainment lawyer. Again, that's too bad, but it's not anyone else's problem. I've had bad lawyers too--and I've learned to read over my own contracts and do as much as I can myself. Hopefully they've learned that, too.

I receive an e-mail from a friend about my 20-year high school reunion. I have to RSVP by tomorrow if I intend to go. It wouldn't be such a big deal, but I'm balking at the $95 per ticket price tag. Yes, I know it's not cheap to have these things, but is it worth it to pay $95? For one thing, I wasn't all that close with anyone in high school. The friends that I did have I already keep in touch with. Other friends from high school aren't in my graduating class. Basically, it would be a hundred-dollar exercise in curiosity, nothing else. Many of my classmates are married with kids, and while that's great for them, I find the married-with-kids lifestyle hard to get excited about. I'm not so excited by people's photos of little junior. Similarly, they may not be able to relate to my lifestyle. So, I might be setting myself up for an evening of awkward conversations. Something I'd be more inclined to do if it cost less. In any case, I need to get off the fence by tomorrow.

Tomorrow! February 1! Where does the time go?...

Stephen Colbert Interviews Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberly Academy, January 29, 2010

Around Christmastime, my friend Ann dropped me a note asking if I wanted to hear Stephen Colbert (amazing comedian and host of the Colbert Report) interview Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson (Director of NYC's Hayden Planetarium, highly influential in American science--best known as the guy who "demoted" Pluto as a planet, though it wasn't just him) at the Montclair Kimberly Academy. The event was free, Montclair is the town of my undergrad alma mater, Montclair State University (where I sometimes teach), and I'm a fan of both Colbert and Tyson, so I was game. The event was actually held yesterday (January 29).

On Wednesday, Ann e-mailed to ask if I was still going. I had totally forgotten about it; fortunately, I was off on Friday and had made no other plans yet. The only difficulty was the weather--it was bone-chilling cold outside (about 18 degrees Fahrenheit, not including wind chill--that's about -9 or -10 degrees Celsius). I ended up wearing 4 layers of woolen clothes to the event, and probably needed 5. After having dinner at a nearby Irish pub, we lined up to get into the event. The doors weren't supposed to open until 7, but fortunately they took pity on us and let us in about 15 minutes earlier. Ann and I had excellent seats. The event itself was amazing--Colbert is a very funny and engaging interviewer, and Dr. Tyson is impassioned about his answers. Stephen's questions to Dr. Tyson revolved around philosophy, science, Tyson's own background, and scientific literacy.

My friend Ann writes for the Colbert fan site, The No Fact Zone. You can read her excellent take on this interview here. What follows is my own memory of the event. It's not very chronological, as I got home from the event and jotted down what I could remember in the order I remembered it. For what it's worth, here is my take:

Stephen asks--is it better to know or not know? Tyson says yes, always. Stephen brings up Oedipus Rex--was it better for Oedipus to know the truth? The guy put his eyes out when he found out the truth. Tyson continues to insist that it is better to have the information. People can choose ignorance, but then they give up the chance to participate in new discoveries.

Scientists make discoveries by taking what has already been learned to apply it to new things or (in the case of Newton) invent a whole system (differential and integral calculus) to explain what they discover.

One should not accept something at face value or reject it out of hand--both are equally lazy. One should ask questions, get particulars about how something works. This is what keeps us from becoming victims of charlatans. It also allows voters to make informed decisions about science policy. He gave the example of someone handing you 2 crystals and saying they will cure you. He said it is equally lazy to accept that they will cure you and to reject it as nonsense without any inquiry. You need to ask questions, at which point the claim is likely to break down. Stephen replied, "Look Neil, if you don't like the crystals I gave you, just say so."

Colbert asked about the notion of beauty in truth, and what beauty Tyson saw in science--what was the most beautiful scientific concept? He said without hesitation, "E=mc2", because it explained so many complexities of the universe, and yet was so simple. Tyson's definition of beauty in science had to do with simplicity--anything overly complicated, so complicated that he couldn't explain it to you--was a problem. The idea that we are made up of the same stuff as the stars is another simple idea that is staggering to think about.

Tyson talked about the notion that physics, especially particle physics and quantum mechanics, are questioned for their relevance to things that are important now--why are we looking out there rather than right here? He points out that things that don't look so important now can have a huge impact later. He gives the example of Farraday, and how he could pass his hand over a wire and move the needle on a meter (electrical response). When asked by Parliament what use this toy could possibly have for the British Empire, he said, "I don't know yet. But in 50 years, the government will tax it." Of course, Farraday pioneered our modern use of electricity.

Colbert questioned the Higgs Boson, and asked why it even had to exist--if you have 2 houses built side by side, why do you need to join them? Tyson replied that historically the link has always proven to be there. He gave the example of neutrinos and electromagnetism (electricity and magnetism used to be considered separate things).

Stephen asked about how Tyson got interested in astrophysics. He mentioned being a kid in the Bronx, where one could see about twelve stars at night, and then taking a trip to the Hayden Planetarium. He thought the vision of the sky was pure fiction, until he looked at the sky in Western Pennsylvania. And, in true city-kid fashion, he thought, "Wow, that looks just like the Hayden Planetarium." He felt destined to work in astrophysics after that, once he realized there was such a thing.

Colbert asked about science fiction, and whether or not Tyson enjoyed it, or was too busy poking holes in the science to enjoy it. Tyson replied that he could enjoy science fiction as long as it didn't claim to be "scientifically accurate". As long as it had some basis in science, he didn't care if they made up the rest. The movie Titanic really pissed him off, because it claimed to be scientifically accurate. The layout of the ship and the details involved couldn't be proven by anyone but those who had seen the submerged ship through a camera. But when Kate Winslet is on the plank looking at the night sky--not only is it the wrong sky, but it's actually a mirror image of the same sky. This annoyed Tyson, because it was a simple thing to verify in a movie that claimed to be accurate. He brought it up to James Cameron twice--the first time he mentioned it as a "post-production" thing, the second time he mentioned how much the movie grossed, and said, "Think how much more it would have grossed if I had the right sky." Nonetheless, when an anniversary edition of Titanic was being put together with new footage, Tyson got a call from Cameron's post-production manager, saying, "I hear you have a sky for me." He then stood up and did a victory dance.

One girl asked in the Q&A if it was possible to tunnel through a black hole via quantum mechanics. Tyson replied he that he needed to know if she planned to get somewhere or was satisfied being dead. When she said the latter was fine, he spoke about the memory of black holes--they retain the memory of everything they've ingested. Using Stephen as an example--if a black hole swallowed up Stephen and nothing else, if two particles came together out of that black hole (via E=mc2), they could pull out and reconstruct correctly every particle that was Stephen--and the black hole would evaporate. Tyson found that to be "spooky."

He was asked about recent scientific discoveries that he thought were important, and he mentioned finding water on the moon, and finding methane on Mars. The latter was more important because it suggested the presence of bacteria that didn't rely on oxygen, and hence, some kind of life. Methane, other than laboratory production, can only be produced under very special circumstances (usually in the guts of farm animals). This prompted Stephen's remark, "So you're saying that there are farts happening on Mars? Isn't that what you really want to say?"

He was asked about what he felt needed to be done to promote scientific literacy, specifically with an eye to policy making. He mentioned a two-fold approach. The first was at home--allowing kids to be curious and messy. His remark, "you had the kids, now clean up after them!" was well received by the audience. Keeping them from certain kinds of play because they might make a mess was hindering their curiosity. He felt that schools needed to encourage this as well, and not measure achievement so much in terms of rote facts--while memorizing facts can be important, it is more important to know how to figure things out. From a policy standpoint--he felt that NASA should not have to go to the government with its hat in its hand. Using the example of Farraday speaking to Parliament, he pointed out that much that can be gained from scientific study will be in the future, not in the next economic quarter or election cycle, and we needed to think beyond that when considering funding. He also pointed out that we are not throwing all our tax money into the space program--only 6/10 of a penny of every tax dollar goes into space exploration and related ventures.

Someone asked about the notion of a "brown dwarf" headed towards the Earth, alluding to one of the 2012 catastrophe theories about a "Planet X" heading for collision with the Earth. His response was that no such planet existed--all gravitational sources in the solar system were known and accounted for.

Stephen had asked about negative perceptions of science--creating the atom bomb, or, in fiction, creating viruses or making bizarre mutations of creatures--the notion of the "evil" scientist "tampering in God's domain" in popular culture. Tyson replied that behind every scientist creating something harmful is a politician funding that project. Science is neither good nor evil--how it's applied depends on the society. He drew a parallel to the iron age--should men of that time NOT forged iron into weapons and other things just because one might get cut with the weapon?

A woman in the audience asked about Tyson's "demotion" of Pluto as a planet, and whether or not, as an ice planet, it would eventually evaporate out of existence. Tyson pointed out that he wasn' t the only one who made the decision on Pluto, and to "not shoot the messenger" (though it was mildly amusing that Tyson once referred to 9 planets, and then quickly retracted and said 8)--and that Pluto was not demoted per se, but merely reclassified--it fit in better with other ice planets like itself. Stephen made a remark I didn't entirely catch about him sending Pluto "upstate to the farm, so you can be with others like you". Tyson then said, in answer to the question, that no, Pluto would not disappear, as it was much too far from the Sun to ever have its icy surface melt away.

He spoke about things in science, particularly quantum mechanics, that are hard to swallow because they don't "make sense". He pointed out that they don't make sense because we're not living in that quantum world on those terms--if we were, it would make sense, and the world we live in now wouldn't. Nature "is under no obligation" to follow our laws of logic. They only refer to the world we experience.

Someone asked about parallel universes. He said probably not, as the idea of the multiverse was gaining prevalence. He noted that it was another step away from the notion that "we are the only ones" or are the center of things--first realized we're not the only planet in the solar system, then we discovered we weren't the only galaxy--so why should we be in the only universe? However, in different multiverses, the laws of physics work differently, so if you were to enter one, you don't know how your atoms, attuned to the laws of physics in this universe, would behave--you might implode or grow three heads, for instance.

Stephen's last question to Tyson was the old Modern Philosophy exam question, "How do you make something out of nothing?" and asked him to respond in 10 words or less. Tyson managed to do it--I don't remember the exact words--but it was something to the effect of, "Some questions contain words but are not questions at all."