The Google Earth Atlantis conspiracy

New from the "You Can't Win With These People" department, we have news that Google Earth did not, in fact, discover Atlantis in 2009.

Or, as the Atlanteans would have you believe, they are covering up the fact that they found Atlantis for their own nefarious reasons.

You may remember the news from two years ago, when the newly-launched Google Ocean began to add imaging data on the topography of the ocean floor.  You could, if you wanted to, view the mysterious and inaccessible contours of the abyssal plains and mid-ocean ridges.  It was all very cool, a real triumph of science and technology.

Until, that is, they posted the following, from off the coast of Africa:

After all the woo-woos stopped having multiple orgasms, and actually stopped to think about it, at least some of them realized that it couldn't be what it looked like, because the scale was all wrong.  If this was the remnants of a sunken city, the streets of the city (presumably the apparent grooves in the photograph) would have had to be over a half a mile across.  Google Earth, for their part, immediately recognized what was going on, and said that the "grid lines" didn't exist, that they were a sensor artifact produced by using overlapping data sets that didn't quite line up.

So, last week they released a new image, with the problem compensated for, and lo and behold, the "sunken city" disappears:

So you'd think that at that point, all of the Atlanteans would sort of go, "Oh.  Okay.  I see now.  What a bunch of nimrods we were," and go home.

You'd be wrong.

Sites have started springing up all over that Google Earth is participating in a giant coverup, that they slipped up in letting the original image become public, and now they're trying to cover their tracks.  (For one particularly funny example, watch this short YouTube video from one of the conspiracy-theory wingnuts.)  The new image, they say, has deliberately erased evidence of the existence of Atlantis -- it was the original image that was correct.

What I find the funniest about all this is that none of them seem to stop to consider what possible motive Google Earth would have for eliminating the evidence of a ruined city on the sea floor.  If the thing exists, it would only be of interest to archaeologists -- it's not like there's anything down there that is worthy of all of the effort.  If anything, you'd think that the scientists working on Google Earth would be excited if it were true -- scientists tend to get that way when they come across new and unexpected findings, because that's how you make your name in the scientific world, and (more importantly) that's how you get grant money.

Not that any of this will convince the conspiracy theorists, because as I've commented before, you can't convince a conspiracy theorist.  Mere logic and evidence don't do it, and in fact usually lead the conspiracy theorist to decide that the wielder of said logic and evidence is just part of the conspiracy.  The whole thing is more than a little maddening.

So anyway, I'd like to end with a picture of what's really down there.  You know, what Google Earth et al. are covering up.

Yes, I know that Google Earth didn't show any statues with spears.  That's because they systematically removed all evidence of them from their maps.  But they're down there, because Plato said so.  And when it comes to evidence, who are we going to trust - a Greek philosopher from 2,500 years ago, or a bunch of silly old stick-in-the-mud Ph.D.s in science?

Yeah.  I thought so.

Psychics, and zombies, and witches, oh my!

Well, it's shaping up to be a busy week here at Worldwide Wacko Watch.  Here are a few of the stories that your tireless team of reporters (comprised of me and my two tireless dogs, Doolin and Grendel) are currently following.

First, we have news that some psychic astral projectors have discovered that the crew of Apollo 16 discovered alien life on the Moon.

A group called "Transception, Inc.", an Austin, Texas based "psychic research and development organization," has written a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, recommending that the landing crew of Apollo 16, John Young and Charles Duke, be given Congressional Medals of Honor -- but only if they are "released from their bond of secrecy" about what they really saw up there on the Moon.  What, pray, did they see, then, and how do the good folks at Transception, Inc. know about it?

What they saw, of course, was a wrecked spaceship.  And aliens.  As for how they got this information, they did it by "remote viewing."  For a video clip of their team in action, go here, if you can stand to see some folks, in all seriousness, combine astral projection and backmasking and still call it "research."

Apparently what Transception, Inc. thinks is a wrecked alien ship is actually a big rock, that the astronauts nicknamed "House Rock."  The video includes some footage of Young and Duke walking around on the Moon, and they say something on the order of, "Geez, that's a big rock."  You'd think that if they'd seen an alien spaceship, they'd have said something more along the lines of, "Holy shit, that's an alien spaceship."  But maybe they already realized that they were under "bonds of secrecy."

Just think -- if NASA had known it was that easy, they could have saved all of that money, time, and effort, and just employed Transception, Inc. to investigate the Moon's surface.  And why stop there?   You'd think that if astral projection works, it'd be just as easy to go to Mars, Titan, and so on, without having to employ actual astronomers and engineers and so on.


At least the Transception, Inc. people had the sense to make a claim that isn't easily falsified; it's not like there's anyone up there on the Moon to check to see if their descriptions of wreckage are accurate.  This is more than one can say for Lauren Rainbow, the Bedford, New Hampshire psychic who stated (here) three days ago that the New England Patriots would win the Superbowl.

"I feel a strong team connection," Rainbow said. "I feel they work well with each other. I've been feeling that they sense each other on the field.  I feel probably after half time that we're really going to see a solid movement of the Patriots taking a lead then."

When questioned further by reporters, she heatedly told them that these were "not educated guesses," that she was actually seeing what would happen.  She did, however, admit that she only watched the Superbowl for the commercials.  Which, given the accuracy of her forecast, is probably just as well.

It's a mystery to me why these people don't give up, and that goes double for the folks who keep pinpointing the end of the world.  If you're going to claim to be a psychic, at least do what the smart psychics do, which is to make vague, unverifiable claims, so you can maintain that you're right even in the face of scoffers.


Which is advice that someone should have given to the guy in our next story.  Just yesterday, we have news from South Africa (sources here and here) that a popular singer has been arrested for returning from the dead.

Khulekani "Mgqumeni" Mseleku, a Zulu traditional singer, died in December of 2009, according to family and friends, and was buried in a local cemetery.  Said family and friends were pretty shocked when, last week, a guy showed up in Mseleku's village in Kwa-Zulu Natal, claiming to be the late Mseleku himself.

He wasn't actually dead, the resurrected Mseleku said, which must have made the aforementioned family and friends feel pretty crummy about burying him.  No, he was "kidnapped and held by zombies," and only recently escaped "through the help of his ancestors."

"I have been suffering a lot at the place where I was kept with zombies," Mseleku version 2.0 told reporters.  "It was hell there and I am so grateful that I was able to free myself and return to my family and you, my supporters."  And indeed, the support has been pouring in, with fans coming from hundreds of miles away to see him.

Police, however, weren't quite so sanguine, and have taken the alleged Mseleku in for questioning and DNA testing.


Last, we have the sad news that Laurie Cabot, Salem, Massachusetts' "official witch," has closed up shop.

Cabot, who is 79 and who has been, um, witching for over forty years, has decided to shut down "Cabot's Official Witch Shoppe" at 63R Wharf Street and go into semi-retirement, citing decreasing tourism and increased costs as her reasons.

For enthusiasts, however, she hastens to state that she will still be doing business online, selling incense, potions, and books of spells.  (You can check out her website here.)  She also hopes to find a home for her coven, the "Cabot Kent Hermetic Temple."

It wasn't an easy road, Cabot told reporters, and she faced some serious harassment at first.  "Jesus freaks would walk in yelling at me; irate mothers would come in because one of their kids came in the store and was interested,’" she said. "It was pretty bad; my two daughters and I would be walking down the street and good ol' boys would drive by and say, 'They ought to hang you again,'" a statement that makes me wonder about the intelligence level of the good ol' boys, given that hanging is generally fatal, and people who are dead tend to stay dead, unless they are prominent Zulu traditional musicians.

Be that as it may, she eventually found acceptance, and in 1977 then-governor Michael Dukakis appointed her the "Official Witch of Salem," a title that got her teaching engagements at Harvard and Wellesley, and an appearance on the Tonight Show.

So, anyway, we wish her all the best in the next phase of her life and hope that her online business continues to thrive, which given the number of gullible people out there, seems fairly likely.


So, there you have it.  Psychics visiting the Moon, a missed Superbowl prediction, zombie musicians, and a retiring witch.  As always, we here at Worldwide Wacko Watch burn the midnight oil to bring stories to your doorstep.  Well, I do, anyway.  The dogs have apparently given up on their hopes that I'll play fetch with them and are snoring on the couch.  But fear not, if breaking news comes our way, they can be roused in seconds.  Particularly if the news involves chasing squirrels.

Dowsing, SLIders, and Portuguese Water Dogs

I find that one of the most useful questions to ask someone who makes an outlandish claim is, "How could that possibly work?"

I bring this up in part because of a discussion I had with a student a couple of days ago over the practice of dowsing.  For those of you who don't know what this is, dowsing (also known as "water-witching") is the use of a forked stick, generally by a "sensitive," to find underground water.  Supposedly the stick will give a sharp downward pull if there's a source of water suitable for well-drilling underneath where you're standing.  I have found that this is the one woo-woo claim that elicits the most support when it comes up in my Critical Thinking classes -- almost every one of my students knows at least one person who will vouch for its truth.

Of course, the fact is, in upstate New York there's almost nowhere you could drill around here and not hit water, sooner or later, and most of the groundwater is pretty clean.  So dowsing would be a pretty safe proposition nearly everywhere.  But so, of course, would claiming that your dog was a "sensitive," and leading him around on a leash until he gets bored and sits down, and then drilling there because a source of underground water exerts a magnetic attraction on your dog's butt.

I hear that Portuguese Water Dogs are an especially good choice for this.

Be that as it may, I said to my student, "How could this possibly work?"  Of course, she had no ready answer for this, and neither does anyone else, but this hasn't stopped people from making one up -- that the Earth's "energies" interact with the "psychic fields" of the dowser's mind, causing the stick to move downwards.  One person's website even claimed that because willow trees like to grow near water, willow wood works the best for dowsing rods.  (And you laughed at my Portuguese Water Dog claim.  Please explain to me how the "willow wood" claim is any different.)

The demand of "show me the mechanism" is a pretty good first-order test for a lot of these claims, such as the recent spate of stories about people called SLIders (and we're not referring to the 90s science fiction TV series here).  SLIders are people who exhibit Street Light Interference -- street lights go off, or on, or flicker, when they walk past.  (Lest you think I'm making this up, here's a link to a recent story.)  Naysayers, of course, claim this is just Dart-Thrower's Bias -- the tendency of the human mind to notice and remember oddities (times that the street light went off as you passed) and ignore all of the background noise (times that the street lights stayed on).  Believers aren't buying it, and claim that the "electrical output of the brain" is interfering with the electrical flow in the street light.

How the electrical activity of the brain -- which, according to The Physics Factbook, runs at a total energy consumption rate of 20 to 40 Watts, or slightly less than a single typical incandescent light bulb -- could affect the activity of a 200 Watt high-pressure sodium vapor lamp running on conventional electrical current forty feet away, is never explained.  Any demand for a plausible mechanism quickly descends into the same kind of "sensitive psychic field" baloney that comes up with similar requests vis-à-vis dowsing.

This, of course, doesn't discourage die-hard SLIders from thinking they're doing something unusual, which makes you wonder why they don't constantly short out computers, televisions, cellphones, iPods, and so on.  You'd think that if they can affect something as simple, and powerful, as a street light, frying a laptop would be a relative cinch.  Yet even some of the pro-SLIder sites I looked at admitted that the effect had "proven difficult to replicate in a laboratory setting."

Yup, I'll just bet it is.  In any case, here's another nice thing to add to your skeptical toolkit -- "show me the mechanism."  If you think something weird is going on, you'd better have a plausible explanation for it that doesn't fly in the face of verified science.  And that goes double for all of you Portuguese Water Dogs.

Hauntings and jurisprudence

It's interesting to see what happens when people's beliefs in the paranormal bump into the legal system.

Last month, we had the story of a man in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin who told the sheriff that the injuries his wife had sustained had come from her being punched by a ghost.  (It didn't work, and the man was arrested for domestic assault.)  In Romania last year, legislators were officially cursed by a group of self-styled witches after they passed a law requiring the witches to pay taxes on money they collect from people for casting spells.  (You can read my post about this story here.)  In Britain, we have the Fraudulent Mediums Act, passed in 1951 and revised in 2008, which requires so-called mediums to state up front that their psychic readings, contacting of the dead, and so on were "for entertainment purposes only."

Now, we have a story out of Norway, courtesy of the wonderful blog Doubtful News, about some folks who had agreed to buy a house, and then tried to back out of the deal because the house was haunted.

According to the Gudbrandsdølen Dagningen, "The house owner accepted the buyer's bid and considered the house sold when the date for the takeover was set to happen... but in the meantime the buyer heard stories about unexplained phenomena and has refused to go through with the transaction.  Now the controversy around the house purchase in a village in Gudbrandsdalen has been going on for so long that the house owner has decided to sue the buyer."

How could courts settle such a case, when in order to establish that the seller was trying to cheat the buyer, the prosecutor would have to establish the existence of something that doesn't, technically, exist?

Interestingly, here in the US we have laws covering just such occurrences, and they're usually phrased in such a way that the court is not required to take a stand on the existence, or nonexistence, of ghosts.  In the case of Stambovsky vs. Ackley, which reached the New York State Supreme Court in 1991, a woman named Helen Ackley in Nyack, New York owned a house that she had repeatedly reported was haunted by poltergeists.  (She had even written a piece in Reader's Digest about it.)  When, in 1989, Ackley decided to sell the house, she didn't tell the prospective buyer, one Jeffrey Stambovsky, about the alleged haunting.  Stambovsky put a down payment on the house, signed the contract -- and only afterwards found out about the poltergeists.  When he tried to get the contract torn up, Ackley refused -- and Stambovsky sued.

Ultimately, the court ruled that since ghost activity would not show up in a typical home inspection, but that the reputation of a house's being haunted could reduce its property value, the buyer had the right to back out of the contract:

Where, as here, the seller not only takes unfair advantage of the buyer's ignorance but has created and perpetuated a condition about which he is unlikely to even inquire, enforcement of the contract (in whole or in part) is offensive to the court's sense of equity. Application of the remedy of rescission, within the bounds of the narrow exception to the doctrine of caveat emptor set forth herein, is entirely appropriate to relieve the unwitting purchaser from the consequences of a most unnatural bargain.

Note that the court didn't address the issue of whether the ghosts actually have to exist; it's merely the reputation of being haunted that is relevant.

One has to wonder if the courts in Norway will achieve such a delicately balanced solution.  But I also have to question how the legal system, with its ostensible emphasis on finding out the truth, can be entirely unconcerned as to whether the claims at the heart of a case are true or false.  I'm no lawyer, and I'd expect that the argument would be that the relevant issue was the potential loss of property value by the seller because of the claims, not whether or not the claims were themselves valid.  However, how can it not be relevant whether the ghosts in question actually existed?  At what point is it within the framework of the law to say, "Sorry, dude, ghosts aren't real?"  The sheriff in Wisconsin certainly had no problem with saying that to the guy who said that a ghost punched his wife. 

Tragedy, judgment, and shades of gray

One of my many faults is that I seem to see everything in shades of gray.  In the realm of science, okay, a lot of that is pretty black and white; but when it comes to people, I always see actions as a web of causes, effects, qualifications, and mitigating circumstances.

I've been thinking about this because of a tragedy that struck in our little village this Wednesday.  An 18-year-old former student of mine, at a little past eleven in the morning, apparently assaulted his father and injured him badly enough that the father had to be airlifted to a hospital in Syracuse.  The last I checked, the father's condition had been upgraded from "critical" to "fair," but informed sources have said "he's not doing well," and one of them even used the dreaded words "brain damage."

The son is now being held in jail, has been charged with felony assault, had his bail set at $100,000, and is facing a possible sentence of up to 25 years in prison.

What I've noticed about this whole sad mess is how quick people are to rush to judgment.  I read the "comments" section under one of the articles that appeared in our local newspaper's website, and saw ones that said, "This kid is a vicious criminal and should rot in jail," "I know the son and he wouldn't do something like this without provocation," and more than one that referenced an allegation that the son was using drugs at the time and that the real criminal was the one who supplied him with the drugs.

I find it a little appalling that people are so willing to pass judgment on a situation while knowing almost nothing in the way of facts.  It is, apparently, nearly certain that the son was the one who committed the assault; while the media has used the word "alleged," I strongly got the impression that it was being used in its formal legal sense only.  However, why did he assault his father?  Honestly, at this point, no one knows, except the son himself and perhaps his legal counsel.  Anything we say about it is speculation, and I have no idea why someone would want to commit him/herself to a statement of judgment based upon speculation.

As far as blame... let's say that the claims of drug use are correct, and the kid was high as a kite at the time.  Does this diminish responsibility?  Or increase it, as he was committing one crime (using illegal drugs) while he committed another?  Does his supplier bear some of the guilt?  We are all so interconnected, and our actions have so many causes, that it seems to me to be nearly impossible to sort it all out.

All I can say is that when I think of the son, I remember, a quiet, gentle, soft-spoken boy, who had a ready smile and a quick wit.  He didn't focus very hard on school work, but he was unfailingly well-behaved and respectful in my class, and after taking my Critical Thinking class last year he came up and thanked me and said it was one of the most interesting classes he'd ever had.  I think of him sitting in a prison cell for perhaps the next two decades -- as if somehow that will rectify what he has done.  I think of his father's life, damaged perhaps beyond repair.  I think of his younger brother, who is mentally disabled, and who now has effectively lost two family members. 

It's a situation where everyone has lost, and at this point nothing we can do will make any of it better.

And I also think: I would make a terrible juror.  In all but a few, clear-cut cases, I would hate to be put in a position of passing judgment.  And I sometimes wish I did see actions in simpler terms.  It would make life a great deal easier.

That's no moon. It's a space station.

The whole subject of "book reviews" has been much on my mind lately, because being (as well as a blogger) a fiction writer, with several titles to my name on Amazon and Barnes & Noble, I am constantly monitoring my links to see if I've gotten good reviews.  Or bad reviews.  Or any reviews.  Because, let's face it, Brendan Behan was on to something when he said, "There is no such thing as bad publicity."

On the other hand, you have to wonder how accurate reviews really are, and I mean no disrespect to the people who have reviewed my work.  Especially those who have given it five stars.

The subject comes up because I was doing some research for today's post, on a topic suggested by a student, to wit, the conjecture that the Moon is an artificial construct.  It seems like the first serious exploration of the claim was done by Christopher Knight in his 2007 book, Who Built The Moon?, but it has recently come back to light because the cause has been taken up by noted wingnut David Icke in his latest publication, Human Race, Get Off Your Knees: The Lion Sleeps No More.  And no, I'm not making that title up, and I wonder if you had the same reaction as I did when you read it, which is to hear deep voices in the background going, "A wimoweh, a wimoweh, a wimoweh."

Be that as it may, Icke is into the artificial-moon theory in a big way.  Here's a quote from his book:

I had that overwhelming feeling at my computer that the Moon was artificial and was being used to control life on this planet.  It is the Reptilians’ control system. The placement of the Moon dictates the speed of Earth’s rotation and the angle at which it rotates – 22.5 degrees from vertical.  This angle creates the four seasons because of the way planet faces the Sun during its annual orbit.  The Moon has a major influence on the tides – far more than the Sun – and with the human body consisting of some 70 per cent water it is bound to have a fantastic influence on us, even on that level alone.  The Moon also dictates so much of our relationship with time, and the term ‘month’ is really Moonth, a period based on the cycles of the Moon.  The realisation that the Moon is a gigantic spacecraft is the strand that connects all the rest, not just in relation to Moon anomalies, but also to life on Earth and the conspiracy to enslave humanity.  The fact is that the Reptilians in the Moon and in underground bases on Mars depend on humans and the Earth for food – their very survival.  This is one key reason why they are desperate not to be exposed.  Water and other resources are constantly being taken from this planet to the Moon and Mars and this is not a new phenomena, either.  Ancient Zulu stories say the same.

Well, far be it from me to rely on the findings of science when they're contradicted by "ancient Zulu stories."

Anyway, Icke goes on like this for 690 pages, talking about how the Moon must be hollow, that it's older than the Earth is, and has "anomalous quantities" of "metals such as brass and mica" (for the non-geologists in the studio audience, let me point out that mica isn't a metal), that particles of metallic iron on the Moon's surface are "mysteriously resistant to rusting" (not a surprise given that rusting is oxidation, a process that is unlikely to occur in a place with no atmosphere), and that the maria ("seas") are places where meteorite collisions resulted in damage, which had to be repaired by the Reptilians using "an artificial cement-like substance."

690 pages of this.  And it costs $23.00, plus shipping and handling, to purchase it from Amazon. 

So anyway, I'm wading through all of this, and just shaking my head, but then I saw the thing that made me shake my head so much I looked like I had a severe disorder of the central nervous system -- that this book has received 49 reviews, of which 37 gave it five stars.  Here are a few selected phrases from these reviews:

• Icke is one of the very few conspiracy whistleblowers who has developed a relatively advanced spiritual awareness from which he can provide a useful context and understanding of the material he has uncovered.
• If you are sick of all this government crap then you should read this book because it really opens your eyes to the truth and makes you realize how stupid and fake this world really is.
• This could be the most important book EVER written.  If you don't know where the world is headed, you need to find out and David Icke tells how we can return to freedom.
• Most informative book there is about what is happening in the world today and who is causing it.  It also tells you what you can do to change it. 

All of which makes me, as a teacher of critical thinking, want to weep softly and bang my head on my desk.  However, there is one thought that gives me hope.

Reviews are, by their very nature, a skewed sample.  People who review this book have (one would hope) read it, which means that the presumably huge number of people in this world who would read the book's description, see its price, and then laugh and say "no freakin' way" are already eliminated from the pool.  Only once you have forked over your $23.00 (plus shipping and handling) are you going to be able to review the book, and this speaks to a certain level of, shall we say, credulity right from the starting gate.

So, anyway, I'm trying to be positive, here, which is sometimes difficult.  Wingnuts will always be out there trumpeting their theories; that is, after all, what wingnuts do.  And there will always be a small group of people who think that their nutty ideas make total sense, and I emphasize the words "small group" with every hopeful thought of which I am capable.  For right now, I'll just try to put the whole thing out of my mind, if only to stop the voices in my head from singing, "A wimoweh, a wimoweh, a wimoweh," which is getting a little annoying.

Psychic surfers

Let me just say, up front, that I love my readers.

I read, and enjoy, every one of their comments.  I even like the ones who disagree with me.  The heart of skepticism is careful thought, and comments from people who think I'm wrong provoke me to think, reevaluate, reconsider. 

But every once in a while, a comment (or commenter) stands out as being especially wonderful, and that happened yesterday, and generated today's post.

If you read yesterday's post, you will no doubt remember that it was about some folks selling something called the "LifeIonizer."  I ended the post bemoaning the fact that due to my exploration of all things woo-woo, I tend to get bombarded by advertisements for things like crystals and Tarot card readings, and rarely see advertisements featuring scantily-clad surfers, and how much I would prefer the latter.

This prompted a comment from one of my frequent readers that consisted only of a link to a site, featuring a woman named Kristi Walsh, which is called...

...  Psychic Surfers.

After clicking the link, then attempting not to spray a mouthful of coffee all over my computer, and then spending the next five minutes laughing, I looked into it a little further, and went to Kristi Walsh's website (here).  Much to my disappointment, it seems as if she is using surfing as a metaphor:

Surfing is the perfect image for riding the ascension wave. This is the first time the earth, the solar system, and all beings on this planet have experienced ascension. Well, let me rephrase that, if we have experienced this before, it might have been 26,000 years ago. So most of us, jump into the NOW, or present time, and we have to figure out along the way, how to surf these psychic waves, or cosmic waves, or maverick waves.

Oh, okay!  I mean, my only question would be: what?  I don't know about you, but I didn't experience much of anything 26,000 years ago.  So I kept reading, hoping it would become clearer:

Many of us have been using psychic or spiritual tools, but we are always being called to the surf. Things are changing from a third or fourth dimensional world to something different, we are expanding our world from duality to a world where we are all one, and we are interested in new ways to create peace within ourselves and with others. Ascension means different things to different folks but there are similar stories, where one day you wake up remembering dreams and spiritual mystery school teachings, and then the next day its like its your first day on this planet.

Oh.  Now I get it.  Well, not really, but maybe tomorrow I'll wake up remembering my "spiritual mystery school teachings," and it all will become clear.

After this, she goes on for some time about "raising our vibrations," which sounds fairly illicit to my ears, so we'll just pass over this part.  I did find out that she does psychic and astrological readings, however, which sounds promising.  And I will definitely plan on trying to catch her radio program, which is on at 9 AM Pacific Time on AlignRadio, a broadcast channel whose website describes it as being "designed energetically to address the energy of earth movements, the energy of ascension with the new and ancient universal information."  I can barely wait.

So, anyway, I have once again had my life enriched by my readers, whose growing numbers encourage me daily.  I've seen Skeptophilia grow from only one or two followers, and a handful of hits daily, to hundreds of regular readers and upwards of 300 hits every day, and a total number of lifetime hits since I began writing in October of 2010 that is currently nearing 50,000.  About which I can only say: thank you to everyone who reads what I write, and thank you especially to those who comment, send me links, and challenge me daily to think harder about the world around me.  It is a privilege to reach an audience this size, and I can only hope that my writing is forwarding the cause of skepticism and critical thinking in some small way.  Keep reading, keep recommending my posts to your skeptically-minded friends, and keep sending me links... even the ones that make me spit coffee all over my computer.  It's a small price to pay.