Benjamin Radford's Blog: Ben Radford's Blog of Booky Things, page 2
May 19, 2017
Reading 'Aurora' by Melanie Windridge
I've been busy the past few weeks working on my new podcast, Squaring the Strange, especially recording a two-part episode on Jamaican ghost folklore (now out). So I haven't had as much time as I'd like to update this blog--but I did recently interview a plasma physicist, Dr. Melanie Windridge, about her new book 'Aurora: In Search of the Northern Lights.'
Below is the introduction to my article on her book and research:
I first saw the Northern Lights from between the cars of a speeding Canadian VIA Rail train at about the fifty-eighth parallel north. I was on the last leg of a three-day journey five hours shy of Churchill, Manitoba, known as the polar bear capital of the world. It was about four in the morning, and nearly everyone else in the car was asleep, rocked and rattled into some semblance of slumber. I too needed sleep but was drawn to the mesmerizing celestial dancing greenish streaks outside.
Being in such a remote location, so far away from Winnipeg’s light pollution where the journey began, the stars and lights contrasted spectacularly against the inky night sky. The rushing wind blasted frigid sub-Arctic air in my face, making the experience uncomfortable and even painful, but I couldn’t resist. Even a “clean” window on the train—a greater rarity than the lights—was too much of a barrier. I needed firsthand experience with the lights, at least for a minute before my wind-whipped eyes teared up.
That was a decade ago, but the experience resonates with me to this day. So when I heard that there was a new book out about the aurora, I was intrigued. Not only because the author studied the science behind the phenomenon, but also because she researched its history and folklore...
You can read the rest here.
Below is the introduction to my article on her book and research:
I first saw the Northern Lights from between the cars of a speeding Canadian VIA Rail train at about the fifty-eighth parallel north. I was on the last leg of a three-day journey five hours shy of Churchill, Manitoba, known as the polar bear capital of the world. It was about four in the morning, and nearly everyone else in the car was asleep, rocked and rattled into some semblance of slumber. I too needed sleep but was drawn to the mesmerizing celestial dancing greenish streaks outside.
Being in such a remote location, so far away from Winnipeg’s light pollution where the journey began, the stars and lights contrasted spectacularly against the inky night sky. The rushing wind blasted frigid sub-Arctic air in my face, making the experience uncomfortable and even painful, but I couldn’t resist. Even a “clean” window on the train—a greater rarity than the lights—was too much of a barrier. I needed firsthand experience with the lights, at least for a minute before my wind-whipped eyes teared up.
That was a decade ago, but the experience resonates with me to this day. So when I heard that there was a new book out about the aurora, I was intrigued. Not only because the author studied the science behind the phenomenon, but also because she researched its history and folklore...
You can read the rest here.
April 26, 2017
Announcing Squaring the Strange!
I have a new podcast cohosted by Pascual Romero, titled "Squaring the Strange." We bring evidence-based analysis and commentary to a wide variety of topics, ranging from the paranormal to the political, the mysterious to the mundane.
Investigating ghosts.
Debunking conspiracies.
Tracking chupacabras.
Calling shenanigans where appropriate....
If a claim seems strange, we will try to square it with the facts. Not just another “skeptical” podcast talking about current events, Squaring the Strange goes deeper. It’s a show about critical thinking and evidence-based analysis, using science and logic to examine the world around us. Listeners will learn about psychology, myths, hoaxes, folklore, science, and all the things that add up to strange experiences—both real and unreal.
The show is produced by Pascual Romero, with Celestia Ward as content producer and featuring myself as understudy to the assistant co-associate content producer.
You can listen to Squaring the Strange on iTunes and find us on Facebook, Twitter (at @SquaringStrange), and elsewhere on social media. Please give it a listen!
Investigating ghosts.
Debunking conspiracies.
Tracking chupacabras.
Calling shenanigans where appropriate....
If a claim seems strange, we will try to square it with the facts. Not just another “skeptical” podcast talking about current events, Squaring the Strange goes deeper. It’s a show about critical thinking and evidence-based analysis, using science and logic to examine the world around us. Listeners will learn about psychology, myths, hoaxes, folklore, science, and all the things that add up to strange experiences—both real and unreal.
The show is produced by Pascual Romero, with Celestia Ward as content producer and featuring myself as understudy to the assistant co-associate content producer.
You can listen to Squaring the Strange on iTunes and find us on Facebook, Twitter (at @SquaringStrange), and elsewhere on social media. Please give it a listen!
April 5, 2017
How Russian Conspiracies Taint Social Activist ‘News’
A few months ago I came across a news media story that seemed bogus. As author of a book on media literacy ("Media Mythmakers") I often seek out--or call out-- sloppy journalism, and I made a note of this example to use at some point.
Last year the news media outlet RT News posted a video updating the story of Eric Garner, who died after being put in a police chokehold in July 2014. The July 12 video, titled “Witness who filmed Eric Garner’s arrest sentenced to prison,” examined the fate of a man named Ramsey Orta, whose cell phone video sparked outrage across the county and around the world, leading to dozens of protests and helping secure a nearly $6 million settlement between Garner’s family and the city of New York.
I found some logical errors in it but the story got far more interesting once I looked more deeply into RT News and discovered why the journalism was so misleading... It turns out to have been part of a Russian disinformation campaign. I'll be publishing an article on it soon.
Last year the news media outlet RT News posted a video updating the story of Eric Garner, who died after being put in a police chokehold in July 2014. The July 12 video, titled “Witness who filmed Eric Garner’s arrest sentenced to prison,” examined the fate of a man named Ramsey Orta, whose cell phone video sparked outrage across the county and around the world, leading to dozens of protests and helping secure a nearly $6 million settlement between Garner’s family and the city of New York.
I found some logical errors in it but the story got far more interesting once I looked more deeply into RT News and discovered why the journalism was so misleading... It turns out to have been part of a Russian disinformation campaign. I'll be publishing an article on it soon.
February 22, 2017
More great 'Bad Clowns' reviews!
From a review of "Bad Clowns" in Fortean Times magazine (Issue 349):
“Benjamin Radford shows in his masterful survey that bad clowns have always been with us.... This is not a dry or scholarly read, and there’s a lot of welcome debunking. Bad Clowns moves colorfully and quickly, thanks to Radford’s acerbic wit. Verdict: A clown car just stuffed with insight and wit. 8 out of 10.”
Yay!
“Benjamin Radford shows in his masterful survey that bad clowns have always been with us.... This is not a dry or scholarly read, and there’s a lot of welcome debunking. Bad Clowns moves colorfully and quickly, thanks to Radford’s acerbic wit. Verdict: A clown car just stuffed with insight and wit. 8 out of 10.”
Yay!
December 9, 2016
Three Dowsing Questions Answered
Recently a journalist contacted me with a few questions about the art or practice of dowsing. I’ve written about dowsing several times (most recently for my upcoming book on ghost hunting), and thought readers might find it interesting. Here’s a transcript of the interview:
1) Why do you believe dowsing is fraudulent? Do you think dowsers are purposefully fraudulent or just deluded?
I don’t believe dowsing per se is fraudulent—that is, for the most part it’s not a scam, hoax, or intentional deception. Instead it’s a form of self-deception that often convinces others. There’s no intent to deceive, it’s more of a mistake or misunderstanding. I’ve met many dowsers over the years and without exception they have been credible, down-to-earth people. They seem sincere because they are sincere: they really believe they have this power, and have convinced themselves over and over with their results. In this way they often convince other people, especially those who haven’t researched skeptical or science-based explanations.
As for its origins, in her book "Divining the Future: Prognostication From Astrology to Zoomancy," Eva Shaw writes, “In 1556, 'De Re Metallica,' a book on metallurgy and mining written by George [sic] Agricola, discussed dowsing as an acceptable method of locating rich mineral sources.” This reference to "De Re Metallica" is widely cited among dowsers as proof of its validity. However it seems that the dowsing advocates didn’t actually read the book because it says exactly the opposite of what they claim: Instead of endorsing dowsing, Agricola states that those seeking minerals “should not make use of an enchanted twig, because if he is prudent and skilled in the natural signs, he understands that a forked stick is of no use to him.” So even 400 years ago, dowsing was recognized as not being useful.
2) How can you empirically disprove dowsing?
There are various ways to scientifically test dowsing abilities. I have done it several times myself, and read studies done by others. The easiest is to get 20 identical 5-gallon opaque plastic buckets and (with the dowser out of sight or at another location) place a sealed gallon jug of water under one of the buckets (being careful of course not to leave any traces that might reveal where it is). The buckets should be placed 2-3 meters apart (or at whatever interval the dowser claims they can discriminate water from non-water). Have the dowser come out to the field or lot and find the water. You can do a similar experiment hiding valuables on sandy beaches in grids as well.
Of course there’s a 5% (1 in 20) chance that the water will be found simply by random chance, so if you repeat the test 20 times that should give enough of a sample size to see whether there’s a real effect or not. If the dowser truly can find water, presumably they should be accurate at least 80% to 90% of the time.
A dowser once proudly noted (partway through the trials) that so far he had successfully found water at a significantly higher rate than would be expected by random chance, at 20% instead of 5%. I pointed out that performing better than random chance was a pretty low bar and asked him if he would be eager to hire a doctor, architect, or mechanic who—like him—was wrong 80% of the time.
In my experience the dowsers are surprised by their failure, and often make excuses or find reasons to explain away their results. Sometimes they complain that “skeptical” thoughts somehow block their powers...
3) How do you explain apparently successful dowsers?
The problem is that dowsers fail to demonstrate their ability in scientifically controlled experiments and tests. It also depends on what you’re looking for and where. In fact it can be difficult to disprove a dower’s claim for the same reason: if they claim water will be found in a spot at a certain depth, they can always insist that the water is there—just that they were a bit off on the depth: It’s 50 meters, not 20 meters like they thought. In order to prove or disprove that, of course, you’d need to dig another 30 meters (possibly a difficult and expensive proposition).
And if they find water, does that mean that dowsing works? Not necessarily. In most places on Earth there’s water somewhere below the surface—maybe a few inches, maybe a few meters or more. So any dowser who says “If you dig here you’ll find water” is statistically very likely to be correct—and would be just as correct if he or she chose a spot 10 meters away in any direction, or 10 miles away.
There’s also the issue of what psychologists call “confirmation bias,” also known as “remembering the hits and forgetting the misses.” People generally tend to better remember their successes than their failures, or they rationalize away their failures (“I was having an off day,” or “The sun was too hot,” etc.). Unless dowsers keep careful track of all their claims—both correct and wrong— it can be easy to misremember their success rate.
Of course when dowsers are wrong they simply point out that no one is 100% accurate all the time—doctors, mechanics, scientists, and others make mistakes, and this is of course true. But the problem with that comparison is that doctors and mechanics can reliably prove their skills most of the time; this is not true with dowsers, and in fact there is no known scientific mechanism by which a forked branch, pendulum, or two L-shaped rods could possibly “detect” water.
Keep in mind that dowsers claim to be able to find a great many “hidden” objects, including missing keys, water, oil, gold, and even ghosts! This raises the interesting question of how dowsers could know what the rods are reacting to: Is it a vein of gold 20 meters below the earth, a reservoir of water 100 meters below the earth, oil shale 200 meters down, or the dead spirit of someone who died at that spot in 1973? There’s no way to know. British Petroleum and other multinational oil companies spend billions of dollars (and pounds) trying to locate offshore oil fields through expensive, difficult, and time-consuming sampling, computer models, and so on.
1) Why do you believe dowsing is fraudulent? Do you think dowsers are purposefully fraudulent or just deluded?
I don’t believe dowsing per se is fraudulent—that is, for the most part it’s not a scam, hoax, or intentional deception. Instead it’s a form of self-deception that often convinces others. There’s no intent to deceive, it’s more of a mistake or misunderstanding. I’ve met many dowsers over the years and without exception they have been credible, down-to-earth people. They seem sincere because they are sincere: they really believe they have this power, and have convinced themselves over and over with their results. In this way they often convince other people, especially those who haven’t researched skeptical or science-based explanations.
As for its origins, in her book "Divining the Future: Prognostication From Astrology to Zoomancy," Eva Shaw writes, “In 1556, 'De Re Metallica,' a book on metallurgy and mining written by George [sic] Agricola, discussed dowsing as an acceptable method of locating rich mineral sources.” This reference to "De Re Metallica" is widely cited among dowsers as proof of its validity. However it seems that the dowsing advocates didn’t actually read the book because it says exactly the opposite of what they claim: Instead of endorsing dowsing, Agricola states that those seeking minerals “should not make use of an enchanted twig, because if he is prudent and skilled in the natural signs, he understands that a forked stick is of no use to him.” So even 400 years ago, dowsing was recognized as not being useful.
2) How can you empirically disprove dowsing?
There are various ways to scientifically test dowsing abilities. I have done it several times myself, and read studies done by others. The easiest is to get 20 identical 5-gallon opaque plastic buckets and (with the dowser out of sight or at another location) place a sealed gallon jug of water under one of the buckets (being careful of course not to leave any traces that might reveal where it is). The buckets should be placed 2-3 meters apart (or at whatever interval the dowser claims they can discriminate water from non-water). Have the dowser come out to the field or lot and find the water. You can do a similar experiment hiding valuables on sandy beaches in grids as well.
Of course there’s a 5% (1 in 20) chance that the water will be found simply by random chance, so if you repeat the test 20 times that should give enough of a sample size to see whether there’s a real effect or not. If the dowser truly can find water, presumably they should be accurate at least 80% to 90% of the time.
A dowser once proudly noted (partway through the trials) that so far he had successfully found water at a significantly higher rate than would be expected by random chance, at 20% instead of 5%. I pointed out that performing better than random chance was a pretty low bar and asked him if he would be eager to hire a doctor, architect, or mechanic who—like him—was wrong 80% of the time.
In my experience the dowsers are surprised by their failure, and often make excuses or find reasons to explain away their results. Sometimes they complain that “skeptical” thoughts somehow block their powers...
3) How do you explain apparently successful dowsers?
The problem is that dowsers fail to demonstrate their ability in scientifically controlled experiments and tests. It also depends on what you’re looking for and where. In fact it can be difficult to disprove a dower’s claim for the same reason: if they claim water will be found in a spot at a certain depth, they can always insist that the water is there—just that they were a bit off on the depth: It’s 50 meters, not 20 meters like they thought. In order to prove or disprove that, of course, you’d need to dig another 30 meters (possibly a difficult and expensive proposition).
And if they find water, does that mean that dowsing works? Not necessarily. In most places on Earth there’s water somewhere below the surface—maybe a few inches, maybe a few meters or more. So any dowser who says “If you dig here you’ll find water” is statistically very likely to be correct—and would be just as correct if he or she chose a spot 10 meters away in any direction, or 10 miles away.
There’s also the issue of what psychologists call “confirmation bias,” also known as “remembering the hits and forgetting the misses.” People generally tend to better remember their successes than their failures, or they rationalize away their failures (“I was having an off day,” or “The sun was too hot,” etc.). Unless dowsers keep careful track of all their claims—both correct and wrong— it can be easy to misremember their success rate.
Of course when dowsers are wrong they simply point out that no one is 100% accurate all the time—doctors, mechanics, scientists, and others make mistakes, and this is of course true. But the problem with that comparison is that doctors and mechanics can reliably prove their skills most of the time; this is not true with dowsers, and in fact there is no known scientific mechanism by which a forked branch, pendulum, or two L-shaped rods could possibly “detect” water.
Keep in mind that dowsers claim to be able to find a great many “hidden” objects, including missing keys, water, oil, gold, and even ghosts! This raises the interesting question of how dowsers could know what the rods are reacting to: Is it a vein of gold 20 meters below the earth, a reservoir of water 100 meters below the earth, oil shale 200 meters down, or the dead spirit of someone who died at that spot in 1973? There’s no way to know. British Petroleum and other multinational oil companies spend billions of dollars (and pounds) trying to locate offshore oil fields through expensive, difficult, and time-consuming sampling, computer models, and so on.
November 7, 2016
A Question About Spontaneous Human Combustion
Because I have written thousands of articles on a wide variety of unusual or “unexplained” topics for over fifteen years, I often get queries from readers who contact me through my website (www.benjaminradford.com) and ask questions, either general ones or some in response to a specific article or blog I’ve written.
I don’t always have time to answer them, and of course some are abusive or trolling. But when I have time, I try to reply as best I can, since the person took the time to write to me and is presumably sincere.
Today I got the following query:
“Could spontaneous human combustion be a product of sonoluminescence? Hit the right frequency and explode a bubble in the gut or something?”
I replied,
There are many theories about SHC, and I've heard that one floated now and then. Anything is possible, of course, but the biggest problem with that theory is that there's no evidence for it: gas bubbles in the gut aren't explosive, and even if it was I don't know of any research showing that sound waves can ignite it.
Certainly there's some methane in the colon (hence why farts can be lit), but sound can't ignite fire.
Plus, of course, the body itself is a pretty good sound barrier (water, bone, flesh, etc.); it's hard to imagine what sounds could be carried into the gut and do that.
And if that were true you'd expect to find a common thread among the SHC victims, listening to a certain music, or being exposed to some specific sound or frequency--but there's no evidence of that. Here's a piece with more on SHC: http://www.livescience.com/42080-spon...
I don’t always have time to answer them, and of course some are abusive or trolling. But when I have time, I try to reply as best I can, since the person took the time to write to me and is presumably sincere.
Today I got the following query:
“Could spontaneous human combustion be a product of sonoluminescence? Hit the right frequency and explode a bubble in the gut or something?”
I replied,
There are many theories about SHC, and I've heard that one floated now and then. Anything is possible, of course, but the biggest problem with that theory is that there's no evidence for it: gas bubbles in the gut aren't explosive, and even if it was I don't know of any research showing that sound waves can ignite it.
Certainly there's some methane in the colon (hence why farts can be lit), but sound can't ignite fire.
Plus, of course, the body itself is a pretty good sound barrier (water, bone, flesh, etc.); it's hard to imagine what sounds could be carried into the gut and do that.
And if that were true you'd expect to find a common thread among the SHC victims, listening to a certain music, or being exposed to some specific sound or frequency--but there's no evidence of that. Here's a piece with more on SHC: http://www.livescience.com/42080-spon...
October 24, 2016
Surviving the Bad Clown Media Frenzy
This past week and a half has been absurdly busy for me. It started on a Friday when I was asked to comment on the clown panic for People magazine.
Over the years I've occasionally been interviewed by national news media, including in 2014 when I was on Good Morning America being asked for my analysis of a new Loch Ness Monster photo, but nothing on this scale. All was fine and I thought the news media attention had waned for a few days.
But the creepy clown reports on the news and social media spawned copycats in other countries, and suddenly the e-mails started coming in and my cell phone started burning up (not literally, it's an iPhone, not a Galaxy).
What happened was that when reporters from other news media saw me quoted in People, they realized that there actually was, improbably enough, an expert on bad, evil, and scary clowns, and it happened to be me! Within a week I was recognized as one of, if not the, top experts in the world on this specific topic (along with Loren Coleman and a few others).
For three solid days I was doing back-to-back interviews for about 12 to 14 hours: NPR, Jenny McCarthy's Sirius XM show, CNN, BBC, CBC, CTV, Time magazine, Voice of America, and dozens more, print, radio, podcast, television, you name it. I did my best to keep up with them, and got in the habit of using two kitchen timers on my desk going at the same time to remind me when I have five minutes before an interview--and the one afterward, to make sure I didn't miss it.
I woke up at 5 AM to appear live on a lunchtime chat show in Dublin, Ireland. I was interviewed by journalists in Stockholm, Sydney, Rio de Janiero, and Hong Kong (I submitted video and my comments translated into Chinese subtitles)... And I have three more interviews scheduled this week! I am glad that my work is being noticed, and that people are interested in the book, but to be honest I'm looking forward to a quieter week ahead, so I can finish my next book!
Over the years I've occasionally been interviewed by national news media, including in 2014 when I was on Good Morning America being asked for my analysis of a new Loch Ness Monster photo, but nothing on this scale. All was fine and I thought the news media attention had waned for a few days.
But the creepy clown reports on the news and social media spawned copycats in other countries, and suddenly the e-mails started coming in and my cell phone started burning up (not literally, it's an iPhone, not a Galaxy).
What happened was that when reporters from other news media saw me quoted in People, they realized that there actually was, improbably enough, an expert on bad, evil, and scary clowns, and it happened to be me! Within a week I was recognized as one of, if not the, top experts in the world on this specific topic (along with Loren Coleman and a few others).
For three solid days I was doing back-to-back interviews for about 12 to 14 hours: NPR, Jenny McCarthy's Sirius XM show, CNN, BBC, CBC, CTV, Time magazine, Voice of America, and dozens more, print, radio, podcast, television, you name it. I did my best to keep up with them, and got in the habit of using two kitchen timers on my desk going at the same time to remind me when I have five minutes before an interview--and the one afterward, to make sure I didn't miss it.
I woke up at 5 AM to appear live on a lunchtime chat show in Dublin, Ireland. I was interviewed by journalists in Stockholm, Sydney, Rio de Janiero, and Hong Kong (I submitted video and my comments translated into Chinese subtitles)... And I have three more interviews scheduled this week! I am glad that my work is being noticed, and that people are interested in the book, but to be honest I'm looking forward to a quieter week ahead, so I can finish my next book!
October 13, 2016
Q&A About America’s Clown Panic
I was recently interviewed by a Spanish journalist about the clown scares sweeping the country; here’s an excerpt:
Q: What is your opinion on the recent sightings of terrifying clowns in the United States and other countries?
A: The scary clown panic has spread across the country to dozens of states and even internationally, fueled by hoaxes, copycats, pranksters, rumors, and social media.
The creepy clown panic became so serious that it was addressed in an October 4 White House briefing!
Q: Why is this phenomenon occurring right now?
A: There are several reasons why this scare clown panic is happening now. The most important is probably the effect of social media. People see these scary/funny clown photos on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. and get inspired to dress as a clown and participate in the scares. Plus, of course, the news media is reporting these stories a lot.
Q: What could be the motivation of those people who dress as clowns to scare people?
A: Most of them are doing it for fun and attention, they want to make the news—but do it safely and anonymously, without facing any consequences. Even if the police come, there is very little they can do since dressing as a clown is not illegal. There are a handful of reports of minor injuries, but nothing serious, no abductions or murders by these hoaxers. After all, if you really want to assault or injure somebody, you don't need to dress as a clown to do it!
Q: According to your book Bad Clowns, why is the clown in all societies and cultures?
A: The clown character, historically and culturally, has always been an ambiguous person—neither good nor bad, but sometimes either or both. The clown is a trickster figure, as is the Devil, of course, so there has always been an element of the unexpected, the scary or threatening in the clown. But the type of clown most people are familiar with these days is of course the good, happy clown. So these scary clowns subvert that idea, and that's one reason they are so interesting and compelling.
Q: According to your book, why are many people afraid of clowns?
A: There are several reasons why people are scared of clowns, but one is that clowns are masked, and people are uneasy around masked strangers—for obvious reasons! Plus, the makeup is often garish and exaggerated, which looks okay from a distance (for example from the seats in a circus), but looks scary close up.
Q: What is your opinion on the recent sightings of terrifying clowns in the United States and other countries?
A: The scary clown panic has spread across the country to dozens of states and even internationally, fueled by hoaxes, copycats, pranksters, rumors, and social media.
The creepy clown panic became so serious that it was addressed in an October 4 White House briefing!
Q: Why is this phenomenon occurring right now?
A: There are several reasons why this scare clown panic is happening now. The most important is probably the effect of social media. People see these scary/funny clown photos on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. and get inspired to dress as a clown and participate in the scares. Plus, of course, the news media is reporting these stories a lot.
Q: What could be the motivation of those people who dress as clowns to scare people?
A: Most of them are doing it for fun and attention, they want to make the news—but do it safely and anonymously, without facing any consequences. Even if the police come, there is very little they can do since dressing as a clown is not illegal. There are a handful of reports of minor injuries, but nothing serious, no abductions or murders by these hoaxers. After all, if you really want to assault or injure somebody, you don't need to dress as a clown to do it!
Q: According to your book Bad Clowns, why is the clown in all societies and cultures?
A: The clown character, historically and culturally, has always been an ambiguous person—neither good nor bad, but sometimes either or both. The clown is a trickster figure, as is the Devil, of course, so there has always been an element of the unexpected, the scary or threatening in the clown. But the type of clown most people are familiar with these days is of course the good, happy clown. So these scary clowns subvert that idea, and that's one reason they are so interesting and compelling.
Q: According to your book, why are many people afraid of clowns?
A: There are several reasons why people are scared of clowns, but one is that clowns are masked, and people are uneasy around masked strangers—for obvious reasons! Plus, the makeup is often garish and exaggerated, which looks okay from a distance (for example from the seats in a circus), but looks scary close up.
September 26, 2016
A Closer Look at Clown Panics
Since the scary clown panic that started about a month ago shows no signs of ending (and is in fact getting worse, with at least two Alabama schools put on lockdown in recent weeks over alleged clown threats) I thought I'd explain a bit about what's going on.
There’s actually two distinct but related things going on here: what in my book I call stalker clowns, and phantom clowns.
The first, stalker clowns, are absolutely known to exist; they’re typically pranksters or publicity seekers who dress as clowns and stalk streets at night, not really threatening or harming anyone but just trying to draw attention to themselves. One of the earliest and best-known examples was the man who dressed as a scary clown in Northampton, England, in October 2013. He and some friends created a Facebook page and encouraged people to seek out and photograph the clown; he was later revealed to be a local filmmaker. That clown later inspired several copycats, including in Staten Island, Bakersfield, California; in France, and elsewhere.
The second type of clown has been reported, but never proven to exist. These are known as “phantom clowns,” a phrase coined by writer Loren Coleman. These are claimed to be much more malevolent, and said to attempt to lure children into waiting vans for unknown reasons, presumably murder or molestation. The first reports of these clowns emerged in the 1980s and continued occasionally through the 1990s in America, Europe, and elsewhere. They hadn’t been reported in recent years until last month, in Greenville.
It’s important to understand that there are no reports of any children actually being harmed or abducted by these clowns— despite police searches no evidence was ever found of their existence. It’s mostly fueled by children sightings, schoolyard rumors, and fearful parent warnings. These are essentially folkloric entities, similar to boogeymen or Slenderman.
The idea of an adult dressing up as a clown to lure children for evil purposes is straight out of a horror movie, not real life. For one thing, many kids (and adults, for that matter) are scared of clowns, so they’re more likely to run from a clown than toward one.
Second, if you really intend to harm kids and want to get away with it, a clown is pretty much the last thing you’d want to dress as, since it immediately draws attention from kids and adults alike. Criminals typically want to blend in, not stand out like a greasepainted, fright-wigged sore thumb. Especially with all the news and attention over the past weeks, anyone dressed as a clown outside of their normal habitat (a circus or backyard party for example) and around kids will immediately draw suspicion, if not a visit from police or angry parents.
In the end, all these reports are just creating unnecessary fear and concern in the communities. The fact is that the average child is in far greater danger from being hurt in a car accident or killed by a parent or caregiver than by any random creepy clown. For much more on this, see my new book Bad Clowns!
There’s actually two distinct but related things going on here: what in my book I call stalker clowns, and phantom clowns.
The first, stalker clowns, are absolutely known to exist; they’re typically pranksters or publicity seekers who dress as clowns and stalk streets at night, not really threatening or harming anyone but just trying to draw attention to themselves. One of the earliest and best-known examples was the man who dressed as a scary clown in Northampton, England, in October 2013. He and some friends created a Facebook page and encouraged people to seek out and photograph the clown; he was later revealed to be a local filmmaker. That clown later inspired several copycats, including in Staten Island, Bakersfield, California; in France, and elsewhere.
The second type of clown has been reported, but never proven to exist. These are known as “phantom clowns,” a phrase coined by writer Loren Coleman. These are claimed to be much more malevolent, and said to attempt to lure children into waiting vans for unknown reasons, presumably murder or molestation. The first reports of these clowns emerged in the 1980s and continued occasionally through the 1990s in America, Europe, and elsewhere. They hadn’t been reported in recent years until last month, in Greenville.
It’s important to understand that there are no reports of any children actually being harmed or abducted by these clowns— despite police searches no evidence was ever found of their existence. It’s mostly fueled by children sightings, schoolyard rumors, and fearful parent warnings. These are essentially folkloric entities, similar to boogeymen or Slenderman.
The idea of an adult dressing up as a clown to lure children for evil purposes is straight out of a horror movie, not real life. For one thing, many kids (and adults, for that matter) are scared of clowns, so they’re more likely to run from a clown than toward one.
Second, if you really intend to harm kids and want to get away with it, a clown is pretty much the last thing you’d want to dress as, since it immediately draws attention from kids and adults alike. Criminals typically want to blend in, not stand out like a greasepainted, fright-wigged sore thumb. Especially with all the news and attention over the past weeks, anyone dressed as a clown outside of their normal habitat (a circus or backyard party for example) and around kids will immediately draw suspicion, if not a visit from police or angry parents.
In the end, all these reports are just creating unnecessary fear and concern in the communities. The fact is that the average child is in far greater danger from being hurt in a car accident or killed by a parent or caregiver than by any random creepy clown. For much more on this, see my new book Bad Clowns!
September 8, 2016
Clusters of Creepy Clowns
If you follow the news, you've probably heard about the spate of creepy clown sightings in South Carolina and elsewhere. It's not just one or two, but many, and there's a clear pattern to the reports. I discuss this subject at length in my new book Bad Clowns of course, but here's a quick overview of the situation, and why these incidents seem to happen in clusters...
These incidents seem to happen in clusters for several reasons. For my book Bad Clowns I analyzed several years of these stalker clown reports, and there are three factors at play.
The first is the season: in each of the past three years there have been scary clown sightings in September, October, or both. The timing is of course not coincidental, but is tied to Halloween—a season when masked monsters are family fun and scaring people is part of the culture.
The second factor in the creepy clown clusters is the copycat effect: these creepy clown appearances feed and fuel each other. When one person makes the news for doing nothing more than dressing as a clown and standing on a streetcorner at night—and not just the local news but likely national news—it provides strong incentive for others to do the same, to pull their own stunt. It’s a low-risk, high yield prank that is virtually guaranteed to result in the creepy clown going viral all over the world (indeed, several of the scary clowns have turned out to be publicity stunts for exactly that reason). There’s very little chance of getting into trouble unless you actively harass or menace someone, since wearing a clown costume is not illegal.
The third factor has to do with social contagion—not mass hysteria exactly, but the psychological tendency for people to see what they expect to see, or are told to look for. In most of these cases we have proof that the sightings are of a real person in clown costume; it’s not a hallucination or optical illusion. But in a few cases, in the cases of the so-called “phantom clowns,” people (almost exclusively children) report or repeat rumors and myths, sometimes claiming to have personally seen scary clowns when they did not.
These incidents seem to happen in clusters for several reasons. For my book Bad Clowns I analyzed several years of these stalker clown reports, and there are three factors at play.
The first is the season: in each of the past three years there have been scary clown sightings in September, October, or both. The timing is of course not coincidental, but is tied to Halloween—a season when masked monsters are family fun and scaring people is part of the culture.
The second factor in the creepy clown clusters is the copycat effect: these creepy clown appearances feed and fuel each other. When one person makes the news for doing nothing more than dressing as a clown and standing on a streetcorner at night—and not just the local news but likely national news—it provides strong incentive for others to do the same, to pull their own stunt. It’s a low-risk, high yield prank that is virtually guaranteed to result in the creepy clown going viral all over the world (indeed, several of the scary clowns have turned out to be publicity stunts for exactly that reason). There’s very little chance of getting into trouble unless you actively harass or menace someone, since wearing a clown costume is not illegal.
The third factor has to do with social contagion—not mass hysteria exactly, but the psychological tendency for people to see what they expect to see, or are told to look for. In most of these cases we have proof that the sightings are of a real person in clown costume; it’s not a hallucination or optical illusion. But in a few cases, in the cases of the so-called “phantom clowns,” people (almost exclusively children) report or repeat rumors and myths, sometimes claiming to have personally seen scary clowns when they did not.
Ben Radford's Blog of Booky Things
Hi there, and welcome to my GoodReads Blog of Booky Things. I have other blogs where I pontificate on various topics ranging from critical thinking to urban legends, ghosts to chupacabras, films to bo
...more
- Benjamin Radford's profile
- 47 followers
