Mortal remains

Al Denelsbeck

My recent reading material sparked some older memories and led to an extended examination, which is how many of my posts come about, and while such topics aren’t tackled too often by those who promote critical thinking, there’s nothing that should limit the application of such. So, let’s talk about dead people.

Many years ago when I lived in central New York (you know, the few million acres of state that has nothing to do with New York City,) my dad and I went out once to poke around in a neighboring farmer’s field in the spring. No, we didn’t live especially boring lives (I don’t think) – instead, we were collecting Native American artifacts, most of which consisted of human bone fragments.

Since this may raise a large number of assumptions in anyone’s mind right off the bat, let me explain. This wasn’t a known heritage site or plotted burial ground, and had been farmland for decades. Nothing that we found, save for teeth and a phalange I believe, was even intact, due to the long use of the land in the intervening time. To the best of my knowledge, the farmer knew nothing about bones being present – we had initially been looking only for arrow points and stone tools. The field was freshly plowed and had seen recent rains, the best conditions for surface finds. That area of New York was actually pretty good for archaeological work, since it featured fossils from 416 million years ago, Native American history, and colonial artifacts (I used to have a few hand-shaped square nails and the bowl of a clay settler’s pipe, found in our yard.) Once you learn what bone looks like, it becomes relatively easy to spot, and we collected a few dozen fragments, the majority of which were teeth, since they weather better and are easy to spot because of the enamel.

The question, of course, is how ethical this is. At the time, I was unaware that finding any human remains required notifying the police, and I’m not really sure what their response would have been – this was hardly a forensic find, and probably fairly common for the area. But does the collection and keeping of human remains, in the case of museums and archaeological/paleontological digs, represent an ethical dilemma? Should, for instance, the ancestors of the people in question have some say in the manner? Should people have a reasonable expectation of being ‘left in peace’?

We have a particular perspective in this country, in that cemetery land is protected and considered sacrosanct, which affects how we see things; in many other portions of the world, land is at too much of a premium to devote it permanently towards dead people. Reusing burial plots is more common than one might think, and many cultures practice disinterment and the stacking of bones in ossuaries, once the soft tissues have decomposed. More interesting to our perspective are the buddhist ‘sky burials’ practiced in some parts of Asia, where the newly deceased are purposefully exposed to the elements and scavengers, continuing the cycle of use and reuse, perhaps the ultimate in recycling. It’s not hard to imagine how creepy this seems, but we need to ask if this is only because of our culture and the emphasis we place on, when it comes right down to it, saving the wrapper for purposes unknown.

Burial has taken place for a long time, in countless cultures – ceremonial burial is often considered a sign of supernatural belief, which might be reading a lot more into it than is warranted. First off, we identify with the person, the physical appearance, and even when animation has left the body, we’re so used to seeing it that we still feel some kind of connection between the remains and the life it once held, the personality we knew. And we have this thing against death, which is certainly useful, but rather pointless to pursue or worry about once it has actually occurred. We have no reason to believe that what makes up the person we knew is not completely gone at death, save for the cultural emphasis on such ideas, but it seems highly likely that our drive to avoid death hits us really hard emotionally – so much so that we try to find ways to deny it. And so, we worry about what to do with bodies, in the belief that whatever ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ that once occupied them is still paying attention and concerned about their well being.

Burial itself is a practical matter: it keeps away the scavengers, and prevents the marvelous aromas that follow. And, it keeps us from seeing the whole process, which kind of drives home the idea that animation isn’t going to return unless you’re into zombie movies. The same can be said for cremation (well, except for zombies.) These are practical concerns – there isn’t any reason for believing that burial or cremation does something in particular for the soul or spirit that propping in a corner, leaving on the neighbor’s doorstep, or feeding to the dogs doesn’t. Assuming that a ritual was born from supernatural belief rather than practicality seems like it’s ignoring far too much.

When human remains are found, there frequently arises the ethical consideration of what is the ‘proper’ way of handling them, which amounts to little more than debate about cultural influences. Using them to further our knowledge of older people is often considered desecration or disrespect, which is an interesting aspect all its own. The individual, or more specifically the collection of thoughts, memories, and personality that once inhabited said body, is long done with it, and making any claim to some lasting connection isn’t really supportable. Left on its own, the body naturally vanishes over time anyway, unless conditions are specific enough to allow for some preservation. We routinely cut off hair and fingernails and discard them without any rituals whatsoever, and often decide what parts of our body shouldn’t be there, from viruses to cancers. Even from a cultural or emotional standpoint, heeding the last request of the departed is more a sign of respect for their memory than concern about their feelings afterwards, especially when most religions maintain that the physical body is left well behind in the thoughts of the lasting soul. Not to mention the number of devout folk who ignore such last requests in favor of their own personal ideas of what’s right…

Can we say, for instance, that any individual Native American, or member of any other culture, would be upset over their bones sparking interest in their lives, cultures, history, or abilities? I personally love the idea that someone could learn more from me after my death, and even though the majority of my ‘culture’ considers remains to be sacrosanct, using such as a guideline amounts to little more than probability used to obtain a ‘yes or no’ decision, an oversimplification that obviously leaves my personal feelings behind. The amount of information that we have obtained from the study of past (and present) human remains is remarkable, and something that we wouldn’t have if we let ourselves be influenced by the idea that any soul gives a damn.

Moreover, there’s a subtle but interesting idea that I’ve become more aware of when putting some of these thoughts down (that will receive better treatment in a later post): archaeological and paleontological studies almost always emphasize our common heritage, the idea that all humans are interrelated and possess much the same motivations, desires, and traits, with the added recognition that related species such as Neanderthals aren’t half as different as we often believe. And the information we gain from studying them is available (and applicable) to all. Cultural distinctions, such as Native Americans laying claim to any remains on ancestral lands, or any particular religious concerns, always create a dividing line, not just between individuals, but within the pursuit of knowledge as well. The message, far too often, is that these humans have special rights over and above other humans. When it comes down to it, this is only a demand for personal respect, and has nothing to do with the dead at all.

We, all humans, are explorers, learners, and puzzle-solvers – we have an innate drive to further our knowledge and solve mysteries. It’s disturbing that we could actually place this lower in priority than feeding our egos as any religio-ethnic representative, which is a title bestowed only by happenstances of birth and not exactly an accomplishment. In fact, I started this post without any intention of coming down on any one side, but it’s not really happening that way; the idea of cultural privilege becomes more absurd as I write it out. Admittedly, I favor science and the promotion thereof, which tends towards a certain perspective, but the cultural reasons for opposing the studies of human remains (and countless other aspects of science) are flimsy and self-centered. Despite the popularity of movie plots such as the one in Poltergeist, where the re-use of Native American burial land as a housing development led to serious TV reception issues, no one has ever demonstrated any after-effect, good or bad, from treating dead people against any group’s preferences. The affronts and desecration are only what we imagine them to be.

Once I die, there will be no consciousness left to care in the slightest what happens to my old body – yes, I can say that with confidence, because the evidence supports nothing else. If someone gets any benefit whatsoever out of what used to be me, then more power to them, but there will be no ‘me’ to approve or disapprove. I’ve signed my organ donor form, because I think living beings rate higher than dead ones.

But if what was formerly ‘my’ skull becomes part of a vaudeville act, or my teeth or finger bones a necklace, gaming dice, or even totems for some lame-brained religious cult, well, whatever. That’s life – I’m over it ;-)

Save the kilobytes!

Al Denelsbeck

xkcd speaks to me this morning (click for original):


And this time, don’t think about pocketable, or not having to carry extra lenses, or that big LCD on the back.

I cover this with my students, first thing, so I might as well hit it here too: The first and foremost cause of bad photos, the thing that wrecks more of them than anything else, is motion blur – camera shake. Steadiness is essential, so the goal is to remain absolutely still. For best results, this means two hands, elbows tucked down against your body, viewfinder tight to eye.

Yes, this means you won’t be using that stupid LCD to frame the shot, or walking around with the camera held out in front of you doing the “temple offering.” Photography depends on getting a certain amount of light to the media, and small, inexpensive lenses are not made to admit a lot of light, so the shutter speed goes much slower to compensate for these inadequacies, especially indoors. A tiny twitch of the camera is enough to mess up the image.

And for Bob’s sake, when shooting video, try not to induce motion sickness! If you don’t know what ‘level’ is, or take the camera away from shooting position while it’s still recording, don’t upload the goddamn file!

Listen, I’m real cool on not chasing equipment. I don’t think it’s the camera that gets the shot, it’s the photographer, and some great results can be achieved without fancy or expensive camera gear. But if you’re the least bit serious about photography, a pop-up lens that can be entirely blocked by a coin just ain’t cutting it.

And if you need rules to live your life, here’s an important one: Any picture taken with your phone did not need to be taken in the first place. That’s computer and server memory that could go towards something not stupid.

I feel better now.

On composition, part 12: Mood and metaphor

Al Denelsbeck


Moods and metaphors are present in a lot more images than many suspect, and in many cases they’re recognized only subconsciously. Being able to induce them in the viewer is one thing, but simply noticing when the opportunity presents itself to your camera is a directly related skill.

Sometimes it’s simple. When I say, “Dawn on the beach,” you automatically get a visual impression (even if you don’t know Dawn.) Chances are, you filled in details on your own, such as the beach being empty, the sky being clear enough to see the sun, no trash, and so on. You might even have stirrings of some emotion just from the associations. Others are often much harder to define, so it may take a bit of effort to pin them down. An empty bench may speak of an unused park, abandonment, old age, the rough part of town, and countless other things, depending on what other elements are in the frame. Very few metaphorical or mood-evoking subjects stand alone; they may be enhanced or suggested by lighting and contrast, surroundings, framing, even weather conditions. One drop of water in the right place is a teardrop, evidence of rain, or even a recently-used sink.

One that few people register consciously, but virtually everyone knows instinctively, is lighting. Sunny days are very contrasty, with brilliant highlights but hard shadows. Overcast days have low contrast and no distinct shadows, but more importantly, the lighting color has gone much more blue because clouds filter out the red and yellow in sunlight – by extension, blue light seems cold to us. Alternately, light that is yellow, orange or red speaks of sunrise or sunset. We are also capable or reading light angles from the shadows, and get the same impressions.

Light plays another role, too. A subject facing into the light is optimistic, while facing away is depressing or even sinister. Harsh light is more tense, while low-contrast light is mellow. The difference in color, quality, and rendition is what makes candlelight different from streetlight, natural light different from artificial, and they all lend a different air wherever they appear. Using this, or better yet controlling it, can express different things in your images. “Wine” and “candlelight” together express intimate evenings and romance, and you’ll notice that there’s nothing else in the image at all – even the candle isn’t visible (actually, that’s not quite true, if you look close…)

While, on occasion, it is possible to offer anachronistic elements, subjects that clash with their surroundings insofar as the metaphor goes, it is usually far better to keep these in line so that the impression is strong. People can be confused by clashing elements, which leaves them unsure how to view the image, and weakens the emotional impact.

Remember that the mood evoked by an image does not have to be pleasant to be powerful, and there’s a certain appeal in photos that deny the constant ‘happy thoughts’ of the advertising that surrounds us, even conveying the idea that they are more real. The discarded condom, graffiti, and generally unkempt conditions all contribute to impression of an encounter that was less than romantic, as well as speaking volumes about the local inhabitants. A beer can, slightly crumpled, would have rounded out the concept nicely. The elements make up a story or situation in the viewer’s mind because they all have distinct associations, and while they start to appear clichéish when examined closely, we have to remember that clichés are actually made up of common elements. The more known they are, the more direct the message is to the viewer.

Recognize, too, that the angle used here wasn’t at all how I first encountered the elements; having it work in this way required making the connection and seeing that I could frame the condom against the background for a stronger feeling [and I realize as I type this that I’m deconstructing a used condom as a photo element, which is scary in itself], which needed a low shooting position, a wide-angle lens, and a high depth of field. When the metaphorical properties of some photo subject present themselves, it’s up to the photographer to know how to enhance or supplement the idea within the frame. This might even entail controlling the lighting, or returning when the conditions are more effective. Fog, for instance, almost always gets me out searching for subjects or scenes that make the best use of it.

It should come as no surprise that the expressions of people within the image convey the strongest emotions, since we relate to what others feel – this even applies to the expressions that animals have, or seem to have (this is a distinction that I’m quick to make when speaking as a naturalist, but happy to exploit as a photographer.) Human expressions are a little tricky, though. A single person among many can convey a mood for all of them, especially if they’re either the dominant person in the frame or the one showing the strongest emotion. But a single person can also trash the mood, by displaying something that counters the others too much. As examples, notice how Hillary Clinton is the only one in this image that actually shows (apparent) anxiety, but it seems to serve for everyone – cover her over and boredom seems to take over. Yet, consider the wedding photo of the first dance, where just one person in the background is yawning while everyone else looks happy. How much does that affect the impressions of the image? Such appearances of emotion might even be fleeting or misleading, so timing is also important in conveying what the photographer wants.

This is often what separates an artistic photographer from a technically proficient one (I make no claims in either direction); it’s not simply an image, but a method of directing and even manipulating the viewer to react in a chosen way. Advertising photographers use this all of the time, often to some degree of clumsiness, and such images are carefully staged. But there are different impressions from the viewer, depending on whether or not they believe the image is candid. We accept the manipulation of ad photos as typical (if perhaps crass,) but resent the idea in any image that we think is supposed to be ‘real.’ If I told you that I placed the condom in position, you would think considerably less of the image, not to mention what you’d feel about someone who would have something like that handy [I didn’t, on either account, just for the record]. We appreciate the skill in finding the strong metaphor or story, but far less in staging it.

Sometimes, the metaphoric idea within the image isn’t strong enough to let it stand on its own as an artistic or evocative image, but works much better when accompanying an article or story – I use this from time to time myself, right here. The simple ideas conveyed therein help illustrate the overall tone of the writing, as well as breaking up walls of text, which tends to be more inviting to the reader (or so the theory goes.) These types of images have a wide variety of uses and do not have to be especially poignant, even though on first glance they might be only vaguely interesting. When illustrating abstract concepts, there are very few specific images that could be used, particularly to communicate the concept directly on their own, but quite a few that might complement the written expositions.

Developing the eye for these takes time, and the ability to interpret simple elements in terms of the feelings or messages they can produce in the viewer. Most photographers, I suspect, stumble across them, rather than specifically seeking images that fit a certain bill, so it becomes more a matter of studying one’s surroundings with the goal of asking, “What does this say?” Once the initial idea has presented itself, the effective photographer can then compose the image to present the mood or metaphor as distinctly as possible, hopefully creating an image that speaks those ‘thousand words’ and sparks the strong emotional reaction from the viewer. The technical aspects of wielding the camera are nothing compared to learning the artistic aspects, so don’t expect to pick this up quickly – study those images that produce strong feelings within, and try to deconstruct them to see how the visual cues evoke the emotional responses. It’s a great way to get your conscious and subconscious on speaking terms ;-)

Conflicted

Al Denelsbeck

I just can’t seem to get my timing down. I see countless lectures and events that look like they should be interesting, and they’re usually too far away for me to attend. I’ve completely written off things like The Amaz!ng Meeting, not just because of distance but because they chose the most expensive place to stay in the US as their locale (and their event rates aren’t cheap either,) and a significant amount of them take place on the west coast, or in Missouri.

The Reason Rally on March 24th is a godsend, um, stroke of luck, in that it’s being held in Washington DC. Okay, I’d rather it be in a city that’s not a pain in the ass to drive through but at least it’s close to me here in central NC, not even a day’s drive away. I can swing that!

Except, I’m actually scheduled to do a seminar that day. And to make it more frustrating, they just issued discount codes on bus fare to the event, and I would have been able to snag a bus only a short distance away for less than gas would have cost me. Since I’m not feeling too confident of the car doing long trips anymore, this would have been great.

By all means, take advantage of this, and check out the Reason Rally event – there’s a lot of great speakers and music, and you can scare the hell out of all of the religious politicians just by being there in numbers. Even the bus ride should be a hoot, and a chance to network a bit.

From my selfish perspective it’s not all frustrating, though – Rock Beyond Belief is being held the following weekend, Saturday March 31st, right here in the state (meaning Ft Bragg, NC,) and I should be able to attend that one. If you can make it to the Reason Rally, you can make it to Rock Beyond Belief too, most likely (unless you went and scheduled to teach a photography seminar on that date like a fool.) As an added incentive, the success of Rock Beyond Belief is needed to spur events like these throughout the country, and the US military needs a reminder that their mission does not involve pushing christianity, so there’s actually a greater reason to attend. I hope to see you there, and I mean that, since it’d be nice to meet someone who’s actually found this site…

By the way, both of these are free to attend, which makes them a better deal than anything except air. Yet, they took a lot to organize, so even if you can’t attend, send them some appreciation, just for making the effort. And spread the word around too – that’s what social networks are for.

To make magic – disappear!

Al Denelsbeck

Update September 2012 – This was one of the sample posts chosen for the podcasting experiment; click below to listen, if you like (it is identical to the text):
Walkabout podcast – To make magic – disappear!

I am a big meanie; I admit it. I am one of “those people” – those who want to deprive so many others of their happiness and joy, their motivations, their reasons for living. I am… an outspoken skeptic.

This, of course, means that I’m a miserable soul person wretch, and merely want to inflict my pain on as many others as I can. I mean, why else would I be doing this? How could I possibly want to take away the magic which fills people’s lives?

This isn’t hyperbole, by the way – I’ve actually dealt with this attitude from some people, and it’s almost scary. It’s a bit like they regret Toto pulling aside the curtain (hopefully you’re not thinking of an eighties band…)

Here’s a little background: I used to be one of the “magic” people, not only religious, but believing in myriad things, from visiting aliens to telekinetic powers, dowsing (which I’ve actually done) to the Bermuda Triangle. Much of it was quite some time ago when I was young, admittedly, but it wasn’t more than a decade back that I was very suspicious of the circumstances of Kennedy’s assassination. All of that is gone now, and not one tiny fraction of it is missed in the slightest. On the contrary, I’m a lot happier as a skeptic. Things now actually make a hell of a lot more sense, and I’m pleased that I left gullibility behind. I did not lose any “magic” – I lost bullshit, and in most cases, replaced it with a better understanding of how things work, of science, human nature, and mass media.

In fact, I have rarely come across anyone that regrets leaving behind some previous belief, and when you think about it, it’s a ludicrous concept. Either you believe, or you don’t, and if you once did and stopped, it must be because it’s no longer believable. In such circumstances, no one regrets the loss of their belief; they regret that they once believed for as long as they did.

No one can take away magic with skepticism or critical thinking – that’s also ludicrous. The only thing that can be done is to show that it’s not really magic (or mysterious, or evidence of strange otherworldly powers and influences, and so on.) No one can destroy a god with an argument; no one can extinguish the life of the Loch Ness Monster with logic. Decrying the efforts to help people see past emotional blinders is, to be blunt, incredibly anti-social and downright demeaning. Think about it: the argument against skepticism is actually for allowing people to live in ignorance, denying the real world in favor of fairy tales that make them feel good. How is this different from drug addiction? And more importantly, isn’t this treating belief as a pacifier for an emotionally and mentally inept adult? Does anyone hear Nicholson shouting, “You can’t handle the truth!” here?

I’ve heard the argument that, for instance, religious people are happy that way, which I don’t believe for a second – I’ve heard more whiny bitching coming from religious people than I ever have coming from skeptics. In too many cases, religious folk are convinced that there’s some huge conspiracy going on, from scientists and Darwinists and all that, to take away their special privileges, or corrupt their children or something along those lines – fostered in their minds by those who gain money from being religious leaders, imagine that. And sure, I’ve talked to plenty of people who vehemently resist the questioning of alt med efficacy, the existence of aliens, or the government ties to the twin towers collapse. This is hardly as meaningful as it first sounds, since I’ve also talked to plenty of people who just as strongly resist the questioning of their political parties, taste in music, or favorite sports teams. So what? People resist, not necessarily being wrong, but being told they’re wrong, and even someone posing the possibility. This hardly means that letting them go on in ignorance is better for them, or that their emotional state is so delicate that it should not be tampered with.

Further along those lines, being happy is not a binary state, where either you’re happy or you’re not. You can be happy, and then become happier. At the same time, most people do not look back fondly on times when they were ignorant yet happy, convinced that the mere state of happiness was all that mattered; they often consider those times an embarrassment, when they were young and foolish and gullible. Even when they reminisce about their childhood delight in Santa Claus, they can still enjoy the holidays without the idea, shocking as that may seem. From my own perspective, I’m better off no longer worrying about hell and judgment, or trying to correctly interpret scripture despite what my better nature told me about human behavior. I can see strange lights in the sky and not assume I’m seeing a UFO, but instead ask, “What am I seeing?”, and thus pay close attention to the details. I can walk around a dark old house or forest at night without thinking every sound signifies specters and demons and sasquatches. Sasqui. Whatever.

Notable throughout all of this is that I, like many others, actually want answers. I want to know how things work and what the real reasons are. Those beliefs that I abandoned were corrupt; they always had been, but it took a certain level of understanding for me to realize it. Countless nagging questions that I had while growing up are gone now, replaced with real info, and most especially, with the ability to question. Things are not always how they seem or how they’re presented, and in many cases there’s an agenda in the background. Even without such machinations, though, there is often pandering to emotional responses rather than intellectual, and the one simple, inescapable fact: we can always be wrong. But there’s one particular emotion that many people place above all others, and that is the satisfaction of finding the right path, the most accurate answers. This is more than simply never admitting to being wrong; it requires diligence in seeking corroborative evidence, in not trusting in oneself too closely but seeking supporting info instead. That’s critical thinking, and applied this way, it is far more satisfying than merely believing in something because it is appeasing. It makes many puzzles fit together, dodges scams, and dispels fantasy. I’m happy with that, and am willing to share it, too. Meanie that I am.

A fun read

Al Denelsbeck

This is just a quick one right now, directing you somewhere else. As part of a book giveaway, Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist asks for beliefs that you used to hold, and what caused you to stop believing. He even excludes god because, c’mon, it’s an atheist site so that’s largely a given.

The responses are quite interesting, though, so it’s worth going through the comments. Join in and get a chance to win a great book, too. Just remember to say the secret word at the end.

The days of yore, part one

Al Denelsbeck

Okay, I admit it: I have no idea what the hell “yore” is. But since it’s not the season for nature photography, I’m hearkening (yeah, ditto) back to a time when it was. That I’m intending to make this an occasional habit is indicated by the ‘part one’ in the title…

This past summer, a tree alongside the house played host to a fairly common sight, which was a minor invasion of planthoppers. Gardeners usually consider these a pest, because of the damage they can do to preferred plants given adequate numbers of them, but I’m more egalitarian – it’s all grist for the mill (I’m just slamming out these ancient phrases, aren’t I?) Especially since they have an interesting relationship with another insect.

In nymph form, like the brown example at right, they display a curious ‘tail,’ which is actually their fecal matter, unused material filtered from the sap that serves as their food. While the species shown here (almost certainly Acanalonia conica, though at least one source indicates that the nymph form is green instead) displays only a simple plume reminiscent of cotton candy, some planthopper species produce long and distinctive ‘tails,’ in some cases appearing iridescent from the light diffracted through their crystalline structure. Once they become adults like the green examples here, however, things change a little bit.

In both forms, they attach themselves to plant stems with a proboscis and suck sap from the plant, largely remaining in place for longer periods of time. The adults excrete waste in liquid form, generally a drop every five to ten minutes. What the planthoppers have no use for, some ant species do, and it’s usually a matter of time before an ant colony discovers a planthopper colony and the milking begins. As the planthopper squeezes out a deuce, it usually remains attached to their hind end for a minute or two, and if the ants are on schedule, they will come by and suck up the offering, using this as their own food.

I first witnessed this one evening as I was examining the trees by flashlight, while the camera was not in hand. This, naturally enough, was a challenge, so I returned the next day and set up a rig to capture this behavior as it occurred. This is easier said than done, since my planthopper subject here is about 8 mm long, so I was working in fairly high magnification. And that means that depth-of-field is quite short, so the range of sharp focus is tiny. The slightest breeze would move the supporting branch, carrying my subject well out of focus, but even when perfectly steady, the planthopper could be in focus but the ant, approaching ever so slightly from the side, would not be. Moreover, the planthoppers usually chose spots under a leaf to retain some shade, and I can’t say that I blamed them, because I was sweating buckets getting these daytime pics. But that shade also meant reducing light and contrast. Coupling this with the small aperture being used to get the highest depth-of-field, the light was reduced so much that the longer shutter speeds to compensate meant that the hyperactive ants, which never held still even while drinking, would be blurred out. So this also required strobe units to provide enough light for a fast shutter, offset to the side for better light characteristics. This occasionally leads to its own problems.

Okay, quick explanation here. Small aperture means more depth-of-field, but less light – this results in underexposure unless you lengthen the time the shutter is open (usually producing motion blur) or add some light from a strobe. Now, the light from a strobe drops off exponentially, in inverse-square proportions, meaning at twice a given distance, your photo subject receives only 1/4 the amount of light; at four times the distance, only 1/16th. When working with close subjects only a dozen centimeters or so from the camera, it’s very easy for the light to drop off to almost nothing on the background leaves, even when they’re little more than a hand’s length further away. This light falloff, and the small apertures, are what produces the dark backgrounds in so many insect photos even when taken in daylight. To compensate, you can add another strobe unit specifically for the background, or use light diffusers that allow the background to receive more light while your subject receives it only peripherally, balancing out the affect.


None of this is very portable, and usually requires not only a tripod, but an extra bracket for the main strobe, and perhaps a stand for the secondary – not something that’s going to work well with moving subjects. That’s why I could even accomplish this with the planthoppers, who obligingly stayed put even when I loomed close, counting on their camouflage for protection. Ants don’t seem to worry about anything and constantly ran back and forth no matter what my actions, but they presented their own challenge anyway. Shiny black bodies are difficult to photograph, since it takes a certain light angle to capture detail properly; otherwise you get very little to distinguish, as seen above. A good softbox diffuses the light and makes ant bodies stand out better, but even small examples of these are bulky and don’t lend themselves to use within the branches of a tree.

So sometimes I cheat a bit, and set up my own conditions. Here, a nymph was collected on a leaf and carried over to a table on the porch, where the leaf was placed in a clamp (actually a “third hand” soldering rig, a huge help for macro shooters) and the lighting adjusted as needed. Even when the nymph wanted to move around, all I had to do was slide the rig along the table to keep it centered, and rotate as needed to get the facial angle I wanted. This allows for nice detail shots, helpful for both identification and biological uses, while still remaining a fairly natural setting. That’s one of the benefits to shooting macro: an appropriate “set” can be a few centimeters across and doesn’t require a team of gaffers.

If you were paying attention, you have noticed the difference in eye color seen in these images. This is not indicative of different species (though the pale green one two pics up certainly is,) but instead different times of day. For reasons I have yet to determine, planthoppers (and other insect species) have eyes that change color when it gets dark, which means the red-eyed examples show that I was actually shooting at night. This can be more useful than you might have thought, partially because of the difference in appearance or behavior of your subjects, but also because the breeze has often died down and the plants are holding still better. Not to mention that there’s no longer any chance of sunburn or sunstroke, which I figured we could all use the reminder of right now when the weather’s cold.

You keep using that word…

Al Denelsbeck

…I do not think it means what you think it means.

Okay, it would seem that even simple things go above people’s heads sometimes. Let’s try and make it even simpler.

In the US, we have this thing that sets up what the government is supposed to do, we call it the Constitution. Among many of its principles there sits a simple little thing called “no favor,” occasionally referred to as “the separation of church and state,” even though this phrase itself appears in a separate, related document. What it means is, government concerns itself with governing, and does not choose sides in any religious debate. The freedom upon which the country is based also includes the freedom of religion, meaning that anyone can believe whatever the fuck they want, and to help promote this, the government is restricted from supporting any individual religion, whether by law, funding, or even just pamphlets. When such things have been questioned, we have discussed them in courts, creating what is commonly called a precedent, all of which support the views I have outlined above.

Public schools, collecting money from all citizens to provide education to all children, fall under the idea of “government,” which means they cannot support or promote any individual religion either. It also means they cannot deny any. Since they are concerned with education, there’s no reason to bother with religion anyway, because schools concentrate on facts, not opinions.

Note that the proscription against “prayer in schools” is no such thing: the proscription is against “school-led prayers” – students can pray any damn way they please. I’m sorry if someone told you differently, but they were lying. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

So, when a public school displays a christian prayer banner in its hallways as a matter of policy, it is actually in violation of its operating guidelines. It’s not really up to majority rule, public opinion, or any other caveat – that’s the purpose of establishing ground rules like our Constitution. It is just as illegal as displaying satanic messages, muslim prayers, humanist creeds, or the rites of the coven. These things protect everybody and favor no one in particular – that’s kind of how freedom really works. With me so far?

Great. So, when someone ends up taking a school to court after they refuse to recognize their legal prohibition against displaying a prayer banner, they are actually upholding the Constitution and treating all students equally. That’s all. So-called “good” christians are not being persecuted, denied, estranged, attacked, or any other whiny fucking retarded thing they have to cry about this week because, it seems, having both god on their side and a majority in this country isn’t enough to stop them from feeling put-upon. Go figure.

Most especially telling, however, is what such upright, moral, ethical people get up to when such a court decision gets handed down. I need not remind you, I’m sure, that christianity is all about love and goodness and guides people towards proper behavior and all that, right?

Yeah, right. These are some of the responses to Jessica Ahlquist, who prompted the court case, from all of those good christians.














I, personally, have a different standard of good, and it doesn’t include anything like this. So you’ll pardon me for pointing out that christianity just isn’t fucking working at all. Perhaps, after 2,000 years, it’s now time to try thinking instead. But if any religious person thinks this kind of shit is unacceptable, well, then, your work is cut out for you. Clean this up – it’s in your house.

Also, congratulations to Cranston High School West’s Committee members Andrea M. Iannazzi, Frank S. Lombardi, Paula McFarland and Michael A. Traficante, whose votes to keep the banner up caused this shitstorm in the first place. This is what’s known as gross incompetence and egregious abuse of board responsibility – maybe you should have reviewed the requirements for the positions. Nice job, fuckheads.

By the way, there’s a scholarship fund gathering donations for 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist, who’s been remarkably forthright, capable, and mature throughout this entire affair. Just in case you think there needs to be a little offset…

Thanks to Friendly Atheist for the initial link, and ironkidd and Op35 at JesusFetusFajitaFishsticks (I tried to get that domain but they’d already taken it) for collecting the screenshots.

The significance of being significant

Al Denelsbeck

It’s not a topic that pops up too often on this blog, but I still toy with the whole UFO/alien visitation issue from time to time. It’s halfhearted anymore, because there really isn’t anything new to say about it. Despite the fantastic increases not only in our abilities to capture civilian photos and video, but our air traffic control and military capabilities as well, UFO reports remain as steadfastly vague and ephemeral as they were fifty years ago. And in fact, the majority of cases considered most compelling (of what, there seems to be little agreement) are about that age themselves.

Bad UFOs is a skeptical website run by Robert Sheaffer, who writes fairly regularly about both current and older UFO cases. He recently featured a lengthy paper by Tim Printy, who has taken a prominent report from 1957, investigated by the University of Colorado’s ‘Condon’ Report and a few independent investigators, and re-examined all of the details available in what can only be described as a meticulous manner. The results are published in his e-zine and are freely available (just to warn you, this is an 8 Mb, 40 page PDF download.)

The case involved a US Air Force RB-47 electronic surveillance aircraft that had recorded several radar traces as well as visual phenomena (what most people call “lights”) during a flight across several states. I was passingly familiar with the case, having seen synopses of it in both the Condon Report and the rebuttal to this, a report to the American Association for the Advancement of Science titled “Science in Default” from independent UFO proponent Dr. James E. McDonald – it was McDonald’s report that I’d seen first, and even though he was supposedly demonstrating the astounding evidence of this case, the distance between his own accounts of the evidence and the conclusions that he drew did not convince me that he was even remotely impartial. So it was with some surprise to hear that this case has been called among the most convincing examples of “airborne intelligence.”

Suffice to say, Printy pretty effectively demonstrates otherwise. From the fact that there was never any official report filed, through the aspect that not only were most of the details related years afterwards, the aircrew could not even agree on what the purpose of the flight was, to the overriding lack of specifics throughout (much less actual written notes,) a decent lawyer could have had this ‘astounding case’ thrown out of any criminal court in the country. Printy waded through the morass of conflicting details and did his best in making some sense of them, referring as often as possible to information that would corroborate any particular aspect, and ended up with very little that would make this case more than a curiosity. At no time did he offer any firm conclusions, but he did support every question that could be raised regarding the explanations of “intelligence” from other investigations. Long story short: not only is there the distinct possibility that what the crew related were pings of distant radar stations and completely unrelated lights (that are not even clear were in the sky,) only two aspects gave any indication of odd behavior in the slightest, and both of these are so badly documented that they have weight only if one ignores all of the other contradictions and vague measurements throughout the case.

This is what is most interesting about reviewing UFO cases, in my opinion. Proponents very frequently seize on individual details and promote these as devastating facts, without feeling any need to establish accuracy, even when the accounts from the case are wildly contradictory. Much is made of the dependability of trained military (or police, or pilot) witnesses, but when two disagree, the investigator is left with the inescapable logical conclusion that at least one is wrong, not only trashing the value of ‘trained military’ witnesses, but obligating the investigator to try and determine which (if any) was actually right. Printy makes this very clear, as he examines the conclusions of UFO proponents and finds that little confirmation was sought for specifics, nor even a caveat for reasonable doubt (which was present in abundance.) Most remarkable is the idea that this mysterious object (or perhaps more than one – this is actually not clear at all,) that supposedly chased an Air Force plane with precision maneuvers, was using a radar wavelength commonly used by ground-based stations surrounding the flight path. Also interesting is that, despite the claims that ground-based stations actually tracked an object with great precision, not only was there no additional response when the RB-47 abandoned the chase – no fighter aircraft sent up nor any attempt to obtain other radar station traces – nobody involved seemed compelled to even write the details down, much less file a report. Note that this is a military electronic countermeasures surveillance aircraft during the height of the Cold War reporting, supposedly, an unknown pursuing aircraft over heavily industrialized US airspace… and no one gave a shit? This is what serves as astounding evidence of UFO activity? But that’s the whole point, really: The crew was not actually tracking another craft of any kind, but only relating stray radar emissions (not positive contacts from their own radar, but passive signals from somewhere else) and a bright light that did not jibe with any known sources.

Now we step back a little and attempt some perspective. The crew, to all appearances, noticed several curious aspects of this flight – odd radar traces, a bright light that didn’t resemble typical sources, and the report from a ground station that some radar return was matching their own flight path about ten miles distant – and recounted these long afterwards. Indications are, from interviews and the casual aspect of their reporting process, that they did not conflate these together in any way, and were only filing details about the flight that seemed out of the ordinary, certainly not unheard of with military operations, most especially in the earlier days of radar as the various issues with the technology were being ironed out. Because some of those details could indicate something airborne, the case could be considered to fit the definition of “unidentified flying object” and was thus sent on to the Condon report. Accounts of anomalies are made in the military, and in any decently run organization, all the time.

But because “UFO” means “aliens” to the vast majority of those interested in the subject, this case began to be viewed with an eye towards the mysterious, and the details were unnecessarily run together into one phenomenon. The light seen by the pilots became the source of the mysterious radar signals, even though they were not in the same direction at any point in time and did not occur at the same times. And of course, when reported in popular UFO media, even more conclusions are drawn than were ever present in the reports, and this is easy to see for oneself. Simply search for “RB-47 UFO” and look at the myriad ways the event is described.

Printy was fairly circumspect in his paper, too, when addressing the descriptions given by UFO proponent Brad Sparks, considering them “hyperbole” rather than what I consider a far more appropriate term, “credulous bullshit.” Sparks’ claims of “scientific evidence” would perhaps have been more justified if he understood just what the phrase meant, but even more convincing if he had better indicated of what. “Airborne intelligence” is a rather vague term to have established “proof” of, especially if we haven’t defined what “intelligence” is. We have countless forms of airborne intelligence around us all of the time – we call them, “pilots,” and perhaps even, “birds.” Even if one has established a high likelihood of it being an aircraft (this was not even remotely close to being proven,) it is rational to ask what manner of aircraft: Civilian? Military? Rooskies? Jet? Propeller? Hot air? Large? Small? Maneuverable? Clumsy? Noisy? Quiet? Seriously, just what the fuck have you actually found?

And therein lies the problem: all we have is a few radar traces and a light (or perhaps more than one), and it is only through wild guesses that these are considered related, much less “intelligent.” Proponents would certainly like to bring up the contradictory accounts of a radar signal traveling “up-scope,” meaning moving faster than the aircraft rather than passing behind as a fixed station’s signal would have, but this is based on a single comment from interviews long after the fact. I want to point out that no source of S-band radar was in use on aircraft at the time, so a military jet being overtaken by an unknown aircraft actively pinging them almost certainly would have been of remarkable interest to the operator, worthy of more than a passing comment and the subsequent ignoring of the signal.

Also noteworthy is that, in the 54 years since this occurred, not a damn thing has come of it all. This account did not establish a pattern, nor reveal anything in particular. No one since has reported anything similar (much less better evidence of aliens or even “intelligence.”) Proponents may want to seize onto the missing recordings from the flight, according to the account of the pilot. But one must reasonably ask, if the government wanted to cover something up by disappearing the recordings, why did they not plug the biggest leak of all, the six crewmembers who have been interviewed multiple times by civilians over the years?

I suspect that Printy’s exhaustive efforts, if they receive much notice at all, will garner more derision than acclaim, which would be a shame. UFO proponents are notoriously bad about enjoining people to “look at the evidence” but, it appears, only if it supports their own conclusions. Decent investigators are few and far between, largely because too few people will actually pay for a comprehensive investigation that may reveal no aliens at all, but errors in perception instead. Like ghosts and religious miracles, the money lies in credulity, not accuracy. This is largely the reason why I examine the motivations behind belief in the first place.

As with any report of mysterious phenomena, the constant repetition of the same credulous accounts, with details conflated, exaggerated, or even just created from thin air, creates an atmosphere of significance – “why do I keep hearing about these?” But we keep hearing about these because too many people want to believe in aliens (and government conspiracies, and all of the related hoohah,) and this desire affects not only how they view the details of the case, but how they relate them as well. Virtually no one hears the raw data from the source; they hear the accounts from proponents, who have reasons to make them sound significant, whether these reasons be financial, emotional, egotistical, or even malicious. But significance should be determined by how such info can affect us, like with knowledge of alien behavior or advanced technology, not by whether someone merely wants to call it significant.

I used to spend no small amount of time in forums for UFOs and paranormal encounters, and most striking was how often critical examination was greeted with outright hostility. Mind you, I’m not talking about responding to derisive comments from nonbelievers; these did occur, but far less often than was claimed. Instead, what I mean is exactly what Printy has done here: examine the related details with an eye towards accuracy and potential explanations. It was abundantly clear that calling anything into doubt engendered defensiveness, regardless of how unwarranted it might actually be. When a prominent UFO ‘investigator’ was totally punked by a simple photo of an optical mouse, it wasn’t the investigator’s completely bogus interpretation of the photo as a “True UFO” that earned the derision, but the hoaxer’s efforts in revealing the investigator as a bullshit artist. In all seriousness, too many of the forum responses defended the investigator because the hoaxer lied to him. Because, you know, all UFO reports involve people speaking in good faith. It stands to reason that this would make the investigator completely superfluous, of course…

The important question for any individual is, “Do you want trustworthy conclusions, or mere emotional supplication regardless of its accuracy?” I suspect too few people actually ask themselves any such thing, or simply believe that what they seek is trustworthy. Yet, as we recognize that UFO investigations over the decades have resulted in no useful information in the slightest, one must reasonably ask, “What is trustworthy about them?” If every last UFO report simply disappeared from history, in what way would our lives right now be different (aside from, you know, a few hundred sketchy publishers having to sell romance novels instead)?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m actually in favor of investigating anything anomalous, and in doing so with vigor. But such investigations should be done without foregone conclusions or unnecessary correlation and conflation. The RB-47 case remains yet “unexplained,” which says nothing more than “unexplained” – this does not open the door for aliens, government conspiracies, secret technology, time travel, witchcraft, or anything else anyone can imagine. In fact, this actually means that its usefulness is nonexistent. Our bar should remain higher than that.

But it’s not Snow White

Al Denelsbeck

It’s not particularly hard to find news stories where the excesses of religious belief have led to something objectionable, damaging, and even fatal. Actually, this can be done almost daily, and quite often doesn’t even have to extend outside of our own country – this is what the New/Gnu/Nv/Nouveaux Atheists refer to when pointing out why religion really isn’t a good thing. As evidence, it’s really hard to argue against, since just about the only other facet of societal ill that shows as prevalently is handgun deaths. Whenever this is pointed out, however, the invariable response is that such examples are “not my religion!”

Such distinctions escape me. I have repeatedly asked (never receiving an answer) in what way someone’s own religion differs from the particular splinter sect named in the news. Now, in all fairness, it’s important not to over-generalize, lumping things into broad categories specifically to avoid the distinctions that make significant differences, something that people are far too prone to doing in the first place. Yet, it’s not enough to draw a line in an arbitrary location and say, “but this happened on that side of the line.” Such a thing can be done ad nauseum, as Zeno demonstrated pointlessly, but does this actually address the cause in the first place?

If we ask, “Why did the haredim abuse little girls?“, the answer is, “Because their books told them that this was right.” If we then ask, “What makes them think their book is right?”, we receive a lot of vague answers about personal revelation, tautological referrals back to the book itself, or demands to respect a belief system. The kicker is, we can apply this to any religion named throughout the world, making distinctions among faiths, sects, and facets rather pointless, wouldn’t you think?

Lest anyone goes off on me for broadening the field unnecessarily, I’m going to point out that one of the most frequent arguments I hear in favor of religion is, “So many millions of people around the world can’t be wrong.” It seems that broadening the field is just ducky when it’s used in favor of one’s own practices, and that the distinctions between religious sects aren’t significant enough to warrant a more accurate count when it comes to supporting numbers.

Before I continue, I also want to highlight another interesting aspect of belief. I have yet to come across any particular religion not supported by claims of personal revelation, miracles, and the authenticity of their holy book and artifacts; however, the only ones that seem to count for religious folk are those that support their own religion. All others are roundly ignored – because they’re false idols? Because everyone else in the world is now delusional? Again, I’ve asked, but somehow this question falls on deaf ears. Of special note is the whole ‘respect’ angle, where religious folk decry how their beliefs are not being respected, beliefs that almost invariably involve not respecting others in one way or another. It’s very hard to see this as anything other than egocentric special rules, and frankly I’ve given up on trying – I realized that, in considering such arguments for more than a second, I was pursuing a concept of ‘fairness’ that actually involved being grossly unfair to everyone else who fell outside the argument. Religion, with too few exceptions to bother bending over backwards to highlight, involves little more than selfishness to an astounding degree. Even those who ‘selflessly’ limit themselves to “spreading the good word” do so from the standpoint that they’re doing something good, without in any way establishing support for this belief in their own special position.

Returning more to the original point, we can attempt to see excessive behavior (of any kind) in terms not of arbitrary distinctions, but of measurable ones. When it comes to abuse, what comes up with significant frequency is the underlying idea that the abuser holds a higher position than the abused; a privilege, as it were. [The alternate motivation of abuse is that the abuser feels threatened by the abused, which bears its own separate examination.] While our competitive minds latch onto anything supporting privilege far too easily, it results in little more than petty bullying until there is a greater cultural emphasis on such privileges – in other words, until there is more support from greater numbers of people, reinforcing the idea that this must be ‘right.’ As numerous examples throughout history demonstrate inarguably, rational support of such ideas isn’t really necessary; more often, some weak justification is accepted quickly on the sole basis that it serves to support the emotional concept of privilege.

Now, we turn to considering what happens when a few factors are established in a culture, such as:
a) considering personal revelations and older texts as reasonable ‘evidence’;
b) respect for belief systems and spirituality;
c) the idea of a greater authority that lacks demonstrable evidence or value.

What this establishes is a situation ripe for abuse, since little more is needed to generate a sense of ‘privilege’ than calling it a religion. The values that are claimed for religion are immeasurable, and subjectivity rules. Objective values to distinguish one from another are specifically avoided.

Worse, a special situation is created, where actually asking for something measurable, some distinctive benefit (much less reason for privilege in the first place,) is frowned upon, sometimes to the point of crying “persecution!” The very concept of value, that not only our society, but our whole social structure is based upon, gets discarded in lieu of some ‘diplomatic immunity’ called religion. A frequent defense of supernatural authority is, astoundingly, that we can’t prove it doesn’t exist. We also get to see, with alarming frequency, the abuse of others not on the basis of strengthening a community or even ‘saving’ people, but as demonstrations only of personal piety.

Thus, when someone tries to claim, “It’s not my religion!”, I have no issues with saying, “Yes, it is. The very rules that you depend on are the ones that provide for abuse, and your own belief structure enables every other.” Like the post title implies, does anyone really need to differentiate one fairy tale from another to make the argument that following fairy tales isn’t really beneficial to us?

The inevitable response to this accusation, naturally, is that some good comes from religion. I could be nasty and ask how one could tell it isn’t some good coming despite religion, but that’s not even necessary. It’s much simpler than that: if you’ve got some good bits, then you actually know how to find them. Perfect – you have a working brain! Keep the good bits, and get rid of the bad ones. If there are important distinctions to be made, I would certainly think that one qualifies above all others.

Most especially, while privilege is a nice thing to have, perhaps it should actually come from hard work and the efforts to improve society as a whole, rather than self-indulgence. You know, status granted by others, not by professing a personal belief system. Just a thought.

1 … 298 299 300 301 302 … 332