*Groan* A "lightning rod"? You took that from the lunatics own publicity, didn't you. ?Seriously, Beckjord has been foisting this "I took a blurry picture of a tree, and it shows the face of _____" for way too long now. No UFOlogist, cryptozoologist or other honest scientific explorer of the unknown takes this idiot at all seriosly, since it's the same bad joke every time. I know for a fact he has been banned from a number of crypto conferences and is especially hated by Bigfoot researchers, thanks to the bad press he brings the subject with his completely unscientific theories (Bigfoot is a psychic alien).

Just looks like a big pink blob to me...

*Groan* A "lightning rod"? You took that from the lunatics own publicity, didn't you. ?

It's a quote from the page reporting on it, yes. Hence the italics and quotation marks.

I say it's a picture of a nymphomaniac spectre from the 5th Dimension. Nymphomaniac spectres are only able to get their sexual pleasures after convincing their intended victims that they are indeed real. If the intended victim does not believe the nymphomaniac spectre is real there is no way the nymphomaniac spectre can have sex with the intended victim.

This particualr nymphomaniac spectre looks incredibly angry as Jon-Erik Beckjord is such a jerk that there is no way he can convince anybody he is real ever again.

Maybe he's related to this guy:

celebrityafterlifereport.com

I looked at the guy's website, and he remarks that it's common for people to see faces like this in photos taken at Gettysburg. I'd love to send them some random photos of fields (that could be Gettysburg, but aren't) and have him find all sorts of dead Civil War soldiers in it.

Man, I remember when this website was all about entertaining, thought-provoking hoaxes and urban legends.

Now its just silly, and fast becoming the equivalent of the national enquirer, with an anti-Bush political slant as well.

Anyone know of similar sites out there?

quote from coit...

"Man, I remember when this website was all about entertaining, thought-provoking hoaxes and urban legends.

Now its just silly, and fast becoming the equivalent of the national enquirer, with an anti-Bush political slant as well.

Anyone know of similar sites out there?"

I almost took your post seriously until you revealed your farce with the "anti-Bush slant" comment.

and if you are seriously bitching....

Sorry if it sounded like I was exasperated at you, Boo. I'm just sick of a self-serving charlatan like Beckjord getting semi-positive press attention (not that getting yourself noted on the Hoax Forum is positive for a probable hoaxter), while true scientists like Jeff Meldrum have to fight for their survival. The anti "lighning-rod" sentiment was really aimed at whoever put it in the page you linked to, which I suspect was written by Beckjord himself.

Oh man this dude is a scumbag! (Bekjord)

If you want to see something that will make say, "you have got to be f'in kidding me!"

click the link below

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230057856801&ru=http://search.ebay.com:80/search/search.dll?from=R40&satitle=230057856801&fvi=1


Thankfully no one has made any bids

"... his theory is that the spirits of Goldman and Simpson are making a statement."

What statement? Are they saying, "O.J. murdered us," or are they saying, "O.J. was falsely accused"?

Or maybe they're saying, "Check out O.J.'s new book on how he would have killed us, if he had done it, so our families can attach all the book royalties in civil court."

if I were to attempt a substandard hoax, here's how I'd do it.

"Beckjord is a keen observer of the strange." -- Flora, your sense of humor might be a little too subtle for some. I must say I enjoyed that lovely understatement, but you might want to try going for something more straightforward, in order to allow the MoH's position to transpire more clearly. Just my 2c.

Chuck, who seems to have taken on the role of monitoring my every post, said:\

"I almost took your post seriously until you revealed your farce with the "anti-Bush slant" comment."

Well, Chuck, if you go back a week or 3, you'll see the entry regarding Bush's speech on the aircraft carrier after the primary Iraq campaign was finished. The entry is listed as "historical revisionism" or some such, and claims that the White House deliberately removed a banner that said "Mission Accomplished," which it was, BTW, since one mission does not represent complete victory.

Anyway, it has been noted many times in the media that the banner was not missing, and the footage is identical to that posted on the Washington Post's website as well. No one in charge here at the "hoax" website saw fit to edit their entry to reflect the facts.

Now, I don't really care about Bush, but I do prefer my hoaxes to be political message free and unslanted. Just as I prefer Barbra Striesand to shut up and sing, if you know what I mean.

I'm sure my opinion means nothing, but this site has really gone down hill as of late. It is turning into a 5-minute blog rather than a site where issues are carefully researched before being published. Like this entry, which is actually very old news. And the craigslist entry, which is no news at all. You can find salacious entries on craiglist every day if you want. They are anonymous, so there won't be an easy way to track down the perps... Not a hoax at all!

Yeah, and you know what? Alex didn't update the Vegemite ban post either, when the FDA announced that there was no such thing. Clearly this site has an anti-yeast-by-product slant, or perhaps is in cahoots with those commie europeans on a secret PR campaign to make the FDA and other fine American institutions like it look bad!

If you are a regular reader of this site, you'll remember Alex posted awhile ago about how his time will be consumed with writing his new book and that he wouldn't be able to give this site the attention it normally gets.

Well said Mad

Coit, 3 weeks ago? That's your rebuttal? A story from 3 weeks ago?

MadCarlotta, good point about another inaccuracy...

I also wasn't aware that he was doing another book. Thought he had just done the one.

I really don't know why I even bothered to point these things out. It was pretty stupid on my part to think I could change anything!

Chuck, you are still a schmuck.

Oh that hurts Coit....luckily my family and friends whose opinions actually matter strongly disagree with you.

Also, I won't sink to your level by hurling about personal insults, it's juvenile.

Let's say that I'm out shopping. In the store, there is a woman who clearly is not happy with her own shopping experience. She's standing in the middle of the store yelling to no one in particular, "This store sucks! The service is awful! This USED to be a great place to shop but now the clothing is cheap and outdated and the buyers have their heads up their posteriers" etc etc.

Do I say to myself, "wow, this place must be terrible, I'd better leave"? No. I say "wow, that woman is crazy!" Maybe she is right - perhaps she has a perfectly justified reason to be so indignant - but the way she is expressing herself only serves to diminish her own character.

When I am displeased with the service I am getting, I either find a manager and relay my concerns to him, or I write a letter to the company when I get home. Depending on the response I get, I may or may not frequent the establishment again, at least until I have received some kind of assurance that things have changed there.

If there are concerns or criticisms about the direction the website is taking, the most effective course of action would be to email Alex and express those concerns directly to him. Of course, he is not SELLING a service, so it's not like anyone really has a right to feel cheated if the site content doesn't meet their expectations in the first place. However, even people who publish things for free want their audience to be happy, even if they didn't have to pay a red cent in the first place.

And just for the record - personally, I have no complaints.

Wow, this post has turned into one of those "white dwarf" posts. It started as one thing and then morphed into something completely different, killing the original topic.