Ronson’s Goats Under the Microscope

With the movie version of Jon Ronson’s The Men Who Stare at Goats hitting cinemas, there are plenty of news stories floating about focusing on the U.S. Army’s ‘Stargate’ psychic-spying program and other similar ‘woo-woo’ ventures. ‘Skeptics’ have often referenced the book in the past, with its satirical look at psi-related research – Richard Dawkins has mentioned it in his lectures, and in his best-selling The God Delusion – but how much skeptical thinking did they apply to Ronson’s tales? With the new public attention on the story, a number of the individuals involved have thrown some doubts on the veracity of Ronson’s account.

John Alexander has long disputed a number of the claims in The Men Who Stare at Goats, and in a recent article (“They Stared at Goats Because…“) states that even the title is incorrect, as the goat in question actually died after being struck using a martial arts move. Meanwhile, Stargate remote viewer Paul Smith, in an Amazon review of the book, says that while Goats is an entertaining read, it is not an accurate summation of the actual history – and at times, uses plenty of ‘artistic license’ in presenting material. And Jim Channon, whose ‘First Earth Battalion’ idea is central to much of Goats (and who has been very sporting and good-humoured about his treatment in the book), has a press release on his website which says that “Ronson’s tongue-in-cheek account is classified as a work of ‘non-fiction,’ but it is so loaded with speculation and inaccuracy, it sets the stage for much of the confusion.”

If all that didn’t put the Goats story under enough of a spotlight, the Monroe Institute has now come to the party with a little poke in the ribs courtesy of an audio file recorded during Jon Ronson’s visit there while researching the book (and accompanying documentary). The Monroe Institute’s Fred ‘Skip’ Atwater – who was also involved in the Stargate program – tells how the Goats author took part in a remote viewing experiment while at the Monroe Institute. And, funnily enough, given the satirical and skeptical edge to the book, was fairly successful in describing the ‘target’. It’s a 6-part YouTube video, with the first part being the introduction and then the rest being most of the audio recorded during Jon’s session (it should all autoplay, but if not head to YouTube and search for Monroe and Ronson):

Regardless of the Goats context, I found it very interesting just to hear the process of relaxation and guided visualisation that leads up to the remote viewing test – so if you’ve got the time, then it’s worth listening right through for an insight into the techniques used. If you want the super-concise version though, click here.

The audio won’t convince any remote viewing skeptics, but it does have to be admitted that in this particular case, Jon Ronson was pretty close to the mark (it would have been interesting to see his choice if given 4 images to choose from). There is some minor ‘leading’ by Skip Atwater, but nothing that gives too much away. For his part, Ronson has said that in his recollection “the out-of-body portion of the day worked a treat. I really had some kind of OBE at The Monroe Institute. But I was less sure about the success of the remote-viewing section. It took me a long time to identify the target, and though I got there in the end, I had some wrong guesses along the way.”

But just to put a nasty edge on what has mostly been just good-humoured “he-said, she-said” between people involved, journalist and author Jim Schnabel has this week raised questions about the origin of the material in Ronson’s bestseller. Schnabel – one of the first to write about ‘Stargate’ in his book Remote Viewers – claims that Ronson ‘borrowed’ material from his book without giving due credit:

Sorry — do I sound bitter?

I found The Men Who Stare at Goats at the library recently after someone tipped me off about the forthcoming Goats movie and its connection to my book, Remote Viewers. I went through Ronson’s book in amazement at his extensive borrowings – of stories from which he built up some of the major themes in his book, starting on page one with the adventures of General Stubblebine as head of Army intelligence.

I don’t deny that Ronson’s book contains a considerable amount of original reporting. But when it comes to the paranormal/government angle, too much of it is derivative, in my view, and I wonder whether Ronson could have sold his project in any of its forms, if his sources had been fully specified.

Personally I think a lot of authors over-react to what is pretty standard fair-use of information previously made public (and is something they themselves did in writing their own books), but to his credit Schnabel does go on to detail some particular instances which he claims are evidence of plagiarism of his material. I can’t say either way (e.g. perhaps the similarities come from referencing the same earlier resource), but it will be interesting to see if anything further results from Schnabel’s attack. In Jon Ronson’s defence, I did see in the Acknowledgements at the end of Goats that he mentioned Remote Viewers, saying that “this book gave me invaluable background information for chapters 5 and 6.” Schnabel though addresses this point in his article and also in this letter to the Guardian).

Edit: As Kamarling mentions in the comments, Alex Tsakiris has posted an excellent interview with Jon Ronson over at Skeptiko discussing Goats and various elements of psi research and skepticism.

Edit #2: Jim Schnabel has also pointed out to me this story about John Sargeant, who did much of the research leg-work for Goats and is unhappy with the lack of credit he has received.

Previously on TDG:

    1. Skeptiko interview
      [quote=kamarling]Alex has an interview with Ronson over at Skeptiko. Worth listening to.[/quote]

      Thanks, have added an edit to the end of my story with the info.

      Reading the transcription (‘Dermot Monagle’, nyuk nyuk), it’s interesting to see how simply Jon writes off NDEs, based on his experience with one particular person (Dannion Brinkley). Also, describing him as the NDE ‘posterboy’ is fairly off the mark – perhaps with the C2C audience, but Brinkley’s name barely comes up in any of the NDE literature I’ve read.

  1. more to the Jon Ronson story
    This story from last week’s Telegraph is surely relevant:

    The fellow mentioned in the article, John Sergeant, conducted a lot of the interviews for the documentary/book (even ones where Ronson quotes himself doing the interview!) and now “claims to have been ‘airbrushed out’ of the film adaptation and has aired his grievances about the snub in a letter to George Clooney.”

    Sounds like a familiar grievance where Ronson is concerned.

    Jim Schnabel

  2. Atwater’s Brains vs. Ronson’s Goats
    Feel free to reproduce this in any forum or medium as long as the references (authors and referenced works) are included.

    The following is one of my favorite activities, poking holes in over-inflated claims, statements and “science”. This is what true skepticism should lead to, rather than ad hominem attacks devoid of any proof (You hear that, Plait? Real science. Try some.). This does not directly address the specific claims and actions from The Monroe Institute and/or Fred Atwater with respect to “Goats”, Ronson or anything Atwater did following the initial TMI development. Rather this goes directly to the original work on which Atwater built TMI. Whether or not that should impact his standing and veracity in subsequent topics in which he became involved based on TMI remains a decision for the reader to make. I’ve made mine: Atwater is incompetent. The only alternative I can see is that he knew he was wrong and has based his entire career since then on a scientific fraud. I can’t rule that in or out based on this work; my conclusion is a subjective opinion with a generous helping of benefit of the doubt. My money says any subsequent activities he participated in should be examined thoroughly in a manner such as this (ie. independently, externally and objectively as a replication of techniques) before any conclusions drawn from such works an be accepted. If any such works are mentioned but not stated clearly enough for replication to be done, the body of work should be rejected as inadequately presented material unworthy of being called science. Still, read along, read the references and find others, and make your own decision.

    I first read about TMI in OMNI. The essentials of the technology of binaural beat and “hemisync” EEG entrainment were covered there, and are summarized below. When I started training in neuroscience, I learned EEG research techniques. A standard was to keep the subject in an electrically isolated ‘cage’ to prevent electrical noise from getting into the recording. An EEG is a microvolt meter and picks up everything electrical around it if not so isolated.

    I reviewed the TMI literature and saw their entire premise was based on EEG recordings conducted with electrical stereo headphones on the subject’s head and on top of the EEG electrode cap. That goes against the concept of preventing artifact from electrical devices and noise. To test whether the TMI work might be based on artifact I replicated some of their work, using a styrofoam wig stand shaped like a head as my subject. I got precisely the same results TMI got, with alpha and theta EEG signals recorded from binaural beats presented to a styrofoam head.*

    Later, while training one of U.Va. Professor Horton’s students (Phyllis Thomas) in advanced EEG analyses, I suggested she follow up on my initial work by testing human subject using an audio presentation system that would not introduce electrical interference. Our EEG system had an audio presentation system with the transducer 10 feet away from the subject and the sound transmitted from there to the subject through air tubes, no chance for electrical noise. She picked it up and ran with it. I was right, she proved it, and we’ve presented it publicly. As a result, some researchers who worked in their field have since had their work rescinded from the journals it was published in.

    I always enjoy it when I can bust someone’s bubble. I’m even more proud of the fact that except for Professor Horton and myself, whose contributions were strictly theoretical background or in training in technique on the equipment, all the authors listed were undergraduates. That should add to the sting.

    Follow along now in a reproduction of real science conducted specifically to test the initial work and claims of TMI and Atwater. Please excuse the fortmatting — this was cut and pasted directly from the presentation poster .ppt file. I’ll email that as an attachment to requests sent to


    EEG Oscillations and Binaural Beat As Compared With Electromagnetic Headphones and Air-conduction Headphones

    Presented at 42nd Society for Psychophysiological Research COnference, Oct 2-6 2002, Washington DC

    Chandra Stone(1), Phyllis Thomas(1), Dennis McClain-Furmanski(2), April L. Collins(1), Barron Griffith(1), James E. Horton(1)

    1-The University of Virginia’s College at Wise 2-National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders, NIH, Bethesda,MD


    Binaural beats occur when two separate tones of similar frequency range are presented, one to each ear, and the brain integrates the two tones into one perceived sound. The use of BB can be used in everyday life for relaxation and concentration (Atwater 1997), the study of Parkinson’s disease and detecting hearing loss (Oster 1973), vigilance and mood (Lane et all, 1998), as well as recovery and pain relief (Kliempt et al, 1999).
    Prior research:

    Atwater (1997) states that complex binaural beats that were brainwave-like were reported as more effective than binaural beats of single frequencies in producing hemispheric synchronization. Hemispheric synchronization occurs when the binaural beat is perceived and there are two electrochemical synaptic waves of equal amplitude and frequency present in each hemisphere. There is suggestion that binaural beats offer applications in many areas such as relaxation, improved sleep, and wellness.
    Oster (1973) provides historical data that defines and evaluates monaural and binaural beats that were produced through different methods of 440 and 434 hertz tone generation. These tones produced a 6 hertz binaural beat that is generated in the superior olivary nucleus and resulted in measurable evoked potential. Oster also demonstrated that age was not a factor in binaural beat detection.
    Smith (1978) found that the complex binaurally presented tones consistently evoked a free-frequency response. A free-frequency response is a neuroelectric wave that relates to the frequency of auditory stimuli presented to the subject. Band-limited masking noises affected free-frequency response only with a pure tone, not with a complex tone. The tones were computer generated and were presented binaurally via the headset with two shielded headphones in an acoustic chamber.

    Rationale and proposed research:

    Most of the research investigated binaural beats in relation to effectiveness used electromagnetic headphones to deliver the binaural beat. However, it is possible that delivery using electromagnetic headphones interferes with the EEG recording by having electromagnetic activity around the area of the headphones during recording.
      This research investigates the possible electromagnetic interference due to the use of electromagnetic headphones by comparing the EEG activity generated during binaural beat as compared to a rest condition with the binaural beat presented by electromagnetic headphones and by air-conduction that eliminates the possible electromagnetic interference of electromagnetic headphones.

    It is hypothesized that the EEG from the air conduction delivery of the binaural beat tones will increase EEG frequencies matching the binaural beat but to a lesser amplitude than the electromagnetic headphone delivery method due to artifact from the electromagnetic headphones.


    11 Healthy Adults
    All male
    Age (19 – 47)
    No medical or psychiatric problems
    Strongly right-handed


    Stimulus preparation and presention
    Pentium computer with Microsoft 98 OS
    STIM Software with sound editor used to generate binaural beat tones
    GENTASK used to present binaural beat tones
    Standard EMHP (Sony MDR-CD 180)
    Neuroscan Air Conduction System

    EEG acquisition
    Pentium computers with Microsoft 98 OS
    Neuroscan 4.1 Software
    Neuroscan SynAmp 32 channel bioamplifier
    Quickcap Electrode Cap 32 channel silver chloride electrodes

    Binaural Beat

    Binaural beat tones were prepared to generate 6 hertz binaural beats and 16 hertz binaural beats. Each binaural beat was prepared with non-harmonic carrier tones as indicated in prior literature as well as with harmonic carrier tones for comparison purposes.
    BB tones
    Harmonic carrier tones
    6 Hz generated by 42 and 48 Hz
    16 Hz generated by 112 and 128 Hz
    Lower Hz carrier tone always administered to the left ear
    Non-harmonic carrier tones
    6 Hz generated by 100 and 106 Hz
    16 Hz generated by 100 and 116 Hz
    Lower Hz carrier tone always administered to the left ear


    The research paradigm was explained to participant
    Participants were instructed regarding procedure
    Participants were prepared for EEG recording
    Baseline EEG was established by recording in rest condition for 2 minutes
    EEG was recorded for each tone presentation and conduction method
    Two minutes of recording for each condition
    Harmonic and Non-harmonic presentations were counterbalanced
    6 Hz and 16 Hz were counterbalanced
    Electromagnetic headphone and air-conduction delivery methods were counterbalanced


    The amplitude of 6 hz and 16 hz frequency was measured and analyzed with ANOVAs for 20 electrode sites involving the frontal (F3, FZ, F4 , F7, F8), frontocentral (FC3, FCZ, FC4), central (C3, CZ, C4), centroparietal, (CP3, CPZ, CP4), frontotemporal (FT7, FT8), parietotemporal (TP7, TP8), and temporal (T3, T4) areas.
    There was no significant difference in the 6hz or 16hz EEG frequency in any of the tone conditions as compared to the baseline EEG in the resting condition.
    There was artifactual EEG in temporal and frontal electrode sites in some participants during the presentations using electromagnetic headsets.
    Artifactual EEG appeared in electrode sites in close proximity to headphone ear pieces and wiring across headset band.
    There was no artifactual EEG in electrode sites during tone presentations using air conduction.


    This study did not support previous findings of EEG activity produced by binaural beat presentation
    There was no statistically significant EEG activity due to binaural beat presentation
    There was no statistically significant difference in presentation methods or carrier tones used
    There was no statistically significant difference in either frequency of binaural beat
    There was artifactual frequency generated in all frequencies with headset presentation in most, but not all participants
    There was minimal artifactual frequency generated with air conduction presentation that was more evident with tones presented with a harmonic carrier tone and in only some participants
    However, the tubes for air conduction presentation tended to pick up ECG artifact if placed in front of the participant proximal to the chest and had to be placed precisely and behind the participant’s back to eliminate the ECG artifact
    The broad spectrum of increased frequency and artifact that is more evident in T3 and diminishes to CZ, as shown in the included example of one participant, may be indicative of bone conduction involvement in the increased 6hz activity
    Therefore, it is strongly suspected that EEG frequencies attributed to binaural beat presentation is artifactual and generated primarily by the use of electromagnetic headphones as the presentation method
    It is suggested that future research investigating binaural beat generation of EEG activity consider the artifactual influences of equipment and methodology used and design paradigms to eliminate the artifact.


    Atwater, F.H. (1997). Accessing Anomalous States of Consciousness with Binaural Beat Technology. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11 (3), 263-274.

    Kliempt, P., Ruta, D., Ogston, S., Landeck, A., and Martay, K. (1999). Hemispheric-Synchronization During Anathesia: A Double Blind Randomized Trail Using Audiotapes for Intra-Operative Nociception Control. Anathesia, 54 (8), 769-773.

    Lane, J.D. Kasian, S.J., Owens, J.E., and Marsh, G.R. (1998). Binaural Auditory Beats Affect Vigilance and Mood. Physiology & Behavior, 63 (2), 249-252.

    Oster, G. (1973). Auditory beats in the brain. Scientific American, 229, 94-102.

    Smith, J.C., Marsh, J.T., Greenberg, S. & Brown, W.S. (1978). Human auditory frequency-following responses to a missing fundamental. Science, 201, 639-641.


    * Apropo of nothing except a shared enjoyment with deflating the overblown, Karl Pribram accepted my results with relish, and shared one of his own. It seems that if you embed EEG electrodes in lime Jell-o and shake it, you will get alpha EEG signals. No signals are forthcoming if you don’t shake it. When questioned regarding lime vs. other flavors, Karl reported that he didn’t try any others, and did this with lime flavor because he can’t stand the flavor to eat it. He also reported that when his Jell-o results were shared with researchers in (the then) USSR, they responded with results showing alpha EEG produced by electrodes sitting in a glass of vodka while being shaken.

    1. Details
      Hi DynaSoar,

      Thanks for posting all this, fascinating. Some questions below (not meant as criticisms, just questions that came to me as I read it):

      [quote=DynaSoar]this was cut and pasted directly from the presentation poster .ppt file. I’ll email that as an attachment to requests sent to[/quote]

      Is there a PDF of the entire published article available, or is it only in .ppt?

      [quote]Strongly right-handed[/quote]

      Is there a particular reasoning behind this choice? My thinking here is that it seems that it is left-handed people who report more ‘paranormal’ and OBE occurrences (perhaps due to less influence by the ‘rational’ brain?).

      [quote]Two minutes of recording for each condition[/quote]

      Is this the standard measuring time (and used by Atwater and others in earlier papers) for experiments in this area? My question derives from a sense that this is a very short time compared to the usual Monroe ‘practical’ sessions.

      [quote]It is suggested that future research investigating binaural beat generation of EEG activity consider the artifactual influences of equipment and methodology used and design paradigms to eliminate the artifact.[/quote]

      Is there subsequent research literature available confirming/extending this?

      Thanks for the informative post.

      1. Respondifying
        Greg, thanks for the questions. I’ll just answer them rather than add quoting upon quoting.

        It’s in .ppt because it’s a poster, full size 3 x 4 feet. Not an article, thus no PDF. I could convert it with OpenOffice but then it’d be too big to send. There’s a free .ppt viewer available if you don’t have Office or OpenOffice (but the latter is free too, so what the hey).

        Right handed are typically used in EEG research because they represent the single largest subgroup of the population and thus can be most generalized from, statistically speaking. So they say. I don’t. They also have the most differentiated brains with the most apparently localized activity, but even they have widespread and overlapping activities, contradicting the premise. Still, this is what the old farts at the journals expect, so what you gonna do?

        The recording time is based on the statistical testing to be done. The Monroe system tapes use a longer time frame for creating their effects (so they say) but the EEG activity itself can be measured and tested plenty fine with 2 minutes. This is supported by getting the Monroe ‘results’ with the same amount of recording time with the headphones over the cap. In fact 2 minutes is more than enough the see the effect. I got results from 15 second recordings (including on the styrofoam head). But to do statistics you want to decrease the variance in the measurements, and that means more or longer samples. As a comparison, when we do research on stimulus locked responses (same as nerve conduction tests done by neurologists) we do as few as a couple dozen and average them together, each of them being less than a second. But in these cases we use more subjects and/or conditions (pesky statistical sampling stuff again).

        As for replicability, I did it myself prior to presentation, just to be able to say it passed retest reliability. There have been no independent replications that I know of, certainly none published. But then that’s increasingly rare these days, especially when the premise and testing are so clearly stated in terms of theory. I mean come on, Atwater’s sample collection violated a basic tenent of EEG recording. It was just so blatant that nobody thought to question it, especially since they could easily replicate it (in all its erroneous glory). I am happy to report that while there are articles still appearing that use binaural beats and EEG, they are using a well known auditory illusion (used by all good piano tuners and other musicians) that does do specific things to the brain (very specific early activity in the olivary nucleus) the results of which can lend themselves to other investigations (like magnetic potentials, rather than EEG). But since this was presented, I can find exactly one article testing the concept in a different way (not a replication but a parallel test) and they got no Monroe-type results either.

        There’s also one article from someone prior to this presentation that got the results which they compared to hypnotizability, then another article from the same group after this presentation that essentially backed off their claims. But then this was probably due as much to the fact that my supervisor was several times president of the experimental hypnosis group/society/whatever and had been high up in hypnosis research ever since helping Ernest Hilgard update and reverify the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale as a grad student. I’m pretty sure they looked up my work, saw I’d done hypnosis research with her (Helen Crawford, now emeritus from Virginia Tech), and decided self-criticism is the better part of scientific valor.

        A note on the subjective effects, since you asked. I underwent both auditory and visual beat stimuli, the latter with a pair of sunglasses with LEDs glued inside the lens. I can tell you for a fact, as someone with experience in all manner of substances both natural and manufactured, many with alphabet-soup names, all of which are intended to produce altered perceptions, cognitions and behaviors, that 3 minutes under the combined audio-visual beat stimulus (other external stimuli being blocked out) seemed like a full 30 minute DMT exploration in both intensity of experience and vividness of perceptions. My mouth fell open, and I drooled. They unplugged me when I didn’t move at all after 3 minutes. There’s no doubt in my mind that the stimuli they use produce subjective results.

        When I started this research it was an open question whether there would be some sort of EEG effect that could be worked out. But it was strictly my point that they way they did things early on was a mistake and that could be proven. We did that. There may still be measureable EEG differences associated with the very profound perceptual stuff, and should be. But the testing needs to be done right. When done right, the EEG changes that Atwater and others claim correspond to the many changes they claim they can effect with their stimuli just do not happen, except as a matter of electrical artifact.

    2. Gloating goats
      I always enjoy it when I can bust someone’s bubble. I’m even more proud of the fact that except for Professor Horton and myself… all the authors listed were undergraduates. That should add to the sting.

      That’s a bit harsh, DynaSoar. Why not just let your data speak for itself? As my old man would say, “don’t gloat or else it’ll come back and bite you on your arse.” 😉

      Have you presented your data to Atwater and allowed him to respond?

      1. Gloatidity
        [quote=Rick MG][quote=DynaSoar]
        I always enjoy it when I can bust someone’s bubble. I’m even more proud of the fact that except for Professor Horton and myself… all the authors listed were undergraduates. That should add to the sting.

        That’s a bit harsh, DynaSoar. Why not just let your data speak for itself? As my old man would say, “don’t gloat or else it’ll come back and bite you on your arse.” 😉

        Have you presented your data to Atwater and allowed him to respond?[/quote]

        Hi Rick, good questions.

        We’ve presented it in public in a professional venue, the same one that some researchers using his technique presented their work in previous years. He noticed theirs, he had the chance to notice ours. It’s poor form to confront someone directly with contrary research. All such correspondence is kept public because the interaction itself may produce valuable information. This is why many journals will print letters from one researcher “to” another, and the other respond. In short, if he wanted to, he could. In less short, he’s already taken his idea and turned it into a commercial venture. He’s not about to risk that to engage in a confrontation regarding the validity of what he’s selling successfully.

        Yeah, you’re probably right about the gloating stuff, at least as far as my own enjoyment in seeing an old fart’s accepted theory overturned. I don’t do it at them, but I do engage in the happy dance in public otherwise. I’m not after the ‘perfect person’ job. That job’s taken. The last guy that got hired for it got nailed to a tree 2000 years ago, and still has the job as far as I know. If not, I don;t want it anyway. I enjoy the happy dance too much. But the part about my students producing international class science, and they all undergrads, that gloat is perfectly justified, and I do gloat right at them over it. I’ve had four such projects in which undergrads proved an old fart wrong and presented it at a conference, and each time the gloat gets bigger and better because those young people deserve it.

        1. Pride and prejudice
          [quote=DynaSoar] But the part about my students producing international class science, and they all undergrads, that gloat is perfectly justified… because those young people deserve it.[/quote]

          I agree, when kids — and older folk! — perform above and beyond what’s expected of them, they deserve a pat on the back. As long as it’s a respectful and courteous competitiveness, then all’s fair in love and science. However, the Bad Astronomer, Shermer, Myers, et al… Heghlu’meH QaQ jajvam! 😉

          And I just wanted to rhyme gloat with goat.

          1. Then To Glare Fat Gloats
            [quote=Rick MG]
            I agree, when kids — and older folk! — perform above and beyond what’s expected of them, they deserve a pat on the back. As long as it’s a respectful and courteous competitiveness, then all’s fair in love and science. However, the Bad Astronomer, Shermer, Myers, et al… Heghlu’meH QaQ jajvam! 😉

            And I just wanted to rhyme gloat with goat.[/quote]

            I don’t think I mentioned that in every case, these undergrads performed all the work and writing within a single semester, in a 1 credit hour lab course. Few pros produce at a rate like that. That’s why I prefer my students to my colleagues.

            As for the other sort (watch your thlIngan Hol, there may be puqpu’ present) keep in mind they are entertainers, not scientists, when they are acting in the role that tends to displease many, much like Rush Limbaugh with respect to politics. And like him, the bad publicity is as welcome to them as the good, because it’s about being noticed rather than right. If it were about being right, I wouldn’t catch Plait trying to pass off points he was trying to make with anti-facts that’d get marked wrong on my students’ exams, or at least an acknowledgement for the ‘mistake’ once it was pointed out.

            And now that you’ve got them to rhyme, let’s try it in harmony.

  3. Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are??????????
    Up above the night so bright……….. it was what it was the darkness seeking to understand what it will never comprehend!

    In life like St.Anne and the Magdalene those who have and those who do not….
    the Haves and have not’s………

    the souls and the vampires…….

    the empty and the not…

    the living and the dead.

    Still Stargate will always be the succubus and of us they will know not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Goats: The Real Story
    I hope I’m not repeating a previously linked article here but in case anyone missed it, there is a video response to the Goats movie from John Alexander. It is available at the SSE and on YouTube:

    1. Not a fan
      I’m somewhat skeptical about Alexander’s claims. How he goes on saying that the USAF has nothing to hide about UFOs because HE went on and assembled a team of people, and tried to find the truth about it and found nothing —so obviously the answer is there was nothing to find.

      Hello?? Anyone heard of the term “need to know basis”?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.