h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I saw you mention the f. word in one of you threads
Do you read Fortean Times per chance?

Absolutely, every month. Even the ufo bits, which I'm not really that interested in, but you have to keep up with the news. I prefer the lesser-known or non-faddish topics.

surprised that there isn't a greater FT presence on this site- type 'fortean' into the search engine above, and you only get a handful of mentions, and no related conversations this is the first, i think! (well the last time i checked was a few months ago, but i doubt much has changed)

I like the mag because of it's neutrality- i would never buy a UFO/ new age/ whatever, magazine... or even a 'skeptic' magazine, because these peoples minds are already made up!

In FT you get a broad range of opinions, which is, i believe a much more intellegent approach.

oh, and i agree with you on the UFO stuff- a little boring, but like you, i usually read the mag cover to cover anyway-even the boring bits, cause i like to keep informed.

I also find the cryptozoology stuf a little dull- what's so amazing about animals turning up in the wrong country?? just because nobody 'reports' lost animals, doesn't mean that they haven't been flown over by some loon!

That's because, apart from one or two "commissined" articles, all the rest of the content is compiled from articles which have been published elsewhere, from a wide variety of sources.

Their website is cool, too: http://www.forteantimes.com

Mine's not so cool at the moment; it's been a year since I updated it, but I'm working on a redesign : http://www.paranormal.org.uk

right-let's see if we can get this into 'the top 5 busiest convo's'!
(shouldn't be too hard on a sunday afternoon)

Get Charles Fort a little H2 recognition!

Sadly, I don't have time for a long chat; I have a site to redesign!

oh, thanks peet- looks like that will take me little time to read- so i'll get started..

It seems to have a rare position compared to other similar-subject publications. I am not that interested in cryptozoology, but only because I don't find mystery animals that outstanding. Mild diversion only. However it's probably the thing most taken seriously, so it's satisfying when they're proved right. Karl Shuker is a good writer, too.
I don't see much use in reading stuff which is only going to confirm your own opinions (unless it also improves your knowledge of something, which by definition sceptical journals wouldn't.)
Did you read the FT reports on the experiments into ESP and the Hampton Court Palace ghost? Both in the magazine were balanced and came up as inconclusive, but interesting; then appeared in the mainstream press as 'Existence of ghosts disproved, ESP is nonsense etc.' The only other mentions it gets are for the Weirdness Index.
Not only the subject matter, but Forteana abounds in interesting personalities. (Have you been to an UnConvention?)

Read any original Fort? I have only a copy of New Lands (from Hay on Wye, 'cos it was cheap.)

No! i really do need to actually read some of his stuff- i'm deeply ashamed that i haven't

I think a lot of the articles in 'strange days' get lifted for use in 'oh what a wacky world we live in' type radio links, and a lot of stufff also turns up in newspapers- which is a bit fortean in itself,as most articles in 'strange days' are themselves lifted from newspapers!

Rarely here the great Ft credited though...

Indeed. I did read these reports- and it is always very interesting to hear how badly and biasdly(new word!) an initially balanced interview, or article can be 'summarised' by the popular press.

It is especially intersting to hear/see a live event, such as the interview with Saddam, or Michael Jackson, then to read the edited highlights... each writer only mentions the parts that interest them, or serves a particular agenda.

Nuts, isn't it? I wouldn't mind if they misquoted, or simply missed the point, but to *lie* about the results because 'common sense' tells them ghosts/ESP are rubbish; i.e. we've known all along etc.- is rotten.
Strange Days often has the 'true' version also, they point out where other publications made up stuff to make a better story. 'Funny Old World' seems particularly guilty of this, like the man who was found chained to a tree got stretched from 2 weeks to 4 months. Or something.
I always meant to buy Fort, but the modern editions are about £5. and when I found a copy on sale there were always things I wanted more. (Mainly at the UnCon booksale.)

If you like Douglas Adams' writing, you might appreciate "Charles Fort never mentioned Wombats" - it's in a similat vein of humour...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385121113/qid%3D1044807621/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/002-8510261-7345639

I have a copy of Fort's "The Book of the Damned" somewhere; quite amusing!

(similat - similar )

mind you-i would have to admit to 'embelishing the truth' somewhat in my own life.. especially when i'm telling someone about an uncheckable incident-- many a solo holiday experience has been jazzed up somewhat to engage my poor victim/listener

Cant even think of an example, because my memory is pants.

ta for the link

strange thing with me, though- i usually prefer to get my 'facts' from magazines, such as FT, or New Scientist, Astronomy, etc, but my fiction from books!

I rarely enjoy reading factual books, prefering the likes of stephen king, Richard Laymon etc.. In a similar vein i don't like reading fiction from magazines-- although i enjoy TV sci-fi like Farscape(cancelled) i wouldn't dream of reading the magazine i'v seen baring its name...

Bit odd eh?

Aye, but you're not writing for a newspaper, a factual account of your travels which will be relied on by others for information. Therein lies the difference, and all.

I only read FT really; sometimes New Scientist, but I have a mental obstacle where science is concerned, I just cannot understand it. The science in FT is presented so I can get round it after a couple of readings.
I hope to write fiction for magazines... or 'least sell it to them. I used to read Queex's copy of Interzone, which was ok. but heavy on the Michael Moorcock/Kim Newman type fiction, so I mainly go for anthologies.
The only TV sci-fi I like is the sadly-departed Lexx. I tried with Andromeda, and others, but they're not different enough. Just some variously-hued folk in space nutting about and occasional near-death escapades. (FT did a Forum article on Lexx, hurrah.) I love the 'Happened to me' section of the website, so many of my favourite Fortean tales are from personal accounts which get overlooked in serious studies of wider topics.

yes, you're entirely right of course, about other people relying on newspaper reports for their information... the really sad thing, is,i believe that a significant proportion of the population believes implicitly what they read, never pausing to consider that this might just be one side of the story- or worse still complete lies!

There is this tendancy to believe something just because it's printed... i wonder if as many people would believe what's written in the likes of 'the Sun' if it was all handwritten!

Back on topic though, i sometimes wonder just how true the frequent stories in FT are, that relate to 'less developed nations' amazing credulity, and superstition-- i refer to stories like the shrinking penis panics, and places like haiti, where there is still a very strong belief in witchcraft and voodoo...

I sometimes think that even the well regarded FT may be occassionally guilty of exaggeration of these population's gulibility, simply to make the story more amusing, and to increase ther 'how strange foreigners are' effect.

I hope i'm wrong though! If i'm not, it's scary how backwards some nations still are..

with regards to science.. my main mental obsticle is whenever maths is involved.. i understand the rest, mostly, but as soon as i see an equation

I don't mind the Sun & that as much as the worthy tabloids, the ones who dismiss everyone who doesn't think like them as not being a 'right-thinking person'. They're more intrinsically believable, and do more damage through their moral crusades.
I don't have much experience with broadsheets, they're too big for me.
That superstition is no more silly to me than the moral panic reports from here and the US; Biblical literalism and satanic child abuse, for instance. I think it does more harm than shrinking genitalia. That seems to be well-documented, though- like an irrational fear of the dark. I *know* it can't hurt me, but...
Haitian voodoo is more of a proper belief system. A lot of its adherents are also Catholic, which has a lot of its own mysteries. Plenty of voodoo deaths have also been medically verified.
Witchcraft (Pagan-style) is my personal faith, so I'd have to say 'I believe in magick' but it's never as simple as that, saying spells and, boing, instant cash/romance/world domination. FT seems to be just as critical of 'civilised' characters like Kevin Carlyon (king of the witches, o yes) as they are of 'backward' superstitions. I think it's scary how backward some *people* are, however developed their environment and easy the access to information. Like the modern dependence on superficial psychobabble, and fashionable adoption of NewAge type things. Like feng shui; thousands of years of Oriental belief disregarded because faddy Western types with a taste for tinkly glass want something easy to believe in. and they are usually the ones who dismiss serious paranormal research.
If there's maths, I have to ask for help.

Oh i have no doubt that voodoo, etc can work, but i tend to beleive it's more to do with the person who has had a 'spell' placed on them believing so strongly that they are going to come to harm, that they do- mind over matter. We've all heard examples of people healing themselves through self belief, etc.. which reminds me- must set the video for that christopher reeves thing tonight...


Mind you , the above explanation doesn't explain, how people who DON'T know they've had a spell placed on them, can be affected... dury's out on that one for me...