Listener feedback is important to me, so I'm devoting an episode to answering it!
End Of Segment 1 (General Feedback ):15:04
Links/Topics Mentioned In The Show
Top 10 Podcasts To Feed Your Brain And Ease Your Commute
The Atheist Social Worker Podcast
The Amateur Skeptics Podcast
The Skeptical Review
The Dumbass Review Episode 1: Green Lantern TAS
29 Years Of The Skeptical Inquirer Magazine For Only $25
The Dumbass Media Empire Website
Theme Music By Jonathan Coulton
Other Music By Danosongs.com
"Golden Flyer" compared to figurine of a jet (notice the face on the "Golden Flyer"):
This is how they shot the "Golden Flyer" on the show:
The "applegina" and other unintentionally dirty objects:
Enjoy the show! Here's the transcript:
Welcome to the 13th episode of The Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge. Todayís episode will be a feedback episode. Iíve gotten a lot of feedback piling up and I want to get a chance to respond to as much of it as possible. Of course, as always there are several pieces of feedback criticizing my position on Ancient Aliens, and Iíll certainly get to those later. But first of all I want to go over some of the more interesting general feedback that Iíve gotten.
First thing that I have to bring up is something that a few people have brought to my attention. The Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge has been mentioned in an article on the Business Insider website entitled ďTop 10 Podcasts To Feed Your Brain And Ease Your CommuteĒ by Kevin Smith. This podcast is listed second, right next to Freakonomics Radio.
Now I hear you saying ďWaitÖ really? Right next to Freakonomics Radio? Are you sure you read that right Dumbass?Ē. Yes, itís true, I double checked it myself. Other podcasts on the list include Stuff You Should Know and Point Of InquiryÖ you know, podcasts that are actually popular. How delightfully absurd is that? I havenít felt this way since Ben Radford quoted my review of his book ďScientific Paranormal InvestigationĒ on his website alongside reviews by such other names as James Randi, D. J. Grothe, Richard Wiseman, Martin Gardner, and Michael Shermer. Itís fantastic! I donít belong anywhere near either of these listsÖ but Iíll take it!
Thanks so much for the mention Kevin. I half suspect that you just scrolled through a list of podcasts and picked mine out at random to complete your list because it sounded like it would work with your theme. But if you are really a listener and you thought I deserved a spot on your list, Iím incredibly flattered.
The high from that will carry me over to this next piece of feedback, which isnít quite as flattering. This has to do with my previous episode, which is episode number 12, which I posted to Reddit. I got a comment from a user named nitesmoke, which I will read to you in full:
I'm 8 minutes into the podcast and the guy is still just advertising his various websites and things. I'll let you know if he ever gets around to talking about the actual subject at hand.
edit: 10 minutes in, he's still plugging other podcasts and people and their twitters. I'm about to give up. He has yet to mention anything about what the headline of this post implies.
The plugs just keep rolling and rolling.
Over halfway into this podcast, he has not mentioned anything about psychic powers or lack of thereof. At this point, I'm inclined to downvote this post for an inaccurate headline.
Ohhhh! Nitesmoke, you got so close! You had 18 more seconds
to go before the end of the introduction segment! You almost got to find out
about the main topic! Just a little more patience would have gotten you there!
You were so close! So closeÖ. SIGH
If youíre a regular listener, you know that Iíve gotten feedback before from people who didnít care for my introduction segment. Iím okay with that. I like to ramble on about things that are on my mind, and Iím primarily doing this podcast for my own enjoyment. And often what I want to talk about involves other podcasts that I find interesting, particularly when Iíve made friends with the hosts.
I donít think that everybody should be automatically interested by my little ramblings, so I do put a timeline on the website, conveniently located near the top of the show page so that you can fast forward to the proper location. I responded to Nitesmokeís comment informing him of this fact, but he hasnít replied back. It seems that he followed through and downvoted the episode.
I find Nitesmokeís reaction very strange. The thing is that Iíve had a similar experience not too long ago. A radio show that Iíd never listened to had on a certain guest that I was familiar with, and I was interested in hearing the interview. This particular guest was advertised in the headline of the episode, and so I went ahead and downloaded this episode for the express purpose of listening to the interview with this person.
The first half hour of this episode was filled with a bunch of content that I couldnít care less about. At this point my thoughts were probably very similar to Nitesmokeís. ďCímon, get to what I want to hear already!Ē. But then I went down a different path than Nitesmoke. I listened for a bit, then decided to fast forward to the part with the guest. I enjoyed the interview, and that was the end of it.
At no point did I ever think to myself that the headline was inaccurate, or that the people running this show did anything wrong by first talking about other content for 30 minutes. And thatís 30 minutes. I only took 10. And I did provide exactly the content I said I would regarding using randomness to pretend to be psychic. This idea that because I didnít get to the content Nitesmoke wanted to hear fast enough that I was being somehow deceptive makes very little sense to me. But apparently a couple other people agreed with Nitesmokeís sentiment and upvoted him for it, so heís not alone on this.
But listen, I appreciate this kind of honest feedback, even if I donít agree with the sentiment and donít plan on doing anything extra to address it. Iím perfectly fine with the fact that not everybody is going to enjoy my podcasting style. Nitesmoke, I hope you give the podcast another shot. Feel free to use the fast forward button if Iím yammering on about topics that you donít care about. I wonít hold it against you.
And if youíre listening, Nitesmoke, you might just want to press that fast forward button now, because Iím about to do something that tremendously annoyed you. Thatís right, Iím going to plug somebody. I got an email recently from a listener named Chris Webber. Chris has been listening to me and he knows that Iím looking to encourage brand new skeptical podcasters. Turns out that Chris is a brand new skeptical podcaster, and he was hoping to enlist my advice and join up with my media empire.
I listened to the episodes heíd prepared and I enjoyed them. He likes to analyze religious claims with a skeptical eye, which is always fun to do. So I told him that I certainly was interested in collaborating with new talent like himself, and that Iíd be pleased to arrange a cross promotional deal under the banner of the Dumbass Media Empire. So Chrisí podcast is now the very first member podcast of the Dumbass Media Empire that is run by somebody other than myself, and Iím very happy to have him on board.
His podcast is called the Atheist Social Worker podcast. Iíll give you three guesses as to his occupation and religious affiliation. You can find his work on atheistsocialworker.org, and you can also find the links to his episodes on dumbassmedia.info.
I plan to continue listening to his episodes, and I hope youíll agree that heís worth keeping an eye on. His episodes are well researched, and each one examines some religious claim and puts it to a critical analysis. Heís still finding his style, but I think he has a lot to offer. And by the way, heís a veteran. You just know you can trust a person who loves animals!
Next I want to apologize to Bryan Hineser. In my last episode I mentioned that not all my podcasting friends listened to me. I forgot that Bryan was just one such podcaster who I know listens. Heís the founder of the Amateur Skeptics podcast at amateurskeptics.com. And heís invited me to get together with them for their next episode, so I highly encourage you to check them out!
Next up, Nigel St. Whitehall, who runs the Skeptic Review blog, wrote to me on Twitter. He noticed that the name of my new video review podcast was the Dumbass Review, and felt that Iíd blatantly copied his name idea. He may be right. I hadnít made the connection, but unconsciously I probably did steal it from him. You may have already noticed that I donít have an original idea in my head.
For example, I realized only after the fact that I stole the idea of having a media empire from Mark Crislip. And Iím certain that Iíve stolen other small ideas from various sources. I make no apologies!
I would like to thank Mike Bohler, great guy and friend of the show, for donating a little to the Dumbass Media Empire and helping me acquire a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer DVD. This DVD contains all of the issues of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine in PDF format from 1976 through 2005. It starts off with the very earliest issues of the magazine, when it was called the Zetetic, a name they kept until they eventually realized that the Zetetic is a terrible name for a magazine. When you have to define the word for your audience so that they understand what youíre talking about, thatís generally a bad sign.
Anyway, incredibly enough, the very first issue contains an article on the Ancient Alien phenomenon. Itís great to be able to read the kinds of things that were being said about this issue historically so that I can get a feel for how the arguments have evolved, or in many cases not changed at all, over time. And by the way, the DVD is a really good deal and if you want to get yourself a copy Iíll put a link in the show notes.
Thanks for the help Mike. If anybody else wants to donate to my Dumbass Media Empire, feel free to paypal me money to EMAIL. Your donations will go towards supporting my skeptical activities.
A few people have written in asking me whether Iíll be attending TAM this year. Unfortunately it doesnít look like thatís in my budget, though I would love to meet all of you if it were possible. Maybe if I get a massive donation I can work something out. Iím sure there must be some billionaire listening with money to burn. I only need one! If youíre out there, just consider giving me a whopping donation that will fund my skeptical activities for years to come. I promise not to waste it on frivolous things like gold plated muscle cars. Okay, maybe one gold plated muscle car but thatís it! Iíd use most of the money to engage in skeptical activities and make maintaining my Dumbass Media Empire a fulltime job.
I suppose it doesnít have to be a billionaire though. Like I said, Iíll accept donations from anybody. If only one percent of my listeners donated three hundred dollars each month, I could support myself and still have enough money left over to travel the world to every skeptical conference, generating new content the whole time. Thatís right, for less than the price of an iPad a month, you can help make this dream come true. Wonít you give generously?
Moving on, I got a few iTunes reviews. Renosis gives me 5 stars and says:
Does a great job of debunking the ridiculous claims of the ďAncient AstronautĒ nutjobs. He systematically breaks down all the claims, one by one, that the ďAncient AliensĒ show on the History channel makes. Iíve listened to every episode and I canít wait to hear more. Download them all, you wonít be sorry for long.
Notice the final sentence: you wonít be sorry for long. Heís not saying that you wonít be sorry, because of course you will be. Your first thought will almost certainly be ďwhy the hell am I listening to this loser?Ē. But as weíve established before, I tend to grow on people. Hang in there, it takes only a little longer than 10 minutes. Once again Nitesmoke, you were soooo close! If you can just stick it out, I become quite tolerable.
Thanks for the great review Renosis!
The next reviewer is named Cat Julia. She gave me 5 stars and writes:
When I was in high school I read a book by Ivan T. Sanderson about cryptids, ancient flying devices, underwater UFOís, and all that stuff. It really creeped me out. Then I grew up and I learned that all those things arenít real. Now I listen to cool skeptical podcasts like this one and I know what to say to people who think those things exist.
For example, my brother was recently watching a show about ghosts at Alcatraz. He said ďWell of course thereís ghosts at AlcatrazĒ, I replied ďI think itís more like, of course there arenít ghosts at Alcatraz, because ghosts donít exist.Ē He said ďHow can you say that, unexplained events happen all the time.Ē So I responded, ďWell, unexplained doesnít mean you can just automatically explain it as a ghost.Ē My brother had no response to that.
Anyway, this podcast is funny. The host seems like a really cool guy. Iíd like to hang out with him if I ever visit Canada.
I like this review, even though only a small part of it is actually a plug for my show. Actually, thatís probably what makes it so good. And I like Juliaís example, because itís one of those things that I like to beat the drum about. Itís kind of strange that we even have to explain this, but for some reason people just donít understand what the word ďunexplainedĒ means. If youíve managed to conclusively explain something as being a ghost, then itís no longer unexplained.
The point is that you canít use something thatís unexplained as an explanation for anything. Thatís a very good point Julia, thanks for bringing it up!
I got one more five star review from a user named Underbelly_Jeff who writes:
I really enjoyed this show except for the fact that I know 5 guys named Brian and only one of them spells their name Bryan, SO I wish the host would lay off the Brian bashing. Other than that, Fantastic!
Thanks for the review Jeff. You bring up an important point that I would like to address. About a year ago, in episode 6 (pod6.dumbassguide.info), I may have thoughtlessly suggested that Brians who spell their names with Iís are losers. Now, of course, that was just a joke. To any Brians listening, please forgive me if Iíve offended you. I donít really believe that an I or a Y makes any difference to anybodyís self worth. That would just be silly.
Jeffs who spell their names J-E-F-F instead of G-E-O-F-F, however, are complete and utter rat bastards!
Now letís get into some of the Ancient Aliens comments Iíve received. As you know, Iím dedicated to answering as much of the criticism leveled against me as possible, and most of that comes from people who believe in the Ancient Aliens hypothesis. Many of these comments address the exact same issue, so instead of reading each personís comments, Iíll be breaking them up and reading what each person has to say on each topic in order to keep my thoughts organized.
As my regular listeners know, one of the things people love to criticize me for is my attitude. Danny, for example, thinks that Iím too dismissive:
Iíve been reading your point of views of the Ancient aliens theory and I think itís important for everyone to understand that perhaps the idea of Aliens having implications with ancient civilizations is just as plausible as any other theory. I mean, this is why itís called a theory. Perhaps the television series and some of the astronaut theorists are pushing more than less with their evidence and perhaps they are even a little blindsided to some extent. But in reading your blog, it seems you are doing the same with the way you undermine everything they theorize on. Some of your points are really good but on the other hand, you seem to be trying too hard to nullify everything in their theory.
I look at the Saqqara bird, the golden flyer and other evidence and feel compelled to think that the interpretation theories can in fact go both ways. Of course, when one states the word alien, it instantaneously sounds far-fetched (actually, less and less nowadays) but wouldnít it be closed minded or naÔve to exclude the theory?
Danny, you chastise me for not realizing that itís just a theory. Well, in scientific terms, the word theory means something completely different than what you think it does. A theory provides an explanation for a phenomenon that is backed by evidence. The Ancient Alien hypothesis doesnít explain anything. Like Iíve said before, it just replaces anything unknown with another even greater unknown. Replacing an unknown with another unknown can never explain anything.
Now I realize that the word ďtheoryĒ has a colloquial use that is a little looser, and I might fall into using it that way myself without thinking. But in scientific terms, this is not a theory. But even if weíre going to go by the more laid back definition of theory, and you say to me that this theory is just as plausible as any otherÖ Nooooo my friend, it most certainly is not! I have a shirt with a hole in it. My two theories are that it was either done by a moth, or by a laser pistol from the future. The fact that I didnít see the hole as it formed does not mean that these two theories are equally plausible.
It seems to me very strange to call me closed minded. As I see it, Iím being the very opposite of closed minded. Iím not just excluding the Ancient Alien hypothesis because I donít agree with it and am willing to write it off without looking at the evidence. Iím actually taking what these people say seriously and analyzing these claims as objectively as I can to see whether they hold up.
Danny, when you say that I ďseem to be trying too hard to nullify everything in their theoryĒ, I have a hard time understanding your complaint. Iím just putting their statements to the test of logic and empirical evidence. It just so happens that none of their statements so far stand up to the test. Should I go easy on them and not hold everything they say up to proper standards of evidence? If I did that, I wouldnít be taking them seriously. And by their own accounts, what they really want is to be taken seriously.
Xynoptic wrote in saying:
The only thing that bothers me is your usage of languange and manner in the way you compare things between both views. I can't recall the so-you-called silly, comical, mind numbing asinine scientists also used these words when explaining their theories. In fact i can't recall that they ever attacked other skeptic statements or theories at all. What i like about the series is that they professionally explain their theories with scientific research and logic-based imagination not with arrogant manner and sarcasm like you did. Most of them aren't Ph.D in their fields for nothing although in this case that don't guarantee the validity of everything they said but at least they think and speak like one. I strongly suggest you to keep an open mind and give your analysis with healthy manner because i always enjoy all views from both sides but it's too shame if one side lacks some respect for the other. At most case it usually defines which one is the real winner. ps: please mind my bad grammar. greets from Jakarta, Indonesia
Xynoptic, thanks for writing in, and for the record Iím not bothered by your grammar. I read your comment as you wrote it because I donít want to change your words on you, but Iím sure everybody understands perfectly what you were saying. But while I have no problem with your grammar, I do have a problem with your terminology. You say I characterize these people as ďsilly, comical, mind numbing asinine scientistsĒ. Well, I may have used words like silly, comical, mind numbing, and asinine to describe these claims. What I have never done, is called any of the Ancient Aliens proponents on the show ďscientistsĒ. Thereís a good reason for that: theyíre not scientists. Their expertise is listed underneath them whenever they appear on screen. Giorgio Tsoukalos is the publisher of a magazine. Algund Eenboom, Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Philip Coppens and David Childress are authors. Michael Dunn is a mining engineer. Joseph Young Ph.D, who is introduced as the curator of the Joseph Campbell archives, is a psychologist.
These are all the Ancient Aliens proponents Iíve covered. There were a few other talking heads, but none of them were pushing the Ancient Alien hypothesis so it wouldnít be right for me to put them on a list Ancient Alien proponents. Anyway, Xynoptic, you said ďMost of them arenít Ph.D in their field for nothing.Ē I donít see anybody in this list who has a Ph.D in a relevant field at all. As far as I can tell, the only one who actually has a Ph.D is Joseph Young, and his specialty is psychology.
If this actually was a group of scientists with relevant education and experience, then you may have had a point here. But theyíre not. Theyíre ordinary people whoíve gotten these wild ideas in their heads, and instead of doing actual science and testing their hypotheses for plausibility and logical errors, they decided to put out a television show and display their ignorance to the entire world. Youíve called me out for having no respect for them. Do you really think theyíve done anything to earn my respect?
St. Alphonso wrote in to accuse me of throwing insults:
In our lifetimes we will only know a fraction of what there is to know, and calling a fascinating look at the incredible reality we have been born into garbage is sad. Let's look at the evidence all around the world and try to figure it out. Not call each other idiots because we ask questions.
On a similar note, Neutral Chic wrote:
Insulting others as dumb is not necessary, and I'm sure you already know that. Do I think some people are dumb? Yes, I do. I think people who are too lazy to search and seek for the answers are dumb. I think people who call other people dumb for researching ALL real possibilities are dumb. It's dumb to ridicule someone for wanting to know the truth, and to discourage them through an attempt to humiliate them for " asking questions. " All things ARE possible " crazy" as it may sound. I think it's stupid to think that we know all things just because we think we are already wise in our own minds. That is a TRUE fool.
Hey, remember that time when I called people who believed in Ancient Aliens dumb? No? Me neither. Fact is, I think these people are actually pretty smart. They at least have very active imaginations, and thatís a sure sign of intelligence. I make it a point to ridicule ideas, not people. I actually confronted Neutral Chic with the fact that Iíve never called anybody dumb. This was her response:
What does "The dumbasses guide " to knowledge mean as you would interpret it? It says to me, that I am dumb for listening to these people explain their theory.
That seems like a very strange interpretation to me. The Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge is the name of my blog, as well as this podcast youíre listening to right now. I call myself the Dumbass, so right away the title is more of a self reference than anything else. Iíve explained several times some of the reasons why I use this name. But Iím not sure why it even matters. Why should the name of my website have any relevance to the content of the articles I write on it?
I chose the name for my website long before I ever wrote anything about Ancient Aliens. Certainly thereís no reason to think that I had these people in mind when I came up with it. What a very strange way to look at things to think that the title I use implies to people that theyíre dumb if they disagree with me. Has anybody else gotten the impression that my title is some sort of proxy insult to people who disagree with me? Neutral Chic responded to me saying:
A lot of what you said that I repeated is not word for word, but any reasonable person can see that it was implied.
I think Iím a reasonable person, and I see absolutely no implied insult. Certainly none was intended. Listeners, tell me, do you think that any reasonable person would assume that ďThe Dumbasses Guide To KnowledgeĒ was meant to be an insult?
Neutral Chic also let me know that even if I am not ridiculing people, I shouldnít be ridiculing ideas either.
I strongly disagree. Certainly itís true that if youíre just brainstorming, if there are no necessary consequences to coming out with wild ideas just to toss them around, then thereís no reason to unfairly pick on ridiculous ideas. But these guys have put out an internationally watched documentary series! And Iíll tell you something, if I had a kid one of the lessons Iíd personally want to hammer home is donít take yourself or your ideas too seriously.Neutral Chic responded:
IDEAS, are " brainstorms" and I teach my 15 year old that he is not to RIDICULE someone's idea, no matter how stupid or far fetched it may sound. At times he even thought that he had " ridiculous" ideas. NO IDEA, or brainstorm should be ridiculed.
I would never teach my child to discourage another persons ideas let alone their own. Whether someone needs to shake off someone calling their idea ridiculous or not is still not the point, the point is that it's wrong and morally wrong to do to another person.
Really? Itís morally wrong to ridicule anybodyís ideas? Even people who believe the Earth is flat? Do they not deserve a healthy heaping of ridicule? What about people who believe the end is nigh? Does Harold Campingís ridiculous end of the world theory from last year not deserve our ridicule?
If youíre just sitting around and spitballing ideas in a friendly atmosphere, then certainly you shouldnít go too far. You can laugh and call somebodyís idea ridiculous in a friendly way and there can be some back and forth. If somebody takes their ideas too seriously, you may get into an argument, but I think most people should be able to take this kind of thing in stride.
I believe that itís the people who take their ideas too seriously who are in the wrong, not the people who ridicule those ideas. And of course thereís no need to be mean about it, but ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule. And ridiculous ideas that are presented in a television series devoted to the topic deserve an extra super sized helping of ridicule.
Regular listeners, you know that weíve heard this all before, right? This notion that ďweíre just asking questions, you donít need to be so hard on us about it!Ē But then they want it both ways, donít they? Because when the archaeological community doesnít immediately jump on the bandwagon with them, they accuse the scientific establishment of not taking them seriously.
Well, which is it? If youíre just brainstorming, then thereís no need for anybody to take you seriously. On the other hand, if you think your idea deserves serious consideration, then donít complain when itís actually taken seriously.
Several people have also told me that Iím on just as shaky footing as the people I criticize. Avid Watcher writes:
Sorry Dumbass, some of your "proof" is just as silly as theirs. Not everything presented on the show is proof and some is laughable, but other bits make you stop and think...That's a good thing by the way.
Well Iíve certainly got nothing against stopping and thinking. But Iím still not clear about what Iíve said thatís ďjust as sillyĒ as the Ancient Alien stuff. Nobody who accuses me of this has ever provided me with an example of something Iíve said thatís on the same level as the stuff Iím criticizing. Please tell me, because Iím perfectly willing to be corrected if Iím wrong about something.
Neutral Chic added her two cents to this topic by saying:
NO ONE is right.. Not even you, by your own definition both of you are WRONG.
I have no idea what definition Neutral Chic is talking about here. I donít remember giving any definition that would categorize me as being wrong. And I donít see how itís possible for me and the Ancient Alien proponents to both be wrong. They put out claims that they say are good evidence. All Iím doing is looking at those claims and saying that theyíre not good evidence.
By logical necessity, if theyíre right and their evidence is, in fact, good Ė then Iím wrong. And vice versa. Unfortunately it looks like I wonít be able to get Neutral Chic to explain herself, it seems sheís not interested in continuing the conversation. But she did thank me for my civility in responding, so thatís nice.
Anyway, Iíve also been getting more blowback regarding the so called Golden Flyer. Itís stuff weíve heard before, but I want to briefly address some of it. Garbageface writes:
The gold thing, whatever it is, looks a lot more like an airplane than it does any living thing that I can think of. Isn't it a glider? What else needs stabilizer fins like that? It could be a cross between a fish and a bird, but ancient peoples don't often forget to put faces on their depictions of creatures.
Doesnít this show what a good job the documentary people did of shooting this object from obscuring angles? Garbageface argues that if this was a creature, it would have a face Ė heís completely oblivious to the fact that it actually does have a face. A very clear and intentional face, which Iíve pointed out before. Check out the show notes at pod13.dumbassguide.info for an image.
I believe the fact that the Ancient Aliens camera always shows the object at an angle that obscures its face was intentional. I think they knew that if people saw that face it would weaken their case, so they used camera trickery to hide this very relevant fact from their audience. Thatís highly deceptive, and in my book, it counts as a big honking lie. And it worked, as Garbageface has clearly demonstrated.
Ancient Alien proponents, if youíre honest and believe that your ideas deserve to be taken seriously, then you should absolutely be against this kind of deception. You should be the people speaking out the most against this Ancient Aliens show. Many of you have even agreed with me that a lot of the stuff they say is ridiculous. If youíre convinced that this hypothesis has valid things to say that deserve to be taken seriously, then you should be red hot with anger that this show is making a mockery of these ideas.
That is unless you think that this is all just frivolous brainstorming and not to be taken seriously. And if thatís the case, then why are you taking ME so seriously?
And as to the point that it looks like an airplane, I get that a lot. Neutral Chic even went there:
The model plane figurines do in fact look like airplanes to ME!
Well, great. Iíve answered this criticism before, so I wonít go into too much detail now, except to mention that I have a picture of an apple that has grown into a shape resembling a womanís genitals. Thatís right, itís a vagina apple. I will include this picture in the show notes at pod13.dumbassguide.info. I think itís abundantly clear that this appleís resemblance to a vagina is far more striking than the resemblance of the golden flyer to a fighter jet. I will also include an image comparing the Golden Flyer to an actual figurine of a jet fighter.
The apple vagina, or ďappleginaĒ as I like to call it, clearly bears a strong resemblance to a vagina and buttocks. Do I think that this resemblance means anything? No, of course not. These kinds of things just happen. Pervert that I am, I also have a picture of a rock formation that looks like a vagina, as well as a rock formation that looks like a penis. Thereís also an iceberg that looks like a penis, and many other assorted genital shaped items. If your argument is ďit looks like XĒ, where X is airplane, genitals, or what have you, then you donít have an argument.
And with the thoughts of various genitals on our minds, I think I can bring this segment to a close. Thereís more stuff I could say, but this is already going on long. The rest of it is either stuff Iíve already talked about, blatant misunderstandings of what I said, or challenges to refute other claims that Iíve never looked into. But people seem to enjoy these email segments so maybe Iíll save some of it for another time.
Donít forget my contest, send me your fake paranormal pictures and tell me how you created them, you may get a prize. And if youíre thinking of starting a podcast and have no idea how to do it, send me a message at EMAIL. I can help you out, and if youíd like I can even make things easy on you by providing you with a web presence as part of my Dumbass Media Empire. And make sure to check out my new friend Chris Webber, AKA C-Webb on the Atheist Social Worker podcast, now a proud member podcast of the Dumbass Media Empire.
Thank you very much for listening. Please give me a five star review on iTunes, and follow me on twitter where Iím @DumbassMedia. Check out all of my other Dumbass Media Empire productions at dumbassmedia.info, including my new friend Chris Webberís Atheist Social Worker podcast. Emails can be sent to EMAIL, which can also be used to send me PayPal donations Ė three hundred dollars a month, itís all I ask! And if youíre looking to start a new skeptical podcast and need some help, please let me know. My theme music is My Monkey by Jonathan Coulton. Check him out at jonathancoulton.com. Thanks for listening, and Iíll see you next time on the Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge!