Sparkman update

I still think Bill Sparkman was a strange bird, but it turns out I was mistaken in my suspicion that his death was a sex crime (or auto-erotic slip).  It was a suicide, staged to look like an anti-gubmint lynching so that his son might cash in on the insurance booty. That's the conclusion of state investigators, and I see no reason to doubt their diligence. In my defense, I never dismissed the possibility of suicide, though I did scoff, along with the Malkinite right, at the tea-party rage angle. It seemed ludicrous, and now we know why.

If you want to go double or nothing, I still think that Sarah Palin faked a pregnancy. I'm also calling bullshit on this story, which is obviously propped by facilitated communication hokum  — and I'm disposed to doubt every grisly detail of  the Pishtaco fat hustling caper. Set your Google alerts.

Not exactly what Robin Hanson has in mind, but I really wish there were a betting market for this shit.

Memento mori.


5 thoughts on “Sparkman update

  1. It’s easy to test. With the facilitator present, show veggie-dude pictures of random things — car, dog, butt-plug — and have him name them with her guidance. Bingo, bingo, bingo. Then have her leave the room and show him a control image — survey says: HELICOPTER. Bring her back in and wait for the excuses.

  2. Laureys says:
    “I showed him objects when I was alone with him in the room and then, later, with his aide, he was able to give the right answers…”
    If this is true, it should be simple enough to replicate under double-blind controls. No better way to dispose of the naysaying of skeptics “from afar” than to have James Randi conduct a videotaped test on-site. I’d be willing to chip in for airfare.
    One problem with stuff like this is that the reporting locks on a “hoax” narrative when it’s more likely to be an example of sincere self-deception and wishful thinking. That’s harder to understand, especially so because people assume that scientists are less easily deceived. But as James Randi often points out, scientific minds can be especially susceptible to suggestion precisely because they “think in a logical manner.” Whether intentional or unconscious, deception is most convincing when it plays on logical assumptions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *