Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is hilarious. In the video below, this woman sees a rainbow in the water of her lawn sprinkler and concludes that the government must be doing something to make it happen. Something must be "oozing out of our ground" and it's a new phenomenon to her. "This cannot be natural. We all know it wasn't something that happened 20 years ago, but now it's happening now. We as a nation have to ask ourselves, what the hell is going on?" What's going on is that you're an ignoramus.
Turns out that the woman has a whole bunch of these on Youtube. She seems to be a lunatic. She's convinced that HAARP - High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - is in control of everything, changing the planet and controlling the world. Fairly standard conspiracy theory stupidity.
Politics
Comments
I have to say I'm a little uneasy with the general internet hilarity over this woman - it seems to may that she may in fact have serious mental health problems e.g. paranoid schizophrenia.
Also, firsties!
Posted by: Philbert | August 13, 2008 9:36 AM
It's hard to tell whether the woman is genuinely mentally ill or not. She seems to spend a lot of time filming perfectly mundane events around her house (rainbows in sprinklers, the moon, sunlight at sunset, etc) and being utterly flabbergasted by them. "The sunlight is shining from behind the moon??? That could never happen! This is totally new! The only explanation is a government conspiracy!"
It's odd behavior, but I don't know if it's a sign of mental illness. It could just be a rather extreme manifestation of the universal human tendency to see ghosts in everything, and interpret every trivial event as being highly significant, ignoring more plausible (but less exciting) explanations.
Posted by: Wes | August 13, 2008 9:42 AM
It's funny online because we're out of her reach as she furtively grasps passersby in an attempt to warn them of the danger right in front of their eyes but only she can see.
For a really good laugh, somebody should show her the side of a white building where they use bore water for the lawns.
Posted by: tincture | August 13, 2008 9:42 AM
Never Ending Thrist would be a good name for a band.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 13, 2008 9:44 AM
Have not watched these yet.
She has not read her Bible -- it was God, of course, not the government, who made the rainbow, as a symbol of his covenant with us to never again destroy the world by flood. Had she been spraying her lawn pre-Noachian Flood, voila: no rainbow!
God can apparently change light refraction laws on a whim.
Posted by: TikiHead | August 13, 2008 9:46 AM
I am inclined to call Poe on this one guys, I find it hard to believe that people can be that stupid, after all she was able to find the REC button on the camera
Posted by: Oskar | August 13, 2008 10:00 AM
I would think this was a joke (Poe) if I didn't know a couple of people who were right on the edge of this kind of thinking.
As an aside, I love's her use's of apostrophe's.
Posted by: dkw | August 13, 2008 10:05 AM
There is a famous scientific paper from 1672 in which Isaac Newton describes rainbows on the walls of his college room in Trinity College Cambridge, was this also a government conspiracy?
Posted by: Thony C. | August 13, 2008 10:09 AM
Good grief, I remember seeing rainbows in sprinklers when I was a kid (ie. 40+ years ago). Seems like this pathetic woman only just opened her eyes and started *looking* at the world.
And it frightens her half to death.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 13, 2008 10:26 AM
She's the anti-erv.
Posted by: chris | August 13, 2008 10:30 AM
It's definitely a case of Poe's law, in that it is impossible to determine whether this lady is serious or joking. Sadly, there are enough genuine nutcases around (http://www.whale.to/) that her nuttery is believeable.
The truly frightening thing is that this lady not only has the ability to reproduce, but, in all probability, she's going to VOTE.
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 13, 2008 10:38 AM
Posted by: llewelly | August 13, 2008 10:41 AM
It's definitely a sign of mental illness, though not one that has diminished her ability to function in the real world so far. There's plenty of people like this: obviously bats, but still able to pay their bills and avoid getting locked up.
Speaking of harmless loonies, how long before the troofers jump on this and try to link HAARP technology to 9/11?
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 13, 2008 10:46 AM
Early in the clip, the woman says (or say's): "I'm just wondering what the heck is in our water supply, what's in our oxygen supply."
Has anyone considered the possibility that someone has pretended to sell her "oxygen" that's really some entirely different and more interesting gas?
Posted by: konrad_arflane | August 13, 2008 10:53 AM
Indeed. Twenty years later this has become rather prodominant.
Posted by: Jesse | August 13, 2008 11:23 AM
That was caused by the fluorination, which was one phase of the same conspiracy this bright woman has stumbled upon. They were able to shift suspicion to the commies. But it was in fact the same folks as the ones behind HAARP that initiated the plot. However, the conspiracy is larger than she thinks. HAARP is just one tentacle of the beast. They are tasked with civil subversion and control.
Another is CARET, the R&D arm of the organization. Have you never wondered why, after thousands of years of slow technological advance there has been a sudden explosion of discovery? Did we suddenly evolve the ability to innovate at a dramatically increased pace? That would be ludicrous. No, your safe sane world is an illusion. But you won't accept what I'm saying. HAARP has made sure of that.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 13, 2008 12:08 PM
I've been lurking quite a bit recently at the Indigo Society forums. It's astonishing the amount of conspiracy theory, scientific illiteracy, and sheer gullibility that are on display...alongside a peculiar arrogance. You see, these "indigos" regard themselves as intellectually superior to ordinary humans - some think they are actually from space - yet they have trouble composing a paragraph that is not nearly grammatically and orthographically incoherent.
Believe me, this woman would fit right in there. She is definitely not some lone nut. A nut, sure, but not alone.
Posted by: Open Threat | August 13, 2008 12:35 PM
"God can apparently change light refraction laws on a whim."
Some creationist on Panda's Thumb actually agreed with this when I pointed out it's a necessary consequence of a literal interpretation of that bit of the Bible (actually, I also offered no rain before the flood as a joke). So then I asked him if God also changed the lenses in everyone's eyes at the same time.
It was a really interesting insight into that kind of religious apologist. He kept leaping from one hypothetical explanation of a particular inconsistency to the next, never thinking through what they would entail in other contexts if true, and how each hypothesis relates to the next. Everything was taken in isolation, compartmentalised. Why were there no rainbows before the flood, given that rainbows are a result of the refraction of light? Maybe there was no antediluvial rain. So what about the plants? Maybe they didn't need water. So why doesn't the Bible mention the massively changed physiology of the natural world? Where did desert animals get their water? Etc.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 13, 2008 12:44 PM
Ginger Yellow -
Didn't the water simply come up from the wells of the deep, bubbling up like Jed Clampett's crude?
Posted by: Dave S. | August 13, 2008 12:52 PM
We weren't talking about the water for the flood, rather the water for the rainbow after the flood.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 13, 2008 2:15 PM
Paging Dr. Newton! Paging Dr. Newton!
Posted by: Skwee | August 13, 2008 3:02 PM
I call fake.
Posted by: jur | August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
Dave S., God also opened holes in the Sky and let water through from the ocean above the sky.
Genesis 7:11-12
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | August 13, 2008 4:57 PM
Oskar, dkw and Blaidd Drwg-
I'm not sure Poe's law applies to this situation. I thought Poe was reserved for religious fundies?
Anyway, as far as I can tell she is clearly not joking. I suppose there is a tiny chance this is a put-on, but I've got a highly tuned B.S. detector and this lady sounds like an authentic kook to me. Even though these videos are not religious in nature, she does remind me of Shirley Phelps.
On the other hand, I had to resist violating Formosa's law and not leave an provacative comment on her YouTube page that Ed linked to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa's_law
Posted by: Dirk Diggler | August 13, 2008 4:57 PM
I went to that site you linked to, and Jesus-Smokin'-Shitballs, are those people crazy! Check this out:
These new age moonbats are worse than creationists when it comes to pulling "facts" out of their asses.
I'll have to return to that site from time to time for a good laugh.
Posted by: Wes | August 13, 2008 5:18 PM
Yea, Indigo Society got a bookmark from me too. Turns out I'm an indigo-crystal-dolphin-starseed child in denial. Who knew? Thanks Open Threat.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 13, 2008 5:38 PM
Is it just me, or do ALL of these batshit crazy, end-of-the-world groups JUST HAPPEN to arise, right before their own prophecy is about to come true?
LL Reasearch, Nancy Leider, Jim McCanney, the Seventh-Day Adventists, Heaven's Gate, Jim Jones, the modern "Rapture Rooters", etc..
Sort of embarrassing, though when the EOTW doesn't happen, and the followers are left standing arond, unless the leaders 'arrange' to have the followers taken out just at the moment of their own version of armegeddon - (and 'arm - a - geddon tired of it) Of course, for the TRUE believers, when the EOTW doesn't happen, it just shows:
1. The calculations were imprecise
2. Intercessory prayer 'spared' humanity, so the TBs can continue the work
TBs NEVER appear to get the message that they are following a false prophet - who is usually in the game for real profits...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 13, 2008 5:58 PM
BTW, Open Threat, wasn't Jenny McCarthy's kid an 'indigo' before those nasty vaccinations turned him into an autistic?...
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 13, 2008 6:01 PM
Okay, okay, just because I'm feelin' a TAD contrary and simultaneously hyperrational, I'd be willing to accept her claims that she didn't notice these rainbows so well 20 years ago, but not for the reasons she claims.
See, 20 years ago, this type of fine-mist water sprinkler wasn't nearly as much as in vogue as it is nowadays. It was mostly the old spinning-arm things, or the oscillating bar beasties -- both of which produce much larger droplets in discrete streams, rather than fine sheets of mist.
So, sure, she may not have seen them 20 years ago -- that doesn't mean her reasons for why aren't totally 'round the bend....
Posted by: G Barnett | August 13, 2008 6:01 PM
Oh, wow. I'd completely forgotten about the Indigo children. Thanks. Jon Ronson (very good British journo who wrote a book on conspiracy theorists) did a hilarious article on them a couple of years ago.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | August 13, 2008 6:03 PM
Blaidd Drwg:
"TBs NEVER appear to get the message that they are following a false prophet - who is usually in the game for real profits..."
Or they become comparatively quieter when they actually do get the message, and slink away without fanfare.
Posted by: Escuerd | August 13, 2008 6:31 PM
The aliens are real, and still threaten this planet. "Bob" can protect you from the chemicals in the water and the mind-rasy, all for a simple donation of $30 and your soul.
See http://www.subgenius.com for details.
Posted by: Paul Murray | August 14, 2008 2:37 AM
I have to give my props to Jon Ronson. "Them: Adventures with Extremists" and "The Men who Stare at Goats" re two of the coolest books I've read in the last few years.
And rainbows are an amazing natural phenomenon. Did you know that no two people have ever seen the same rainbow? Rainbows aren't "out there" in the sky the way heliocopters and airplanes are. If two people standing near each other looking at a rainbow were to plot their lines of sight to the highest point of the rainbow, their lines of sight would be parallel. This is different than if they were looking at an airplane where their lines of sight would converge. Each sees his own unique railbow. conditions for seeing rainbows exist, but each of us enters into our own relationship with water droplets and a light source. Cameras can enter into these relationships too. I'm not bring any subjective woo into this.
There is no such place as over the rainbow. If you were transported to a place symmetrically opposite where you were relative to the rainbow you saw and looked back toward where you used to be, you would not see a rainbow. You might see a rainbow elsewhere if conditions were right, but you could never look back at the same raibow you saw before because rainbows are not "out there"; Each instance of observing a rainbow is a unique relationship between an observer, a light source, and water droplets.
There's no end of the rainbow either. If you move toward the apparent end of a rainbow you will see new and more distant rainbows until you come to a position where experienceing rainbows is no longer possible. I think our predecessors who spent more time outdoors got things somewhat right when they used "over the ranbow" to mean nowhere and talked of pots of gold at the end of rainbows. These expressions suggest that they had at least a hint that rainbows weren't really out there.
I think souls are like rainbows. Souls aren't some kind of unified mystical soul-stuff, they are like a rainbow, a relationship between seperated physical states and events. The most important part of our soul phenomena is in our brains and bodies, but our souls are not entirely in our brains and bodies. In my soul I have a mental state of believing that the moon is not made of green cheese. This mental state has the property of being true. It should be clear that the truth of my believing the moon is not merely a fact about the material properties of my brain, but is instead a relationship between the entirely properties of my brain and the entirely physical (no woo here again) facts of the matter about the way the moon actually *is*. If the moon were in fact made of cheese I would be *wrong*.
And just like a rainbow, my soul can die. If the winds carry the storm away or the rotation of the earth shifts the sun to the wrong angle, I will no longer experience my rainbow. If my brain is severly injured or my body becomes too weak, I can no longer enter into the the relationships with the world I once could and my soul is gone even if my heart still beats.
I know some of you will object to my use of the term "soul" as it is too bound up with dualistic mysticism. But ancient writers used "Anima" and "Psyche" without fear even though those terms were just as woo-laden to some in their own times. It's time for modern materilasts to reclaim the soul.
Posted by: Bacopa | August 14, 2008 3:06 AM
Bacopa,
But the pot of gold at the end the end of the rainbow...thats' still real, right?
Posted by: Dave S. | August 14, 2008 9:23 AM
Not true, Bacopa. I saw the end of a rainbow once, it was in the back of some Ute parked in Adelaide, South Australia.
The guy who got in and drove away in it may or may not have been a Leprechaun. Now I'm not saying he was, but the back of the Ute was covered, which is rather suspicious. Surely if there was no pot o' gold in their he wouldn't have bothered to put a cover on, would he?
Posted by: tincture | August 14, 2008 9:56 AM
Bacopa: I think the term you're looking for is "emergent phenomenon."
Posted by: ebohlman | August 14, 2008 1:22 PM
Not exactly an emergent phenomenon, but close. The viscosity of a liquid is an emergent property of electric attractions between molecules. Well it's more complicated that that, but that's close enough. You might also say that mental states and properties are emergent phenomena that develop from brain activity. I think that's on the right track, very important, but incomplete. Mental states like beliefs can be true or false. The truth or falsity of a belief is a relationship between what's inside my brain and the facts of the matter about the world. Thus some properties of my mind are not inside my head.
I think the correct technical term for what I'm talking about is "wide supervenience".
Posted by: Bacopa | August 14, 2008 2:56 PM
Bacopa, while vacationing in Hawaii, my children and I did see a rainbow that seemed to end in the water, about 200 ft. away from us. Was this a type of optical illusion?
Posted by: trog69 | August 15, 2008 4:35 PM
I'm not a Bacopa, but I'll play one on TB (The Blog not tuberculosis). Here's a great explanation of how rainbows work. It's not too long. Take a look, then you can decide for yourself whether or not what you saw was an optical illusion.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 15, 2008 4:55 PM