Misconceptions About MENSA - They Exist In Abundance

Over the years as a Mensa  (as well as Intertel) member,  I've encountered so many misconceptions - expressed as opinions or misgivings in different settings - that it's difficult to keep count. Below,  I've  tried to distill each misconception into the form of a question and then either allow it to be addressed by some original author (e.g. in a cited source like Mensa Bulletin, or Intertel Integra) or by myself


Question: If you're so smart, then why aren't you rich?

This one was addressed by a letter writer in the February, 2002 issue of the Mensa Bulletin
--------
The things that our society rewards monetarily are at odds with the sensibilities of many intelligent people. In other words, I know what makes money, and I don't agree with it on a moral or a personal basis. Increasingly, our society rewards a select few who produce concrete products or processes while leaving less concrete producers in the dust. An example is the fact that a college professor who helps to produce businessmen makes less money than any of his students when they finish.

Making money requires a specific type of creativity that is not inherent in intelligence. In order to make money, one must have a product or service to sell. Many intelligent people are operationally intelligent; they are good at the big picture. This does not, however, ensure any specific knowledge of any subject that can be turned into a product or service. One may be brilliant at knowing how to run a company, yet have no clue what to sell.

I think that many intelligent people see keenly the problems that our focus on money can create. Therefore, for better or worse, some react by developing a distaste for money, seeing it as a sign of greed or materialism. Some, I believe, actively avoid making money, though it is probably unconscious to them.

Intelligence is a distraction. Intelligent people have many interests besides their job. Therefore, they may not want to focus as wholeheartedly on their job. Often these interests are esoteric and totally removed from making money.

That's just a few of the patterns I've noticed with myself. Ironically, I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I have wanted to find a business partner to complement the skills that I have. I have good operational abilities, but I am not one to invent a product on my own. Given the proper partner, however, I feel I could help shape the idea and be instrumental in making it work in the market. I actually have spoken with one member in my local group about this, but I am very interested in forming an entrepreneurs' group where some of us can get together and discuss how to make money together in a constructive and moral way.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: I already know I'm super smart so why would I want to join Mensa?  Just to show off?

This is a commonplace misperception on why people join Mensa. (Including that we all want to "show off" as part of a "brain club".) Not so!  We join to find fellowship with other intelligent people by way of shared interests, and shared aptitudes and potential, including use of language. Studies have found, for example, that even a 15 point difference in I.Q. can make it extremely difficult  to communicate with others - whether siblings, or members of other clubs that one may belong to.  If the difference is 25 points or greater, the communication gap becomes nearly impossible to surmount.

The 'normals'  will either find you "elitist", too "smart alecky" for your own good, or an insufferable bore or pedant. In other words, they will inevitably react with distrust based on a misperception that you just want to lord it over them and make them out to be dummies. This chasm can be even greater, for example, if you also excelled academically in high school, but none of your siblings did. (In this case, bear in mind we are looking at achievement not aptitude).

As for a person being convinced he or she is "super smart" and not having to join an I.Q. society to prove it, so be it. But bear in mind until you actually show evidence of that, you may be misled. On the other hand, if you have taken an aptitude test in the past (ACT, SAT or GRE) that shows you meet Mensa levels of acceptance, e.g. 1250 total for the GRE, then indeed you are quite justified not joining to "prove" anything. But again I remind readers we aren't joining to validate braininess per se but rather to find others who share our brain power with whom we can more easily communicate or interact without misunderstandings.

Question: If you're such a genius, why haven't you invented or created something remarkable?

First, Mensa acceptance - upper 2 percent of  scores in intelligence tests- is not at genius level (at least I.Q. 145) but 130. This is not to say that proven geniuses aren't members of Mensa, but rather the acceptance standard is not at genius level.  It is at a very gifted level.

As for not inventing something remarkable this again harks back to the original answer to Q. 1 on why many smart people aren't also rich. That is, we aren't necessarily focused on making money (we see it as a tool rather than end in itself) nor are we focused on creating or making a product. We often have so many diverse interests, multiple distractions,  that we can't muster the focus needed for a unique or original creation. Back to the original answer, we can often make a contribution if we have the right partner to work with - for example one whose practical expertise complements our abstract insights. Or one who is expert at marketing and public relations to neutralize our aversion to selling because of social anxiety.

Question: Why do you smart asses think you're experts at everything?

Well, because we are interested in everything! We feel if we can read and learn about a subject we can achieve a certain level of competence and even expertise to write about it. We can't help it if "Densans" don't feel as curious about as many different subjects, or are too lazy (or uninterested) to write about them or develop an expertise. That is their problem, not ours, but it gets to the core of why an I.Q. gap really does exist and leads to misunderstandings between people - even siblings.

At the same time there is such a phenomenon as mistaken expertise or inflated expertise which is very typical of Mensa, as well as Intertel members. Thus, because a person belongs to Mensa or Intertel he or she may believe they are qualified to expound on any subject, whether global warming, the financial crash of 2008, or the JFK assassination - without doing the heavy lifting (in research) before opinionating.

Again, a highly intelligent (or any)  person is qualified to expound on whatever s/he wants  IF they do the necessary background reading, research. If they don't they aren't.  The point made here is that special credentials (or even appointments) are not necessary to achieve expertise in a subject.

Question: How come so few Mensans have college degrees?

This appears to have arisen as a casual perception at some anti-Mensa websites, but without supplying any supporting data. But at the root of the question is confusion between aptitude and achievement. This also goes to the heart of why the SAT and GRE are no longer accepted as valid entry qualifying tests for Mensa or Intertel any longer. In a word, because these are now achievement  tests and not aptitude tests. Dr Abby Salny perhaps elucidated the differences best in the March, 1994 issue of the Mensa Bulletin (p. 9) in response to a reader's question on why the ACT and SAT  were no longer accepted as qualifying evidence for Mensa:

"The ACT went to content mastery testing some time ago. That means they were measuring learned knowledge and achievement. The SAT has not only changed to content achievement but has even changed its name from the Scholastic Aptitude Test to the Scholastic Achievement Test. The Medical College test has also gone content-oriented with two major sections, Physical Sciences and Biology.

Mensa's Constitution says 'IQ test or equivalent'. This means we can take a test that measures learning aptitude, but not a test that measures exclusively what has been taught in school. The whole purpose of Mensa was not to reward high scholastic achievement but to recognize intellectual giftedness. The two are not synonymous. "

In like manner, Mensa recognized from early that requiring a university degree did not jibe with the divergence of definition in respect to intellectual giftedness and achievement. Hence, one could attain high scholastic achievement, get a college degree, but still not have convincingly showed intellectual aptitude - which is different as Dr. Salny points out.  Thus, Mensa membership includes a diverse array of people, many of whom lack any college degrees - but their performance (say on the Mensa test) qualifies them for entry.

Let me also remark here that it is precisely the typical Mensan's learning aptitude that makes him or her a prime candidate to expound on a variety of topics that may not be peculiar to his primary specialty. Because he has the potential to learn about new things he will be enabled to put it into practice and write about those things, unlike the "normal" who - never having been versed in high finance (credit default swaps, bond market, CMOs, etc.) - would rather demur.


Question: If you guys are so bright, why aren't you better behaved?

Well, because intellectual aptitude and morality (including ethical behavior) are two different spheres of human life. Hence, we will - like any club or demographic - have our share of felons, porn stars and others  -even those with disagreeable temperaments. We are not a society of saints, after all, or monks. Intellect then, can function in many ways and that is one reason Mensa is clear to assert it embraces no particular political or religious stance either.


Question: Isn't it kind of dumb to have to pass a test to qualify for membership in a high IQ society then pay a yearly membership fee to stay in?

No one "has to pass" any test and it might surprise you to know most Mensa members qualify for membership simply on the basis of a past aptitude test like the SAT or GRE. (In my case a 1330 total on the GRE).  Others, yes, if they have no aptitude test to validate qualification must take the Mensa entry exam.  But again, no one is twisting anyone's arm to join, people do it of their own volition.

Paying dues is not a biggie either, given any club needs money to support its activities. This is a literal no brainer. In Mensa's case, dues not only support The Mensa Bulletin, but the research of the Mensa Foundation as well as Annual Gatherings (AGs). Again, this is no different from any other organization, including the American Astronomical Society and American Mathematical Society to which I also belong.

Alas, as long as there are people who hold grudges against Mensa for any reason, including failing to make the cut, see e.g. https://psmag.com/i-failed-a-mensa-test-twice-dcc5c1e4163d#.o71cnduyu

there will be sore losers and whiners, as well as sour grapes appeals. It goes with the territory! Those who'd like to try a small quiz to get the flavor for the sort of questions asked on the actual test can go here:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-01-04/entertainment/8902220824_1_typists-chickens-eggs

 To access the Mensa practice test go to this link:

https://www.us.mensa.org/join/mht/
 

Mensa: Is It Really Full of Vicious Boors?

A year ago I noted the horrific attacks on a fellow Mensan, Michelle, featured on the cover of a Mensa Bulletin Issue  (see graphic) with her tats in  full view. In the wake of the cover image, she was mercilessly pilloried- mainly by older Mensans and some of the remarks can be read here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/older-mensans-ought-to-be-smarter-than.html


This again elicited the question of whether Mensans are just plain vicious boors or it it was an age thing. Some further clarity arrived with the essay 'Let It Go', by Ellen Voie, appearing in the Nov/Dec issue of the Bulletin, p. 12. Interestingly, the sub-header was: 'Civilizing Blunt Communication Among Mensans'.  Voie, while noting the dangers of stereotyping "because Mensa members have so little in common",  also observed:

"However, there is one thing I have noticed from this highly intelligent group of individuals. They are very blunt. I thought about using the word 'candid' or even 'frank' but blunt works better."

She then delivered a few examples, including:

- When one member or other was trying to deliver a Power Point presentation at a Mensa event and people immediately began pointing out typos, shouting "You misspelled a word!"

 - In the Bulletin Letters section, instead of disagreeing with a concept or idea, it is suggested that other writers are idiots (or morons)

-At other events when a person expresses some further interest in a topic already covered, or asks what is construed as an unnecessary question,  detractors call for a Mensa "re-test." This is taken to be the ultimate insult one Mensan can hurl at another.

My own battles against fellow Mensans (Evan and Jon Wright) were well documented in the Bulletin and also in letters back and forth where I flatly called the pair "high grade morons" after Evan J. Wright asserted that I was "writing nonsense" because I noted the much higher absorption of CO2 in the oceans. According to Wright: "That's preposterous! If the oceans absorbed carbon dioxide they'd all turn into carbonated liquid, or soda pop! Does anyone see that? NOOO!"

Jon Wright - proving the apple never falls far from the tree- then defended his pop calling me the "moron" and belching I needed a "re-test". Meanwhile, his pop went off again, in the Jan. 3rd, 2012 Wall Street Journal letters (understandable given the WSJ is firmly anti-global warming) babbling:

"Having studied this subject for about 50 years from a research engineer's viewpoint and having read hundreds of articles and scientific reports during this time, I must say that sunspots are probably a factor, more so than Earth's elliptical orbit..."

It was hard not to roll on the floor laughing at this bollocks, all in an effort to escape anthropogenic global warming.

Strangely, neither Wright could explain the increasing acidity of the oceans when pressed, though any scientifically literate citizen would grasp that the world's oceans have about 30% higher acidity as a result of the chemical reaction: H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3, in other words, the production of carbonic acid. Which shows that merely because one belongs to Mensa doesn't mean he or she knows diddly or can argue coherently.

Back to Voies' plea, she wrote - invoking the song 'Let it go' from the flick Frozen:

"The next time you disagree with another Mensan's opinion, don't challenge his or her character, just question the facts. If you see a typo on a slide don't be in a race to point it out. We know it's there and are trying to ignore it for the presenter's sake.  The next time you find yourself questioning someone's intelligence when they ask a question, let it go."

Well, how about if they claim in a Bulletin letter the oceans would "turn to soda pop" if CO2 was absorbed? Can I call them morons then?

Anyway, while her advice is understandable it is doubtful Mensans will suddenly turn into polite members of the Socratic Debate Society anytime soon. And we aren't all 'goodie two shoes' good guys merely because we belong to Mensa either. As Thomas de Shazo writes in the most recent issue of Intertel's * Integra:

"One reason we are not dedicated to benevolence with our heady resources is that no moral compass attaches to high IQ. We have our full share of petty thieves, Wall Street class criminals as well as Ted Bundy types. 'Evil' is as randomly linked with genius as with dunce."

Indeed, and boorishness and nasty language too, can attach to those of us in high IQ societies as well as any other organizations. Which leads to another deShazo observation:

"There is not much correlation between high IQ and consistent good sense. Every one of us strays off the reservation with a really stupid act once in a while."

Having said all that, let's be clear not all Mensans are vicious boors, even a majority. One of the most delightful evenings wifey and I spent was ten days ago, attending the local Mensa Holiday Party which also featured a "White Elephant Gift Exchange".  In that fun event members each bring a gift they no longer want, valued between $15 and $25 and put it in a pile then each randomly draws a number from a bowl. Number 1 goes first and selects a wrapped gift from the pile and must open it before the group. Number 2 can either do the same or grab the gift (if they like it) from Number 1. This goes through all the numbers until the last person, who can either pick the last gift or grab someone else's. Wifey and I each brought a book we'd already read, and no longer wanted, and we ended up with a bottle of Cabernet wine from another couple. (Actually I grabbed it first, then the guy took it back 15 numbers down, then after wifey's Bailey's was snatched, she used her late ticket to snatch the wine back- by which time no further exchanges of the item were allowed - two max.)

None of the 44 odd people misbehaved, insulted another (say because a gift they prized was grabbed) or delivered obnoxious jokes. We all had a great time, but also perhaps because the subjects of politics, religion or phony science never reared their ugly heads.

-----
* Intertel is the next IQ society up from Mensa, for which one must place in the top 1 percent of IQ test scores, as opposed to the top 2 percent.

The Liabilities of Intellect: More Pervasive Than You Think

It is very nearly an axiom that higher IQ people prevail and are most successful in multiple domains, from academia to business and politics. But this is not necessarily so, as pointed out by Dr. Steven Mason in his article 'Let's Get Dumb' in the most recent Intertel Integra (October, p. 26). Mason, in about 5 pages,  shows that very often being smart isn't the asset so many believe, but an actual liability.

For example, as he observes, to have a reasonable chance of being elected, a Presidential candidate: "must either appear to be a dummy, or as  more often the case, be a dummy. Compare Woodrow Wilson to Ronald Reagan, for example. The first was a university president while the latter (often called the 'great communicator') was someone who even his staunchest supporters would hardly call brilliant."

Indeed, and who can ever forget Reagan asking on one occasion, of one of his Joint Chiefs, if "nuclear missiles launched from submarines can be recalled."

Uh no, Ronnie! Once fired they are on their way! Just in case you had a mind to get trigger happy with the Russkies.

Another canard to do with intellect often expressed in various forums, is a variation on the question: "If you're so smart why aren't you rich?"

The assumption here is if a person truly is a brain he or she ought to also be a rich brain. Why not? S/he ought to be able to outsmart everyone on the planet and make a bundle! Not quite. For one thing, we don't all aspire to be a Mark Zuckerberg who mostly swiped the code basis for Facebook from peers at Harvard - before he left that vaunted institution. Oh ok, he made some tweaks, but basically FB already existed in some form and Zuckerberg brought it a bit further. The idea for 'the Facebook', however, was not his originally.

Next, as Mason points out, in conjunction with this 'why aren't you rich' theme (p. 27):

"There are several reasons for this being the case. One is that employers don't especially like employees who are smarter than themselves. The result is that many of my friends belonging to high IQ societies wind up underemployed, working at jobs far below their potential."

Mason also notes that "kids hate those geeks who screw up the grading curve".  These kids, who aren't afraid to show their smarts are also the most victimized and bullied. No surprise then how back in 1978 my niece Vanessa expressed fear and shame at repeatedly outshining her classmates at St. Joseph Convent school in Trinidad, and asked advice. She was leaning to "dumbing down" her profile and being less conspicuous. I advised against it and told her to do it only if she felt it was critical to her ongoing emotional balance.

Perhaps the most provocative insight rendered by Dr. Mason concerns the communication gap between people of significantly different IQ. He writes (ibid.):

"It's been demonstrated, though not widely publicized in this PC culture, that complete and effective communication between those separated by more than fifteen IQ points is unlikely. It means there is no way, repeat NO WAY, that people with IQs of 115 are ever going to explain to people with IQs of 85 why it's important to graduate high school."

By the same token, it likely means a communication gap will exist between those of IQ 110-115 and those of Mensa or Intertel  IQ level (130-135) on matters of politics, including deep politics  (and I warrant most 115'ers don't even know what it means), science, philosophy, history and economics. The gap is simply too vast to be bridged. It therefore must not surprise us that many - say in discussing American history - will simply cite Larry Schweikart's "48 Liberal Lies" as opposed to entering an actual debate or argument with a person who possesses superior knowledge, insight. They have already ceded, by doing so, that they are not up to the challenge of intellectual engagement.

But taken at a more fundamental level, Mason's thesis indicates that the upper two or so IQ percentile of Americans will never be able to communicate effectively and completely with most of the rest of the population.  This gets most exposed in the political and elections domain. Again, the need of so many voters to base their choices on atmospherics and optics ("Is he a guy I can have a beer with?") is downright disheartening. It makes me want to scream, "No you dummy! Don't worry about the damned beer but what he can do in office!"

And again, Mason points this divergence out in comparing Bill Clinton to George Bush, while noting that the latter guy's followers "rarely refer to the selected hero's SAT scores".  He adds (ibid.):

"And who would have it otherwise with roughly half the voters having IQs below average (I know I am going to get letters from the mathematically challenged on that one!)"

And this surely explains many of the puzzling election results over the years, from electing Gee Dumbya Bush in 2000 (it shouldn't even have been close, though Al Gore did take the popular vote by over a half million), to the most recent farce that transpired Tuesday.  I refer to the following:

- Voters stupidly electing members of a party that: a) has the lowest approval rating ever (20%) and b) has not effected one single positive bit of legislation.

- Voters passing minimum wage ballot measures in five states, while at the same time electing Republican governors who are least likely to let them see the light of day.

I could go on and on, but a relevant point here concerns the general level of dumbing down of the electorate which, let's face it, must have something to do with Mason's observation of half being 'dummies' (below average intelligence).  This is critical given that misinformation in public life isn’t the exception, it’s the rule. This is according to a new study published in Social Science Quarterly  which employed a “knowledge distortion index” and looked at two competing explanations for why this is so — one top-down, the other bottom-up.  The researchers used three Washington state initiatives from the 2006 general election cycle to examine the dynamics of what is going on in this particular sort of political environment.

The study, “How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs,” found that “voters’ values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self-reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages played a surprisingly limited role,” despite the presence of significantly mistaken “facts,” which were used to help construct the knowledge distortion index.

But IQ and education level likely have a role too, and as Mason indicates (p. 28), 

"Only a relatively small percent of the voting population is educated beyond the required minimum."

Does this sound amazing to you? Does it really? Then back up and consider how many actually support nonsense like Ken Ham's contention that dinosaurs shared Noah's Ark. Quite apart from the fable nature of the Ark story, did any of these bozos consider how even two of each - Brontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus Rex- would sink the Ark? Hence the cover of Charles Pierce's book, 'Idiot America'.

But before you castigate these misguided folks, don't forget just as many are Larry Schweikart false history groupies and echo his zany, unhistorical claims, including that Reconstruction was still going on in the 1920s, and that the Pilgrims were Puritans (they were actually separatists), and also that it was a "lie" that the Indians bailed them out - providing enough food to eat for the first Thanksgiving (it wasn't). 

This elicits another question as to why Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are vastly more popular than say, Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes - to the point so many people can't even tolerate listening to or watching the latter while I can tolerate watching the former, although not for very long.  I suspect again, the answer inheres in Steve Mason's postulate concerning the 15 point IQ communication gap, i.e. Maddow and Hayes intellectually articulate positions which are going to be resonant only for those of IQ 115 or above (even leaving out any "liberal" overtones), while any dunderhead can listen to Limbaugh and get stoked, and most can also watch O'Reilly go into his histrionics and find abundant resonance. 

But the dismal take at the end is, as Mason points out, we are saddled with these lower IQ folks in perpetuity. They will keep on voting the way they have been and devil take the hindmost -or devil take America-  if they come out in 2016 in too high numbers.  They are unable, at root, to parse the way their own brains have been manipulated - by the likes of the Koch brothers and their phony Tea Party idiocy, or by Limbaugh,  O'Reilly or god forbid...Jim Inhofe - a total anti-global warming buffoon who now stands to inherit the environmental committee chair from Sen. Barbara Boxer.

From a high IQ woman, to a GOOP  27 IQ points behind her!  Meanwhile, some parting words from Dr. Mason:

"When taken in combination, the fact that high IQ humans are born less frequently and selected as world leaders less often, points toward a Space Age marked by a decrease in those same little gray cells that got us out of the Stone Age."

In other words, we all may still be here - planted on this little orb, having not spread our seed beyond - when that big, planet killer asteroid strikes. The 'dumb' dinosaurs had no way out when their killer asteroid struck 65 million years ago. But humans? Perhaps their excuse will be not enough bright people were generated to design the rockets to get us off world - as opposed to building rockets to deliver more nuclear bombs.

Why Does Every Manjack Think He's a Cosmology Expert?

It continues to mystify me how so many  - who likely have never even taken a basic astronomy course in their lives - believe they are qualified to write about cosmology or the universe at large, including cosmic expansion. . In the most recent example,   Lawrence Edward Bodkin, Sr. (Intertel Integra, April, pp. 10-11),   propounds a curious conjecture concerning the basis of the spectroscopic red shift as it applies to the expanding universe. While he basically gets the Doppler principle of spectral shifts correct, i.e.  “a shift to the red means an object is receding from us, a shift to the blue means it is approaching”, he falls down in a number of other areas.

First, it is incorrect to refer to “galaxies” in the context of red shifts and indeed in terms of cosmic expansion. The reason is that the recessional velocities observed  which conform  to the Hubble law, e.g.

 

V = Hd

 

Where H is the Hubble constant, and d is the distance, only apply to galaxy clusters (the exception being quasars or quasi –stellar objects).  Thus, no independent or unbound galaxies occur from which reliable redshifts z can be obtained, all are found to be members of aggregates that are themselves gravitationally bound. (The exceptions to this constitute galaxies that have been ejected from their respective groups.) Within each such cluster the galaxy members can undergo blue shifts or red shifts, depending on the reference point from which the observation is made. But it is critical to grasp that these individual galaxy spectral shifts within clusters have no bearing on cosmic expansion.

As an example, our Local Group features at least 35 distinct member galaxies which the interested reader can find listed in Table 2.1 of the excellent monograph, The Galaxies of the Local Group, by Sidney van den Bergh.  The members include: The Milky Way, M31 (Andromeda galaxy), and the Large and Small Magellanic clouds.

When one peruses the individual data for the individual members of the Local Group, one finds for example, a radial velocity for the Triangulum galaxy of (V(r) = -181 km/ sec) cf. Table 5.1, which denotes a blue shift indicating velocity of approach, born out by the negative sign of V(r)> On the other hand, when one consults the data table (6.1)  for the Large Magellanic Cloud, one finds V(r) = +275 km/ sec  indicating a recessional velocity and red shift.

Again, the point is that within a given galaxy cluster a member can have either a blue shift or red shift depending on the vantage point from which observed.  The key concept to bear in mind is that these have no bearing on the Hubble law and do not figure into cosmic expansion.

Second, Mr. Bodkin’s preoccupation with “viewing angle” only has reference to the interior of a galaxy cluster, and again, what angle the observed member galaxy occurs in relation to the point of the one doing the observation. It has no bearing from the cosmological perspective because all “viewing angles” are the same.

Since the expansion is one of space as well as time, there is no preferred reference frame for the expansion, so Earth is only one vantage point by which to arrive at the Hubble law. A fairly good analogy to invoke is that of an inflating balloon with ink dots on its surface. As you inflate the balloon each of the dots moves away from its neighbors, analogous to how galactic clusters move away from each other in the real cosmos. However, as can be seen, NO single dot can be the center of said expansion.

If special viewing angles really existed, this would not be the case and one would find different recessional velocities at differing distances, rendering the Hubble law unusable. In addition, it is conceivable that the odd blue shifts would appear which we do not observe in terms of cosmological observations.

Third, there is no evidence at all the “blue shifted galaxies have constantly depleted in number and become additions to the number of red-shifted galaxies.” From the true cosmological perspective, not a single such “change” has been detected.

 

Fourth, Doppler-determined speeds approaching the speed of light (c = 300,000 km/ sec) need to be treated very carefully. In general, the red shift for the Hubble law, defined as:

z = v /c

is for the non-relativistic case. Thus, if  z = 0.2 then the recessional velocity is: v = 0.2c. n other words the object is moving away at one-fifth the speed of light. If the object’s recessional velocity is nearing the speed of light,  a different expression is needed:

v =   c [(z ² + 2z) / (z ² + 2z + 2)]

 

Bodkin Sr. also argues that the perception of special viewing angles has been part of human experience for "billions of years". But the fact is humans haven't even been around that long. The most generic form of anthropoid ape probably only existed from 1.6 million years ago at most - and I warrant they'd not have been concerned with the viewing angles of distant galaxies. Modern scientific man has arguably only existed since Galileo in the 17th century and his primary focus was on Jupiter and its moons, Saturn and sunspots.

It seems to me that those like Mr. Bodkin might better use their time to learn about cosmology - a difficult sub-discipline of astronomy - before they write long tracts about it!