http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/carriedevorah.html
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/devorah.html
Angels Over DC: The Correspondence
On December 9, 2004 I posted the following entry on my weblog:
Photojournalist Carrie Devorah was taking pictures of the lighting of the menorah in Washington DC on the first night of Hannukah. When she looked at the pictures later that night she noticed something strange. In three of the pictures she could see blue flashes in the sky. What are they? She thinks they're blue angels. And sure, why not. If a blurry face on a grilled cheese sandwich can be the Virgin Mary, why shouldn't two blue flashes in the sky be angels? On the other hand, they could be lights from a plane (National Airport is very near to where the menorah was being lit). Or maybe its some kind of weird reflection on the lens of the camera. Too bad for her that she can't sell the blue flashes on eBay.
A few days later I received an email from Carrie Devorah. Our entire, unedited correspondence follows:
From: carried@*******
Date: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:40 PM
To: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Subject: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Alex, it is more professional to contact the individual before posting a potentially slanderous note on the internet.
Please read the following.
I am receiving additional responses from scientific experts open minded as I am to what this may be. While they are referenced in the piece, I am more than comfortable to provide you with their contact details so you can verify for yourself the authenticity of their response.
Three raw images are available to anyone to look at. The accompanying piece might be of interest to you. And answer questions you chose to post in a defaming fashion on the global internet which opens ones self to litigation.
A possible consideration for the future, when you doubt someone, is come forward with an alternative possibility. In the meantime, a professional apology is forthcoming.
Sincerest Regards
Carrie Devorah
CCIA, DRS, MPI, CA-BSIS
Article Attached
From: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Date: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:44 PM
To: carried@*******
Subject: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Dear Carrie,
Thanks for contacting me with your concerns. If I misrepresented what you said or what you believe in any way, then I am very sorry for that, and I will post a correction.
However, as for my skepticism about the angelic quality of the blue flashes, I won't apologize for that. I can't apologize for that. My beliefs are what they are, and I don't believe in angels. I think it requires a leap of faith to conclude that blue flashes seen in a picture are angels, and I simply don't have that faith.
As for contacting you before I posted what I did, I actually would gladly have done so, but I didn't know your email address. I did google your name before I posted about your picture. However, I didn't come across your email address. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough.
I acknowledge that my post was a little sarcastic. A little cynical. But that's simply my writing style. I hope you won't take offense at that. As for the remark about selling the flashes on eBay, that's a running joke on my site, since I post frequently about odd things of a supposedly supernatural or spiritual nature sold on eBay.
Alex
From: carried@*******
Date: Monday, December 13, 2004 9:57 PM
To: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Subject: Re: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Alex, countless people wrote Joseph Fara. All emails are passed on to me and are responded to. Rather than telling readers what they arent, why not post the piece and seek input as to what they are. That is how mysteries are solved. As to faith, it is amazing what one gains when one loses. My life since my brother's murder, teaches me that daily. Google me. Visit www.goldbergmemorial.org. Look at the face of murder when you click on photos. Then consider being part of the solution rather than exacerbating the problem. Communicate. Positively.
Carrie
From: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 6:59 AM
To: carried@*******
Subject: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Dear Carrie,
By promoting skepticism and clear thinking I am part of the solution. I am communicating positively.
If people were to stop for a second and question things... question themselves... before assuming that they alone have 'God on their side' in whatever they choose to do, the world would be a far better place.
I'm glad that your faith provides you comfort. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. It's only when you start claiming that supernatural powers are actively at work in the world that I have a problem because I don't see any evidence for this.
As for speculating about what the flashes might be, quite a few people on my site have offered opinions about this. But no one thinks they're angels. I'm quite happy to post your views, if this is what you want.
Alex
From: carried@*******
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:23 AM
To: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Subject: Re: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Alex, I am a credentialed crime analyst. Clear thinking is only accomplished when one does due diligence. Speculating in the Internet Age is a game you may not be old enough to remember called Broken Telephone where millions of people will race to accept what they read is fact. I cite experts for their input. That is true skepticism. The other is irresponsible speculation which is dangerous in the wrongly named "Information Age."
And I ask people to contribute. I generate idea sharing and dialogue. That is clearly "thinking" to building a bridge towards positive communication. Exactly what you are doing contributed to murdering my brother and others like him. People allowed themselves to be influenced by incomplete thought.
Yes. Post our communications. Absolutely. And do what Joseph did, responsibly. Send me the pieces you want answers to, and I will take time, schedule allowing as I am due to travel for a month... part of which is to the Middle East to spend two weeks with 7 orphans whose dad is buried in the ground.
Carrie
To clarify my struggle to put faith before logic, here is my "alphabet soup."
DRS Dispute Resolution I am a trained conversation facilitator
BSIS carded with the California Bureau of Investigative Services Profiler
CCIA Certified Crime Information Analyst
MPI trained Master Private Investigator
From: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:53 AM
To: carried@*******
Subject: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Carrie,
Just to let you know. I posted our communications on my website. You can see them at this url:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/carriedevorah.html
Alex
From: carried@*******
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:28 AM
To: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Subject: Re: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Alex, you are awesome. Our dialoge being posted in its entirety by you is something to be proud of. I wish more people showed the couth you have by being open to opposite thought. And willing to bare it.
Well done.
I look forward to seeing where this pioneering step you took, takes us...
Best
Carrie
From: carried@*******
Date: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:52 PM
To: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Subject: Re: feature MIRACLE ON 15th STREET: Hannukah Angels
Alex, hi
I took a moment to read the responses.
One post'er asked when the photo was taken. Tuesday of last week. As the piece states, the first night of Hannukah.
A poster referenced Photoshop. The raw images are available for viewing. Any alteration in photoshop would be noticeable.
A post'er referenced mediation. The role of a mediator is to facilitate two sides to hear what the other is saying. Simpler said, to allow respective parties to adress a neutral party, ideally reducing anger that would be adressed to each other. This allows people to get to what's important and beyond hurt.
Accepting at face value the post'er who said credentials can be bought on line. I trained in Southern California and was instrumental in building the first discrete site crime analysis lab on a college campus.
As to being a religious fanatic. I went to synagogue on New Years. That was the first time in well over a decade. It was difficult. I have not been back since. Going to temple 3 times a day or 5 depending on what religion a person is, does not constitute religious in my way of feeling. To me being religious is best represented in what someone does- respect, consistency of kindness, positive outlooks and deeds. Respect, too.
Do I rule out options as to what the blue images are? Not at all. Ideally what could have been contributed were results of searches readers might still contribute rather than opting to rely on personal speculation as an easy alternative to fact.
As for awesome. While individuals who host sites can decide not to open communications publicly, Alex did. That is to be commended.
To the post'ers referencing murder in the fashion my brother died being difficult. It is. Dying because of hate, an irrational act does not make sense. Especially when I am trained to make sense, and assist people to work together. Through his community I have accepted the reality we had him for 41 years. Which is a gift. Considering we may not have had him at all, when one thinks of the alternative.
If what I write encourages people to think, consider alternative perspectives, that, I consider is alot to achieve. As to angels, I repeat my question posted in the dialogue Alex and I began. Rather than take the easy road and offer unsubstantiated opinion, I encourage you to put some documentable references into your postings into what the image is or is not.
Carrie
From: alex@museumofhoaxes.com
Date: Thursday, December 16, 2004 8:46 PM
To: carried@*******
Subject: Re: answer sent to Joseph Fara re question posed about number of candles lit
Hi Carrie,
Thanks for your responses to the various comments that people had, and especially for clearing up the mystery of why so many candles appeared to be lit on the menorah.
Regarding the angels, you seem to be implying that the burden of proof lies with me (or any skeptic) to prove that the blue flashes in the picture are not angels. I would disagree. When someone makes an extraordinary claim (such as about the existence of angels, extraterrestrials, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, etc.) the burden lies with them to offer extraordinary proof to back up their claim.
In other words, I shouldn't have to prove what the blue flashes are in order to disprove that they're angels. Because angels lie completely outside of the realm of scientific experience, the possibility that the flashes are angels should not even be considered until every other possible explanation has been exhausted. And even then, if we're going to invoke a deus-ex-machina to explain the flashes, we would have to ask: why angels? Why not attribute the blue light to some other beyond-human-experience force, such as extraterrestrials?
Alex
Carrie Devorah Responds
A few days ago I posted an entry about a picture taken by photojournalist Carrie Devorah that shows some mysterious blue flashes in the sky above the lighting of the menorah in Washington DC. Carrie suggested the blue flashes might be angels. In my post I disagreed. Last night I got an email from Carrie, and we've now exchanged a few emails back and forth. The emails start off with her suggesting that what I posted was 'potentially slanderous,' and end up with her out-of-nowhere remark that "Exactly what you are doing contributed to murdering my brother and others like him." Holy Cow! What did I do or say to inspire that? Carrie said that I should feel free to post our correspondence. So here it is:
Category: Photos/Videos, Religion
Listed in chronological order.
hehehe... WE should let it go??? What about her letting it go that anyone not happening to see angels where there are only bluish pixels are NOT murderers of her brother?
Posted by Zoltan in Austria on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 01:34 PM
Let it go? Because this woman is mentally ill, I should give up my right to free speech? Make me.
Posted by Terry Austin in California on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 01:51 PM
No one is asking you, Terry Austin, to give up your right to free speech. What we're saying has nothing to do with free speech. What some of us are suggesting is that people should use a little tact. Everyone likes to brag that they "don't hold anything back, I say what's on my mind", but I think that just shows a lack of social awareness. There are many times when you should not say what is on your mind.
How do you know she's 'mentally ill', are you a psycologist? Her brother was recently killed. How many relatives have you had that were blown up?
Actually, she doesn't care what Terry Austin says, it's Alex actually.
Posted by Brian on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 02:23 PM
"Alex, it is more professional to contact the individual before posting a potentially slanderous note on the internet."
More professional than what? And aren't we talking about potential libel here? If you want to get technical, calling you slanderous is potentially libelous. LOL
"Speculating in the Internet Age is a game you may not be old enough to remember called Broken Telephone where millions of people will race to accept what they read is fact."
The interweb tells me lies? Say it ain't so!
"I cite experts for their input."
Does that even make sense? Am I reading it wrong?
"irresponsible speculation"
Tee hee.
"People allowed themselves to be influenced by incomplete thought."
Again, am I missing something in the syntax here?
Miss-Black
HSD(high school diploma)
BFA
S.O.B.
Posted by Miss-Black on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 02:23 PM
Just a quick update. I posted her most recent email to me in which she responded to my note telling her that I posted our communication. I get the impression that she doesn't mind at all 'going public' with our exchange.
Posted by Alex in San Diego on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 03:13 PM
Sorry, but I've really got to take exception to all those posters arguing along the lines of "oh, let's be tactful and indulge the raving lunatic's misplaced hostility to spare her feelings," because that's exactly the opposite of what should be done from a mental health perspective. And the reality is those sentiments aren't motivated by concern for this woman's mental or emotional well-being at all; they're motivated by a shabby, emotionally-cowardly desire to passify aggressors and avoid conflict. It's never a good idea to indulge others' delusional obsessions and fantasies, whatever the circumstances, because doing so only encourages further descent into delusional and obsessive behavior--in fact, indulging in the kind of path-of-least-resistance sentimentality some have advocated here probably does more to create the kinds of delusional fanatics who brought about the death of this poor woman's brother than anything else. Jeez, people used to complain about Political Correctness... Now it's starting to look like "Religious Correctness" is America's new hobgoblin.... Life is tough; sometimes bad things happen to good people. I know, because I lost my entire family in a series of unrelated tragedies over a span of less than five years--though, to be fair, I guess their deaths count less than this woman's since none of my family members were blown up in a national tragedy or anything newsworthy like that. Personal loss is no excuse for becoming a simpering, intolerant spoiled child. When did humility and tolerance stop being Christian virtues?
Posted by All-Seeing Eye Dog in Florida on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 03:19 PM
I've gotta say, All-Seeing Eye Dog, you're on to something. As long as people indulge this woman's illness, she won't get help.
Posted by Terry Austin in California on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 03:43 PM
Thanks Terry Austin--Have to point out I feel bad about getting a couple of facts wrong in my previous post. I erroneously assumed Carrie was a Christian fanatic, but apparently she's a Jewish fanatic; I also erroneously assumed her brother had been killed in the 9/11 attacks, when in fact, he was killed by a bomber in Israel (still very much a national tragedy). I apologize if any of my remarks were insensitive to these facts. Still, I think my original point is valid.
Posted by All-Seeing Eye Dog in Florida on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 03:47 PM
For a person who claims to use logic and facts, Carrie sure skipped that step in reaching the conclusion that the blue objects are angels. In fact she started from the conclusion, "The objects are angels" and worked backwards rom there. She dismisses any alternative explanations for the objects because they don't fit her theory. To even suggest that she is wrong causes her to make accusations of libel.
I will admit that I am still confused about how refusing to admit that the objects are angels has anything to do with killing her brother. Perhaps that high-level thinking is just beyond me.
Steve L.
ASAP, QED, EIEIO
Posted by Steve L. on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 04:18 PM
Give the poor lady a break, the blue things really are angels, even better; they are angels that have appeared in her picture to make her known on the web and have the extreme privilige to get the attention of the No.1 messiah : ALEX.
Jeroen.
LMT. DIT. DOM. KGG(kindergartengraduate)
Posted by Jeroen in The Netherlands on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 04:46 PM
From someone who claims to be a 'photojournalist', the photo is neither professional, conclusive nor very interesting. A visit to http://www.coasttocoastam.com/ provides hundreds of such photographs that would lead a gullible and imaginative viewer to numerous scenarios. Those who take such photographs are the most likely to surmise the most fantastical of subjects.
Whether it's Bigfoot, aliens or angels, the photographer is usually the most blinded by logic or reason in their interpretation merely because the act of ownership and consequent presentation, forces justification.
As far as Carrie's credentials go, a quick search on Google reveals that they are easily (if maybe expensive) obtained through online courses. Which if you've read Museum of Hoaxes much, can be suspect at best.
Finally, not to discount what was obviously a tragedy with her brothers death, her consequent writings are vitriol and self-serving. When she writes 'There is no peace. May his death be avenged', I see a narrow-minded and angry individual who will only perpetuate a vicious cycle of violence.
It's no wonder that someone so disturbed would see angels.
Posted by Leland on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 04:46 PM
Carrie is not trained as a scientist (yet as PI she should know a little better) she has made conclusions assumptions brought patterns together and has a emotional involvement in the matter. Yet the event should not be ruled out.
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
How many pictures are taken per day by people cameras etc.? How many pictures have distorted images on them? What would the results be from a statistical probability analysis?
Name calling bashing and emtional involement needs to be downplayed and "the event" exploreded and investigated.
Posted by Rick Nowak in Earth on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 05:13 PM
Trained conversation facilitator? Puh-leez.
Posted by KnickKnack on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 05:40 PM
I had a neighbor who took photos of her dog shortly before the dog's unfortunate death. When she had the pictures developed some time later, there were rainbow-like bands of glare in some of the shots. She was (and, I suppose, still is) firmly convinced that this was a miracle that happened to give her the message that her dog is in heaven.
I thought a light leak (or maybe "lens flare") was a more likely explanation, but I never argued with her because it made her happy to attribute it to divine intervention, and for all I know her dog probably IS in heaven (though I'm not sure what that means).
But then, she never published the pictures, claimed she had proof of angelic visitations, or accused other people of slander and murder if they didn't agree with her interpretation.
Posted by Big Gary C in Dallas, Texas on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 05:42 PM
Well knick knack ..........
If 100,000 photos are taken every day and 100 pictures are bad that gives 36,500 pictures a year that are bad. In ten years thats 365,000. So that means 1 out of 7500 people get this type of pictureper year.
So loser thier you have it............
Posted by Rick Nowak in earth on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 05:57 PM
bitch crazy.
Posted by basically on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:04 PM
My favorite part was when she called you "awesome." That lady's crazy.
Posted by Cathy on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:26 PM
She's verbous, I'll give her that! Her article and her letters just went on and on....
Posted by JoBi in Sydney, Australia on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 06:36 PM
If you don't believe in God, you better not tell anyone, because the government will find out while trying to filter "actionable intelligence" from the entire radio spectrum and the Internet, and your tax returns will get audited and you will wind up on a list of convicted felons and denied the right to vote because your name is almost the same as someone else's and then just to prove to you that God exists, you will get picked up by a black smoked-window limo and be crammed into a tiny metal cage in Guantanamo Bay, with a bunch of 11th grade Bible-school educated grunts to kill your infidel pagan self.
Even though half of us are fervently trying to avoid the other half of us that are holyroller religious nutcases, this here is God's elected country, boy. Don't piss them off unless you want to get yerself crucified.
Posted by GoodGollyMissMolly! in East Coast of Crusader Land on Tue Dec 14, 2004 at 07:35 PM
I must say that after reading some of her posts at goldbergmemorial.org she strikes me as a terribly bitter woman. Her writing reflects a deeply pained person who expresses her mourning in a passionate prose but very separated from the rest of humanity. She writes as if this happens to her and her alone. Her brother died, YOU don't know what that's like. I don't understand how this became so digressed. It's more than obvious that the hoax site is going to talk about things that look like hoaxes. She couldn't possibly have thrown those pictures out there "hypothesizing" angels and not expected a few people to say, "hey, that looks like... nothing."
