The Usual Counterarguments Addressed

The first argument I usually receive to my assertion that Andy is probably still alive is something mixed heavily with scorn. It’s the kind of lazy argument we get from people who want to rely solely on expert opinion and “established fact.” These people also believe the New York Times, their Congressional Representatives, their pastor, and other figures of authority. In other words, it’s the same old primate response wrapped up in human clothing.

To step back away from the Wall of Establish Fact, we have to poke around at those weak layers that create the illusion of foundation. How do we know what we know?

1) The news and larger media say he’s absolutely dead.

The NY Times also pronounced hoaxer Alan Abel to be “dead.” They even ran his obituary. If Alan hadn’t surfaced publicly and declared himself alive, we might still think he’d gone to join the ancestors. Alan perfected the death hoax — and Andy spent hours on the phone with Alan as well as a weekend talking with him in detail about death hoaxing. Alan is among the death skeptics.

2) Aren’t all dead celebrities really alive?

This is more a guttural primate reaction based on fear of the unknown and a need to believe the larger consensus than it is an actual argument. My position is that Andy not only planned to fake his death, he investigate it in great depth and talked to many friends about it.

3) The death certificate!

Yes, and it’s over at Smoking Gun. We all know. It’s estimated that 1000 or more faked “official” death certificates are created every year. Andy was not entered into the main Social Security death index. His family did not declare his death to SS. This isn’t by itself surprising since many people aren’t reported. However, Andy DOES show up as “dead” in Orange County SS. This suggests more fakery to me than fact. The death certificate was somehow entered into the system — doing so through an Orange County office might be one way to do so without it being noticed.

4) The funeral

Go and check all the accounts. We’ll wait. If you can find two that agree, I will be surprised. It was open casket, it was closed casket, there were people poking at him, no one was allowed near the casket, there were flowers, there were no flowers, music was played, no music was played, the casket was blue, the casket was wood-grain … There seemed to have been two funerals, at minimum, conducted. Is all his due to faulty memory and grief? I don’t think so.

5) His family and friends who think he’s dead.

His brother, Michael, has never stated his belief his brother was dead. He has said “unlikely” he’s alive … he has hemmed-and-hawwed … he has danced a LOT, but he has always left open the door. His brother was next to him, holding his hand, when he “died.” If Michael isn’t certain, there must be a reason — in the absence of other facts, we can chalk this up to grief, inability to let go, or a marketing campaign to keep Andy’s memory alive. With the other evidence? I think it’s because Michael knows he’s alive and doesn’t want to lie.

Also, there are as many friends of Andy’s who think he’s alive.

6) Time

Andy said he’d have to be “gone a long time” to set the bit. 20 years or 25 years would be the expected time period. By 30 years, most people would have given up the idea that he’s alive. Perfect point of entry.

There is a low likelihood of anyone getting lung cancer at his then-young age. Yes, it happens, but it’s not the statistical norm. We have to look at the likelihood of things, given other evidence. Most people live to be at least 80. Andy was only 35. Given all the other evidence we have pointed out in previous posts? I’m sorry, but I can find no other logical deduction but that he’s alive.

COULD he have been planning his death, written a script that specifically predicted it, and then tragically died from lung cancer? Of course, it COULD happen. But I don’t think it did.

The sneers of primate derision may now begin. lol


About Alexandra and anything else

Occasionally, I just post fun stuff — free association and that sort of thing. I don’t really take them seriously. I take very little, beyond my family, friends and work, seriously. The Alexandra post was one of those. For heaven’s sake, take nothing of mine literally. I’m almost always being gentle with my conjecture.

What the hoaxers may miss — Andy Lives

This isn’t religion — it’s merely a statement of fact. Andy Lives.

I will repeat what I said before about the hoaxers doing things in Andy’s “memory” — I suspect you’ll be as surprised as anyone.

I’ve removed John Lundberg from this, since I’m persuaded at this point that he’s probably a sincere filmmaker genuinely following the evidence, but I repeat it for the hoaxers coming out of the woodwork …

Many flat-out debunkers grasp hoaxing as an excuse for murdering awe. (See, you can fake anything!) Many of the woollier-minded among us go full metal Oprah, asserting that ostension utterly proves some fully interactive quality to the universe. I think both conclusions are intellectual conceits. The real intellectual conceit may be that I understand it at all.

I think people can consider all manner of mad things so long as we understand the aim is to leave the question open, not to prove some certainty we cannot show in our work.

I have lots of friends who are EVP researchers (yes, electronic voice phenomena). They upload their samples, which they create with their own equipment and their own resources. The hoaxers pollute the field. They distort the body of information, they do not add to it. They don’t hone perception. It doesn’t take a genius to create fake EVP. It’s pretty easy to do. The sincere participation of the researchers (even if they are only capturing their imagination in an abstract pattern via pareidolia) is essential to our working as a community.

So along comes the kids to pee in the gene pool. Most EVP hoaxers have told me their aim is to prove the whole field is flimflam. When they can fake it, they give us the old Randi bent spoon saw. They want to debunk or disprove by confusing the issue. They want to make further research impossible because they don’t think we should be asking our questions — or questioning their answers. The validity of EVP research does not prove anything, other than people want to ask questions.

I’m worried that this level of hoaxing has come to Andy Kaufman land. I’m concerned, at some level, if Andy isn’t alive (and I think that a bit less than half the time), that he’s being used in a way. If ((the hoaxers)) are “becoming the magic” they wish to create and, thereby, shining some light on the AKiA phenomenon, that’s fine. I look forward to that.

The older I get, the less patience I have with idle navel-gazing. It strikes me as a kind of abstract, insincere narcissism.

In any event, never forget — Andy is Alive.

Maddox is a myth, but then so might be Alexandra Tatarsky

A few years ago (late 90s), a press release emerged that announced that Andy Kaufman was alive. I believe the release held that he was an elevator operator somewhere? Well, a second press release emerged that purported to be from the Kaufman family — this press release stated that the prior release had been a fake … the only problem was, the Kaufman family supposed press release was itself a fake.


Anyway, we now have the title Apollonius that has been linked to Andy. And Andy’s supposed daughter who showed up at the November reveal with the very real brother of Andy, Michael Kaufman, is named Alexandra Tatarsky? Well, check out Alexander of Tarsus as connected to Apollonius. We’ll wait. Now check this out:

Is this all Kaufman estate stuff designed to confuse us? Is the great magician just our brain’s capacity to find a pattern in random information? Is Alexandra REALLY Andy’s daughter and the press has been faked out yet again?

As for Stephen Maddox, I find him less and less compelling (And I had pretty much excluded him by now) – however, is that by design?

Doubt everything and find your own light. More on the “great teacher” who wrote another related Apollonius publication tomorrow.