February 15, 2002

The Vatican Declares on Illness, Monty Python is Blamed, John Edward (Again?), Astrology Business/Business Astrology in Denmark, Moon Madness Revisited, A Dedicated Teacher Is Betrayed, And Part One of the Russian Psychic Test.....

Archbishop Paul Cordes, the German head of the Vatican's agency for humanitarian aid, now tells us confidently and officially that "scriptural authority" says that illness is "the result of sin" and that people have a natural desire to be "healthy and good-looking." Read that again. Yep, that's what this intellectual dinosaur believes: one an absurdity and one an obvious fact. But immediately after the Monsignor issued this incredible statement, Father Georges Cottier, the Pope's chief theologian, hastened to reassure those who were ill that they were not in fact "paying for their sins." I don't follow this line of thought, at all. But then, I'm not trained in devious reasoning. Apparently Cottier has it down pat.

"Man's desire to be healthy, good-looking and strong is justified because it anticipates our future salvation. One cannot deny that death, of which illness is an anticipation, has always been seen as a consequence of sin," Cordes said. Really? Damn, but I thought that heredity, bacteria and viruses could be brought in here, somewhere. And what's this "One cannot deny" crap? I deny it, loudly and clearly! I don't give a damn if Cordes is secure in the Gospel of St. John, which he quotes to validate his notion. I don't know — no one knows — who wrote this "Gospel" material, though there might have been someone named John in there somewhere. And a guy named Casper, another named Pierre, and probably a couple of Cedrics and Josephines, too. We just don't know.

Father Cottier, the other intellectual giant involved, referred to the "original sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden," which he said had "introduced sin and suffering into the human condition." Hey, Cottier! Get real! Grow up! We're getting pretty annoyed by this puritanical attitude that sexuality is evil. Yes, the story reads that Adam and Eve did The Nasty Thing, and that made it Bad. But another story has Goldilocks talking to bears, the bears cooking and eating porridge, and a Prince awakening her from a coma with a kiss after making water into wine. Or have I mixed up my mythology here? It's confusing....

Along comes an obviously misinformed man, theologian Father Bruno Moriconi, who enters the discussion by naively declaring that illness is "neither a blessing nor a curse, but simply a result of the malfunctioning of the human organism." Well! Where does he get his information? I can't believe that he's been reading those science books, the ones filled with The Devil's work, denying Biblical truths! "There is no point in looking to the Bible for an explanation," says this brave man, flying in the face of the Vatican. As reader Brian Buckeye of Akron, Ohio, wrote me,"At least SOMEONE has cracked open a textbook in the past 200 years...."

Commenting on this brouhaha, the Italian newspaper La Repubblica said that the idea that those who were vigorous and good-looking were blessed, while the ugly and the sick were damned, was an ancient one that predated Christianity. And newspaper La Stampa wrote that if illness really were the result of sin and crime, then "the great dictators and criminals of the world would all have been struck down." That's a good thought, in my opinion.

JREF's Andrew Harter suggests that we take this news that illness is the result of sin, to the nearest sick children's ward....

I've just got to stop this evil habit of thinking for myself and ignoring medieval truths.


Reader John Oswalt, amused by the "Human Spontaneous Involuntary Invisibility" farce we ran last week, asks us:

Wasn't this done as a Monty Python sketch? A man (Eric Idle) claims to be invisible, but it turns out he is a Chartered Accountant, and just so very dull and boring, that everybody ignores him.

Well, John, I agree that Monty Python is a good place for the sketch and for the article, but the author meant it quite seriously. I of course checked with the Ministry of Silly Walks, and they verified that to be a fact.

And JREF Member (hint, hint) Lee Beringsmith adds:

After reading this weeks commentary I am reminded of how often people change lanes in traffic and seemingly don't see my car. Well, now I have the answer. It's a case of AUTOMOTIVE SPONTANEOUS INVOLUNTARY INVISIBILITY. Thanks for the ongoing education and amusement . . .

Reader Phillip Johnson suggests that "The Shadow" was there long ago. Lamont Cranston (some day I'll tell you where he got his name) had "the ability to cloud men's minds," and wandered about unseen through what was generally assumed to be some variety of hypnosis. Maxwell Grant (some day I'll tell you where he got his name, too) authored that character, many long moons ago....

Finally, Steve Bauer, of Portland, Oregon, comments on the item:

Apparently when one is invisible, one's clothes are invisible as well, and also anything one is wearing or carrying. Mighty convenient. I wrote a scientific analysis of this phenomenon, but it disappeared before I could hit "Send."


Speaking of very popular TV shows, China's acceptance of the Sesame Street TV series (as a scientific program) was something I applauded loudly. Well, now they may have gone too far. Beginning this March, the Teletubbies British television program with characters Dipsy, Laa-Laa, Po, and Tinky Winky, look destined to be the newest beneficiaries of Beijing's growing receptiveness to Western culture. This will be the first foreign production to air regularly on prime time over CCTV1, the state monopoly TV station which reaches about 600 million people in that country.

I have to wonder: do the Chinese know about Tinky Winky and his reputation as preached by Reverend Falwell? To prevent the destruction and moral disintegration of that nation, we'd better warn them....!


John and Abbie Long, who describe themselves as, "Sickened Skeptics in Denver," wrote us this pertinent observation that we share with our readers:

We recently noticed several disturbing and disgusting examples of blather regarding dear Mr. [John] Edward; as far as we're concerned, this bilge rivals the Serios/Eisenbud verbal contortions re the Thresher you cited in Flim-Flam! The following quotes are taken directly from "The Rules" and "Guidelines" for prospective Gallery visitors on the Sci-Fi Channel's website for Crossing Over (http://www.scifi.com/johnedward/abouttheshow/):

Have no expectations.... We don't want you to be disappointed or broken-hearted if your chosen loved one doesn't come through. As John says, "Please don't put earthly expectations on a heavenly experience."

But isn't that the implied purpose of the show — to bridge the earthly and heavenly planes? No doubt these audience members would eagerly buy cars advertised thus: "We don't want you to be disappointed if you experience complete mechanical failure every five to ten thousand miles." And we've heard of "psychics" explaining away misses, but never so preemptively:

Don't get "psychic amnesia." John coined this phrase to describe what happens when he goes to someone in the audience and they all of a sudden forget their family tree. Bring a copy of your family tree to the show, just in case.

First, surely he or his staff can get their hands [or eyes!] on these in any number of ways, right? And second, doesn't that directive plant a suggestion that might cause someone to forget his/her family tree, so that a "hit" will seem that much more dramatic?

Validation is important! Since John does not know your friends and relatives, it's very important that you give feedback. A simple nod of the head, a yes or no answer, goes a long way in a reading.

Granted, all cold readers seek [and need] such feedback, but we've never seen it asked for so blatantly. Perhaps he means to deflect suspicion with the last line of that paragraph, "Please don't give more information than John asks for."

If John reads the person sitting next to you, it'd be a nice gesture to take notes for them to review later. Chances are this info will take on more meaning when you get home and think about the reading.

So he wants to appear even more knowing and authoritative by scoring "hits" on you via your seatmate??? This point is driven home further in the next paragraph:

Appreciate the message! Even if you are not the person being "read," John wants you to walk away knowing your loved ones are always around you.

By entering the studio, you consent to a post-interview session with the Crossing Over producers. . . . Please expect an all-day taping (at least six hours . . .)

No doubt this is where they gather footage to "amplify" any "hits." TV editors give a "medium" an advantage he'd never have in a live show:

EDWARD: I'm getting an "F" connection — is there a "Frank" — or a "Frances"?

GUEST (EDITED IN FROM POST-SESSION): (tearfully) My aunt Frances was the kindest woman I've ever known . . .

This is also the point where the producers will edit in photos of the one who's "passed" to increase the level of treacle.

We do have two questions: (1) The dress code in the "Guidelines" forbids white clothing and bright colors. Could this be because they make body language harder for Edward to read? (2) Perhaps no evidence of hidden microphones eavesdropping on audience members has been found; however, is it possible some of the hand-held boom mikes are doing so, rather than feeding the program audio?

All good questions and observations! The suggestion about taking notes on what Edward says, has another function. He wants totally wrong guesses to be taken away and examined for any correspondence with reality that the victim can find. Any meaningless inference can, if sufficiently worked on and squeezed, produce a drop of a connection, and remember that these are bereaved persons, vulnerable and needing the guessing-game to be true. However, the clothing restriction is just to make for better-quality TV pictures. Nothing suspicious there.


Take a look at http://www.choppingblock.org and enjoy. Cartoonist Lee Adam Herold graciously permitted us to use this very perceptive and informative illustration on the page. As I said before, I believe that Edward has over-exposed himself, and now the public is starting to be aware of just how inept his talking-with-the-dead act really is.....!


Reader Mike Jensen of Menlo Park, California, sent in this ad, which speaks for itself. Again, the John Edward characters are being identified and their gimmicks are becoming evident. The message is getting out there....


Reader Mogens Winther has notified me of yet another highly-celebrated US university study on lunar influence on the stock market. The International Society of Business Astrologers (ISBA) at www.businessastrologers.com, the group in Denmark that offers top-quality (but still useless) astrological advice to Big Business, celebrates this major breakthrough in science. As an example of how obscure the ISBA is, their web page notes, right at the very beginning:

The society was founded in Copenhagen on 10 March 1997 at 09:09:00 a.m.

While this seemingly odd bit of data may not appear significant nor useful to us rational people, it's full of portent for astrologers. You see, they cast horoscopes for businesses, countries, and regimes, as well as for individuals. These are based upon birth dates and times. The day and the hour of founding or incorporation is adopted by astrology as the birth date and hour for businesses, countries, and regimes. Don't look at me! It's their idea, not mine!

But here's what they offer as heavy science:

Biological evidence suggests that lunar phases have an impact on human body and behavior. Research that concerns biological rhythms documents a circatrigintan [?] cycle, a moon-related human cycle. The most common monthly cycle is [human] menstruation. A woman's menstruation cycle is about the same length as a lunar cycle, which suggests the influence of the moon. Law (1984) finds a synchronous relationship between the menstrual cycle and the lunar cycle: a large and significant proportion of menstruation occurred around "new moon." Studies also find a lunar effect on fertility, for example Criss and Marcum (1981) document that births vary systematically over lunar cycles with a peak fertility at 3rd quarter. Besides, lunar phases affect human nutrient intake. De Castro and Pearcey (1995) document an 8% increase in meal size and 26% decrease in alcohol intake at the time of full moon relative to new moon.

Wait a minute! Nutrient intake? Meal size? Alcohol intake? How were those elements chosen? I have to ask: How about pimples and rashes? And cattle rustling, and poker playing? Any element, compared with a phenomenon, can produce "significance," given half a chance! And don't ask me what a "circatrigintan cycle" is. These terms are far beyond my feeble knowledge of such matters.

Our late and great friend, astronomer George O. Abell, in the book "Science and the Paranormal" (1983), wrote about this notion of a lunar/homo sapiens relationship:

The Moon's cycle of phases is 29.53 days, while the human female menstrual cycle averages 28 days (although it varies among women and from time to time with individual women); this is hardly even a good coincidence!

The corresponding estrus cycles of some other mammals are 28 days for opossums, 11 days for guinea pigs, 16 to 17 days for sheep, 20 to 22 days for sows, 21 days for cows and mares, 24 to 26 days for macaque monkeys, 37 days for chimpanzees, and only 5 days for rats and mice.

One could argue, I suppose, that the human female, being more intelligent and perhaps aware of her environment, adapted to a cycle close to that of the Moon, while lower animals did not. But then the 28-day period for the opossum must be a coincidence, and if it is a coincidence for opossums, why not for humans?

Good observations. That last question, particularly. Aren't all forms of life on this planet subject to the same influences of our satellite?

There exists, despite very strong evidence to the contrary and no supporting evidence, a belief that during a full Moon there are significantly more suicides, admissions to mental hospitals, crime in general, births, fires and false alarms, drunkenness, auto thefts, wife-beatings, auto accidents, post-operative hemorrhages, and various other disasters. This, I'm sure the ISBA would agree, is scientifically supported by the fact that there is an obvious and dramatic attraction of the Moon on the waters of the oceans — thus tides — and that this fact relates to another fact, that the human body also consists mostly of water! Well, since gravity works on all mass equally, a human body composed of rock would be equally affected, and the actual gravitational pull of the Moon on an average human body is less than weight of one mosquito. Surely not enough to cause any concern....?

Yet, the UK's Lunacy Act of 1842 defined a lunatic as

a demented person enjoying lucid intervals during the first two phases of the Moon, and afflicted with a period of fatuity [complacent stupidity] in the period following after the full Moon.

This "Moon madness" idea is another erroneous belief that persists in spite of the facts. Nurses and doctors, particulary those active in emergency rooms of hospitals, as well as police officers and other public servants, are often quick to agree that there are busier nights around full Moon periods, but simple tests of this claim show that they are tending to notice events more when they are aware that the Moon is full. It's that simple, folks.

The management of the ISBA, they claim, have now figured out — perhaps using Tarot cards or rune stones — why I'm such a pain-in-their-posterior. They write (small spelling corrections have been made):

Trying to look at Randi from a spiritual level, which is the preferable level I think, I'm convinced he is in pain on a deep unconscious level. People in pain are fighting other people. Especially when you "claim" to work with cosmic laws, like astrologers do, which means you have a certain kind of knowledge of cosmic laws and you are aware of the connection between earth and heaven, you will be attacked by people missing this connection.

Therefore I would advise to give no reaction whatsoever to Mr. Randi, but instead send him love and understanding in silence. I think Randi is a test of how firm we stand. Are we afraid? Do we need to fight? His action is only a temporary storm. The less we act in his direction the sooner it will stop.

News flash: stormy weather ahead, with Earth tremors, high winds, rain and sleet, thunder and lightning. Quacks are advised to batten the hatches and lay in supplies. As for my "pain," except for a recent kidney stone, I haven't noticed it....

The ISBA is scurrying about trying to get me thoroughly unvalidated, it seems. Since they won't take the JREF million-dollar challenge — for reasons that seem rather obvious — they have to do the ad hominem approach, which doesn't surprise me a bit. But what else can they do? They certainly can't take the JREF challenge. Read what they say about me....

The above "skeptic" is probably known to most astrologers. We can quickly agree that he really doesn't deserve our attention. Nevertheless, I want to let you all know that James Randi and his Danish colleague Mogens Winther, astronomer, are keeping a sharp eye on us. In week 3, I was wondering why our web site had so may visitors originating from Randi's web site: www.randi.org. It turned out that Randi had a long article in his weekly newsletter concerning ISBA and our work in the fields of business astrology and financial astrology, courtesy of the Danish skeptic Mogens Winther.

The quality and style of the newsletter needs no further description. Our media director Mary Downing has performed a large feat in informing the board, particularly the European members, about James Randi — his character and typical tactics. We have decided to ignore this person. He does not merit our attention.

However, there are also serious-minded skeptics — a few of them reside in Denmark. Some years ago, I felt forced to reply to one of them in the Danish press, when he had written an article about testing astrologers in California. A test I knew nothing about (there is seldom time enough to enquire via other astrologers, as you need to act fast in these cases). It is apparent from the postings from astrologers worldwide, caused by Randi's article, as well as from information from our media director, that the test was constructed differently from what was presented in the above-mentioned article.

This would have been very nice for me to know. Therefore, please send me all information you have regarding Randi and skeptics in general, e.g.: What is going on in your home country? Who has participated in tests? How were the tests conducted? What were the results? How were the results analyzed? Etc. We are interested in all types of material, and we intend to archive it in ISBA for future reference. Please send the material to: info@businessastrologers.com Thank you in advance!

Note: As someone who "really doesn't deserve [their] attention," (they specify this twice, above) and a person who they "have decided to ignore," and one to whom she advises astrologers should "give no reaction whatsoever to" except to "send [me] love and understanding in silence," I apparently have made quite an impression on them, and thrown them into quite a reactionary tizzy! If this is how one gets ignored, we'll all be famous! The fact is very evident: the JREF million-dollar challenge has them running scared.


Hot on the heels of this "moon madness" nonsense, the January 25th issue of Forbes Newsletter Watch ran an article titled, "Ill-Starred Market?" by Peter Brimelow, telling readers that astrologer Bill Meridian of Cycles Research had advised subscribers to his service based on the fact that "On a cyclical basis, Mars has entered Aries, and this usually sends stocks lower." It's not only in Denmark, folks, it's here on Wall Street!

As Brimelow points out, most of the actual reasons for this advice come from orthodox technical/financial analysis. But "Financial astrologer" Arch Crawford's "Crawford Perspectives" warns that he is worried about Pluto and Saturn, as well. And rightly so, of course! I never make a move without locating Pluto and Saturn.

Reporter Brimelow suggests, "Financial astrologers are probably right to be cautious of audience reaction. But the fact is that a generation ago, technical analysts were similarly derided — a sentiment memorialized by Wall Street Week's habit of referring to them as "elves." Brimelow expresses his own sensible standards: "Never mind the theory, feel the results." He tells us that

. . . there have been five-year periods along the way when Crawford's timing was at or near the top. And, face it, the last 13 years have been unnaturally hard for market timers to beat buy-and-hold. Overall, Crawford is quite comparable to any other market timer — star-struck or otherwise.

Okay. It appears that the astrologer, as strongly suggested by the reporter, has more than cusps, cycles, oppositions, aspects, and ascendants working for him, but labeling standard market-savvy as a supernatural power, as the ISBA also discovered, makes the guesswork more attractive — and much more expensive.


Somehow, Toto, I think we're back in Kansas again. High school teacher Christine Pelton and about a dozen other teachers there have announced that they plan to leave the district after the present school year, following an episode at Piper High School. Pelton discovered that nearly a fifth of her biology students had chosen to plagiarize their semester projects from the Internet. When she reported this to her board, she received her rural Kansas district's backing, as had happened previously when she found students cheating. She chose to fail 28 sophomores.

But then parents began complaining, and the Piper School Board backpedaled, instructing Pelton to "go easier" on the guilty students. Then, after a decision made behind closed doors, they told her to give the students partial credit and to decrease that project's value from 50 percent of the grade to 30 percent. Elated students got that message loud and clear: cheating was really okay. At that, I'm pleased to tell you, Pelton resigned in protest. As she said, "The students no longer listened to what I had to say. They knew if they didn't like anything in my classroom from here on out, they could just go to the school board and complain."

Think of what this means. Such tolerance of dishonesty in our educational system certainly disheartens other students, who realize that they may have to compete with cheaters to get into college.

But do not abandon hope. You may recall that just last year, when Kansas school boards decided to officially deny the facts of evolution, shocked state administrators and citizens quickly acted to remedy this medieval attitude by un-electing those responsible, and evolution was once again allowed to take place in that state. We can only hope that similarly rational folks are present in Piper, and will spring to the defense of integrity and sensible standards.

Christine Pelton, you're our hero-of-the-week. Thank you for being there and sticking by your guns. It will be interesting to see how many ethical teachers follow you out the door. I'm sure that there are other doors being held open for you in other venues where you can "do the right thing." Bravo!


What follows is the first of a two-part article dealing with the preliminary test of 10-year-old Natalia Lulova, the Russian girl who applied for the JREF million-dollar prize. I want to prepare you for properly evaluating this procedure, and to that end I will set up a scenario that will provide a background for the psychological factors involved, as well as some history.

I've often had to correct those who suggest that believers in the supernatural "want to believe," and I suggest that it is more correct to say that they "need to believe." Sometimes that need is overwhelming, and it is very difficult to understand how otherwise quite intelligent persons, blinded by their need, will disregard and cancel out any and all evidence that is contrary to their view of a situation that might otherwise threaten their comfort and/or security.

With my recent investigation of Miss Lulova, I obtained a perfect example of this rejection of blatant evidence. Refer to www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,199773,00.html and you'll see a brief story on this matter. To prepare you for what follows, I will acquaint you with a case known as The Tichborne Claimant, famous in the UK. Here we find many similar elements, where responsible and sane individuals saw the plentiful evidence, considered it, and then came to a ridiculous conclusion that boggles the rational mind. We are repeating history here, and encountering human situations that begin to sound familiar. It all began in 1852.

Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne (1829-1854) was the heir to a sizeable estate and fortune. His distinguished family, which dated back to two centuries before the Norman Conquest of the British Isles, sent him off in 1853 on an extended ocean voyage (a frequent and popular cure among aristocrats for improper behavior) to recover from his disappointment that he was not allowed to marry his cousin Katherine. He resigned his commission as an officer in the Sixth Dragoons, and set sail for South America in March, arrived there and crossed the Andes, and left Rio de Janeiro headed for Australia on April 20, 1854, aboard the ship Bella, after which he disappeared — along with the ship and everyone else. Some wreckage from the ship was recovered, it was properly decided that the presumptive heir to the baronetcy was lost at sea, and would not be returning. Lloyd's of London agreed, and settled the insurance claims.

In 1862 the baronetcy and estates passed to Roger's younger brother Alfred. The mother, Dowager Lady Henriette Felicit� Tichborne, had firmly refused to believe that Roger was dead. When her husband Sir James died in 1862 she set about taking advertisements in periodicals all over the world from South America and Mexico to Australia, desperately seeking to find Roger. It was made very evident in the ads that she was desperate, and a substantial reward was offered for the information she sought. Then Alfred died and left her as the only living member of the family.

In 1865 a letter arrived that appeared to justify her faith. It was from an agency in Australia who averred that they had discovered her son, now working as a butcher in Wagga Wagga, in New South Wales. (Incidentally, two historical accounts of this matter have Wagga Wagga both in Victoria, and in Queensland. Wrong, and wrong.)

Lady Henriette, to the astonishment of everyone involved, immediately and eagerly accepted the claimant as her son, despite the fact that there were excellent reasons to suspect fraud here. For examples, Roger had been a slight, narrow-chested man who weighed 125 pounds when he vanished, spoke fluent French, and had a tattoo on his left arm; the claimant was anything but slight, weighed 280 pounds, spoke not a word of French, and had no tattoos at all. And that was just for starters.

The rest of the family found firm evidence that the claimant was actually Arthur Orton (1834-1898) the son of a butcher in Wapping, London. Orton had lived in Australia, but that was about all that might have connected him with Roger. When the family brought suit against Orton in 1871, his testimony clearly proved him to be an imposter. He identified "his" school as Winchester; it was Stoneyhurst. He spoke of "his" grandfather, who Roger had never met, and referred to "his" service in the army: Roger had served in the cavalry. But Lady Henriette had insisted that these discrepancies were forgivable: "He confuses everything as in a dream," she said.

Henriette died before the trial got to court. Eventually, Orton was convicted of fraud and perjury. He was sent to prison for 14 years, and after serving ten years, he was released and immediately sold his story to a newspaper for �3,000. He died a few years later, and his gravestone was inscribed: "Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne; born 5 January 1829; died 1 April 1898.

One must wonder whether that death-date is significant....

Consider: Lady Henriette was an educated, intelligent woman. She should have been able to see through this outrageous imposture, but she needed this man to be her long-lost son. She overlooked, ignored, and dismissed the very firm and obvious evidence that belied Orton's claim. She denied the reasoning and the appeals of her friends and family because she desperately needed her delusion, her fantasy, to be true. No one, no matter how well-respected or well-informed, could shake her belief. I think it is evident that she was honestly self-deluded, not dishonest in any respect. It is astonishing what otherwise rational people can and will do to maintain a chimera.

Which brings us to the present actors: Olga Lulova — the mother of Natalia, her mentor/teacher Mark Komissarov, her lawyer Boris Palant, and various other believers in her magical powers. It began in September of 2001, when I received a phone call from New York lawyer Palant describing the claim of his client, Natalia, who, he assured me — and I quote — could "read with her eyes totally covered with a piece of black cloth." I ask you to notice the (I believe) unconscious redundancy in this statement. Think about it. That's like saying he has a usable teapot without any holes in the bottom. Just one tiny hole, crack, or gap in any cloth covering the eyes will permit the wearer to read. His word "totally" may only be a lawyers way of being secure and safe in his statement, but subsequent statements from this man lead me to believe that he does not have a grasp of the real world, in which cheating and trickery can take place, though he repeatedly assured me that he was a skeptical person by nature. That's a provision that most won-over believers insist that you take into account.

Before going further in this story, I will tell you that Andrew Harter — who conducted an aborted preliminary test of Lulova on December 11th, last year, due to my being hospitalized briefly at that time — disagrees with me on some conclusions I've reached concerning the possible complicity of the actors in this drama. I believe that Palant, the lawyer, may only be acting in his advocacy function. That would mean that representing Natalia requires him to accept her claims without any [declared] doubt, and to work unreservedly for her interests. On the other hand, if there is a contingency factor working here — meaning that he would get a percentage (40% is customary) of any proceeds — he might well be seeing the image of four thousand hundred-dollar bills piled up on his desk. But I don't think so; I think he's just honestly deluded.

As for Olga, the mother, I'm pretty certain that she is innocent of any suspicion that this is an actual scam. Events of the New York City test on January 31st seem to bear that out. Mind you, the parents — and the psychics — often say that they have to cheat occasionally when the "powers" aren't working, but that's usually just after they've been caught, and Olga may now be making that assertion. Yes, Mom can be genuinely convinced that her daughter is not using her eyesight, though that may be hard for a casual observer to believe. Remember Lady Henriette? A French TV team who were filming an interview at the JREF when Natalia was tested by Andrew, told me frankly that though they had no expertise in such matters, they felt that the modus operandi was very, very evident. They just could not understand how anyone would be deceived by the trick.

Mark Komissarov is another matter. He revealed to us that he works at teaching blind persons to see. You read that right. I'm very, very, familiar with this claim. I encountered it in Mexico, in Japan, in Hungary, in Canada, and several times in the USA. These "teachers" run what I can only designate as a cruel game, one that in some respects fools the operators, too. They go through endless series of guessing of colors, for example, constantly encouraging the subject, and doing the old data-selecting process whereby they ignore misses and concentrate on the hits. It's self-deception, largely. If the subject gets "red" rather than "green," the instructor can switch to asking the subject to identify only whether the color is "warm" or "cool." That's easier, of course, and the success rate can soar — to the delight of both instructor and student. And, as always, failures are written off and successes celebrated. It's easy for a teacher to actually believe that he/she is having success. I refer you back to Henriette....

And Natalia? When I'm asked if I think that people like John Edward and Uri Geller might actually believe they have powers, I point out that Itzak Perlman does not pick up his violin and play Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto just by accident, nor is it a supernatural phenomenon. He knows what he's doing, and he does it consciously. The same applies to Natalia. The little lady knows exactly what she's doing, but I cannot know just how much she thinks it's a game, or how seriously she takes it. Endlessly encouraged by the adults, fawned over, treated like a princess, doted on in every respect, and essentially forced into success at the assigned task, Natalia plays all her cards skillfully. Unfortunately for her, the dealer was changed on January 31st.

There's an important fact here that speaks loudly concerning the validity of claims of paranormal power. It's this: if any of these powers really existed, the entire nature of science, our view of the way the world works, human perception and well-being, the very laws of the universe as we know it, would be drastically changed by now. This spoon-bending nonsense started in about 1965, and in the 37 years since, due to this silly "miracle," not one fact about the world has been changed, not even a tiny bit. Think about that. Any other discovery or new phenomenon almost immediately changes the world, dramatically. The electronic chip, penicillin, space travel, the Internet, television — all have brought about universal changes to every part of the Earth. But not one paranormal wonder has done that, let alone been proven real! Parapsychology is the only science recognized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that has never had a replicable experiment, nor a proven claim. The only science.

It was on November 6th of last year, that we received the formal application from Natalia, completed and signed through her lawyer. We of course accepted, and she agreed to be in Fort Lauderdale on December 10th for the preliminary test. Andrew Harter conducted the test — which Lulova aborted when she tried to do her psychic demo after Andrew blindfolded her. Since that test was not completed, we'll not discuss that here. I will say, however, that Lulova's techniques had not improved at all by the time January 31st arrived and I tested her in NYC.

The application, in explaining the specifics of the claim, left no room for doubt that Natalia was claiming that she could read without the use of her sense of vision. I was told that she could read The New York Times easily, at a regular reading rate, when her eyes were completely covered and sight was thus prevented. She could also detect colors under the same conditions, it was claimed. But — she could not exhibit this wonder if a piece of paper were to be inserted between her and the target, nor could any opaque material be placed over the target. That might have sounded strange to an average observer, but it was hardly strange to me; we were seeing yet another child who had learned how to confound the adults around her. It was the Old Blindfold Act.

A bit of history: I first saw this act done in Montreal night-clubs back in the forties. It was usually presented as an amusement, though occasionally a performer would offer "private readings" for those who decided to accept the flummery as a supernatural power. The principle is simple: it depends upon the fact that it is really very difficult to blindfold a person so that they cannot see! A simple cloth strip, or the regular sleep-shade, such as provided by some airlines, is not at all suitable for the purpose; that device is designed only to cut down the amount of light hitting the eye-area, and by simply peeking down the side of the nose, the wearer can easily see well enough to read — if the target material is brought into direct line with the eye and the see-through gap. And only the tiniest gap is needed. In fact, a person who would normally need glasses for reading, gets a sharper view of printed material, due to the "pinhole effect." Looking at the world through a tiny hole, the viewer gets much less light, but that light is focused surprisingly well. It's the principle behind some ski-goggles, which use a thin metal screen full of very tiny holes, and make the wearing of corrective glasses underneath, unnecessary.

I've tested many children who do the blindfold trick — mostly little girls, who find it easier to manipulate adults — and it's always been the same: they have all failed. Margaret Foos, in 1960, was the first American girl I tested, and in retrospect, she had all the trappings that Natalia Lulova had: the same blindfold technique, a mother who believed devoutly in the powers, a lawyer on hand, and trained scientists who believed her. In Mexico, the Instituto mas Vida were — and still are — in the business of teaching the children of wealthy parents, to do this same act. A similar group was started up in Japan after the Instituto children visited there, even though I blew them away and exposed them on a major television show in that country. In Ontario and Quebec, Canada, as well as in California and New Jersey, it was the same story. It always is. And the subject(s) of the tests always end up in tears, though the believers close to them maintain their belief and offer them support when they're discovered.

Concerning the actual blindfolding process, the peek-hole is often at an awkward position. That means we can easily spot a cheater by using this fact; we can determine the location of the peek-hole, simply by observing the reading process. Often, the subject is just peeking down the side of the nose, so the target material must be held in the lap, or the head must be tilted back. Occasionally, another method is available to the subject, and that was the case with Natalia.

As I've said, I've encountered this trick in China, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Hungary, Germany, and the USA and Canada. In China, particularly, I observed that the children who were using this trick had almost no nose-bridge at the spot between the two eyes. Please study the profile of Natalia seen here. (In the following description, you can switch all the "left" and "right" references to accommodate the mirror-image situation.) If you or I cover our left eye, then look sharp left with the right eye, we will see the bridge of our nose. The Chinese kids — and Natalia — had no such obstruction, and could see across their noses. They could see clearly — to the left — if there was a small gap between the left edge of the right half of the blindfold and the nose. Try this, before reading on.

When the blindfold is first applied to the subject who needs to peek, the required gap may not be there right away. It can develop, given enough time and patience, and we had willingly agreed to give Natalia what her lawyer described as,

. . . a reasonable time (say, 15 minutes) to adjust to a new environment.

This was hardly a "new environment" in the regular sense, but as I told Mr. Palant, Natalia very much needed that "adjustment" time, though for a reason that he could not understand. She needed to stretch and rub her face, wriggle about, pull on the skin adjacent to the blindfold, and eventually obtain a very tiny crack or gap through which to peek. And she did.

The test, by agreement, was to consist of two phases. In the first phase, one of the girl's team would apply the blindfold, and the demonstration would take place — though that was not quite the way it actually occurred, at the January 31st test, as you'll see up ahead. In the second phase, I would apply the blindfold, and Natalia would attempt again to identify the targets. The first part was there so that it would be shown that when she had control of the procedure, she could perform, and that when I did the blindfolding, she could not.

When her mother applied the first blindfold, it was very well done. So well, in fact, that Natalia sat there helplessly for 45 minutes and 30 seconds, unable to sense colors or read print. She herself had brought along a simple pair of black foam pads on a strip of elastic, a blindfold to which she was already very accustomed, and usually used for her demonstrations. I suggested that she could switch to that device, and that I would make only a small addition to it. That offer was eagerly accepted. From the moment that blindfold was on her face, and for the next seven minutes and 20 seconds, Natalia performed like a champion, calling off colors rapidly and reading from a book. She closed this highly successful demonstration by playing tic-tac-toe with Mr. Komissarov — and always winning! So ended Part One of the Natalia Lulova preliminary test.

Part Two will follow next week....