Reader "John in Texas" reminds us of an 1812 letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to a Dr. Robert Patterson concerning an early perpetual-motion machine which caused some excitement back then. At least inventor Redhefer — whoever he was — might be forgiven for ignorance, in that day, though it appears that he was also providing some promotional hanky-panky to sell his idea....

First, I'd like to slip in this earlier Jefferson letter of 1808 addressed to a Daniel Salmon, who had shared with him by post the discovery of a strange stone. The existence of meteors was still hotly contested at that point in history. We easily remember the comment ascribed to Jefferson just a year earlier after he'd heard of a meteor that exploded over Weston, Connecticut, that December. This stone described by Salmon was perhaps a result of the same event on which Jefferson commented:

I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven.

Two months later, he wrote Salmon:

I have duly received your letter of the 8th instant, on the subject of the stone in your possession, supposed meteoric. Its descent from the atmosphere presents so much difficulty as to require careful examination. But I do not know that the most effectual examination could be made by the members of the National Legislature, to whom you have thought of exhibiting it. Some fragments of these stones have been already handed about among them. But those most highly qualified for acting in their stations, are not necessarily supposed most familiar with subjects of natural history; and such of them as have that familiarity, are not in situations here to make the investigation. I should think that an inquiry by some one of our scientific societies, as the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia for example, would be most likely to be directed with such caution and knowledge of the subject, as would inspire a general confidence.

Then Jefferson offered his reader this astute observation, one which we all should carefully consider:

We certainly are not to deny whatever we cannot account for. A thousand phenomena present themselves daily which we cannot explain, but where facts are suggested, bearing no analogy with the laws of nature as yet known to us, their verity needs proofs proportioned to their difficulty. A cautious mind will weigh well the opposition of the phenomenon to everything hitherto observed, the strength of the testimony by which it is supported, and the errors and misconceptions to which even our senses are liable. It may be very difficult to explain how the stone you possess came into the position in which it was found. But is it easier to explain how it got into the clouds from whence it is supposed to have fallen? The actual fact however is the thing to be established, and this I hope will be done by those whose situations and qualifications enable them to do it.

As we know, the fact that stones do fall from the sky is now well recognized and understood. If Jefferson had been in possession of the facts we now enjoy, he'd have had no problem embracing the phenomenon. Also note that he was honestly mistaken, and his statement eventually would take him off the hook gently and completely. Though I myself have often been accused of denying the claimed phenomena that I examine, a more careful assessment would show that I, too, have always been ready to be proven wrong — though I admit that I've never had any doubt about the spurious nature of supernatural, paranormal or occult claims.

Well, with that preparation, here's the December 27, 1812, Jefferson letter to Dr. Robert Patterson in which he writes about one of the countless free-energy/perpetual motion claims that were as plentiful then as they are today. He wrote:

I am very thankful to you for the description of Redhefer's machine. I have never before been able to form an idea of what his principle of deception was. He is the first of the inventors of perpetual motion within my knowledge, who has had the cunning to put his visitors on a false pursuit, by amusing them with a sham machinery whose loose and vibratory motion might impose on them the belief that it is the real source of the motion they see. To this device he is indebted for a more extensive delusion than I have before witnessed on this point. We are full of it as far as this State, and I know not how much farther. In Richmond they have done me the honor to quote me as having said that it was a possible thing. A poor Frenchman who called on me the other day, with another invention of perpetual motion, assured me that Dr. Franklin, many years ago, expressed his opinion to him that it was not impossible. Without entering into contest on this abuse of the Doctor's name, I gave him the answer I had given to others before, that the Almighty himself could not construct a machine of perpetual motion while the laws exist which He has prescribed for the government of matter in our system; that the equilibrium established by Him between cause and effect must be suspended to effect that purpose. But Redhefer seems to be reaping a rich harvest from the public deception. The office of science is to instruct the ignorant.

Wish I'd said that, though I'd have probably avoided bringing in a deity....

This Dr. Robert Patterson might well be the same one to whom Jefferson had written in November of 1811, concerning standardization of weights and measures. I wonder what Jefferson would have thought of the fact that in the 21st century, his country would still be fumbling with the awkward and ancient feet/pounds/Fahrenheit units that the rest of the world gave up long ago....?

Richard Mitton, of Birmingham, England, sent in this wonderful story:

First off, the usual pat on the back for you and all that you do. The world needs people like you bringing to light all the "flim-flam" out there! Now, on to the reason for this email. In case you haven't seen it, here is an article from the New Scientist [UK] website, which I think you'll enjoy very much indeed....

"CRYSTAL homeopathy combines the principles of homeopathic medicine with the healing power of crystals." That's the claim made in www.the-crystal-chamber.net, a site offering very special crystals for sale. "These crystals, while they were forming in caves over thousands of years, have picked up minute, homeopathic quantities of substances that will benefit you through their influence on your aura."

Does this sound like complete garbage to you? A Feedback reader who we shall call Gareth Thomas thought it did, so he posted a "provocative enquiry" at www.ukpagan.com, a site where believers in all things mystical gather to discuss matters of common interest. Using the pseudonym "disturber," he challenged believers in such therapies to convince him that they had any effect whatsoever other than providing vague emotional satisfaction. He singled out the claims made for crystal homeopathy as being "transparent balderdash."

The response from ukpagan devotees was immediate and irate. Some were so rude the forum's moderators had to remove the posts. All insisted on the validity of their beliefs, some even referring to theoretical physics to support them. None questioned the claims of crystal homeopathy.

Thomas persisted. He copied the full crystal homeopathy text from the Crystal Chamber site into ukpagan and criticized it sentence by sentence, declaring it a cynical, scientifically groundless scam. Still, no one agreed. Yet more people wrote heated posts defending crystal homeopathy and branding Thomas a cynic.

What none of them knew was that Thomas had created the Crystal Chamber site himself and that "crystal homeopathy" was his own invention. Depressed by the abundance of absurd claims for quack alternative therapies, he had set up the site as a credulity experiment.

He continued to have fun with it, posing for a while on ukpagan under a new pseudonym as the Crystal Chamber's proprietor and enlisting enthusiastic support for his site. One "crystal expert" even offered to help him run the business.

But all good things have to end. If you now click on the top left corner of www.the-crystal-chamber.net, you get a statement that begins: "Nothing in this site makes any sense. It was all made up in a few hours to test susceptibility and gullibility." And Thomas has posted a final message on ukpagan explaining that the site and all his previous messages have been hoaxes.

Meanwhile, no wallets have been harmed by his experiment. He has torn up the checks sent to him by people who wanted to buy his crystals and refunded credit card sales.

His one regret now that it's all over is that he resisted the temptation to claim on his website that his crystals had been "mined by elves."

Suggests Richard, "The guy deserves a medal." I heartily agree. However, I was unable to find that disclaimer cited in the third-last paragraph.....

What follows is one of those hard-to-believe items, until you find out who's involved. It came to us from David Green, a Patent Examiner for the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. It's about United States Patent application #20020091564, made on July 11, 2002. Here's the title and the abstract:

Method and system for enabling viewer polling and election of prospective parents in broadcast child adoption proceedings.

A child adoption proceeding is conducted in the form of a television game show and online media event, wherein couples compete against each other to win legal custody of the child. Adoptive parents are selected using a vote-by-phone and/or Internet voting scheme, together with 24-hour surveillance of the prospective parents, which enables television viewers and Internet users to inspect prospective parent-contestants in detail before voting for the winning parents. The present invention overcomes inequities of state-run or private adoption agencies, permitting a fairer selection process while providing greater time and access to observe a pool of prospective parents.

Wait for it. The inventor of this stunning social innovation is none other than one "Geller, Uri; (Berkshire, GB)" Spoonbending apparently isn't occupying all of Mr. Geller's time. Does he seriously think that the future of a child should be decided in a game-show format? Or should the kid be dangled over a hotel balcony railing?

Reader Peter Jenkins, in the UK, writes:

I have been a keen viewer of your website and forum for over a year now. I found this article in today's "Sun" newspaper, a British tabloid with a large general readership:

Randi comments: The word "mug" is British slang for an easy dupe, from the fact that a mug is something into which anything can be poured....

MYSTIC MUG LOSES £3M LOTTO TICKET

A psychic who did not realize that she had won a £3 Million lotto jackpot for six months still cannot claim her prize — because she has lost her ticket. Dippy fortune teller Anna Kuhni, 44, bought the ticket in September during a break from a clairvoyants fair in Morpeth, Northumberland. She did not know that her regular numbers — 8, 14, 24, 27, 29 and 32 — had come up until Camelot launched a publicity blitz to find the winner. But now, with just eight days to go before the claims deadline, she cannot remember where she put the ticket. And she has ransacked her South Shields house in vain. Mum-of-two Anna said "there's nothing I can do." Camelot said there could be no payout without a ticket. And the jackpot, the second biggest unclaimed prize in Lottery history, looks set to go to good causes.

Adds Jenkins, "And people wonder why no psychic has ever beaten the million dollar challenge."

I have another thought: where's the evidence that Anna used those numbers consistently, that they were her "regular numbers"? Just claiming this, and never coming up with the winning ticket, would result in her obtaining all sorts of publicity. Hmmm. I guess it already has.

And — though unlikely — the lotto people just might have paid off.....!

Still dealing with contributions from over the pond, John Atkinson sends us this item from the UK Daily Mail:

Homeopathic Remedies That Won't Make You Better

Patients better off with conventional treatments, says study.

By James Chapman, Science Correspondent.

Homeopathic remedies simply do not work in the treatment of many illnesses, scientists have concluded. A review of patients with symptoms including migraine, sore muscles and flu found homeopathy had no effect at all. The scientists also said there was very little evidence that homeopathic methods worked on any other condition.

Instead, they said, patients should use treatments which are known to work. Homeopathic — the word is Greek for "similar suffering" — is supposed to work by giving patients tiny doses of a substance that causes symptoms similar to those they are already experiencing, provoking the immune system into action.

Randi comments: Well, not exactly, Mr. Chapman. The term "tiny doses" does not apply, since there are literally no traces at all of the "active" ingredients said to be at work. Preparations are usually well beyond Avagadro's Limit, which means that there have been so many one-in-ten (or one-in-one-hundred) dilutions made, that there cannot be even one molecule or atom of the original substance, present. And the "provoking" action is a recent notion, leaning on the fact that there can be a positive effect of actual tiny doses of some substances, though not of zero doses, as in homeopathy.

(Before irate complaints arrive, I'll admit that in reality, the above statement that "there cannot be even one molecule or atom of the original substance, present," is not quite correct. However, in an example that I often use in my lectures, the facts about a certain homeopathic sleeping pill that lists its active ingredient as caffeine (no kidding, folks!), would require the patient to consume sixteen swimming pools filled with pills in order for the consumer to have any chance of getting a single molecule of caffeine..... I rest my case.)

The Daily Mail article continues:

Millions consult homeopathic doctors every year, with as many as one in five Britons opting for complementary treatments. About 2,000 homeopathic remedies are available to treat different illnesses. Derivatives of plant leaves, flowers, stems, berries, fruits and roots account for about half of those available including some of the better known — arnica and belladonna.

Critics argue that the substances used in homeopathy have no more effect than placebo or dummy drugs. The U.S. and German scientists who carried out the review said further studies of homeopathy should be "open-minded, but also skeptical" about potential benefits. They said most properly conducted studies suggest the practice holds little or no benefit for patients with most conditions.

However, there were some trials — particularly on allergies and diarrhea — that suggested more research should be conducted. "Some trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines," the researchers said, "however, the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant and is of uneven quality." The researchers at Harvard Medical School in Massachusetts, the Samueli Institute in Virginia and the Technical University of Munich, Germany, recommended patients opt for therapies which have more convincing data to support their use.

Randi comments: They suggest "more convincing data"? How about any convincing data? To me, "convincing" data is strong (scientists say, "robust") or it's simply interesting, and suggests further work should be done. Back to the Daily Mail:

However, homeopathy, if practiced correctly, is probably safe, according to Dr. Wayne Jonas, who led the review, which is published in the latest issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. But the risk grows when patients choose homeopathy over other treatments which are known to work. For any serious conditions, he urged patients to consult their doctors first. However, Dr. Jonas said the lack of any good evidence to support it did not necessarily mean that homeopathy was useless as a medical treatment.

What's so comforting about knowing that this practice is "safe"? I myself consumed 32 times the recommended dosage of that homeopathic sleeping pill, before a group of Congressional officers in Washington, DC, a few years back, and proved that the stuff was "safe." But I also showed that it didn't work! That's where the problem is, folks!

Dr. Robert Mathie, of the British Homeopathic Association, said the review highlighted several areas where there was some evidence that homeopathy was effective. But he added: "There is not compelling evidence. However, given the scanty research that has been done there is every reason to explore some especially promising areas. Homeopathy is steaming ahead because the holistic approach to health, however it might work, seems to benefit patients."

No, homeopathy is "steaming ahead" because people just don't know any better, and their governments don't care enough to inform them. And the "some evidence" referred to above is just so weak and faulty, there is simply no support for this crackpot practice.

Even better ratings were obtained by the SBS Million-Dollar Challenge show, this last Sunday. I even have a 900-member fan club in South Korea now! See http://cafe.daum.net/Randi and http://cafe.daum.net/shthdms for details....