April 18, 2003

More Astrological Blather, An Official Complaint, Earthrise Denied, Yes, 393=666!, DOE Gets Unreal, Sex, Drugs, and Cults, Kevlar Explained, Susan Kawa Expounds, Atheist Morality, Pepys the Skeptic, James I/VI, A Mantra, The Marine Sulphur Queen, and Where�s That SRI Film?

It's not often that we get as really excellent an opportunity as the following, to show just how poorly the critics understand � or even read � our statements. Look at http://www.astrologyzine.com/what-do-skeptics-say-about-astrology-2.shtml. Read the argument for my incompetence. Here, the author destroys a straw man he's set up because he either doesn't see, or chooses not to see, the intent behind the demonstration I've often conducted concerning astrology � a demo that is not, and was not designed to be, a test of whether astrology works. It simply shows that people will tend to accept almost anything, editing and selecting from otherwise meaningless data that which suits their needs and preferences. In fact, on the NOVA program that was done 10/18/93, and on which that demo was featured, I distinctly stated that the demo was not to "disprove" astrology, at all.

Mind you, on another program, "Exploring Psychic Powers" of 6/7/89, the well-known professional astrologer we tested there opted to show us that by simply questioning twelve persons born under different "signs," about their life preferences, he could determine what their signs were. That was a test of an astrological claim, designed and suggested by the astrologer himself. Our tests are always performed using the claimed abilities of the applicant. This man stated that he would be using his knowledge of astrology to perform the "sorting" task. It was his idea, his test, his decision. He felt that the validity of at least this aspect of astrology would be tested and proven by this test. News Flash: he failed it completely.

Read that "astrologyzine" tirade, bearing in mind what I've written above, and you'll see the futility of trying to talk sense to these people. We stand ready, willing, and able to test astrology by whatever standards the astrologers � or the author of this nonsense, Toronto's "Michael Star," might care to discuss with us. Be prepared for a Sylvia Silence�.


Last week I wrote:

"The quack industry thrives, people suffer as a result, and federal and state governments simply sit back with earplugs and blindfolds in place. They don't care, because any action on their part might annoy a voter." Well, a Ph.D. reader from Rockville MD has taken me to task for that statement:

If you had said "legislators," I would have agreed with you � at least as far as federal legislators are concerned, because Texas and other state legislatures have been fairly active but limited by Federal preemption. But when you say "governments," you're talking about public health and regulatory officials like me. And we have not been sitting back with earplugs and blindfolds.

The unproven safety and efficacy of herbals in general and the proven lack of safety of ephedra in particular, has been obvious and of great concern to us. We've made a number of attempts over the past eight or so years to remove ephedra from the market, but our hands have been tied by DSHEA [Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act of 1994] the blame for which belongs to Senator Hatch and Representative Richardson, who slipped it through a late night closing session of the US Congress. Harvey Wiley is still spinning in his grave over that. Nor was voter sentiment a key issue in its passage. Lobbyist money was, as was Senator Hatch's own financial interest in the supplement industry.

DSHEA has been a great source of frustration for FDA employees from the Commissioner on down. It gutted key provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act which was probably the best consumer protection law we had. It pains us to see people buying quack nostrums that we can't touch because of the way the law is written. Tougher yet is trying to explain to the parent of an 18 year old who died after taking ephedra why it's still on the market even though we've known about the problem for years.

(Name Withheld By Request)


Reader Chris Mills comments, concerning the "no harm done" and "they deserve to be scammed" comments that were discussed here last week:

I remember an instance in Australia some 15 to 20 years ago when a clairvoyant, Tom Ward, did his usual reading for a couple and when the question of "will I ever win any money at Lotto" arose, he indicated that they would. This, in turn, caused them to spend every last dollar of their life savings on Lotto tickets and � you guessed it � no winnings. Nobody deserves this.


Reader Jerry Moore, among about a dozen others, corrected Adam Marczyk�.

I enjoyed, as always, the latest SWIFT online. One nitpick in the otherwise touching letter from Adam Marczyk that you included: no one saw the Earth rise "from the surface of the Moon." The famous earthrise footage is from one of the orbiting missions (Apollo 8, on). The Moon is tidally locked, and the Earth is always in the same position from any point on the surface of the Moon. The only thing changing is the illumination from the Sun, and what the Earth looks like, since of course it's rotating.

You probably knew this, and either didn't catch it or didn't think it was worth commenting on.

Ooops. No, Jerry, I didn't catch this, either, though if I'd thought about it a bit, I'd have jumped on it. From any given point on the surface of the Moon, the Earth will stay in place in the lunar sky (except for the effects of libration, but that's a different matter altogether) and its appearance will change as it's illuminated differently by the Sun. "Day" and "night" � each a month ("moonth") long, will be obvious as well, of course, as the Sun sets on the lunar horizon.

That's why we have smart readers out there, to keep us on our toes and watchful!

To rehabilitate Adam, you can see a very interesting, amusing, and informative essay by him at www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/blessing.html

Do take a look�.


I threw out a challenge to readers to find some significance in the number 393, which will soon replace the designation of US Highway 666, for very obvious reasons. Reader Charlie Ravioli, using the regular methods of the numerologists and other nutters, methods that have been so well described in these pages, finds the number fraught with significance, as I feared. Says he:

Well obviously, there are some pretty ominous meanings behind the name U.S. 393. Let's take a look:

393: Add 3+9+3 to get 15. Add 1+5 to get 6.

U.S. 666 was christened in 1923. Add 1+9+2+3 to get 15. Add 1+5 to get 6.

The change officially goes into effect in 2004. 2+0+0+4 equals 6.

That's right. The new highway name, combined with the old highway name's birth and death years, bring you to 666.

Also, in March of 1893 (yes, that's right, 3/93), outlaw Bill Cooper and his bride Edith Wentsworth were caught and gunned down on the spot where one day U.S. 666 would intersect with Rt. 66. Locals nicknamed the road "Jornado del Muerto," which means "Journey of Death."

And lastly, a bit of research has dug up this actual quatrain by Nostradamus (Quatrain 14, Century VII):

He will come to expose the false topography,
the tomb of the beast will be opened.
Numbers of change will engulf the land,
black for white and the new for the old.

That really speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Off to write my book "393: The Other Number of the Beast."

Okay, so I made some stuff up and changed some facts to make the math work. But that's not important, right? What's important is that it SOUNDS accurate, not that it actually BE accurate.

Charlie, you're right in the spirit of the nonsense. You missed your calling, as they say. Or maybe you're actually an astrologer or fortune-teller, right in there with the other thieves�.

Ah, but reader Leighton Cowart has applied his massive intellect to the problem, as well. Says he:

393 is a pretty innocuous number unless you start thinking like a good numerologist would: don't take the number at face value, but keep looking until you find something dirty. In this case, let's take the number in base 13 rather than base 10. Why base 13? Because it's unlucky, of course!

393 (base 13) = (3X169) + (9X13) + (1X3) = 627 (base 10). And 627 = 666 - 39. Oh no! 39 is a multiple of 13! Not only does the road still belong to the devil, but the demons of bad luck have moved in as well! What a horrible move on the part of the state governments! For a stiff consulting fee I would be glad to come up with a safer number. (I'm kidding, of course!)

Numerology, in a nutshell, is the affirmation that when numbers are the same, something at a deeper level is the same, too. However, reality demands that our response to such arithmetic acrobatics be not "Wow!" but "So what?" Can variations in the patterns of paint on highway signs really influence the motion of objects as massive as vehicles? Only by distracting the drivers. Sadly, the psychological placebo effect appears to work for harm as well as for good.

Leighton is clearly not converted to The Dark Side�. Yet.


Reader George W. Maschke comments on the piece we had here on The "polygraph," or "lie detector" recently�.

Amazingly, DOE [Department of Energy] has rejected the NAS's [National Academy of Sciences] findings, and proposes to retain its existing polygraph program without change! The key finding of the NAS report, of course, is that polygraph screening is completely invalid as a diagnostic instrument for determining truth regarding terrorism, espionage, past activities of job applicants, and other important issues currently so assessed by our various federal, state, and local governments.

He refers to the Federal Register, April 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 71), under "Proposed Rules," taken from Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov], from which we select, from the published opinion of the DOE:

The NAS Polygraph Review pointed out that the available scientific evidence is generally of low quality and consisted of 57 studies of which 53 are specific-event investigations and four are flawed studies of employee screening. . . . On that basis, the NAS concludes that polygraph examinations are too inaccurate to be used for employee screening. . . .

. . . In reaching its negative conclusion, the NAS acknowledged that a screening polygraph, even if set to reduce the number of false positives, will identify true positives who are being deceptive. Accordingly, DOE does not believe that the issues that the NAS has raised about the polygraph's accuracy are sufficient to warrant a decision by DOE to abandon it as a screening tool. Doing so would mean that DOE would be giving up a tool that, while far from perfect, will help identify some individuals who should not be given access to classified data, materials, or information. DOE does not believe wholesale abandonment of a tool that has some admitted value for that purpose can be squared with Congress's overall direction to implement a polygraph program whose purpose is ". . . to minimize the potential for release or disclosure of classified data, materials, or information."

In my view, this is a typical attempt to glean anything possible from this highly negative report, and lean on that data to justify retaining a failed technology, so that instrumentation is once again seen to be evident despite the research � a sure sign of false hopes for a pseudoscience. Please recall that FBI counter-intelligence agent Robert P. Hanssen had been spying for Moscow since 1985 in exchange for money. Hanssen was a 27-year veteran of the bureau, and passed polygraph tests in a breeze. He was a man who had access to information at the CIA, NSA, State Department and other highly secret U.S. units, and should have been an ideal model of one who was concealing highly-important facts and crimes; the polygraph should have picked up that fact. And recall the Aldrich Ames spy case. Ames was repeatedly polygraphed at the CIA, and passed all the tests. But he was guilty! Both these criminal traitors took several polygraph tests conducted by the best people in that business, and they passed. No, not because they were particularly slick � we see that from their records, and the fact that they were caught as the results of their own stupidity � but because the polygraph doesn't work!

If you can bear it � and it's very tough going � refer to the DOE document at http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1050326763 to see the whole discussion.

There are remedies available to us, folks. If you think � as I do � that this rejection of reality should be itself rejected, you may comment to the DOE. I quote:

The DOE invites interested members of the public to provide their views on the issues in this rulemaking by filing written comments. With an open mind, DOE intends carefully to evaluate the public comments received in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will then consider whether to issue a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking with additional policy options for public comment and whether it is necessary and timely to hold a public hearing to provide an opportunity for presentation of oral comments.

We're told we may send our opinions to:

Douglas Hinckley,
U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Counterintelligence, CN-1,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.

and/or to:

Lise Howe,
U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of General Counsel, GC-73,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.


Reader Keith Henson tells us:

I am a long term fan of yours and a friend for many years of Robert Sheaffer. . . . You recently expressed your thoughts about how charlatans ply their trade, ending a paragraph with: "I believe that it's better understood when we consider the nature of living creatures, and the survival techniques that are absolutely required for survival."

I agree. Evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby (UCSB) have very similar thoughts to yours, which you can find here: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html (Survival from a gene's viewpoint is reproductive success for the individual.)

An eight-year battle with scientology (which has made me a refugee in Canada) and a conversation at a party, resulted in a flash of insight into some of the reasons people are vulnerable to charlatans � and cults. I wrote an article on the topic "Sex, Drugs and Cults" here: human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html. The editor tells me that seven months after publication it is still being downloaded 2,000 times a month. With a title like that, how could it miss?

The one-paragraph version [of his article] is:

Attention rewards the individual by inducing the release of endorphins and dopamine. The reason this mechanism evolved, is that status is one of the most important predictors of reproductive success in social primates. We measure status by the attention we get. So, in the tribal past, people who were successful at hunting (or something else) were rewarded by attention, higher status, and in the long run, more children. Addictive drugs bypass the functions of actions and attention, and supply the chemical rewards directly. Charlatans and cults take advantage of these mechanisms. So do drug dealers.

The rational world we skeptics seek is going to be hard to get without changing human nature. It will be impossible to obtain, without at least understanding the evolved psychological characteristics of humans that worked a million years ago, and are being taken advantage of today.

An interesting view, to me. But let's not think for a moment, that John Edward, Sylvia Browne (where are you, Sylvia?), James Van Praagh and the others have given any thought to this possibility, at all. They simply copied a tried-and-true scam that others inherited from the charlatans they observed; they don't have to know how or why it works, to use it. Cunning, yes. Intelligent, not necessarily.

I'll be interested to hear our readers' views on Mr. Henson's ideas�.


Reader Bjenk Ellefsen differs with our declaration about Kevlar, last week:

No, Kevlar is not a wonderful example of utilitarian science vs. causative science for the obvious reason that we do know how it works. Moreover, there is no causative science vs. utilitarian science. Science is always the same thing: an approximation of "truth" by constructed knowledge.

Bjenk, I hoped readers would see that Bart Lidofsky was offering an example of how a situation might appear at first glance to a layman who was unaware of the niceties of crossed fibers, dissipation of force, etc. Yes, though the working of such high-velocity, point-impact, physical problems are rather more complicated than falling cannonballs and s = ut + � at2, that was used just to show how the reasoning process is applied. We got a raft of detailed descriptions from readers to whom the Kevlar question was a challenge, and many who were "right on" with the solution.

Forgive us for being less than complete. Hey, consider Sophia Loren! How does science explain that?


Reader Susan Kawa can be seen at http://www.mommarama.com. She's given us permission to offer you this very provocative posting she sent to both me and to Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine. I'd like to hear readers' opinions on this idea, please�..

I've been reading, steadily, the small library of books you've produced, and felt it was time to register some of my comments. I may represent the "average" convert from conventional thinking to skepticism and non-theism. I am a college graduate in my late 30's, married, two kids, a dog, cat, and nice little suburban brick house. While I understand that some people are "born skeptics," my migration toward skeptical thinking has occurred over a period of several years.

I notice that you both repeatedly express dismay that upon a particularly illuminating event or conversation, a person doesn't smack her forehead (V8!) and see the light. I think you should recognize and acknowledge that people who will change their life philosophy based on such a single conversation or event � are NOT the sort of people you want championing the cause of critical thinking.

Randi comments: Susan, I certainly don't expect any single event, no matter how "illuminating," to convert anyone. I would expect that it should bring them up short and set them thinking, though. I can't think of where you got this "single event" idea. Continuing�.

I think I understand why, when you present a compelling case to "believers" (of paranormal phenomena and/or theism), that they reject it outright or (later) weasel an alternate explanation that aligns with their original thinking.

(For the purposes of this explanation, I will lump paranormalists with theists. I realize this is a blatant simplification, but the psychological motivation is perhaps similar.)

You have to appreciate how invested people are in their belief system(s), even when they don't THINK they are. I was not raised in a particularly religious family. We did not go to church, but we celebrated Christmas and the other major Christian holidays. I never thought to question the existence of God � as I was busy having hormones, spending hours on the phone, and doing homework. (Incidentally, I never thought to question what I read in the newspaper or in textbooks either.) As an adult, my mindset is a direct result of my experiences; my knowledge base built on what � by study or by osmosis � I "accepted." How much of that foundation was true, and how much false, I still cannot hazard a guess.

My transition (to skepticism/nontheism) has therefore been arduous. It is a heart-rending path, very similar to my other experiences of profound loss and grief. I'm not sure I would wish it upon others (though I believe the eventual payoff - clearer thinking - will be worth it for me.)

This incident provides a nice metaphor:

When my son was 7 or 8, he came to me asking about the real scoop on Santa Claus. He had it pretty much figured out, but felt it necessary to appeal to his ultimate authority (Mom) for the last word. I let him down easy (spirit of giving, spreading the joy, blah blah blah) and he was okay with it. Over the next week, he turned the concept over and over in his mind, and periodically approached me.

"Easter Bunny?" �Yes, Hon.

He went off to percolate some more.

"Tooth Fairy?" �Yup.

"April Fool Imp?"� (long story) � Yes. All me. Even that thing with the water balloons.

And in the end, he sat in my lap and confessed miserably, "I wish you hadn't told me."

This is sometimes how I feel. I wish I could hold onto the belief that I will see my dead mother again, or that my spirit will live on for eternity, or that the really long life-line on my palm constitutes a guarantee. I don't LIKE knowing otherwise. And I frankly have not enjoyed the domino effect this skepticism has had on my entire belief structure (I'm still trying to replace religious references in my vernacular � with very limited success.) The one exception to this is the realization that my thoughts are my own. It may seem a small distinction, but let me tell you, it was Earth-shattering for me.

Randi again: Susan, I cannot remember the day that I, personally, had any acceptance of mythology. For as far back as I can remember, I made a distinct barrier between the real and the unreal, and even though certain items popped back-and-forth over that barrier, I fought to make the distinction. I suspect that this fact has made it easier for me to live rationally; I didn't have to discard any comfortable notions or supports, as you did. Continuing�.

To expect a single conversation or event to cause this profound transformation is unrealistic. The impact it has on a person's life can be devastating, and may require a grieving period. It is much easier to stop at "denial," when that is an option. (I certainly would have liked to stop at "denial" when I heard that my mother had died in an accident.) Voluntarily slogging through a reconstruction of one's psychological, and philosophical foundation, I think you will agree, lacks appeal to all but the most personally motivated. People gravitate toward the "skeptical movement" when they are strong enough or open-minded enough to accept the responsibility, effort, and personal sacrifice (socially, and spiritually) that it requires.

A change in cultural climate is the best hope scientists and skeptics have to propagate this way of thinking. In the meantime, there is a percentage of the population that will espouse skepticism on their own, and in their own time.

I'll end this with a sincere "Thanks!" for your continued and tireless efforts to provide people like me with books, articles, and commentaries to keep us thinking. I find them very helpful, even when I don't agree.

Thank you, Susan. I think � and Michael may well agree � that the only real problem I have with what you wrote, is that you assumed a "one-converting-event" scenario that I certainly do not espouse, and which Michael Shermer might also disavow�..


Reader "Mark" was struck by the quoted-last week suggestion made by religionists to atheists: "If there is no higher power, what good is ethics, and why be ethical?" I declined to expand on that silly statement, having been asked many times, "Mr. Randi, if you don't fear Hell, why would you live a moral life?" That's just such an insult, that I refuse to discuss the question. Mark writes:

As an atheist this is an argument I have heard many times and one that makes me shudder. As an atheist my answer is simple � for the human race, ethics are the codes by which we choose to live with each other and deal with the various difficult situations that arise in our lives. As a member of the human race I can choose to be a member of society (and go along with its codes) or I can choose to abstain (difficult but some people manage it). So far so good.

What worries me is how religious people see this. They seem to be saying that ethics come from some external force (typically a god of some sort). With this approach they are firmly passing the buck and saying: Humans are not ethical, God (or somesuch) forces us to be ethical, and without that God, there is no point in being ethical. Or translated into everyday speech � the only reason I am not robbing you blind and killing your family is because there is a God � if I thought for a moment that there wasn't, I would see no reason not to do those things. (ok - ok - I know it's a slightly emotive example).

My question is, what sort of people are those that think like this? Give me an atheist any day who has thought about it and chooses to be ethical because they can see the value to themselves and society rather than a religious person who is only doing it because they think God's watching.

Mark, you've missed the other aspect here, in my opinion. Any number of people who have approached me with the "Why be ethical?" question, have followed up with an expression of their overpowering fear of Hell, the boiling sulfur, etc. Surely simple fear is a strong motivating force here? And surely some people need that terror to make them behave? Frightening�.


Ken Carriere quotes from Claire Tomalin's award-winning biography "Samuel Pepys: The Unequalled Self":

"[Pepys, famous British diarist (1633-1703)] managed to satisfy his curiosity about some celebrated miraculous cures, extracting a confession that they were faked to impress simple people, not aimed at clever ones like him. Pepys the sceptic was pleased with this piece of research; but the Pepys who went to Spain to store up impressions and add to his store of knowledge, to visit remarkable cities and admire renowned picture collections, was bitterly disappointed by the trip."

(This story is an aside to the story about his vacation to Spain, which itself was an aside in a chapter about his work in Portugal.)

By the way, the issue of these miracles comes up once more, in the following chapter, when Pepys has an audience a few years later with the new king [of England], James [II], a devout and militant Catholic:

"Pepys naturally kept quiet when James talked about miracles enacted in Spain, which rested on the cheat Pepys himself had discovered; but he could not resist telling Evelyn [John Evelyn, a contemporary thinker, and horticulturist of renown] the whole story."

But that's it. No names, no place names.

I've always liked Pepys' work, particularly his candid descriptions of his personal life and observations on prominent personalities of his day. Would that more literate persons had kept such notes, to aid us in knowing more about history, without having to depend upon heavily-filtered accounts.


The James referred to above is not the same James who succeeded Elizabeth I of England. That James was an interesting bigot, an enthusiastic witch-burner who was already James VI of Scotland when he ascended the English throne to become James I of England. (Monarchy is a confusing matter.) He burned every copy he could find of the first edition of Reginald Scot's "The Discovery of Witchcraft," (1584) of which I have a 1665 edition. Scot had refuted the opinions expressed in Jacobus Sprenger's "MALLEUS MALEFICARUM" ("Hammer of Witches," 1494) which was a condemnation of witchcraft as a reality and a blight on civilization. King James � who also gave us the King James Bible � adored Sprenger's work, and didn't want any facts interfering with his favorite opinions. He wrote:

The feareful� aboundinge at this time in this countrie, of these detestable slaues of the Deuill, the Witches or enchaunters, hath moved me (beloued reader) to dispatch in post, this following treatise of mine, not in any wise (as I protest) to serve for a shew of my learning & ingine, but onely (mooved of conscience) to preasse thereby, so farre as I can, to resolue the doubting harts of many; both that such assaultes of Sathan are most certainly practized, & that the instrumentes thereof, merits most severely to be punished: against the damnable opinions of two principally in our age, wherof the one called SCOT an Englishman, is not ashamed in publike print to deny, that ther can be such a thing as Witch-craft: and so mainteines the old error of the Sadducees, in denying of spirits. The other called WIERVS, a German Phisition, sets out a publick apologie for al these craftes-folkes, whereby, procuring for their impunitie, he plainely bewraycs himselfe to haue bene one of that profession.

Okay. In more modern language:

The fearful abundance at this time in this country, of these detestable slaves of the Devil, the Witches or enchanters, has moved me (beloved reader) to dispatch in post, this following treatise of mine, not in any wise (as I protest) to serve for a show of my learning & intellect, but only (moved of conscience) to pre-assume thereby, so far as I can, to resolve the doubting hearts of many; both that such assaults of Satan are most certainly practiced, & that the instruments thereof, deserve most severely to be punished: against the damnable opinions of two principals in our age, whereof the one called SCOT an Englishman, is not ashamed in public print to deny, that there can be such a thing as Witchcraft: and so maintains the old error of the Sadducees, in denying of spirits. The other called WIERUS, a German Physician, sets out a public apology for all these crafts-folks, whereby, procuring for their impunity, he plainly betrays himself to have been one of that profession.

That "WIERUS" was Johann Weyer (also Weier, Wier, Piscinarius) (1515-1588) who also wrote effectively against the superstition of witchcraft, though he was apparently a believer in magic, in general, since he studied the "art" under Cornelius Agrippa, a prominent "sorcerer" of his day. No one's perfect�.


While we're in England, reader Mike Hopkins turns to the Bard of Avon and his play "Hamlet," for a defense against the hucksters�.

Obviously, I see the irony of quoting from Hamlet, words inspired by ghostly visitation; however, in my more fledgling efforts to see past charlatans and hucksters, I found my critical thinking always gained a boost from the line "Meet it is I set it down, that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain!" Van Praagh smiles, and Edward smiles, and those lost loves and our hopes for a greater, larger purpose that can spare us the pain of existence, leave us disinclined to doubt those smiles.

I have, in the past, found myself disinclined to disbelieve. Yet honesty to oneself is all it takes to reveal the villainy that lies beneath the smiles of those who profess knowledge from the beyond. There is no need to be skeptical of their claims if we are true to ourselves. Their claims, if our self-examinations are true, fail even to rise to the realm of challenge, and fall instead to outright dismissal. Smilers like Van Praagh and Edward make such jackasses out of themselves in their mechanizations that it really causes me pain to know that the depth of human suffering is such that so many are willing ignore the obviousness of the buffoonery in order to hold onto the tiniest comfort � carrion or otherwise.

I have lost those I love both to violence and to time, and to hear anyone claiming to speak for them as living entities would be nothing less than a violence to me. There is nothing benign about such claims � nothing harmless or healing in their professed comfort. Truer comfort comes from truth � only with that do we free ourselves and grow through our loss.

"Meet it is I set it down, that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain!" If only more who are hurting would trade this mantra for those that are charlatan-derived. If only they would look past the smile and detect the villain beneath.

I, too, smile a lot... Hmmm...


In closing, I got this e-mail from Sharon Gwin which fills in a gap and corrects an error in the Bermuda Triangle "mystery." This item only reminds me that somewhere "out there" is a lot of data � sometimes minor � that only needs to be communicated to others, so that these matters can become clearer and more detailed. I had stated that the Marine Sulphur Queen, a ship that figured in the "mystery" story, had been due to be scrapped right after its final voyage, in which it vanished. Writes Sharon:

I was searching websites about the MSQ and found your article...My stepfather was on the MSQ....The ship was not going to be scrapped, it was going into dry dock for repairs in March....My stepfather was the 3rd Engineer and was going for his 1st Engineers license while the ship was in dry dock....His name was Gene Schneeberger....

Thank you, Sharon.

Now, if only someone would inform me of what happened to the 16-mm film that was made of Uri Geller performing at Stanford Research Institute (now Stanford Research International) back in 1972, a film titled, "Experiments with Uri Geller"? That was made with taxpayers' money, yet SRI now claims that they don't have a copy of it. Strange, don't you think? It was under the control of former astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who may have a copy�. It's also hard to believe that the 30,000 feet of B&W 16-mm film that was prepared at SRI on Geller, has vanished, too...