Navigate the JREF Website Join Now
James Randi Educational Foundation

April 25, 2003

Progress in the UK?, Official Lithuanian Delusion, Kawa Returns!, Erasmus on Delusion, Aussie UFO Crash, and Pointing the Magic Stick at Terrorists...

The London Daily Mail last week announced that Prince Charles and a committee from the House of Lords had brought sufficient pressure on his ministers to get them to budget £1.3 million (US$2.1 million) to look into acupuncture, some other "complementary therapies" for cancer patients, and homeopathy. Knowing the British fascination with quackery — matched quite well here in the USA — I'm not at all surprised.

The Mail mentioned that two major studies are to be done on homeopathy, which is currently used by one in five Britons — including the House of Windsor. But it's condemned by many scientists as a con, especially after the recent BBC attempt to replicate the classic experiments that the quacks have embraced as "proof" of their flummery, and the total failure of that project. One might think that Samuel Hahnemann's delusion would be losing support. The intent of the studies is to make alternative therapies available on the National Health Service (NHS), providing that research shows they are effective. Prince Charles' Foundation for Integrated Medicine has argued that investing in "alternatives" could save the NHS money, over the long term.

Perhaps, so long as Charles isn't concerned that patients receive any actual medical benefits.

Some critics are saying that any state-funded research into homeopathy would be a waste of money, insisting that it "cannot be effective because of the tiny levels of active substance used in most remedies." That's where they've got it quite wrong: in homeopathy, there is no level of activity, at all! Zero is not merely, "low."

Peter Atkins, professor of chemistry at the University of Oxford describes the use of public money on such studies as "appalling." "Homeopathy," he says, "is a delusion and I can't believe the Government is funding research into it. It is simply a waste of money."

I beg to disagree with the last part of Professor Atkins' comment, though not the first. Any properly-designed and properly conducted experimentation or assay, especially in such matters as medical efficacy and safety, is worth spending money on. But he continues:

"There is no evidence whatsoever that it works. This money should be spent on more serious approaches to disease, like cancer research, or looking for new vaccines. Instead, it's being spent on fantasy. It makes it seem like a serious project when in fact, people should stay away from it." Good point. Any quackery which is recognized by having money thrown at it, may take on validity in the view of the consumer. But, I repeat, I believe that proper research could definitively settle the matter for once and for all, and that it could establish the facts — no matter how carefully those facts might be ignored by the believers, who would assuredly hasten to exercise that privilege.

About 2,000 homeopathic remedies are presently available in Britain, half of them derived from leaves, flowers, berries, fruits, and roots. Two of the most popular and better known are arnica and belladonna. The first is a European plant, arnica montana, the homeopathic preparation of which has now been shown by Exeter University, to be useless, despite endorsements by several attractive actresses. The other, atropa belladonna, is a very highly poisonous plant: all parts — the leaves, bark, berries, roots — are toxic to all forms of life. But not to worry: in homeopathy, there's nothing left by the time those zany bottle-shakers get it diluted down to zilch.

Understandably, the quacks are up in arms over the facts, which are pressing in on them more and more every day, a fact that Windsor seems able to disregard. Dr. Peter Fisher, homeopathic doctor to the Queen and clinical director of Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, has dismissed Professor Atkins' comments: "Pompous professors have been saying homeopathy doesn't work for a very long time, and it's still around and growing," he says. "People are using it in large and ever-increasing numbers." Ah, there's the proof! Lots of people have fallen for the swindle, therefore it must be the real thing….?

I once sat in on a TV debate with Fisher and a few others in the UK, and was amused at how studiously he avoided acknowledging anything and everything I said. He gloried in talking over me and around my comments, not taking guidance nor suggestions from the TV host, but sailing ahead with total confidence.

Like the captain of the Titanic...

Reader Alexander Sharp, who describes himself as "British, living in Taiwan, dismayed at the actions of the government in his own country," asks on the same subject:

Is complimentary medicine a vote winner? Time and time again, complimentary medicine is shown to be little more than wishful thinking on the part of the customer and a get rich quick scheme on the part of the "doctor." Yet this week we see the British government spending £1.3 million on research into new age hocus-pocus cures. Why is this?  

The answer is actually very simple. Market research suggests that the British public spend something like £103 million on alternative medicine every year. That's a lot when one considers that the total population is less than 60 million and a good proportion of those are children with no spending power. It has been suggested that 50% of the British adult population have visited an alternative therapist. That's a lot of people, or more significantly, a lot of votes. When you look at it like that, £1.3 million is a small price to pay for, say, one million extra votes at the next general election. Just £1.30 a vote? That's a bargain, especially if it's not even your money to begin with.  

The point is, it doesn't matter to the politicians whether the medicines work or not. The money is for votes, not cures, and it's not being spent to benefit the people, it's being spent to help keep the government in power. The fact that the British public is being scammed is just an unfortunate side effect. 50% of the British population is of below average intelligence, probably the same 50% that put their lives in the hands of the witch doctors. This may seem like a very obvious statement, but it's significant because their votes count the same as everybody else's and these people are being targeted, not only by the practitioners of alternative therapies, but also by the people who should be protecting them from the quackery.

The people who claim it doesn't do any harm need to stop and think. It's not just that money is being taken from people too stupid to realize they are being duped. The exploitation runs so much deeper than that.


According to Reuters News Service, many Lithuanians, whose country is poised to join the European Union next year, were dismayed at the insistence by their President, Rolandas Paksas, that he would continue to rely for advice on a local mystic named Lena Lolisvili. One of her methods for healing people: She wraps them in toilet paper, which she believes God has energized for her. Gee, I'd hate to make a mistake and use the sanctified tissue for its originally intended use. Lightning, thunder, general displeasure and divine fussing by a deity can be unsettling, and possibly even fatal….

I'm sure glad that our president, George W. Bush, doesn't appeal to a deity every time he opens his mouth. That would indicate that Church and State were anything but separated in the USA.


Reader Robert Harvey of NYC gleaned this from a survey conducted in France by the newspapers Le Monde and La Vie. The survey asked for updated opinions on various supernatural, occult, and paranormal matters. Writes Robert:

The most remarkable fact revealed by this survey concerns the virtual collapse of alternative beliefs.  Astrology is a loser: 37% now give it credence, against 60% in 1994.  It's even worse for psychics: 23% now believe in them, against 46% at the time of the prior survey. As for "communication with the dead," that's now 22% against a previous 37% and for witchcraft we see 21% against 41%.


A reader we'll give anonymity to spare him the wrath of his employers, writes:

The articles on renaming Highway 666 the past two weeks were interesting in light of something which recently happened at work. I'm an engineer with a major corporation which has gone through a lot of merger/acquisition nonsense in the past few years. As part of an effort to standardize personnel practices, a year or so ago they revised our department numbers. The old numbers, in my part of the company, were of the form B-Exxx. Apparently more digits were needed so the department numbers became 66-6B-Exxx. Well, I guess some people were upset by this because a couple of months ago the numbers changed again to 66-ZB-Exxx!

Hey! Can't be too careful!


The piece last week by Susan Kawa provoked — as I hoped it might — much comment from readers. Lyle Engle writes:

I would like to comment on your piece by Susan Kawa.  I can definitely relate to her concept since I was raised in the cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses.  It took several events and quite some time to wake me up to reality and completely cast the cult aside.  I finally broke free after forty years and I can't believe it took so long but the roots were deep.  The leaving process actually took five or six years and then there was a short grieving period she mentioned.  It was very hard because my life is totally changed (for the better) but the emotional and psychological "trauma," for lack of a better word, is likely what stops many from making such a change.  I have always felt that the truth was my ultimate aim and still feel that way, so I don't fear changing my core beliefs on the conscious level but those beliefs are deeply rooted subconsciously.  

The one section I really related to was, "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."  Escaping from the cult gave me my whole mind for the first real time in my life.  I can't put a price on it.  Now I pity my family and old friends that still refuse to take ownership of their brain.  I offer them facts that they can't refute and it has no immediate effect.  They don't even want to hear them.  I can only hope that in time they will want to have their own thoughts.  

Even though my parents raised me in the cult, (although they didn't think it was one, of course), my father always told me, "You have a brain, you might as well use it."  That one saying probably saved me in the long run.

Take a look at www.premier1.net/~raines/ life.html for some interesting input on this subject... Another reader, Kathleen Ward, shared her thoughts on the same item:

I am writing this in response to the letter written by Susan Kawa. I share a lot of the same feelings as Susan, like her feelings that skepticism "is a heart-rending path, very similar to my other experiences of profound loss and grief." I was not born a skeptic either, and I do recall a time when I prayed every night before I went to bed, hung a crucifix above my bedroom door, and was fascinated by stories of prophecy, ghosts, U.F.O's, and other such nonsense. Unlike Susan, I came to be a skeptic during the period of "having hormones, spending hours on the phone and doing homework" which I am just barely coming out of now.

It all started in grade nine while attending my Catholic high school. One evening as I was diligently doing my readings for Christian ethics class the following day, I came across a section in my text concerning morality and ethics. In a nutshell, the author of the text concluded that an individual is incapable of being moral without the threat of hell. There appeared to be a huge logical inconsistency here. I took this to my father expecting him to make some sense out of it for me. I went into his den in the basement and said to him "Read this, it's bullshit." He looked at the title, "Morality in Catholicism," and said, "I know." I was a little taken aback by this, considering that up to this point in my life I was under the impression that my father was a God-fearing man just like everyone else. "What do you mean, it's bullshit?" I demanded, my voice beginning to crack and tears beginning to form, knowing perfectly well what he meant. My father didn't say anything else and turned to his massive book shelf behind him and pulled out a book I had seen many times before but never really paid much attention to, called "Why I am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell. Before this I had had my share of doubts about God, but reading that essay obliterated any lingering doubts I had.

This is when the "heart-rending" period began for me. If God doesn't exist, then there is no heaven. If there's no heaven, then where the hell is my beloved grandfather? After this realization, I was really ticked off. All of my education to date had been Catholic education, which means that from the tender age of five, I had been given false information about how the world is to be perceived. Throughout high school I eventually came to terms with this, despite every respectable adult I knew, with the exception of my father, telling me that my atheism was just a passing phase that almost every person experiences.

I consoled myself with the fact that when I left high school, it would get easier. I would find that there were more people out there who felt the same way I did. It has only been a year since I was in high school, and I must say, I am not impressed. I have seen more examples of soft-headed thinking in the past year than I did all through high school. I've figured out that being in the Catholic high school protected me from all the evangelical and fundamentalist Christians because they all hate the Catholics, but in university they're everywhere and they're not shy. . . .

I really enjoyed the comment Susan made at the end that read "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." I like this statement, but I'm not totally sure I agree with it. When I decided that I was a skeptic, or would aspire to be one, I was not thinking about the responsibility, effort or personal sacrifice. All I was thinking was that I was sick of being lied to and I was going to find out the truth. The rest of it came later as an unforeseen consequence of my decision, especially the "social sacrifice" part. I am currently in a relationship that would be fine and dandy except that he was raised by two Charismatic Christian ministers and I'm an atheist. To my boyfriend's dismay, I'm not going to budge on my position and I'm not going to smile and nod when his father tells me the Bible predicted September 11th, Bush waging war on Iraq, and this is what is going to cause the second coming, and yes, four men riding horses are on their way. I have a sneaking suspicion that his father said the same thing during the Gulf War.

Even though through university I have discovered there are a lot more fundamentalists than I thought, I have met one or two other people who share my annoyance with what I call soft-headed thinking. One is a peer of mine, and the other is my philosophy professor. The first day of class he was giving us a brief overview of what we would be studying throughout the semester. The first thing on the agenda was the philosophy of religion. I had no idea at that point whether he was an atheist, Christian, or anything else, and wasn't sure if it was relevant or appropriate to ask, but I did anyway. He said quite bluntly, "Yes, I am an atheist, and that will become very clear when we study the section on the philosophy of religion." I almost hugged him.

I spoke to him off and on during the semester and shared my thoughts with him about a few things. He told me of experiences he had at the University of Regina, where he was asked to perhaps not share his opinion so forcefully. He assured me that it isn't this way everywhere, and for my own sanity I have to trust him on that. I have discovered that most people don't want to hear the truth about things and are much more comfortable in their ignorance. I was more comfortable, too, but it wasn't the truth. That's the part I don't understand, even if it is more difficult to deal with, isn't it better than being deceived? Who likes being lied to?

In closing I would just like to say, thank you Mr. Randi for your incredible determination and resilience in the face of superstition, the absurd and all around nonsense. It is because of people like you that people like me are confident enough to stand their ground and call themselves sceptics. Your work has been a huge influence on me and I'd really like to tell you that in person, but just in case it doesn't happen, at least I know it got to you some way or another. Thank you.

Talk about chancing on a theme! Look at that second-last paragraph. That's exactly Susan Kawa's point! Thank you for suggesting that line of inquiry, Susan! But read on...


An old friend, Cornelis de Jager, is an astrophysicist with the Sonnenborgh Observatory in Utrecht, Netherlands. He is a prominent figure in the European Association of Skeptical Organizations, and retired chairman of that group. I reprint here an article he published in a "Special Issue" of Skeptical Intelligencer (the journal of The Association for Skeptical Enquiry, UK) dedicated to "Delusional and Anomalous Beliefs," back in 2001, a piece that I feel reflects aspects of our present political situation and problems. It also connects with the Kawa piece, in that it discusses how the "not wanting to really know" desire, which Susan brought out, is hardly new; it was declared by Erasmus, the Dutch Humanist, back in the 16th century! Here's Part One:

OUR DELIGHTFUL DELUSIONS

The Wisdom of Folly

Nearly five centuries ago, in 1511, Desiderius Erasmus, of Rotterdam, but truly Européen avant la lettre, published his book "Stultitiae Laus," which translates as, "The Wisdom of Folly." Erasmus was one of the forerunners of the great cultural revolutions that took place in the beginning of the last half millennium. His book was conceived during a voyage on horseback from Italy to England and was dedicated to his friend [Sir] Thomas More.

Its contents are a severe criticism of the world of his day. Not without reason, his criticisms were formulated in an indirect way. As the author of the book, he introduced a woman called Moria (Greek for "folly," but also a little joke at the expense of More). Women were, in his days, considered more innocent and less wise than men. She was dressed as a mediaeval jester, in the fool's costume with the fool's cap. The character of the book's spokesperson is stressed in the final paragraph, where he writes:

If anything that I have said seems too saucy or too glib, stop and think: ‘tis Folly, and a woman that has spoken. But of course, you will also remember that Greek proverb, "Even a foolish man will often speak a word in season," unless, perhaps, you assume that this does not extend to women.

That way, he made his criticism acceptable to the rulers of his day, or stated otherwise, he pulled the weapons out of the hands of his potential enemies. This was certainly necessary, because his criticisms are, in some places, extremely severe. To get an impression of the character of Erasmus' work, consider the following quotations. First, a fairly airy one:

But it is a sad thing, they say, to be deceived. No. The saddest thing is not to be deceived. For they are quite beside the mark, who think that the happiness of Man is to be found in things as they actually are; it resides in opinion. For such is the obscurity and variety of human affairs that nothing can be clearly known. . . .

Here Erasmus reveals himself to be an early skeptic. His criticism of the church is in some places outspoken, as shown by this quotation:

Finally, the mind of Man is so constructed that it is taken far more with disguises than with reality. If anyone wants to make a convincing and easy test of this, let him go to church and listen to sermons. If something solid is being said, everyone sleeps, or yawns, or is ill at ease. But if the bawler — I made a slip, I meant to say prater — as they so often do, begins some old wives' tale, everybody awakens, straightens up, and gapes for it.

There are more places where the church is attacked:

The Christian religion on the whole seems to have a kinship with some sort of folly, while it has no alliance whatever with wisdom.

A few lines further:

Then you will notice that the original founders of religion, admirably laying hold of pure simplicity, were the bitterest foes of literary learning. Lastly, no fools seem to act more foolishly than do the people of whom zeal for Christian piety has got possession.

A remarkable sentence about war:

Yet, what is more foolish than to enter upon a conflict for I know not what causes, wherein each side reaps more of loss than of gain? As for those who fall, "no particulars." This famous game of war is played by parasites, panderers, bandits, assassins, peasants, sots, bankrupts, and such other dregs of mankind. . . .

Finally, a word on the religious wars, which occurred in Erasmus' time as frequently as at present:

Now the Christian church was founded on blood, strengthened by blood, and augmented by blood; yet nowadays they carry on Christ's cause by the sword just as if He who defends His own by His own means had perished. And although war is so cruel a business that it befits beasts and not men . . . so iniquitous that it is usually conducted by the worst bandits, so impious that it has no accord with Christ, yet our popes, neglecting all their other concerns, make it their only task.

So much for Erasmus. By acting as a jester he could publish his criticism to his world.

The Mediaeval Jester

The mediaeval jester, with his cap and his mirror, evidently inspired Erasmus in his writings. The jester was a typical feature in many mediaeval noble courts. But this was not only so in the western world. In comparable appearance he also figured at the courts of the Aztec emperors, at those of the Shoguns of ancient Japan, and of the Caliphs in the Arab world. Jesters were considered fools, standing outside the real world, and that gave them the privilege to express unpleasant truths. Actually, in the authoritarian Middle Age countries, they functioned as the only channel through which criticism could be put forward without danger to the one pronouncing it. Their social function was to reduce tension in society. Hence the saying, "The emperor needs the jester, just as the jester needs the emperor." Indeed, the jester was paid by the emperor and could not exist without his support, but the emperor's position would be weaker without the jester.

The jester mirrors reality and turns upside-down existing philosophies of life. This gets to the point at which it becomes unclear if folly is the mirror of reality or the other way round.

The understanding of the position of the jester is amplified by considering the relation between jesters and power or authority. He has to accept existing power, because he has no capacity to counter it. Countering power demands co-operation, planning, and organization. The jester, being a specific individual, has no power, but neither is he repressed by power. Thus, the jester is a rebel, but he is not a revolutionary. His role with regard to authority is rather conservative. He is critical, but he thus reduces social tensions and consolidates power. The jester functions as a conserving buffer between power and society.

The Jester in the Modern Era

In the 18th century, enlightenment and rationalism appeared hand in hand. The enlightenment was a positive and optimistic philosophy of life, assuming continuous progress of mankind through the progress of science. Enlightenment considered human rationality as the ultimate power, and in such a world there seemed no place for the mediaeval, institutional, jester. And yet, he returned in our time, in another shape and again with the task of presenting a mirror to our rapidly evolving society. A.C. Zijderveld has written:

Modern society has created a cultural climate in which, in principle, taboos need no longer be spared, where everything is possible and allowed, and where what is erratic, non-sublimated, strange, rude, materialistic and uncivilized, has become normal. And, just as folly cannot exist without the established order to mirror itself, also the reverse is the case.

Initially, this new feature had a gentle and playful character. Typical examples are the hippies from the 1970s and the "flower-power" movement. Comparable to it are the "encounter groups," aiming at impulsive and non-rational bodily expressions and rejecting rational checking and control. Similarly, as with the mediaeval jester, these modem movements are mostly not so much anti-rational, but rather non-rational. They are conservative by nature, directed at an idealized society, with the delights of our affluent commercial and industrialized community, but without its evils. In the same way as the mediaeval jester was paid by the emperor, the hippies could exist only by the grace of the society that they rejected in principle. The fact that such groups could come into being should be seen as a statement of the quality of our present-day society. Would they not be necessary in a perfect democracy? Is their existence an expression of the feeling that they have insufficient means to contribute to guiding our society? I think not. Just like the jester, these groups have no aspiration to power; they mainly want to demonstrate their criticism and stand aside from the rest.

At this point two comments are in order. The first is that there are also differences between the modern and the mediaeval jester. The latter was, in spite of his special position, bound to clear rules that hardly changed over the centuries. This does not apply to the modern playful aspects described above. They developed further. The ultimate consequence of such a development, in which bounds are not kept in sight, can be that the system evolves ultimately into one of an opposite character. This happens by what is called, in French, "les défauts de ses qualities" ("the defects of his qualities") through which "Jede Konsequenz führt zum Teufel" ("Every consequence leads to the devil.)

Thus, the playful social movements of the 1970s developed into the chaotic-aggressive and terrorist-destructive movements with an anti-rational basis that we observed so clearly in Gothenburg and Genoa. Also there, the movements remained essentially unorganized and without internal coherence. Zijderveld again, writing in 1985: "Folly is an anomic [norms and values broken down] force indeed, and if not institutionally restricted, and when it loses its parasitic mirror-reality, it can become destructive."

The second comment is the following. No pronounced societal trend is an independent entity. The hippies were the tip of a three-level pyramid. Their appearance would not have been possible without a broad structural underground. I view that underground in the broad appearance of movements with different names, but with comparable contents: New Age, post-modernism, spirituality, Eastern philosophies, all with a quasi-intellectual appearance but with anti-scientific contents. Still broader, in the lowest level of the pyramid, so to say, resides the society-wide aversion to the scientific method and refuge in anti-rational philosophies. These are fed by the tabloid press and the consequences of mediocre school education, and amplified by the media and further bred by organizations with an anti-rational character. As Erasmus already said, "Many enjoy their blessed Elysées."

We would perhaps better understand that last quotation as, "Many enjoy their paradise of ignorance." Cornelis — and Erasmus — point out this "don't-want-to-face-reality" tendency, which will be amplified next week when we read Part Two...

(End of Part One)


Yet another setback for the UFO community. One of their pet examples of aliens zooming about in our environment, has been effectively criticized. In the small, isolated, Queensland town of Boulia, Australia (population 250), there has only ever been one claim to fame: strange, shimmering lights are seen at night, some of which have chased terrified stockmen across the dusty plains of the desert.

The "Min Min lights," as they are known from the Aboriginal term for such matters, have become part of Outback folklore, and Boulia wisely did its best to capitalize on that legend, building a Min Min Museum to lure tourists to the remote town, which is on the Burke River in the western reaches of Queensland. While some locals have ascribed the lights to UFOs, others blamed swarms of fireflies or even glow-worms. Now one of those pesky scientists has found a perfectly rational explanation. Neuroscience Professor John Pettigrew at Queensland University, has discovered that the eerie glow is caused by natural atmospheric refraction that occurs when cold air is trapped below warmer air, when a cool night follows a hot winter's day, for instance. This effectively creates an atmospheric "mirror" that can produce an "inverted mirage," of car headlights or a bushfire that can be hundreds of miles away across the horizon.

The citizens of Boulia, which consists of forty houses, a grocery store and the inevitable pub, have invested more than US$2.5 million in the Min Min Encounter Centre, with a hi-tech simulation of the lights and selling Min Min refrigerator magnets, key rings and T-shirts. Wisely, the chief executive of the Boulia town council said that the explanation would not reduce interest in the claim. However, as an indication that the town might be a bit rattled by the development, the Encounter Centre waived its entry fee over the Easter weekend. After all, religion and UFOs have similar origins….


The Tri-Valley Herald of California reports that two American Legion posts and two other veterans' groups in Pleasanton, sponsored a class on dowsing in March to study whether domestic terrorists could be identified by pointing sticks at suspicious people to see if the sticks move. One of the veterans' leaders (who vouched that "the government" and oil and mining companies regularly use dowsing) told the local Herald, "You can't wait for the FBI and police to come up with solutions when you have the bad guys living among us." Following the 9/11 attacks, some Pleasanton veterans received training in so-called "remote (psychic) viewing" and are now reportedly bringing local families up to speed on their missing-in-action relatives from past wars.

Hey guys! Why all this flimsy stuff? Apply for and win the JREF million-dollar prize to find anything with a dowsing rod, then you can start a fully-staffed agency for uncovering The Bad Guys! Oh! Where was that? California? Figures...


Reader Gary Harris, commenting on the "polygraph" item of last week, opines:

Now, advocates of the polygraph will point to the utility of the thing: people do make confessions when they're hooked up to it. But people also made confessions to the Inquisition. Thumbscrew or polygraph? The difference, one might say, is of degree, not type.

Or, I'd add, dependability….. How about: one from column A, two from column B...?


In response to frequent demand, we're now putting up some better-resolution photos in our media section of this page. Saves us a lot of mailing of photos, believe me.


Reader James Ridge, along with some 30 or so others, corrected me appropriately:

The reference to "doublethink" in your commentary of April 11 (More Attacks/Lies Launched) correctly attributes this term to author George Orwell. The dystopia in which it and "Big Brother" appeared, however, was not "Brave New World" (penned by Aldous Huxley) but Orwell's anti-totalitarian "1984."

But I'm perhaps not the only one who boo-booed last week, though I must share the blame for not having checked it out properly. Reader Liam McDaid, Astronomy Coordinator/Assistant Professor of Astronomy at Sacramento City College, California, and "former New Mexican," tells us:

In your latest commentary, Charlie Ravioli mentioned that the Jornada del Muerto is near the intersection of Rts 66 and 666.  This isn't so.  Rt 66 never even comes close to the Jornada, which runs far south of old Rt 66.  As for the intersection of 66 and 666, it's on the west side of the state, whereas the Jornada del Muerto is in the south central part of NM.

Umm, you see, I looked up the intersection of 66 and 666, but I didn't think I'd find the Jornada on the map. Wrong. It's a whole mountain range...!

Until next week...


View the Commentary archive.


Want more? View all of Randi's Opinions by visiting the archive. Click here.

Help support the JREF through donations, grants, gifts and memberships. Click here to learn more.

Subscribe to Randi's email "Info List." For details, send an empty email message to JREFInfo-help@ssr.com


Home | Commentary | Lectures | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | Swift | Library | Donations | Contact | Internet Audio Show
Join Now | Books & Videos for Sale | About the JREF | Randi's Calendar | Scholarships and Awards | Learning Resources | Press Center
© 2001 James Randi Educational Foundation

Web Design and Maintenance provided by Innovation Design, Inc.