This last April 1st, we missed our annual Flying Pig Awards, due to pressures of other work, and a heavy lecture schedule. As usual, there was a full field of likely awardees. For next April's event, our good friend Peter Zimmerman has assured us that he's discovered a big winner:

It is my high privilege to nominate Dr. Randell L. Mills, MD, president and CEO of BlackLight® Power, Inc. for both the Pigasus and IgNobel awards. Dr. Mills has produced the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics ("GUT-CQM," also known as "Gut-Con") which, in about 1000 pages, stands all of 20th-century physics on its head, predicting anti-gravity as a consequence of the changing shape (disks, hollow spheres) of the electron and sub-ground-states of the hydrogen atom. Mills is also able, at the drop of a quantum, to postdict almost any result that he reads about in the press including publications such as Scientific American, Science News, and — I think — the National Enquirer.

As support for the award of the Pigasus prize, I cite the fact that [five competent scientists] have now conclusively proven on its own terms that the entire theory is bogus from its very first line. In view of the fact that Mills has raised over $30 MILLION dollars and is now raising $3.5 MILLION more from investors (some investors include your tax-paying electric light and power companies skimming the money from their ratepayers), I believe that no nominee in the history of either award has ever been more worthy of receiving it. Indeed, we have here a nominee for whom the famous Randi/JREF Challenge would be small change!

I must say that this claim by Dr. Mills of a paradigm-shaking revolution in science and the nature of the universe, is of a much higher class than those that I usually receive, merely because of the academic status of the originator. It is merely attired in more formal costume that others than arrive at the JREF office every day. I offer you the following submission as an example of what usually passes before my eyes, spelling and all:

I claim that my Faster Than Light data transmission cable devices propagate signal and or information in digital format with propagation speeds that are no less than 2(two) times faster than the speed of light as measured in vacuum. Below are the proposed definition of what constitute both a positive and negative result. . . . The border line: If my FTL data transmission line should propagate signal with speed that is below 200% of c than that speed should be considered as negative result. If my FTL data transmission line should propagate signal with speed that is equal or higher than 200% of c than that speed should be considered as positive result. Now to "Cut the Red Tape" I propose this: I will send the following Items in one single package: One original, signed and notarized Million Dollar Challenge Application. One 10m long 10MBit/sec FTL data transmission with electrical specification including schematic diagrams, interconnection hardware and power supply adaptor suitable to operate in the US. One US stamp affixed and addressed envelope. One photo-copy of my US Passport's first page. One signed and dated copy of mutual agreement of test conditions and limitations. Finally, my Faster Than Light data transmission lines or cables do not require my presence in order to function as specified. So, feel free to make any kind of test procedures that should be relevant to propagation speeds measurements. And I assume that you very well know that all electronic devices can be damaged by exciding the electrical specifications of input signals and power supply parameters.

Gotcha, Zimmerman! Try to beat that! (What this man's passport has to do with his claim, I've yet to figure out...)

Reader Andy Perrin suggests you go to http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm to see just how silly Michael Drosnin's "Bible Code" notion is. Mind you, he's made the money already from the sales of his books, and I'm sure he has lots yet to come in, but for anyone to take his claims seriously, they'd have to leave common sense at home. This explanation is priceless, and wipes out Drosnin with laughter, which is the correct weapon to use here. Often, a claimant looks silly enough without much work on the part of the skeptic.

Reader Eric Rapp came across a comment in a discussion on a message board, and made his own comment:

"To walk around [as] a skeptic means having a piss poor view of the world, missing its beauty and mystery and being afraid and aimless."

You could not possibly be any more wrong.

Have you seen the pictures from the Hubble space telescope? They reveal not just stars but entire nebulas, galaxies, and the light from almost the beginning of time.

Meanwhile, John Edward is still trying to find someone who knows a person associated with an "M" and Sylvia Browne is predicting that Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez will break up just about any day now.

There is infinite wonder around us. Watch a spider weave a web of intricate beauty and complexity. Science is still trying to explain how a spider can do that, and maybe some day we will understand. Look at the layers of time and history revealed in a cliff face. We're still doing our best to understand everything that the rocks and fossils can tell us. See us, foolish apes, probing the universe as best we can to find intelligence that we cannot fathom, in places we can't imagine. We may never find, it but I know we will never stop looking.

Hell, look at me, an ape more foolish than most, waxing absurdly poetic over what we can do. But everything, EVERYTHING we can do comes not from blind belief, but a willingness to try to find out how things REALLY work, and to not ever stop trying. That is really what being a skeptic means, at least to me.

"Missing the beauty and mystery of the world?" No. I just have a much broader view of what the beauty and the mystery of the world and the universe actually contains, than you do.

Eric expresses this very well. I've often pointed out that science is the pursuit of knowledge and the act of stating what has been found, but it is not the discovery of a "fact" that cannot be questioned, nor refuted, nor modified. It's the search, not the finding, that's important. That search can be triggered by wonder and curiosity, I would hope. Needless to say, I'm in full accord with Eric's observations on Edward and Browne; the vapidity of their declarations should be boring to all, but some innocents find them captivating...

My ever-alert readers have raised an alarm about an error shown here two weeks ago; I give you just one alert that I received. I plead no contest....

How did the Chiu patent get connected with the Q-Ray product in your commentary? I initially took this at face value, since that's the way you described them, but after revisiting Chiu's website and the Q-Ray website, I find no evidence of any connection between them. Chiu's invention relates to claims of magnetic influences, whereas the Q-Ray involves some fuzdazzle or other about ionic fields. Q-Ray claims/has claimed that their product was first designed in 1973 by one Manuel Polo.

Which brings me to a more telling point. Chiu has a patent, ridiculous though it is, and yet he can't get arrested with his product. His website is an amateur joke, and he's giving away far more of his devices than he's selling. He gets $15.95 apiece for them. Q-Ray has a spiffy website, great marketing, and they sell some versions of their product for over $100. They are obviously very successful, despite their lack of any utility patent protection.

Okay. I did get these two nonsense items mixed, but being up to my waist in such silly matters every day, I was just a bit overloaded, I guess. Crap is crap, and easily misidentified with other crap.

There was much more on the subject. Reader Ryan Smith, in Taipei, an engineer knowledgeable about patent matters, relieved more of my ignorance with this message:

I'm sure that you've received some comments about your criticism of a particular patent examiner in allowing Alex Chiu US Patent #5,989,178 for a Magnetic Ring, or more precisely, a method of using one. As you know, a patent does not and cannot guarantee that a device works. A patent is simply an offensive tool that can be used to enforce a monopoly on a certain device or method. That is, you can sue people who make your gadget without a license. If nobody infringes your Claims (I capitalize this to refer to the formal Claims found at the end of a patent), your patent is effectively useless. A patent cannot guarantee a working device as this would mean duplicating and testing each inventor's work, a massive undertaking given the amount of applications filed each day.

Patent examiners typically have enough skill in a field to critically analyze inventions with the aim of not issuing patents for them. They attempt to uncover evidence that an invention is old or is simply an obvious variation of another. Where dubious or unproven statements are made, the examiner is left to their reasoning, while giving the inventor the benefit of the doubt. Suppose each cell is like a magnet, suppose cells die because of poor circulation, then yes, there is a possibility (however remote or unsupported) that an externally applied magnet would speed metabolism and make cells healthier. If the examiner takes the time to dig up a reference that disputes the validity of statements like this, the inventor can usually amend the patent application or make an argument to skirt the reference. Suppose the examiner cites a study that found that human cells definitely do not act like magnets. Well, all the crazed inventor has to do is then state that his device is best used while doing jumping jacks, as the subjects in the cited study were all sitting or laying down. How can a patent examiner, or anyone for that matter, be given the task researching and refuting statements like this? We'd need a one-to-one ratio of professional refuters to loonies, just to keep up.

Incidentally, the offensive strength of a patent is in its Claims, which are the focus of patent examination. If your device or method is different enough from what's already out there as stated in your Claims, then you can get a patent. Glancing over the Claims of US Patent # 5,989,178, which happens to claim various methods of using magnetic rings rather than the rings themselves, anyone with half a brain would be able to avoid or fight a lawsuit from Mr. Chiu and still reap all the life-extending benefits of such a startling medical breakthrough.

Rather than attacking the USPTO we should attempt to inform the public about what a patent is and what it is not. Anyway, take a look at US Patent # 5,443,306. It's worth a laugh.

Okay, Ryan, I follow all that, and I thank you for your assistance and information. But let's examine (no pun intended!) the extremes of this situation. Could I obtain a patent on a safety device to assist the landing of Santa's reindeer on rooftops? The Q-Ray claims are no less silly than the claim that Santa visits rooftops. I've invented a device and system for enabling a sleigh full of toys, pulled by flying reindeer, to land safely on sloping rooftops. I'm applying for a patent. I'll use your wording, above, and substitute the Santa Claus situation:

Where dubious or unproven statements are made, the examiner is left to their reasoning, while giving the inventor the benefit of the doubt. Suppose a bearded jolly elf does visit the homes of children all over the world on the evening of December the 24th, suppose he gets there by means of flying reindeer pulling a huge sled, then yes, there is a possibility (however remote or unsupported) that a landing on a sloped rooftop could be made safer by means of this invention. If the examiner takes the time to dig up a reference that disputes the validity of statements like this, the inventor can usually amend the patent application or make an argument to skirt the reference.

There! Would a patent examiner actually, seriously, choose to accept the possibility of Santa and his flying reindeer, as you suggest he would have to, as part of his job description? I see belief in Santa and flying reindeer to be just as preposterous as belief in human cells that adhere to one another by magnetism. If the answer to the above question is yes,then I surrender my battle against this vaudeville troupe known as the United States Patent and Trademarks Office, and its slapstick routines.

Incidentally, I got a headache reading the details of patent #5,443,306, and I admit that I've not the slightest notion of what it is perhaps trying to say. What joy must have been experienced by the patent lawyer who created this miracle of obfuscation! All that money his/her parents spent on college, were not wasted! It's a masterpiece of bad English, punctuation, and grammar.

Another reader commented on the same matter:

Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the idea has been formed in the public mind that a patent is somehow a Government-verified indicator of worth and functionality, a sort of glorified Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. While that is an unfortunate thing, it is hardly the fault of the Patent Office, which operates as the law mandates it to do.

Yes, and that's what alarms me. Potential investors are often not aware that there's no official endorsement inherent in the possession of a patent, though it's certainly implied. That mandating law should, in my opinion, be amended to reflect this fact.

Reader Robert Benningfield reported on an inquiry he made to the USPTO about the Q-Ray patent:

Well, this was an informative, if disappointing, learning exercise. I called the USPTO's Inventors Assistance Center (IAC). They told me that my only recourse against this fraudulent patent was to have it re-examined, and that I should work through a patent lawyer to initiate that process. Also, I would need published evidence to support my claims that the Magnetic Ring is medical quackery.

Randi: Note that while the patentee is not required to show that his claim is valid, Robert is required to how that it's not. I find that bizarre. Robert sent the following e-mail....

To: usptoinfo@uspto.gov
Subject: Patents

Greetings to whom it may concern. US patent #5,989,178 ("Magnetic Ring") appears to be a patent for a device of medical quackery. The device patented here is a scam, not an invention, whose preposterous, fraudulent claims (contained in the patent) are not supported by science.

What can be done about rescinding this embarrassing patent?

Here's a quote from the Claims section of the patent, repeated ad nauseam in the patent: "A method of utilizing a magnetic ring adapted to be worn on all the fingers including the thumb of each hand to supplement strength and speed of existing magnetic flux current cycled around a human body to increase health of the human body by virtue of blood circulation being directly proportional to magnetic flux and the magnetic flux being a natural turbine to circulate blood and which consists of no moving parts but yet still propels the blood..."

Any feedback on the merits of this patent would be appreciated.

He received this response:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is unable to respond to this question via e-mail. You may contact General Information Services Division at 800 786-9199 OR 703 305-4357 and request to be transferred to the Inventors Assistance Center (IAC). IAC representatives are available Monday through Friday (except Federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

I'll just sum up my personal dismay in this discussion: It seems to me, in my innocence, that for any federal or state agency to allow patently (again, no pun!) obvious glaring errors, pseudoscience, superstitions, mythology, and generally juvenile and ridiculous claims to become part of our legal system and our accepted literature, is negative and potentially disastrous. I ask you to do as have done: substitute the Santa Claus paradigm into any of these discussions, and see just how suddenly ridiculous they become. They are laughable because most of us consider belief in Santa and flying reindeer to be beyond any serious consideration. Folks, the trash that the Q-Ray fakers and Alex Chiu put out is in every way as silly, and provably a pack of lies!

If my point's not made by now, I despair of ever making it....

Reader Kevin Martin of Brighton, in the UK, tells us of his experience with popular quackery:

Thank you for your wonderful site. As a UK resident, I am sick to death of these "alternative" medicine people preying on people's vulnerability. Five years ago I had my left leg amputated above the knee and ever since have experienced continuous phantom limb pain. I have tried many conventional treatments, but so far without any success. Anyway, last year at a particularly vulnerable time, I went to see a hypnotherapist who advertised in my local paper.

Randi's brief comment: The writer refers to the "phantom limb" effect which is known to affect some amputees. This manifests itself as a perceived presence of the limb, complete with pain and other sensations that indicate to the sufferer that the limb is still in place. Any need to adjust, scratch, or otherwise relieve discomfort is of course not to be satisfied, and though the illusion of the limb is very strong, the sufferer can find no relief. To continue:

When I got [to the office of the hypnotherapist] my suspicions were immediately aroused by all the "new age" books lying around and the conspicuous number of crystals that were evident. The woman also had about 6 or 7 cats — which in my book is always a good sign of someone being unhinged. However, I was there, so I thought I'd go through with it. After all, what did I have to lose? Well, �150, I suppose!

After just a five-minute chat she informed me that my problem was due to my not choosing to accept the loss of my leg, and she went on with a psychobabble explanation of a phenomenon about which she had no knowledge, not to mention that she had no medical background, either. I have researched phantom limb pain and have a good grasp of some of the neurology behind it — it has certainly nothing to do with choice.

Randi again: True, it appears that in this phenomenon, some of the basic "software" as well as actual neural sensing equipment is still in place, despite the amputation of the limb itself. The brain still receives signals, which it is not able to properly interpret or assign. Continuing:

She informed me that she did healing, as well. We had a two-hour session, in which I certainly never felt hypnotized and in which at one point she made strange noises and waved her hands over me in a bizarre fashion. Well, at the end, I couldn't get out of there quick enough.

Going down the road, brushing the cat hairs off my clothes and aware of the fact that it had not made a damn bit of difference to the pain I suffer, I was still left questioning myself about maybe not "wanting" it to work. Now, I don't consider myself particularly na�ve, and I know that the best way to maintain a belief in a treatment that doesn't work, is to blame the patient, yet I still fell into this trap.

Mind you, I cannot say that it was a totally ineffective day, as I now sneeze whenever my sister's cat is around. I think this fruitcake made me allergic to cats!

Anyway, in July I am having some quite drastic and dangerous surgery which will hopefully help. I have a friend who keeps on suggesting a healer called Stephen Turoff — have you heard of him? Well, I will never put money into these charlatans' pockets again, and now whenever the subject comes up I always relate my experience; they get away with it because people talk about the hits, and never the misses. Strangely enough when I do this, I often get really filthy looks — people want to believe in this guff.

Kevin, I'd say, rather than, "people want to believe in this," that they "need to believe in it." I have no problem understanding why you or any other similarly-afflicted person would turn to such an unlikely source of help. All I've heard about your sort of ailment tells me that you can be desperate to find relief. The quacks are vultures, waiting to take advantage of those who have nowhere else to turn. They feed on such opportunities. As for Turoff, he was one of those I looked into on my TV series for Granada, in the UK. He's a promoter of Sai Baba, says he operates through the spirits of the Brazilian fraud Arigo, and a very dead German doctor he calls, "Kahn". I leave you to your own conclusions.

Kevin, thank you for sharing this matter with us, and we hope that you will receive some benefit from real medical treatment. I will look forward to a further report from you.

The illustration shown here is of a book from the JREF library, dated 1956. It's one of the potboilers that Walter Baines Gibson (creator of The Shadow character) churned out on every imaginable spooky subject. At that time I was touring with a "hyp" show, on the strength of the 1956 book by Morey Bernstein, "The Search for Bridey Murphy," and the movie of the same name and year, starring Teresa Wright. Hypnotism was the flavor-of-the-year....

I'm alerted to a website http://www.amiannoying.com/2002/view.aspx?ID=2242 which deals with how annoying celebrities are, obtained by votes from readers. I see that Sylvia Browne was the 47th MOST annoying celebrity of 2002, and that I was comfortably in the top 50 LEAST annoying. I think (?) that's comforting. Some 72.43% think Larry King is annoying. Hey, how many people actually like me? A nice 65% out of about 60,000 votes! Of course, I think my family voted.....

Reader Simon Nicholson fulfills a promise he made long ago to tell us about his experiences at a faculty "alternative therapy" day, during which he became rather agitated. He titles this, "A salutary tale of the perils of trying to become a champion of skepticism!"

I work at a large college in the West of England. Every year our faculty devotes a day to "Staff development" — usually this is in the form of some "fun activity." Last Christmas, however, the head of faculty decided to send us all on a series of alternative therapy sessions, having us pick from a list including "Reflexology," "Crystal Therapy," "Reiki," "Iridology," "Aromatherapy," etc.

I blame you, Randi sir, for what followed! For once there was a time when I would have found an excuse to skive out of the whole thing, or just sit at the back reading a good book. Prolonged exposure to the JREF forum had taken its toll, and I was determined to take a proactive, challenging approach, to go in there as a Kick-Arse skeptic, rather than as a bored, disinterested non-combative!

(I did warn the head of faculty in advance of my feeling. I was still compelled to attend, but I think she allocated me to groups where she felt I was less likely to heckle!)

So it was I found myself sitting in on the Crystal Therapy session. I had prepared myself. I had read up on the subjects, and I had contacted Nick Pullar of the British Skeptics. He gave me good advice; I didn't realize how good until afterwards.

There were about a dozen of us in the group, some were close colleagues, others I hardly knew. On a table before us was a collection of small cardboard boxes containing crystal samples. I recognized several varieties of quartz, tourmaline, amethyst, feldspar, and others. The teacher proved to be a very young woman, and was clearly very nervous. She began by explaining that she was new to teaching, and this was one of her first sessions, but assured us that she was trained and qualified in Crystal Therapy. This evoked feeling of sympathy in the group — we could all remember the pressures and trepidations of our first teaching sessions. She went on to outline her session plan, explaining that in the relatively short time allowed, she only had time to go over the basic theory and give a couple of demonstrations of technique. As a matter of fact, she did not get to stick to her session plan; I wrecked it for her.

The wrecking process kicked off almost immediately. Following a standard teaching procedure, she set out to assess prior knowledge within the group, but obviously expected this to be a token process. She said rhetorically, "Now, I don't suppose you know much about the true nature of these beautiful, mysterious objects," at which point I replied, "Why, actually, yes. I am a geology graduate." (True, although it was my minor.) This completely fazed her, and seemed to set the pattern for the rest of the session. I got the impression that she had been expecting to not so much run an interactive workshop, as deliver a script, and I wasn't in it!

Time and again, I butted in with questions, and didn't let her off the hook. I repeated the questions with a "Broken record" technique. For example, when I challenged one of her basic claims, that crystals "channel the body's energies," she responded by citing the provenance of the use of crystals, how many cultures in history had employed them. I didn't let her proceed, but said that the mere antiquity of a belief or practice was not proof of its validity. She then tried an argument by analogy. It was a bit confused, but she basically seemed to be saying that crystals are used to regulate electronic energy pulses in many devices such as quartz watches, so likewise a crystal placed or manipulated within the body's energy field can regulate the flow of energy within the body. What are these energies, I asked, and what evidence is there that they exist, let alone that they can be manipulated by crystals? It was clear that we were in the realms of "Chi" here, and I had also researched that area quite extensively. I spent some time arguing that anecdotal evidence is no real evidence when you are making scientific/medical claims, and that argument from personal credulity is irrelevant.

Randi comments: our correspondent has made a very fundamental error here, arguing with the uninformed. They are speaking a different language, using mystical reasoning, and are impervious to any process of logic or rationality. They are simply unequipped to understand or handle reality. Arguing with a tree stump is more productive. To return:

In short, the session broke down into a prolonged head-to-head between me and the teacher. She was an easy target, as she clearly had not been expecting any sort of opposition at all, and did not know much about the true physics and chemistry of the subject. For example, she did not realize that one of the things she was demonstrating was the piezoelectric effect. I repeatedly stopped her in her tracks with simple variations on "Prove it / no, that's not proof," in particualr with her claims that crystals could adsorb bad vibrations and energies.

One of the basic ideas I tried to get across was that all of this did not represent, as she had tried to claim, "new, emergent medicine," or "science yet to be discovered," but a return to very old, discarded and ignorant thinking. However, although in one sense I "won" the arguments, this did not feel like a victory for me or for the skeptic cause.

I had lost the sympathy of the group. I'm not saying that they believed a word about "Crystal Therapy," but they were relaxed and indulgent, treating the whole thing as a bit of a giggle, and above all prepared to give a new and nervous colleague a fair chance. I was perceived as discourteous and bullying. Nick Pullar had in fact warned against exactly this thing. I must stress that at no point was I deliberately rude or aggressive; I tried at all times to keep my voice, choice of words, and my body language as polite as possible, but my persistent interruptions and challenges came across as arrogant and pedantic. I was told I should have "cut her some slack" or "show her respect as a fellow teacher."

This left me full of self doubt. Perhaps I had gone too far. But the fact was, I had been angry and therefore zealous. Sure, as my colleagues pointed out, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but are they entitled to teach them in an educational Institution? That was what was getting to me, that this new age crud was being taught alongside genuine academic and technical subjects as if it had equal validity.

I like crystals. I have a large collection of my own. Likewise, I often burn incense; I like the smell. And I'm sure that a massage can be a very pleasant experience, and even beneficial in some circumstances. But the ubiquitous misuse of the tag "therapy" and the invocation of false cosmology and magical thinking in the guise of medicine or science, should not be tolerated.

The next session was on Reiki. I was a little subdued and introspective after my previous experience, and decided that I would at least give this teacher a chance to deliver her piece before making a challenge. Amazingly, I found that this time, roles were reversed. I was adopting a "let her have her say" approach, and my colleagues were, to put it bluntly, heckling!

The session plan was very similar, an overview of the subject, a justification by citing antiquity of practice, and then a demonstration. It was clear that we were in very familiar territory, we were still talking about "energy flows" and "energy points" within the body, energies that could not be detected by conventional means, but which nevertheless could be manipulated by an adept.

The group contained many of the same colleagues who had been in on the Crystal Therapy session. This time their smiling indulgence had been replaced with irritable intolerance. They constantly interrupted with cries of "Says who?" and "Where's the proof?" They were in fact, far ruder than ever I had been. In the end, two people actually walked out of the session, declaring it a waste of time and a load of old (Anglo-Saxon expletive!)

Randi: Whoa! Didn't it occur to you that perhaps your colleagues, finding no opposition for this set of nonsense, provided their own, perhaps inspired by your previous actions? But, to continue....

I'd like to think that I had "got to them," but I believe the reason for the switch in attitude was the difference in the teachers of the two sessions. The first had been young, shy and nervous, the second middle aged, very confident, somewhat patronising, and so I guess she presented a more legitimate target. She had gotten off to a very bad start in the "icebreaker" speech by referring to our faculty as, "nerds and computer geeks." It was meant as a joke but it went down like the proverbial lead balloon. And I could not help but note that the former was a very pretty blond, and the latter stout and rather homely, not that such considerations would have compromised the objectivity of my colleagues, of course!

I suppose what I learned from this was that it is relatively easy to shoot down a proponent of pseudoscience in flames, if you are armed with a few facts and are familiar with the type of fallacies behind which they hide. But don't expect applause and admiration, or even acknowledgement of the legitimacy of your skepticism. Even now, I am a voice crying in the wilderness when it comes to my objection to the inclusion of these topics in the curriculum of the faculty of "beauty and holistic therapy." I did have one moment of gratification, when the head of our faculty, who had set the whole thing going and insisted that I attend, approached me, rather bewildered after going through a reflexology session, and admitted, "You know Simon, I'm beginning to think you may be right."

Coast on that small consolation, Simon. And thank you for daring to speak up.

To fans of TV's Nickelodeon and "Sponge Bob," this is old news, but "Squidward" has apparently been the lucky 'toon chosen as their "Nicktoon Astrologer." Just one declaration of this wise creature will serve to show that he's up there with the rest of the interpreters of celestial significance:

You will experience Deja Vu, the feeling that this moment has happened before...You will experience Deja Vu, the feeling that this moment has happened before.

From Steven Novella, President of the New England Skeptical Society (NESS) comes this report of a test performed by them at the request of the JREF. We have omitted, for obvious reasons, the applicant's full name:

Just reporting the results of the preliminary test we conducted on G.F. Mr. F. claimed to be able to read minds. We conducted a test on May 16th, 2003, in which a target person was given 20 common phrases or titles chosen at random from a large sample. Mr. F. was given the opportunity to read the person's mind to discern each phrase. He agreed to the protocol and that it was fair, both before and after testing. He scored zero correct out of twenty trials. No trials were close or controversial.

Therefore the NESS certifies that he has failed the preliminary test for the JREF challenge. We have the entire protocol documented in our files and also documented on videotape. If you require any of this let me know. One personal observation: this individual is extremely deluded. I have concerns that further indulging his fantasy may not be healthy for him. He asked about taking the test again and I informed him that he would have to reapply through the JREF. I don't know if you have any official rules about being re-tested, but either way I think it should be discouraged in this case. I understand that for purposes of credibility the JREF can never "refuse" to test someone, but as far as I'm concerned he has been adequately and fairly tested for this claim, which has been thoroughly documented, and expending further resources on testing him again would serve no purpose.

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in the JREF challenge. The NESS is always available to screen any applicants in the New England area.

Thank you, Steve. Our rule is that an applicant may re-apply in 12 months after failing the preliminary test. Come to think of it, "psychic" Natalia Lulova's new lawyer applied promptly at the end of her 12-month period, for a re-engagement, and we've been almost six months trying to clarify the meanings of words and other weighty lawyer-type matters. These folks do run on. And on. Steve, we'll take into serious consideration your suggestions about whether or not the applicant you tested should be accepted for a second test.

The NESS website may be seen at www.theness.com

I'm off to Canada for a week. I may be meeting a couple of applicants there, unless they chicken out as did the notorious "Curley" character, a couple of years ago, when I went there to confront him. And, the usual crowd of mumbling villagers with scythes, pitchforks, and torches.... Oh no, that was an old movie...