I'm often asked where these "speaking-with-the-dead" artists came from, and why we've never heard of them before. Wrong-O! These people have been with us for many centuries. In fact, they were featured in carnivals when I was a kid and have now moved up to the "big time." It's like a house burglar moving up to robbing banks. In one of the most popular motion pictures of all time, we saw a sample of the technique. Reader "Steve K." of Northampton, PA, offers:
We were watching "The Wizard of Oz" the other night and near the beginning when Dorothy runs away and meets the carnival man who is the wizard in her dream, he does a "cold" and a "warm" reading on her. I find it sad in that in the 60-some years since, we still have people who believe this stuff.
Thanks for reminding me of that, Steve. I'd quite forgotten about it. Yes, actor Frank Morgan, as the carnie, did just that. And the same racket is getting more and more attention. We don't seem to learn, do we?
But there's hope. In my opinion — and I've seen a lot of these crazes come and go — the "talking-with-the-dead" artists are actually doing themselves out of business. With John Edward going into syndication this Fall, it may be perceived that the public taste for this flummery has brought the whole shoddy trade a respectability it ill deserves. I believe that with Char going to NBC in 2002, and astrologer Ferdie Pacheco, Miss Cleo, and Van Praagh coming up for much wider exposure as well, the basic "cold-reading" gimmick of guessing and extracting information from the victims, will become evident to even the most naive viewer — and as soon as the consumer gets smart, the con game is over. This is over-saturation bringing on Darwinian limits.....
Claus Larsen writes us this convincing argument in favor of Miss Cleo:
As an avid reader of your website and books, I couldn't help noticing the part in your latest commentary about Ms. Cleo, the (in)famous "Tarot reader." She is supposedly from Jamaica, and she addresses Ron as "Rom." Now, being originally from Denmark, I recognized the daunting fact that in Danish, "Rom" means "Rum" — the very "spirit" that Jamaica is so famous for!This cannot be a coincidence! I mean, what are the chances that she could predict this: I "happen" to read the message, I am from Denmark — who once owned the Virgin Islands, so close to Jamaica. The islands were bought by the U.S. — where you live — in 1917, the year the U.S. entered WWI — how diabolical can it get? — and I, as a private person, very much enjoy a good rum'n'coke. That can not be a coincidence, I tell you!
Seriously, I must tell you, this is the sort of "reasoning" we get every day from persons who are quite able to discover meaning where there is none. I sincerely hope that Claus is not serious.....
Mike Dwyer comments on John Edward:
For the first time I watched John Edward's "Crossing Over" show last week. I was amazed at the details he was giving a couple of ladies in regard to the activities of one of the women's daughters. Then a very telltale clue came from the woman's mouth: "Yes, we were discussing that very thing before the show started!"
I remember the testimony of a guy on the Skeptic Magazine website who said that Edward had staff members mingling with the audience before the show. A busload of audience members came, but did not sit together. They became the focus of Edward's "readings." Why is this guy allowed to get away with this? The networks have news divisions that swear up and down to be the defenders of the truth. They sure don't make much of an effort to expose the ones who are boosting their ratings!
From Scott C. Smith, re Sylvia Browne's recent "pay-per-reading" stint on cable TV:
Here's what she said, regarding the economy: "Everything is going to get better." Amazing! I feel so much better now. I thought everything was going to get worse.
Yes, that was close!
St. Augustine established Christianity in England, he was the first Archbishop of Canterbury, and he died about 604 C.E. He apparently had more common sense than might be allowable these days in Rome. An interesting quotation attributed to him has been flitting about the Internet, and it appears to be genuine (anyone who can validate this, please?), taken from "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim," or, "The Literal Meaning of Genesis":
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian, and laugh to scorn.
Reader Daniel Balsom writes us:
I caught a tasty bit in a recent article in USA Today. It mentions the cancellation of a magnetic-levitation train project in Germany, due in part to "potential negative effects of the magnetic fields on health." Apparently in America, magnetic fields have amazing restorative powers, but on the other side of the pond, they in fact are hazardous! Could it be the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field playing havoc? Or is it the alignment of Venus?
Are we never going to get any definitive data on the claimed "bio-energetic" effects of magnets? Please?
Allow me this complaint, please: In the April 2001 issue of the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (JSPR), the official journal of the U.K. Society, there appeared a book review written by Guy Lyon Playfair, an author who has written extensively and favorably on supernatural topics. The book was "One Foot in the Stars," written by Matthew Manning and Tessa Rose. Though I've no notion who Tessa Rose might be, I know Manning as a Geller wanna-be who bends spoons and now has discovered that blue-haired ladies on cruise ships like to be "healed" by having him wave his hands at them.
I quote from that review, the second-to-last paragraph, none of which is supported by evidence and is clearly libelous:
[Manning's] recipe for keeping critic James Randi quiet, with evident success, indicates that he is not a man to mess around with — ". . . the attacks on me stopped shortly after I let it be known that I was in possession of very damaging personal information about [Randi] — detailed in official U.S. government papers . . . which I would have no compunction about disseminating."
How interesting. Well, Mr. Manning, I'll gladly "mess around" with you anytime. No one is more fascinated than I to learn what this "damaging personal information" might be, and you should know that in this country we have free access to "official U.S. government papers." Please, sir, identify these documents so that we may all obtain this data. I will publish here, on this page, the document information so that readers may look up this information that you claim is what shut me up. I won't hold my breath waiting.....
True, I have not been mentioning Matthew Manning's name in recent years. The reason for that is less exciting than this liar would have you believe; Manning is a very minor operator who soothes the sick with promises on a very small scale, and I simply have bigger fish to fry. Until he ventured into claims of extortion with this vile, abusive threat, I'd quite forgotten about him.
I find it difficult to understand why the author, Playfair, failed to contact me about this reference. I am easily and quickly available by many means, Playfair and I are acquainted, and he chose to quote this libelous passage without further inquiring about its validity. Even more surprising, nine weeks ago I e-mailed and wrote to the editors of the JSPR and notified them of my displeasure and my demand for a retraction. I believed, until now, that Dr. Zofia Weaver, the editor, and review editor Dr. Michael Coleman, as well as Playfair, had chosen to ignore my notice. I've now had a conciliatory note from Dr. Coleman, who has promised some action. And, Ms. Weaver has offered to place a very wimpy apology in the next JSPR issue. This is what she offered:
The review of Matthew Manning's book . . . . contained a reference to James Randi . . . in connection with a quotation from the book. It should be noted that James Randi strongly refutes the implications attached to this quotation, and any embarrassment that the use of this passage from the book may have caused him is sincerely regretted.
I've countered with this:
Ms. Weaver, this is not a matter of mere "embarrassment," at all. There's nothing here for me to be embarrassed about. But it is a matter of personal and professional character assassination. May I suggest and strongly request that you print the following brief statement from me:
Matthew Manning's claim that he possesses "U.S. government papers" containing "very damaging personal information" about me, is simply a blatant lie. I have never refrained from criticizing any person because of threats, and I've not recently commented on Manning only because he's a minor, unimportant figure in the field. I've nothing to fear from him. Character assassination is a refuge of scoundrels.
Ms. Weaver, In view of the scurrilous nature of Manning's accusation, and the select audience to whom his claim was directed, I believe that I can expect that this statement of mine — exactly the same number of words as in the statement published by the JSPR — is due publication by you, for purposes of fairness alone, let alone ethics. I am constantly subject to irresponsible, vindictive, malicious accusations of this kind, and though I have tended to generally ignore them, this has appeared in a widely-circulated scientific journal, and I must respond. . . .
We'll see what the JSPR choose to do about this serious matter.
This optical illusion has been around for a long time. The black dots that aren't there at the intersections seem to retreat as soon as you look directly at them. The luminosity of a computer screen, however, gives them much greater impact than when merely printed on paper. Just a matter of passing interest.....
Reader Stephen Thomas suggests that you go to http://www.planetee.com/planetee/servlet/DisplayDocument?ArticleID=768 for an excellent discussion that mentions the phony Tice Clock that you saw here recently. This is an excellent article, perhaps overly directed to audio buffs, but you can pick through it....
Craig Morton writes from the Southern Hemisphere:
. . . just a brief follow-up to the comments by James Forsyth [on astrology birth-dates] in last weeks Commentary. You may be interested to know that someone has, in fact, made a study across a large enough sample that does show "slight statistical differences in development between a group of people who are born in January and those who are born in June". The differences are reversed down here in the Southern Hemisphere and, even more interestingly, people born in the Northern Hemisphere who move to the Southern Hemisphere as children fit the Northern Hemisphere dataset better than the Southern Hemisphere's.The research was published this year in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science . . . the dataset includes 1,371,003 Danes and 219,820 Australians, plus 43,074 Britains who died in Australia.
Very comprehensive piece of work — brief summary is that children born in Autumn (Fall for you USAians) live longer than children born in Spring, probably due to better in utero environments. There is no dependancy on seasonal death-rates (which you could imagine might bias the data).
The world is a funny place, isn't it?
Yes, Craig, it is indeed. And beautiful, seductive, mysterious, all those things. Here we have apparently well-derived data that indicate something we all suspected might be true. But, of course, the claims of astrology go far beyond any such effects. Trying to establish the reality of astrology based on these findings, would be equivalent to saying that homeopathy works because the active substance used to be in the water!
Oh my, that's just what they do claim.....
Reader Jeff Chilton does research:
In this week's "Commentary" from the randi.org website, there's mention of "Class Law" objecting to what they considered a "defamatory" remark against Uri Geller. This brings to mind a court decision I was recently made aware of. The decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Dilworth v. Dudley (1996) reads in part:"Among the terms or epithets that have been held . . . to be incapable of defaming because they are mere hyperbole rather than falsifiable assertions of discreditable fact are 'scab,' 'traitor,' 'amoral,' 'scam,' 'fake,' 'phony,' 'a snake-oil job,' 'he's dealing with half a deck,' and 'lazy, stupid, crap-shooting, chicken-stealing idiot.'"
From this, I conclude that one could therefore reasonably refer to any psychic as "an amoral, phony, lazy, stupid, crap-shooting, chicken-stealing idiot, who's dealing with half a deck, and trying to sell a snake-oil job to the general public" without fear of legal retribution.
Just a thought.
Yes, an interesting thought, Jeff. Reader Dave Hunt in the U.K., who we might suspect is an enthusiastic "footie" fan, scolds me:
I am an avid reader of your web site and a great admirer of your views, but this week's contribution contains such a horrendous error that if you repeated it in a certain part of the UK I could not guarantee your safety. I refer of course to your monstrous assertion that Uri Geller is a consultant to Reading Football Club.I have supported that club man and boy for 38 years. Yes, about 6 years ago, Uri was a supporter (he still lives very close by) and claimed to influence our results by his powers. We did not just get relegated when he supported us but at the height of his association with us we experienced THE worst match in our entire 130 year history, a match we still wake up and shake at, a match we cried at alongside our children, a match he went to and said he would direct our "energy flows" to win.
On May 29 1995 we played in what we call a play off cup final in our Wembley stadium. For the first and only time in our 130 year history we had a chance of getting to the elite premier division where the top teams are and all we had to do was win that one match. Our opponents, Bolton, had been in that elite division many times and although they wanted to win it, their hunger was nothing like ours. 30,000 of their fans went, 40,000 of ours. We were winning with just two and a half minutes to go, two and a half minutes from the biggest moment in all our lives. And then Bolton equalised and in extra time we lost.
Uri Geller is an object of complete derision amongst Reading fans. You can still buy Uri Geller T-shirts from a fans group and they are not complimentary. If he turned up at the stadium he would be roundly jeered.
Of course, it could be that Bolton had Sylvia Browne on their side or maybe, as a comedy programme in the UK claimed, he was called to the phone two and a half minutes from the end of the game and lost track of our energy. Or it could be Bolton played better in the last part of that match.
Whatever — never, ever, say he is a consultant to Reading Football Club.
I've just received one of the T-shirts mentioned above, courtesy of Peter Cook, editor of The Whiff, Reading. I won't quote you the message that the shirt displays, in bold 2-inch letters, but suffice it to say that the expression of their opinion of Uri Geller is direct, succinct, and quite clear in meaning. It's very obvious that Mr. Geller is not associated with Reading Football Club. I had intended to run a photo of the shirt here, but I'm sure that I'll be forgiven if I opt not to do so.
Reader Gavin Sinclair, on the same subject, from a different viewpoint:
[That] reminded me of [Geller's] claims during the European Championships in 1996.During a game between England (the hosts) and Scotland, a penalty was awarded against England. As the player stepped up to kick it, the ball rolled slightly off the slightly raised penalty spot. Either it hadn't been placed firmly enough, or there was sufficient wind to move it. This was enough to distract the kicker, the penalty was poorly struck, and was saved by the goalkeeper. England went on to score and eventually win the game. Personally, as a Scot, this was a source of much anguish.
Naturally, Geller was one of the first to the TV mike after the game claiming he had moved the ball with his mind. This leads me to conclude that two things could have happened. Either (1) Geller did not move the ball. He claimed he did, but he didn't. This would make him a liar. Or, (2) Geller did move the ball. If so, he was not one of the selected 11 English players, yet he was involved with play, deliberately doing something contrary to the rules of the game. This would make him a cheat.
So, Uri, which is it?
On this occasion, "Sport of the World" magazine, so wanting England to win, flew Geller in a helicopter 1,200 ft. over Wembley Stadium. Using 11 "magical crystals" and a giant crystal "to receive and transmit positive thoughts," Geller put the whammy on the opposition. Gushed he, after he got lucky, "It was the most incredible thing in my life." Maybe his quality of life needs refreshing....? As a reader has pointed out, the "power of the minds" of the millions of Scottish fans who wanted the other team to score, doesn't seem to have figured in Uri's estimations at all. Nor does he seem overly concerned that, if his claims are true, he was cheating!
In closing: Sylvia, where are you? It's been 144 days! That's more than 20 weeks!
