Wouldn't you just know it? Apparently miffed when the Sydney Olympic Games Committee ignored his offer to make a personal appearance in Sydney and organize a "think-in" to bring about global nuclear disarmament, "psychic" Uri Geller now claims that his family came running to him during the opening ceremonies of the Games, alarmed by the fact that the crown of the great cauldron that was to ascend to the torch site, had stalled for a moment. It was, said Geller, "unbelievable" that his wild talents had caused this event. I strongly agree. And I keep those hot-air balloons up in the air in Albuquerque every year by mind power, right?

Some years ago, when the clock known as Big Ben stopped in London, Mr. Geller took credit for that, too. My, my, is there no limit to his awesome gifts? Not to cast doubt upon this claim, but merely to provide a possible alternative explanation, a radio journalist in Sydney says that Ric Birch, the chap in charge of the whole ceremony, discovered that the problem with the balky machinery occurred because US photographers from Associated Press and Sports Illustrated had set up remotely-controlled cameras near the cauldron. About fifteen minutes before the opening ceremony began, the telemetry frequency used to transmit instructions to their cameras was found to be interfering with the telemetry signals being directed to the cauldron mechanism.

The problem with the crown stalling before it went up the incline was caused by a simple mechanically-operated limit switch triggered by the telemetry signal. It didn't close properly at the critical moment and had to be manually overridden, so everything worked out just fine. Of course, this is only one of those awkward "rational" explanations for the glitch, so it may be safely dismissed.

I've never seen the movie they made about Geller in which he appeared at the end of the film making assorted predictions about the Olympics in Sydney, none of which appear to have been fulfilled. How could that be . . . ?

Mr. Geller's propensity for litigation never ceases to amaze me. During a recent TV broadcast, he was shown pointing his finger at the filming crew and saying grimly,

"Don't lie about me. Don't libel me. Don't defame me. Because then I will sue you . . . So, I warn the skeptics. Be careful what you say, 'cause you'll end up in court."

Among others, a rabbi from Brooklyn is now being threatened by him with legal action. Surely Mr. Geller has more important and socially valuable things to do? Bending spoons and stopping cauldrons and clocks, for example? I just wonder whether the Olympic Games Committee would think about suing Mr. Geller for interfering with the opening ceremonies . . . Nah, I guess not. To do that, they'd have to believe Geller's claim.

Hey! Last week, to the hour, we had 5200 hits on this page! That's 700+ a day. Very satisfying!

If the Pope can't exorcize a demon, who can? Surely Satan will listen to the Pope, and get out of the neighborhood? Father James LeBar appeared on CNN last week to explain how a teenager exorcized by the Head Exorcist in Rome, at a ceremony attended by the Pope, later the same day began shouting nasties and carrying on during a religious service. Is it not incredible that in the year 2000 we are still declaring the reality of demons and such?

Asked about how accurately the movie "The Exorcist" represented a "real" exorcism, LeBar said: "Well, that movie pretty much shows what it's really like. It's a compilation of a number of things that would happen in different exorcisms, but there is the levitation, expectoration, there is the screaming. All of those things take place in a real exorcism." Well, spitting and screaming I can accept. But "levitation" . . .? Is Lance Burton missing something?

The host, Jane Clayson, asked LeBar, "There are a lot of people who might be skeptical of this. How do you differentiate between someone who is truly possessed by the devil and someone who may be seriously mental ill or have other problems?" The exorcist replied, "Well, of course today we have the added benefits of psychiatrists and psychologists and such, so before we would agree to an exorcism, we would have a psychological evaluation, a medical checkup and a psychiatric evaluation as well. And if there is any problems in those areas, they need to be treated first before we go forth with an exorcism." Note that the exorcism apparently goes ahead, regardless. Hey, this is showbiz, and the show must go on.

"Are exorcisms always successful? Do they always chase out the devil?" Jane asked. The priest offered, "Since exorcisms are a prayer of the church, by which we command in the name of Jesus the Devil to leave, they are ultimately always successful. Sometimes it takes a while. There are some cases that have gone on 20, 30 years before the person is finally delivered. No one can say why that happens, but it does."

Father LeBar, let me hazard a layman's guess here. Either there was nothing there in the first place except a dandy way to get attention, or the "afflicted" just lost interest?

But such medieval beliefs aren't limited to religion. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised, when very well-educated people, PhDs in physics, tell us that dowsing rods with samples of human DNA (bits of hair in epoxy, in the DKL toy) are thereby "tuned" to human heart beats. Is that not more unbelievable than the embrace of demons - or the magical stopping of cauldrons? The same physicists tell us that the electromagnetic (EM) field of a human heart can move the DKL rod on its pivot.

But scientist Dale Murray, of the Contraband Detection and Civilian Physical Surety Technologies Department of the Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, performed an in-depth investigation of the DKL LifeGuard Model 3 dowsing rod. (This can be accessed at http://nlectc.org/pdffiles/dklanalysis.pdf) A calculation was made by him of the amount of force necessary to turn the dowsing rod through a 15 degree turn, using generously ideal conditions in favor of the DKL claim. He found that a very small force of only 3.1 milliNewtons would be needed, but that a human heart could only yield a force - at a distance well within the published operating radius of the DKL device - of 29×10-32 Newtons. That's one billion-billion-billionth of what's required, or 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. As physicist Professor Bob Park commented to me from his hospital bed, "I think they've got a way to go." Bob has a way with words.

(Incidentally, Bob is on his way to getting over a very serious freak accident that laid him low last week and put him in critical condition for a few days. He is now applying himself to intensive therapy procedures - no acupuncture or therapeutic touch for him! - designed to bring him back to "full recovery," the term used by his doctors to sum up their expectations. Hurry back, Bob.)

While we're on the subjects of folks who should know better, I heard a report on how many HMOs are including chiropractic services as eligible claims. Scary. How many of those involved know that chiropractic teaches that cancer, mental problems, and heart trouble - to name only three ailments - originate in the spine? And that such things as deafness and blindness can be cured by manipulating the vertebrae, even though there are no connections with these senses in the spinal column? For lower back problems, sure. And that's by far the major area that chiropractors treat. But so do professional masseurs, who have no medical degrees and don't claim medical expertise. All the charts and diagrams displayed, put out, and created by the chiropractors, don't prove their claims - which are in direct contradiction to what we know about how the body works.

Mr. Daryl Lafferty made it in with the first correct answer to the "smaller square" puzzle. Reader Ron Welch had a really slick solution to the puzzle, though I still say that mine (below) is easier and doesn't require (much) knowledge of mathematics. Ron wrote:

Since the area of a rhombus is half the product of the diagonals, and the diagonal of the smaller square is 10 inches, and a square is a rhombus . . .

And, as they say, le voila! Yes, the answer is 50 square inches. But I thought this would be much easier than some folks found it to be. Examples of wrong answers received: "50" (fifty what?), "200 inches," "200 square inches," "5 cubic inches" (?), "66.66666 square inches," "25 square inches," and "half the area of the larger square." In regard to the first, and that last one, do you define your body weight as "half of the weight of my two children combined"? My teachers would never have allowed me to submit such an answer . . . !

Kevin Tuttle wrote:

Ah, I get it. Spin the circle around and the sides of the square form 45-45-90 triangles with the larger square. So the area is half, or 50 square inches. Unless it's a rug, in which case it's only 49 square inches since one disappears . . .

Seems I have created a monster named Kevin. He will forever mistrust rug merchants from now on.

Dr. Tim Gorsky, MD, has asked that we distribute these suggestions for improving medical standards and service in your community:

1. Make contact with your state medical board to see what they are doing about quackery.

2. Ditto for the Federation of State Boards of Medical Examiners. They need to know they're being watched by people who care about scientific standards in medicine. They are currently developing "practice guidelines" for quacks and even "informed consent" forms for their victims to sign to absolve their victimizers of legal responsibility. Contact them at:

Federation of State Medical Boards Inc.
Federation Place
400 Fuller Wiser Road, Suite 300
Euless, Texas, 76039-3855
phone (817) 868-4000
fax (817) 868-4098

4) Get a local hospital to sponsor a CME (continuing medical education) conference on scientific facts concerning "alternative/complementary medicine." The hospitals make money on these. Many medical Societies sponsor CME events and chances are that their speakers are quacks.

You can help by following these suggestions. This issue is one that threatens to affect many persons. The quacks have already made a lot of headway and JREF is the natural ally of the few people who are trying to do something about it. In addition, take a look in at www.ncahf.org and www.quackwatch.com to keep informed.

See the diagram. Mentally rotating the smaller square by 45 and drawing in the two red lines provides us with eight identical right-angle triangles. It's obvious, just by counting the triangles, that there are eight in the big square, four in the small one. Area of big square is 10×10=100, so area of smaller is 50. This is, I believe, the solution that is least complicated and least demanding of mathematical knowledge, though many of you got into Pythagoras and such.

....................................................

This week's problem got us into a lot of arguments here at JREF. I just hope this is a proper presentation. The facts about that will become obvious when your responses start coming in.....

Curly, Larry, and Moe, having nothing much better to do one evening, agree to play a strange game. There are two red and three white caps in a drawer. They turn out the lights, each reaches into the drawer in the dark, removes one cap, and places it on his head. Then the drawer is closed, the lights are switched on, and the players sit down, each to try to guess which color of cap he himself is wearing. Fifteen minutes goes by.

Perhaps unlike others with the same names we might know about, these three chaps are pretty smart. Each knows that there might be ways, by observing, listening, and reasoning, of knowing what color of cap he's wearing.

Curly is the first to speak. "This is a stupid game! Whose idea was this, anyway? And whose caps are these? I don't know what color I'm wearing, and I don't care! I want a cold beer!" And he calls the delicatessen downstairs to order a cold six-pack. Moe smiles, but stays silent.

Larry is next to break the silence. "I don't know what color I'm wearing, either! I agree this is a dumb game! I might have a green cap, but I'd never know it! Let's order in some pizza and play poker!" Moe smiles even more broadly. Then he speaks up.

"Well, I'm wearing a white cap! I'm absolutely certain, and I knew it before the beer was on its way! So pass me over a cold brew! And I'll buy the pizza!"

And he's right. He is wearing a white cap. He didn't cheat. He figured it out.

Assume that all three guys are astute and clever, and that they speak the truth. Two questions: How did Moe know? And what was the distribution of caps?

Replies, please, directly to randi@randi.org

(And (blush) it was Matt Gilleece who solved the puzzle first, two weeks back. I mis-spelt his name. Sorry, Matt).