From CBS-TV News, commenting on the rude reception given the David Blaine stunt in London, we extract:

And it hasn't pleased his good friend and fellow illusionist/trickster Uri Geller.

Oops! Do I sense a lawsuit in preparation here? I'm sure that Geller's brother-in-law — who poses as a legal eagle — will be firing off a demanded "correction" and required "apologies," to CBS, probably telling them that he wants a full page retraction in The New York Times as compensation. Geller is already suing John Stossel of ABC-TV, and now he's sure to have to take on CBS as well. We know how sensitive Uri is, and how eagerly he turns lawyers loose on those who annoy or offend him — with no success that we know of — but it certainly gives him the profile he wants — and needs.

Reader Tony Perkins in Australia has pointed out a trick that certain evangelist/faith healers have been known to employ — aside from the communicator-in-the-ear, and the leg-lengthening stunt. The famous Jan Crouch, who recently opted to undergo regular surgery rather than relying on Jesus — as she'd urged her followers to do — has now been advertising her "miraculous" recovery. But Jan is known to have brought chickens back to life by prayer! The highly successful televangelist Benny Hinn even claims that it was Jan's performance of this miracle that propelled him into the ministry. Explains Tony:

Anyone living in a farming environment, as Jan did, would have encountered the chicken "back to life" party-trick. The key is to first "kill" the unfortunate bird, out of sight — of course — of the audience, by stroking it in a slow, rhythmic manner along its back, from neck to tail. With the "dead" bird (usually "just run over by a car," or whatever) having been brought into the room, accompanied by a great deal of histrionics, the resurrection takes place. After a minute or two, during which prayers are offered up to Doctor Jesus, and the Oral Roberts version of the magic right-hand is laid on, the chicken "comes back to life" and runs off. Quite impressive when first seen. Usually the farm kids are called on to perform the trick to entertain guests and friends; those in the know naturally pretend to be amazed, as I'm sure the not very perceptive Benny Hinn was at that formative time in his career.

Ms. Crouch could hide another live chicken in that hair, and still have room for a duck or two....

The "Yellow Bamboo" matter I mentioned last week appears to be just full of interesting material. I'm awaiting the arrival of the full video record of this event, plus the answers to the basic questions that I asked of the participant in the demo. Of course, the YB group has been all over the Internet with celebration of this matter, and loud demands that I immediately show up in Bali to see the miracle for myself. Well, hardly a miracle. There are a number of clues in what I've already seen, and a very short — 12 seconds — video clip of the "moment of truth" they celebrate. I'll place it here so that readers can comment on it, and just see if you have also come to the tentative conclusion that I have. Just recall that my protocol required that Mr. Joko Tri simply walk up and "tap" their "superman" Nyoman Serengen on the leg with a small bamboo stick, which was not the protocol followed, for some reason or other. More fascinating things to come....

Click here for the "Yellow Bamboo" video.

Reader Peter Hoogerbrugge, of Rotterdam, The Netherlands, writes:

The Netherlands Public Television broadcasts a news program aimed at children, called the "Jeugdjournaal" (literally: youthnews). Usually it is a pleasant program in which the makers tackle the daily news in a way children between 6 and 12 can easily comprehend.

Last week they decided to show an item about a veterinarian who practiced acupuncture on a Komodo dragon. The voice-over told the young viewers that none of the regular treatments had worked, but that — thanks to acupuncture — the dragon was much better now. The veterinarian claimed he had cured many animals using this technique. On top of it all, the makers of the item showed an animated sequence in which they taught the children about the theoretical framework behind acupuncture. The whole acupuncture-thing was displayed as undisputable fact. There was not a hint of skepticism.

I was outraged, because my twelve-year-old daughter regularly watches the Jeugdjournaal and I know many of her friends do. I wrote the editors of Jeugdjournaal an angry letter. I pointed out the error of their ways and the responsibility they had to their youthful audience.

I received an answer promptly. The chief-editor wrote he was aware of opposing views on acupuncture and allowed that the item could have been more balanced. He would pass on my criticisms to the makers of the item and thanked me warmly for keeping them "sharp" (his words!).

That was all. I was disappointed, probably because I had expected them to be very sorry about it all and that they would make amends in the form of a skeptical item about acupuncture. However, life goes on, and supposedly the Jeugdjournaal cannot be expected to repair the damage they've done. It's their task to inform and entertain, but apparently it's not their task to do that responsibly.

The moral of this story? Thousands of skeptics can work for years educating the public, but it takes only a two-minute item on television to poison a whole generation of susceptible children with pseudo-scientific notions. A sad thought.

Entertainment and sponsors are the only elements they're interested in, Peter. I've run into this lack of responsibility, many times.

Last week I said I'd run by you a dissection of a "genuine" cold reading. The following videotape excerpt of such a reading done on the UK program we've been discussing, is 7 minutes and 10 seconds long. My comments will be inserted in bold type. I'll interrupt the dialogue to indicate reactions given by the subject of this guessing game. "KC" is "psychic medium" Keith Charles — a professional name adopted by former police officer, Keith Wright. The "Host" is Kate Galloway. I must thank Kelli, our intern here at the JREF, for her useful input, and Tony Youens for his valuable suggestions. And if readers have other observations, I'll be pleased to receive them. Mr. Charles, after greeting his audience, begins:

KC: What I'd like to ask you to do here, anybody here tonight, whether you be those that are skeptical, those that believe, what I want you to be is honest. Okay? I will hopefully, and Kate you've heard, said, "contact the dead." But they're not dead. They are alive and we're just hoping that there's somebody who wants to come and talk to us this evening.

My, would I ever be astonished if a "somebody" weren't ready "in the wings" (sky?) to pop in and provide us with some professional second-guessing! And notice the theme of this whole racket: the dead aren't really dead. No better news could be offered to the bereaved, and those are the persons that these "mediums" feast on.

KC: Okay. Um, I have a gentleman that's uh, trying to communicate with me at the moment. He's, uh...he's making me feel...there's a lady, got her hand there like that (gestures). I'm sorry to point to you (pointing) wearing blue, and you got your hand across your face, madam. Okay, do you mind just telling me your name please?

Subject: Tracy. (Smiles.)

Wait. If this spirit "gentleman" is trying to communicate with Tracy, would he not immediately provide Charles with her name? So why did Charles have to ask? Because he didn't know. The subject he has selected is a bit disheveled, looks distraught and nervous, and appears to have been weeping heavily.

KC: Tracy. Hello, Tracy. I'm going to describe a gentleman I have here that's making communication with me. He feels like a father figure to you. He's a gentleman that would have passed over with a heart attack. I don't know who Michael is within the family...

Subject: (Puts her hand over her mouth.)

As Tony Youens observes here, Charles throws out the names "John," "Michael," and relationships: "father figure," "mum" but never combines the two; that would commit him to a connection that might be wrong. Tony also noticed that Charles never "describes the gentleman" at all. Just mentions his heart. Hardly a "description." If he had done that, there would of course have been greater room for error.

And re the "like a father figure" ploy: if he misses with the "father" guess, it can be turned into a grandfather, older brother, male family friend, uncle, or even employer. This is a flexible phrase often used by "cold readers." But Charles rushes on without getting verification, or allowing her to correct the guess if it's wrong. In fact, many guesses here are unverified, and Charles rushes right over them, as we'll see up ahead. Also notice the use of the "I don't know" gimmick; This is a method — used twice by Charles in this reading — of encouraging the victim to volunteer the answer that Charles doesn't "know."

KC: ... but he's making reference to Michael in the family. Do you understand this?

Again Tony Youens comments: "This is the same as just asking, 'Is there anyone in your family called Michael?' And in what sense is the spirit 'making reference to Michael'?"

And here's a tried-and-true method of getting nods of assent, or a "yes," in response to a simple question: asking her if she "understands" what he's just said, does not in any way mean that she agrees with the observation, but the nod of assent and/or a "yes" can be taken by the observers as verification. Charles uses this trick five times in this brief reading.

Subject: (Nods, yes.)

KC: He's also telling me, I know this sounds a strange thing — and I've got to go with what he gives me — there's a pet that you've recently lost as well...

Subject: (She smiles, looks over at friend, puts her hand over her whole face, and shakes her head in disbelief.)

Tony observes that "lost" can mean "lost" as in "wandered away," or "lost" as in "died." That word serves for either possibility. The "pet" thing itself is almost a sure bet, especially in the U.K., where animals are very popular, and a very large proportion of households have one. Notice that this pet could be a dog, cat, canary, parrot, pony, mouse, hamster, rabbit, or any of a dozen others. It's not guessed at. Also, here Charles is preparing her to blame the "spirit" in case he — Charles — provided a wrong guess. This subject's reaction is sufficient for him to assume acceptance of his guess that there was a pet, and he immediately follows it up with the usual phrase, knowing that this will be accepted. He assigns a statement to the "spirit," as an afterthought, saying:

KC: ...because he's talking about having a pet.

Now Charles goes into a series of rapid guesses, not pausing until or unless he gets some sign from the subject that he's made a "hit."

KC: And either you buried this pet in the garden and made a mistake of it, or whatever you've done with this pet is unusual. I'm sorry to say that, but that's how he's bringing it up.

Subject: (Looks confused.)

KC: Now, he's also talking about Michael. He's making reference to Michael and there's a John. I don't know if it's Michael, if John is — if he is Michael John, or Michael and John. But he's putting Michael and John together. Would you understand that?

Subject: (Nods, yes.)

The burying-the-pet guess doesn't work, but both "Michael" and "John" bring a reaction from her. He also gives her a choice of whether it's Michael or John she wants to pursue. Think about it: if you'd been offered Michael or John as guesses, would you be able to identify with one or both? Remember, he's said nothing about who these people either are or were — they can be alive or dead, and still be called "hits." Sons, brothers, all male relatives on either side of the family, neighbors, friends — including school chums long forgotten, fellow employees, and more, are eligible, at this point. These names can't miss!

KC: He's making me feel that August...I know we're coming, we're coming into the month of August, we're in the month of August now. But he's showing me an anniversary or birthday that would be around the 21st, 22nd of August that connects with you.

Subject: (Her eyes dart back and forth; she's trying to make a connection, but can't find one.)

Charles is using a modifier, "He's making me feel..." that serves as a cushion if he's wrong; he gets a "feeling" that can be wrong, but he might not have "heard" the spirit correctly. And, "around the 21st, 22nd of August" can be a few days on either side of that, and he might even get acceptance of "August," all by itself. Any event can be assigned to this period: birthdays of anyone, anniversaries of marriages, births, or deaths, or the founding of a business. The field is huge, and Charles expects her to find a connection and tell him how to assign this guess. But it fails.

KC: And ... he's making me feel that when he went to heaven (pause) alright, with this heart condition it wasn't the first heart attack, heart problem that he had. He would have visited two hospitals...

Subject: (She looks up to the right, searching for a connection.)

Remember, a large proportion of male deaths are from a heart condition, in the UK, about one in four, and there are several varieties of this "condition." In this "reading," Charles has chosen that way to go. Then, getting no verification of his "two hospitals" guess, he gives her an alternate possibility. We don't know, nor do we find out, if this one hits the mark, because he opts for the "understand?" way out.

KC: ...or would have been into hospital twice over his heart condition, would you understand this, please?

Subject: (Nods head, yes.)

KC: Because he is saying to me that there is — I've got to say this to you — there is an issue with you about feeling guilty about not being there on one occasion. I'm, I'm terribly sorry, I'm only going to tell you what he's telling me about you. Okay? If I may. He is aware of a problem that you've had with your left foot, around here, there should be a scar, or a problem around there, because he is talking about you having a fall, alright?

Subject: (Looks puzzled.)

Wow. This is another of the common gimmicks used in cold readings. Introducing guilt is a sure-fire play; how many of us have lost a loved one, and not felt, "If I'd known he was going to die, I would have..."? Charles will come back to this, up ahead. He gets no verification on this first guess, so without pausing at all, he rushes on to "a scar or a problem," and "having a fall," neither of which work, either.

KC: But he is telling me about you. Okay. He's ever so pleased to be here...

Subject: (Smiles, wipes her eyes.)

Wait a minute! Just who is this "gentleman" supposed to be? No name, no relationship, is given, but Tracy is going along with it. Consider "He's ever so pleased to be here": this is one of those comforting phrases that the cold readers adore, a way of breaking away from a sequence when in difficulty. It means nothing, but if there's belief present, it's a nice thing to say. Do you seriously think that a "spirit" would inform the subject that he just hates being here, in contact with a loved one? This is a filler, an inane comment, but useful when you're stalling.

KC: ...he's ever so pleased, and, and he's just saying to me, you, you did not expect communication from him this evening. But you've hoped to have communication from him, on another occasion.

Subject: (She nods, yes.)

It's very likely that Tracy has pursued this method of contacting the deceased, before, perhaps several times. Like most of the audience, she just might have attended the taping because of the subject, in which she has an interest. But now things start to slide downhill for Charles.

KC: He's taking off a ring and giving it to you, okay? Would you have a ring that belongs to your mum, not him, but to your mum, that you wear?

Subject: (Shakes head, no.)

This is, again, a common and very often successful ploy: the piece of jewelry. Frequently, as we know, a daughter inherits the mother's ring. But this very likely "hit" turns out to be a miss, which Charles chooses to contest, as if he — or the spirit — knows better than the subject herself! But he's missed so much in this reading that he needs to fight for a success.

KC: Are you sure?

Subject: (Nods head, yes.)

"Are you sure?" Charles uses this three times in this reading. It's a challenge that works very well when the subject, thinking over the possibilities as she's required to do, recalls something that "fits" a previously denied guess; the bright "I thought so!" reply to this always gets murmurs of appreciation from an audience.

KC: Can we find it? Okay? You're saying "no," he's saying "yes." Can I discuss this with you?

Subject: Uh-huh.

KC: I don't want to argue, I'd like to discuss this with you. If I went to your bedroom, okay? Imagine being in your bedroom.

Subject: (Nods, yes.)

KC: There is a chest of drawers, like to the bottom right-hand side of the bed.

Subject: (Looks puzzled, searching.)

KC: This is how it got... it's like, recently been put there over the weekend, over last weekend. You've moved some furniture in your bedroom.

Subject: No. (She shakes her head, looks puzzled.)

Here, Charles switches from a specific "chest of drawers" to just plain "furniture" and he widens the field from "bottom right-hand side" to the more general "bedroom," as Tony observed. He's hoping for some sort of disturbance that just might have misplaced a ring. If he hits with this, the wrong guess about the jewelry will be forgotten — but he misses, and he argues with her.

KC: Okay, you say no, I, here, (points to his hand) say yes.

Subject: (She smiles, with vigorous negative shaking of her head.)

KC: The furniture that's it's on...

Subject: (Interrupts him.) I haven't moved the furniture.

KC: Are you sure?

Subject: (She nods, yes.)

KC: I'll be wrong....Hate it, but I'll be wrong. But he's saying to me, this is the jewelry that he is referring to, okay?

Subject: (Nods, yes.)

At this point, Tracy can't much argue about what the spirit is trying to get at. She merely accepts. Tony Youens notes: "This spirit isn't 'referring to jewelry' but to furniture — previously a chest of drawers. In what way he is referring to any jewelry? Last we heard about jewelry was her Mum's ring. Note also the switch from ring to jewelry. In what way is this any kind of connection?"

KC: And he wants to confirm to you that, yes, you have seen him since he passed over. It's like you've mentioned this.

Subject: (Shakes head, no.)

KC: Does this make sense to you?

Subject: (Looks confused, shakes head, no.)

The true believer, indeed, anyone who has lost a loved one, often feels that they've seen the deceased, somewhere. And a vivid dream in which the deceased one appears, is also "evidential," to some. But again, Charles strikes out.

KC: Are you sure? He is showing me like, where you would keep your — I don't want to be rude — jewelry bits. That's how he's describing it. And there is a ring in there that is either fractured or broken, that belongs not to you, but to another lady, and he's talking about your Mum. (pause)

Subject: (Nods, yes.)

Now he's panicking. He's widening the field of acceptance here to include broken items, but still doesn't hit. Tracy's assenting nod to all this is in acceptance of his last phrase, "he's talking about your Mum," and has nothing to do with the jewelry guess. She's merely accepting the statement that the spirit is talking to Charles about her mother. Also, Charles allows her the choice of "another lady" who might have owned the non-existent ring. But that doesn't work.

KC: Would you understand that?

Subject: Yeah. (Nods head, yes.)

Charles leaves that unproductive line of inquiry, and changes the subject.

KC: Now. Can I come to the bottom of your stairs? He's talking about either you just redecorated or have just done something to the bottom of the stairs...

Multiple possibilities are offered, as usual. Tracy could have done just about anything in the way of "redecorating" anywhere in the house, or at the bottom of her stairs.

Subject: (Blank face.)

KC: ...like painting or do — doing something there...

"Doing something there"? Falling down, cleaning the carpet or the floor, this is a wide universe from which Tracy can choose to find "something" to satisfy Charles.

KC: ...and he was watching you and you saw him there.

Subject: (Looks puzzled.)

Charles is trying again for Tracy to have "seen" this spirit. He fails this time too, and goes for a less spooky and safer, possibility.

KC: 'Cause there's a photograph. You know where the bottom of the stairs is? There is a photograph...

Subject: (Puts her hand to her face to wipe her eye.)

Bingo! I've been in many UK homes, and I recall that a very large percentage of them had photographs on the wall all the way down the stairs, as we often find here in the USA, as well. A photograph on a table at the bottom of the stairs would also be a hit, here.

KC: ...very close to, of him, is there not?

Subject: (Nods head, yes.)

KC: Now, you said, "no" to me. I don't mind, I accept "no"s. Have you not just decorated or painted, where that photograph is?

Subject: Recently. Not "just"...

KC: (Interrupts her quickly.) Okay, this is his "just," alright? If it was ten years ago, two years ago, I don't want to know. It's like he is saying this to me.

Hey, this opens up a possible ten-year span during which Tracy could have either painted or decorated! If she'd wanted to, she could have jumped in there and verified this as a marvelous "hit" by Charles.

KC: Look, that's his message, that's his information to you. Alright? That's how he comes across. And he really was looking forward to getting through to you, this evening. Um, for this reason, obviously to tell you he loves you, that goes without saying. But he is saying this, and I don't want to be disrespectful. He forgives you. There was an issue that you wanted his forgiveness for, and he's saying there's nothing to forgive, so you're forgiven.

Subject: (Looks puzzled.)

Charles is burned by the negative reactions the subject has been giving to his guesses, and he vainly tries to get in some points, but when he sees they're not going to be awarded by this subject, he cuts off her response sharply; he can't afford to have her expand on her answer. Then he snows her with rapid-fire comments and returns to the "you're forgiven" angle.

KC: It's like a big thing to you, over his passing. He's not going too deeply in it, 'cause he doesn't — it's — divided the family in some way or there was a split in the family. Do you understand this?

Subject: (Nods head, yes.)

No, Charles is certainly "not going too deeply" into this because he doesn't know anything about it, and this subject is not likely to be offering him any help. She is atypical, in this respect; an ideal subject would volunteer a whole explanation of a "split" — just what the cold reader wants.

KC: And he's like, I'm not even going there, 'cause it just doesn't matter to him. Okay? And he's fine. I hope you are. I say God bless you...

Subject: Thank you. (Smiles.)

KC: ...all right, thank you.

(Audience applauds.)

Host: [garbled] Let me just have a quick word with Tracy. You look quite emotional about that. How, how much did that, really felt [sic] as though it was ringing true?

Subject: All of it.

What? Is this the same subject? That was a miserable reading, and most of it was just wrong! But now see how she modifies this general "All of it" statement. Tony observes: "Would it be accurate to say that Kate has assumed that 'Michael' is Tracy's grandfather? Tracy never actually gave her grandfather's name."

Host: So you do have a father that was called...

Subject: (Interrupts, shakes her head, no.) Granddad.

Host: A grandfather that was called Michael.

Subject: No. (pause) But my cousin, who he lived with, was called Michael, and my dad and my brother were called John. And there's a split in the family, with — John and Michael's mum.

This is what the "psychic mediums" expect. The subject will make excuses for the reader's errors, and will try to fit them into the reality. Tracy first assigns "Michael" to her Grandfather, then thinks better of it and applies it to a cousin. We never get to know the name of Tracy's grandfather — because Keith Charles didn't know! And we'll never know. Tracy manages to find that unspecified, undetailed, "split" in the family that Charles had been hunting for. Reader, is there a "split" in your family? This is not at all uncommon, in any family.

Host: Were you a believer before?

Subject: No. (Shakes her head.) Well — undecided. And I've just had a pet put down as well, put to sleep. It was a dog...

Host: (Interrupts.) Have you? So there were actually three key things for you, that were completely right?

Subject: Yeah. (Nods, yes.)

Hold on. What three things? The host here is doing exactly what the scam artists expect her to do: looking for the "hits," and ignoring the misses! Consider: the "Michael" guess was wrong, the pet-buried-in-the-garden was wrong, the August date was wrong, the man who died of a heart attack was unidentified and unspecified. Visiting two hospitals was wrong, the left foot problem/scar was not there, she never had the fall, the ring guess missed, the chest of drawers doesn't exist, and the furniture was not moved. She didn't "see" the deceased person, the "jewelry bits" weren't there, the "forgiveness" didn't get worked out, and there was no redecoration! Only the "family split," the loss of a pet, the photograph, the fact that whoever-it-is still "loves" Tracy, and the "John" who was one of two possible persons — those, and only those, could be called "hits." But how likely are those correct guesses to be true? I think — very.

Host: Do you think you'd be a believer now?

Subject: Yeah. (Nods, yes.)

Host: Thanks very much. (Audience applauds.)

Skeptic Tony Youens asks, "Why is communication with the spirit world so facile? Is this really all Granddad wanted to talk about? Couldn't he have said, 'Give my love to your Mum/Dad' or whoever? And isn't it rather mean having Granddad turn up and for Charles not to give Tracy the opportunity to ask him anything? And why, as you [J.R.] mentioned, didn't Charles ever identify who he was actually talking to?" Tony adds, "My impression at the time, and since, is that Charles was working under the misapprehension that this was actually Tracy's dead Father. Host Kate obviously thought so, as well."

And there you have it. This reading, to quote the opinion of Montague Keen — who we discussed last week — was "impressive." Mr. Keen is, as we might expect, very easily impressed. This is exactly the kind of evidence upon which he builds his naïve belief in bump-in-the-night matters. Any reader can examine the content above, and come to the conclusion that Keith Charles is just another of the run-of-the-mill "cold readers" that so infest our society. He's no better, no worse, than the average, and has used a whole spectrum of ploys common in the trade, straight from the book, to impress the customers. I was rather surprised to find how ordinary his performance was, especially after such an expert as Montague Keen declared him to be "genuine" and "impressive." As John Stossel would say, give me a break!