A very busy week that included three lectures in California (UC Irvine, JPL, and The Skeptics Society) as well as a day's taping for the Discovery Channel, mean that this week's page will perhaps be a bit late appearing. Entirely my fault.

I mentioned that a volunteer group in Utah would be conducting a preliminary test of a claim of the JREF million-dollar challenge this last weekend. It took place on Saturday, and I will briefly describe here the results.

This is the kind of encounter that brings no satisfaction to anyone involved. The performers -- who in this case were well aware of their trick -- and those who had been duped into sponsoring the test, along with the people who conducted the test, were not at all rewarded.

When we first heard from the two chaps who answered the challenge on behalf of some Indonesian mystics/martial artists, it was perfectly clear what trick they were using to deceive them, and that was fully verified when we viewed the videotape that they sent to us. It's a very old act, one that has been known since medieval times. The performers claim that they can see without the use of their eyes, and a great variety of explanations are given, from facial skin and fingertips being able to "read," to just a general clairvoyant ability. In fact, a couple of decades ago, parapsychologists were exulting over their discovery of "dermo-optical perception," and a plethora of performers from little girls to older Indian men were appearing everywhere showing how they could ride bicycles, read and write, and describe colors and actions while apparently blinded. In Mexico, the Instituto Mas Vida flourished, teaching the children of wealthy but not-too-smart parents to "see" while blindfolded. They were actually teaching the kids that cheating by peeking was quite okay, but getting caught at it was a no-no.

From what we saw in the videotape, these Indonesian performers were not at all good at the act. We saw them doing a number of stunts, every one of which was possible simply by peeking down the side of the nose, past the blindfolds they wore. They were even seen to readjust their blindfolds when the line-of-sight became blocked! Despite our analysis, with specific references to examples in the videotape where the performers were clearly seen to raise their heads to peek, their sponsors refused to recognize their perfidy. We pleaded with them not to proceed further, but as we expected, they took that to signify our fear of losing the million dollars, and became all the more determined to go further in this bad investment. We were helpless to save them from their decision. They announced that the Indonesians would be arriving in Utah prepared to be tested.

It took us some time to find volunteers in Utah who could conduct the required preliminary test for us, but finally we had Chris Allen, Professor John Sohl and Paul Bernhardt, Both from Weber State University, along with Harald Illig and Seth Jarvis, developing a protocol to which I added suggestions. After much back-and-forth discussion, last Saturday was agreed on, and the preliminary test took place. There were no surprises for us at all. The claimants failed dramatically. They opted to perhaps try again early this week, but we do not expect any better results. A more complete report will follow next week.

On another matter, the three nice women from Lithuania who came by last week, returned this week to have a full report on the results of the diagnosis they'd offered me. Originally hopeful of winning the JREF million-dollar prize, they had already been told that it was far from accurate, and as I expected, my doctors had agreed that it was absolutely incorrect in every respect. As a result, the full report might have been expected to be a disappointment to them. But it was only a matter of wonderment to them.

They had no comprehension of the fact that they were simply wrong. The one who had performed the diagnosis told me that it was still true that I had a serious problem with my left kidney. I told her that my physicians had performed tests that showed no such condition. The response was that doctors simply did not know, but that she did, and that my kidney was in bad shape. I asked her what her conclusion would be if, two years from now, I still showed no symptoms and medical tests indicated that the kidney was still functioning as expected. She told me that two, four, six, or twenty years could go by and I might even die of other causes, without the condition ever showing up. Then how, I repeated, could she ever be shown to be wrong? All three laughed, and assured me that she was never wrong. And that, for them, was a complete answer.

They just have no way of allowing for their being wrong. "What if the Sun doesn't rise tomorrow?" would be just as ridiculous a question to have posed to them, in their way of thinking. I've been faced with this attitude before, but I have never been able to handle it properly.

The interpreter got very serious, and told me that their major reason for coming to see me was to have my input on a question of great importance to them. What, she asked, was the source of the claimants wonderful power? Did it come directly from God, was it inherited, could science explain it? I told them that I'd seen no evidence of the power they claimed, and in any case was not qualified to declare on such philosophical matters.

I suggested that I could find a person with an established ailment, one that even persons such as ordinary doctors had established to be present, and submit that person for testing by this sincere woman, immediately following my return to Florida from California. That was greeted eagerly by all three, and I was assured that the diagnosis would be a great success.

The diagnosis done of me, a failure in every respect since it called for conditions that are not there and missed two conditions that are established, had not fazed the Lithuanians one bit. What I and my doctors believed to be true was not true, and what she had declared, was. It was that elementary to them. By such standards, they will always be right. But this is only further indication that a substantial percentage of us have no understanding of the critical thinking process.

This week, I'll conduct the promised test. It's certainly not going to prove anything one way or the other to these nice folks, since they will accept a success and reject a failure. But it's a small part of what we do here at the JREF. I only wish that episodes like this could lead to better understanding between us, rather than widening the differences.

Michael Shermer continues to enjoy great success with his conferences, this time attracting 700+ attendees from across the country to honor a friend and famed writer, columnist, scientist, and teacher, who was his charming, garrulous self, as expected. The get-together was titled, "Festschrift in Honor of Stephen Jay Gould." Bill Nye -- The Science Guy -- along with others including inventor Paul MacCready, author/psychologist Carol Tavris, senior editor of Natural History Richard Milner, and myself, assembled to honor Stephen at CalTech. It was a huge success, and as usual I learned a lot along the way.

Just imagine what intellect is expended by the astrologers as they labor over their charts -- now via computer -- to produce significant advice to guide millions of followers -- who also tend to buy lottery tickets and wear magnets in their shoes. The burden of responsibility must be enormous, knowing that astrology is often the only means these folks have of knowing what to do with their lives.

I cannot resist mentioning that in The American Way, American Airlines in-flight magazine, we can still find the column by Michael Lutin, the adored astrologer of many of the women's magazines. Some of you will recall the discussion I had with AA some time ago about this, resulting in their changing the name of his column from "Horoscope" to "A Cosmic Joke." It's now back to its former title, and appears under "Diversions." I suppose we should be grateful that it's not under "Science."

Here's an example of the uplifting wisdom dispensed by Lutin, this one under "Pisces."

Unless you have a profound and enriching inner life, you are sunk. Even if you are among the rich, famous, and very powerful, without a deeply abiding faith in a Divine Plan, you could blow your success and throw away everything you've worked to build. Of course, when you get high enough, you could come to the realization that nothing in this world matters very much anyway.

Gee, aren't you glad you saw this inspiring, specific, sophisticated, constructive, and meaningful advice? Where would we be without Michael Lutin, I ask you? The higher wisdom displayed here is obviously the result of analyzing the relationships between the stars and the planets. How could that be
doubted . . . ?

A reader sent the following to me to comment on the airport security caveats I'd expressed here. I've removed specifics so that identities are protected.

Just a blurb to reinforce your comments regarding the lack of real security at airports. What is there, is generally (I stress 'generally') sufficient to deter or detect the average amateur, but not sufficient, in most airports, to detect a professional with training, resources, or moxy.

I am in real life a safety and security professional, with a background as an officer of Military Intelligence in the Army (9 years active duty, 7 years in the Reserves and still going). I have never been in charge of airport security directly, but as a security manager in [city], I was part of the company that has the security contract for [airport] (this was back in 95-97). During that time there were some serious incidents, and the FAA, pushed by Clinton-Gore as a political stump, threw money and regulations at it. Without going into details (on which I am admittedly not an expert anyway), I will only say that the result was a security decrease because all the money went into administrative areas instead of physical or personnel areas.

As an example, there was an across-the-board requirement for all airport security officers to undergo an FAA background check before they could begin work at all. The unintended consequence was/is a lagtime of approximately 6 months from the time an officer applied to work and the time he could actually begin work. And we're talking about entry level jobs here; blue collar workers who need a paycheck now and can't wait 6 months so they move on. The FAA was simply unprepared to handle the caseload. Even when an officer completed the background check, it was no sure guarantee of his/her reliability since the FAA screening is notoriously lax and insufficient while paradoxically being too exclusive.

I am a personal example: The company with the [airport] contract is [named] Security, a division of the company I was in . . . . As elements of the same parent company, we had some overlap in operations and on infrequent occasions would supplement each other in regard to manpower and management support. I was a mid-level manager and could perfectly legally run the security operations of [airport], but I could not, under the new FAA rules, work at [airport] as a security guard, even though they would have to respond to my directives. Further, as a Military Intelligence Officer with a TS/SBI security clearance, the background checks that I have undergone and continue to undergo every 5 years are far more exhaustive than the FAA checks, but the FAA would not consider them in lieu of their own screening.

A final short story: At Logan International Airport in Boston back in 1989, I had to make some arrangements regarding some specialized military travel. I chose to do this on a Saturday when I was picking up a friend, so I was in civilian clothes. I tried for about 30 minutes to politely make contact with airport security and Customs but was rebuffed. So I finally pulled out my normal green military ID card, which grants absolutely no authority to its bearer. I stormed up to the first security guard I could find, flashed my card, and said "I'm Captain Vessels, Military Intelligence. I need to see your boss right now." The guard fell over himself taking me to an office and making me comfortable while he got the Security Director. When the Director arrived, I said "You'd better get Customs in here, too; I don't want to say this twice." He made a quick call and Customs came running in. I pulled out a memo I had done on my computer the night before which merely listed two names and SSN's, and I gave it to them. I said "These people will be flying through here on ---- carrying a briefcase. Make sure no one touches it, x-rays it, or asks them to open it." They couldn't agree fast enough and there was no problem with the trip. I left satisfied with my job but scared to death to fly again.

And don't get me started on my acquaintance who regularly tested airport security with what amounts to a decent magician's gimmicks and misdirection. He got grenades (dummy ones) on board all the time . . .

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

The solution to the Caps Problem -- with Moe unable to see -- is pretty straightforward. The possible combinations of three caps are these 7:

(a) WWW
(b) WWR
(c) WRW
(d) RWW
(e) WRR
(f) RWR
(g) RRW (No RRR, because there are only 2 red caps available)

We further reduce this to 5:

(a) WWW
(b) WWR
(c) WRW
(d) RWW
(e) RRW

This, because we already know that neither Curley nor Larry see 2 red caps showing, ("e" and "g") but Moe cannot see at all, so RRW is included as a possible configuration.

For all of these 5 combos, Curley's comment is the same as last time, so Moe only knows at that point that he has an 80% chance of wearing a white cap. But when he hears Larry say that he doesn't know either, Moe immediately knows that he's wearing white. Why? Because if the "b" combo were in place, Larry would have reasoned that since Curly didn't see two red caps, and he himself could see that Moe was wearing red, he -- Larry -- has to be white. But since Larry doesn't say this, and "a", "c," "d," and "g" call for Moe being in white, that's Moe's conclusion!

Okay, we're retiring these three guys. For a while at least. Bye-bye, Moe. A winner once more!

I regret, no puzzle this week. I've been just too busy. But I'll make it up to you . . .