October 12, 2001

UFO Contact Day, Therapeutic Murder, IMAGINE, A Homeopathic Test?, and Nostradamus Loses — Again.

Reader Tim Holt observes that when he read our item last week about the notice directed to "All Officers, Representatives and Members of Skywatch International, MUFON and any other organization and all UFO and Alien enthusiasts,"who were asked to participate in an Intergalactic experiment in which they would "attempt to send a message to the occupants of the [flying] saucers by use of mental telepathy [sic]," a bell rang for him. Something sounded familiar to Tim. There was a song first recorded by a Canadian group called Klaatu, "Calling Occupants of Interplanetary Craft," the first song on their first album, "3:47 EST" (1976) then popularized by the familiar group The Carpenters later in the seventies. Compare these excerpts with the message-to-be-memorized that we posted last week:

In your mind you have capacities you know
To telepath messages through the vast unknown
Please close your eyes and concentrate
With every thought you think
Upon the recitation we're about to sing
Calling occupants of interplanetary craft . . .
You've been observing our earth
And we'd like to make a contact with you
We are your friends . . .
And please come in peace we beseech you . . .
You close your eyes, you concentrate, together that's the way
To send a message we declare World Contact Day . . .
We are your friends.

Reader Dave Bradley tells us, "Actually, there was a World Contact Day in the 1950s and that is where the Klaatu lyrics came from. This event is a direct copy of that original event." Hmmm. As I suspected, this effort by today's UFO fans to contact the little green guys isn't quite original.... Even the name Klaatu comes from the human occupant of the UFO in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" movie (1950). Who can ever forget the immortal phrase, "Gort, Klaatu barada nikto"? Is nothing new.....?


Ten-year-old Candace Newmaker, from North Carolina, was suffocated during an April 18, 2000, "rebirthing therapy" session intended to treat an "attachment disorder." Her parents took her to the unlicensed "psychotherapy" practice, where the attendants wrapped her in blankets and sat on her until she smothered to death. Two of them were sentenced recently by County District Judge Jane Tidball to 10 years probation and 1,000 hours community service. Their attorneys said their clients were only assistants, with no expertise, who were "just following orders."

The couple, who are married, pleaded guilty in August of this year to negligent child abuse resulting in death. Judge Tidball said, "The defendants simply did what they were told to do." Well, Judge, the Nürnberg trials back in 1945-46 didn't have much of a lesson for you, did they? These people in your state, sat on a screaming, terrified, child, gasping for breath and begging for release, they heard her tell them she was dying, and they simply "did what they were told to do." Until she died. Adolf Eichmann had that call to duty, too. So did dozens of the Nazi butchers. They were doing what they were told to do.

Incredible.

As the District Attorney pointed out to the Judge, the death of this child was not only a tragedy, but a crime. "Attachment Therapy" is a currently popular quackery that exhibits a callous and careless attitude toward the victim. A representative of the Attachment Therapy community explained to Judge Tidball that they get so used to attempts by children to control them with physical complaints that they become "immune" to them. "Complaints"? Candace, as recorded in a 2-hour videotape, screamed and shrieked in terrified agony, and her long, agonizing death, during which she was insulted, belittled, and teased, induced in her such panic, that with her bare feet she actually kicked a large rip in the new flannel sheet in which she had been wrapped. She was, after all, being murdered.

One of the defendants had her back against Candace's feet, and was in a position to tell the others of Candace's vigorous efforts, but she didn't. Another witness testified about years of inhuman treatment, involving pain, isolation, deprivation and degradation at this same "therapist's" hands. It was also pointed out that the defendants had lied to investigators about the "rebirthing," saying that Candace never complained of distress. A blatant lie, so proved by the playing of the graphic videotape to the court — and to the Judge, who then allowed probation and community service.

For murder.


I've been a Beatles fan ever since I can remember. John Lennon's songs have been favorites, and I would always hum along with "Imagine" when I heard it. Then, when it was selected to be heard on the recent TV tribute to the WTC victims, I really listened to the lyrics. I'll ask you to read — or sing along — with them....

IMAGINE.....

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one.

This does it for me. Yes, it's pollyannaish. And idealistic. But — just imagine......


(Some of you may recall a character named John Benneth, with whom I exchanged lots of correspondence over his hare-brained idea of homeopathy, years ago. He's not a homeopath. He's just a man who became infatuated with pseudoscience, and can't seem to break away from it. Well, he re-entered my life this week. What follows is my response to a reader who forwarded one of his rants to me, asking why I wasn't responding to it....)

My, my, my! Benneth "got me" again! Quickly, before he rushes to claim that I've admitted defeat, I'll add that he "got me" only in that I actually scanned through one of his tirades that was forwarded to me for comment. Then, when I came upon his name at the end of it, I realized I'd invested my time poorly. Long ago, due to his misrepresentation of the JREF and its goals, and his chosen ignorance of the provisions of the JREF challenge, I blocked him from my recipient list — and he has tried every possible means to spam me with his invective. Well, he got through. Drat!

Now that I've spent some of my valuable time extracting a few of his more laughable claims from the mass of abuse he posted, I should handle them briefly. In doing so, perhaps I will reach readers who have wondered, as this one did, just why Benneth is so wildly disparaging and abusive. The reason is simple: he's desperate, he's obsessive, he does not have the evidence he wishes he had, and with the JREF challenge hanging over his head, he has no choice but to avoid it by claiming that it's not legitimate. He does this by distorting and perverting our work and our intentions. Examples:

Benneth Writes: "After four months of bickering with Randi and other skeptics, notably this man who goes by the name of Happy Dog, who appears to us to speak for JREF, what we've discovered in response to our application and the analysis of reports by others who have applied, is what seems to us to be a process of defamation of the applicant, evasiveness, and omission of necessary information by JREF, information we think is required to do a reasonable test of a claim."

The Facts: "Happy Dog" does not speak, and never has spoken, for the JREF. Benneth knows this, but chooses not to know it. The "reports of others who have applied," if examined, would show the lie as it is told here. Benneth does not offer those damaging "reports," for obvious reasons. We made perfectly clear to Benneth what would be required for a test. He avoided every approach we made to him, and after the majority of those who supported him in his application, dropped away from him and publicly announced their defection, we decided that we'd also had enough abuse, and that after giving him more than enough of our time and expertise, we would terminate further communication.

Benneth Writes: "We're asking simple questions of the original hypothesis and claimant, that an entire doctrine of medicine is false, that a popular phenomenon that is felt and enjoyed by millions is simply coincidental or a product of placebo action."

The Facts: We of the JREF know of no such "hypothesis" nor of any such "claimant." This is one of Benneth's favorite ploys; he sets up a fictitious situation, and defies us to disprove it. Juvenile, but it's been known to work.

Benneth Writes: "Now we're informed indirectly by inferences that Dr. Randi has waylaid our claim in favor of others to try first. Why doesn't JREF have a standardized 'protocol', an open known testing procedure for claims?"

The Facts: Yes, the answer is obvious to everyone, but Benneth has to be spoon-fed the logic. Everyone's claim is different. Thus, there can be no "standardized" protocol. (Why do I get the feeling that I'm teaching simple arithmetic here to persons who use calculus....?) Note the "informed indirectly" and "by inferences" expressions. That speaks volumes....

Benneth Writes: "If homeopathy was [sic] a valid science, they say, it would easily pass the JREF Challenge and the claimant would collect a million dollars."

The Facts: Yep. That's what we say. Occasionally, Benneth gets it right.

Benneth Writes: "But, they continue, because no one has managed to prove homeopathy to JREF, it is an invalid science."

The Facts: Bovine dung. We asked Benneth to provide any evidence to support this invented statement, but he has always chosen to be silent on the matter.

Benneth Writes: "And using this failure to prove itself to an officer of JREF and to collect the million dollars is proof then, they contend, that the doctrine is fraudulent." The Facts: See previous answer.

I must admit that one of Benneth's comments got my attention. At the JREF, we are always looking for simple, direct, definitive means of testing. Though Benneth, during the thousands upon thousands of words we exchanged years ago, was always coming up with what sounded like ideal simplified tests, none of them could be used because he always eventually found some flaw, somewhere. He had sprouting seeds, polarized light, Moon phases, almost everything except Tarot Cards, to differentiate between homeopathic water and ordinary water. But now he he's written that there is ". . . a book by Dr. Jean Elmiger entitled 'Real Medicine' in which Elmiger claimed that homeopathic solutions had been identified through the use of Kirlian photography." Wow! Sounds ideal! Benneth even says that ". . . using specially constructed Kirlian photography equipment [he] subsequently obtained . . . photographic evidence that Elmiger's claim had substance."

Now, this is typical Benneth "crooked-speak." The expression "had substance" doesn't mean that there was any real data — but it's encouraging. Gee, a simple way of differentiating between homeopathic water and ordinary water! Wow!

End of euphoria.... Perhaps the "substance" wasn't quite as advertised, or the Kirlian camera is now busted — but I have a sinking feeling that this method, too, will become insufficient to do the differentiation. Just call me a grump, but previous experience serves me well....


Somehow, a Nostradamian got the attention of the press and challenged me to "explain away" a couple of quatrains that he finds particularly evidential. One, he says, deals with Fascist Generalissimo Franco (Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco Bahamonde!). Well, the word "Franco" shows up, but that's about all. Not at all deterred by lack of evidence, this enthusiast crowed and made his own prediction — in capital letters — that I would not answer his challenge. Wrong.

Let's just examine this quatrain, Century IX, number 16. Here are two versions I have. Note the small differences:

From my 1662 London edition (shown here):

De Castel Franco sortira l'assemblée,
L'Ambassadeur non plaisant fera Schisme,
Ceux de Riviere seront en la meslée,
Et au grand Goulphre desnieront l'entrée.
And from my 1688 Amsterdam edition:

De castel Franco sortira l'assemblée,
L'ambassadeur non plaissant fera scisme:
Ceux de Ribiere seront en la meslée,
Et au grand goulphre desnier ont l'entrée.
(Notes: the substitution of "b" for "v" was common at the time. In the last line of the 1688 version, the space between "desnier" and "ont" is a typesetting error; that should be "desnieront." Frequently, an "s" follows an "e" that should be written with an accent, as "é" or "ê." Thus, "desnieront" would be ""dénieront," in English, "will deny," and "meslée" should be "mêlée."

A careful translation into English....

Out of Castelfranco the assembly will go,
The unpleasant ambassador will secede,
Those from the Riviere will be in the squabble,
And will deny entry to the great gulf.

Please note that in the 1662 edition, all geographical names were italicized. Note which words are italicized here: Castel Franco and Riviere. There was — and still is — a city named Castelfranco in Italy, near Venice, on the approach to the Gulf of Venice on the Adriatic Sea, the East coast of Italy. Since this quatrain clearly, in plain language, refers to refusing entry to a gulf, it seems evident that Nostradamus meant this Castelfranco. The only other Castelfranco (also in Italy) is far from the sea. Note, too, that in Old French, "goulphre" can also mean, "abyss."

The second line has a special verb usage. (For "fera Schisme/fera scisme," the compound verb — modern spelling of the infinitive "faire scission" — we translate "secede," meaning to formally resign or withdraw. An alternate "will make a schism" is also barely acceptable, as much as the English verb "make up" can mean either "invent" or "settle amicably," though I believe that in connection with an ambassador, the usage "formerly resign or withdraw" fits much better, and is by far the better of the two choices.

We don't know what Nostradamus meant by "Riviere," since the French word for "river" is "rivière," the accent essential. Now read the imaginative translation of our Nostradamian:

Franco will bring out the assembly,
The ambassador will not agree and cause a schism:
The people of Rivera will be in the crowd,
And they will refuse entry into the Gulf.
The ordinary, careful, logical, translation/interpretation of this quatrain doesn't suit the zealot, so he invents an imaginative translation, he changes a name, and he has essentially a new quatrain that has nothing to do with a 16th-Century seer.

I rest my case.

The other material this guy sent out, regarding Century III, number 77, I just haven't time to go through right now. Later. I'm sure that this will be chortled over as my fear that I can't support an argument, of course. Well, I'm a busy guy, and at the moment I have far more important things to do than arguing over muddled verses. But I'll get back to III-77, anon.