November 15, 2002

Stone Balls, Magnetic Hills — Again, NASA Retreats, Drinking Soap, A New Tarot, Online ESP Test, The Great Keypad Puzzle, America's Best Christian, Dowsing in Italy, Edward Hides in Dallas but Appears in Omaha......

Many years ago, I saw at a museum in Washington, DC, a huge stone ball, about six feet in diameter. Its surface was rough but uniform, about like that of a cast concrete wall. The sign next to it said that it came from Costa Rica, and was an exceptionally large example of similar objects to be found there and in Mexico, ranging from a few inches or so to either 4 or 8 feet, depending on which articles you read.

Many descriptions of these objects have appeared in woo-woo books, with much wonderment about how "primitive" humans were able to fashion such balls to an accuracy of either 2% or .08% — again depending on whose account you read. Some years ago, I exchanged letters with Arthur C. Clarke, who had stated that these were most certainly Man-made, because of tool-marks still visible on the surfaces.

The true nature and origin of the stone balls is quite different, though just as wonderful, in my opinion. They are formed in volcanic areas, in magma, and are the results of very much the same process that occurred in that once-popular and outstandingly grotesque novelty, the "Lava Lamp." This consisted of a bottle with a heating element in the bottom of it, containing two non-miscible ("won't-mix") liquids of slightly different densities and of different colors. The heavier liquid would of course settle to the bottom of the container, and when the heater was turned on, the adjacent liquid would expand, become less dense, and rise to the surface of the bottle. There, it would cool again and slowly settle back to the bottom. Thus, there was a repeating motion of globs of colored liquid rising and falling, an action that enchanted those who are easily attracted by inane entertainments.

Those "globs" were spherical, taking that form naturally due to being effectively "weightless" in the surrounding medium. In space travel, released liquids take that same form, only settling out when being affected by a change in surface tension or other such interference. Their own surface tension holds them together, and they take the form of a sphere because that is the "default," in those circumstances.

These stone balls are formed when the material — granodiorite, a metamorphic rock — melts in magma and is of different density than the surrounding fluid. Upon slowly cooling and solidifying, the magma traps the balls until weathering wears away the surrounding material, and the balls — occasionally — come to the surface by other geophysical means. They are still found, today, usually in valleys (why?) and still invoke wonder.

(There is another form of stone ball that can be formed of quartz sand — sandstone, a form of concretion that has a "seed" object like a crab or oyster shell at its center, but that's known as "new" rock, much like the "beach rock" that formed near Bimini and gave rise to the "Bimini Road" error that suggested Atlantis to the suggestible. See my book, "Flim-Flam!", pages 48 to 51. However, in this discussion we're dealing with very ancient, stone balls originating at very high — volcanic — temperatures.)

When discovered, these almost-perfect spheres are of course rather easily moved — especially downhill! — and early civilizations would spot them and set them aside as curiosities, sometimes incorporating them into their temples.

Ah, but remember that Clarke mentioned evidence of tool-marks on the surface of these objects, and his conclusion that this meant they were Man-made? I omitted one detail, above, when I wrote that the balls are still discovered, today. They sometimes have a thick "crust" on them, which can be chipped off with simple tools to reveal the much smoother surface beneath. The tools, it's obvious, will leave some marks behind on the new surface....

The most interesting aspect of all this, to me, is that "experts" in Costa Rica insist that their stone balls were fashioned by ancient inhabitants of the area, while those found in Mexico — same material and appearance — are the result of natural volcanic forces. I sense a lack of logic here....

I recently found this photograph of an area near Alenquer, in the Extremadura area on the west coast of Portugal, 35 km. north of Lisbon. I believe I see here a few similar formations, though I'd not been aware that they might also be found in that part of the world. Since looking into the matter a little further, I find that they're also reported in Easter Island!

Folks, the notion that these are marvelous artifacts fabricated by ancient peoples, can be laid to rest not only by the geological evidence, but by the fact that the balls are found in such widely-separated geographical locations, and they are all made of the same igneous rock! And, if the ancients had chosen to make stone balls, they would, in my opinion, have opted to make them from much softer and more available material, such as limestone. Don't throw at me the fact that various kinds of pyramids (obviously Man-made) are found in widely-separated areas of the world: Egypt, Central and South America, Mexico, Sudan, India, Italy, and Greece. A pyramid is one of the most stable, easily-designed and easily-constructed forms. It is, in effect, almost any other less stable architectural shape that has already fallen down, and is thus not expected to change much over the ages.

Yes, another celebration of Man's ingenuity turns into a mere miracle of Nature. Next, we'll turn to the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland, and its marvelous pillars.

Or maybe not.....


Concerning the "Reverse Astrology" site mentioned here lately, it turns out to be a very excellent joke, which I'd not spotted until it was suggested I look further into it. When I saw the photo of the "beast" who runs the site, all was suddenly clear to me....


A reader signed "Whittier" reminds us that the old, tired, "magnetic hill" nonsense is apparently immortal, no matter how many times it's debunked, and cites a cemetery where this illusion is found. The reason for this belief, I find, is that people just have great difficulty in denying the evidence of their senses, no matter how wrong that may be. We magicians get this reaction all the time: "But I saw it with my own eyes!" One is tempted to ask, and I frequently do ask, "With who else's eyes might you have observed it, please?" Whittier tells us of

. . . Douglas Vogt, who has written a book on the subject, "Gravitational Mystery Spots of the United States." Vogt believes there are no easy answers for what happens on gravity hills. "Basically, they are places that prove our current definition of gravity is wrong," he says. "My belief is more that it's something buried from a previous civilization, such as a device that distorted time or gravity, that is causing it." OK. But Nick Clark, Rose Hills' director of marketing, who tested Gravity Hill when he first started working at the cemetery two years ago, thinks Vogt's explanation is, well, a little exaggerated. "It's weird. But in reality it's your brain being fooled by your eyes. In other words, an optical illusion," said Clark. "It's just the angle of the street that makes it look like it's going uphill."

Hey, Mr. Clark, you're absolutely right, but don't expect the believers to allow that simple, factual, explanation, to faze them a bit. They think they have their miracle, and they'll hold it tightly, no matter what....


We heard last week that friend Jim Oberg had been commissioned by NASA to write a small book denying the persistent rumor — brought about by yet another irresponsible FOX-TV farce — that no one has landed on the Moon. Well, NASA has now withdrawn that commission, surrendering to the public outcry and media attention! Incredible, in my view. Ah, but not all is lost. Jim tells us that he's going to write it anyway, without NASA funding or blessings. You'll hear about it right here, as soon as we know it's available. Jim is now looking for a publisher.

You know, just last week I appeared as the keynote speaker at the Conference for the Advancement of Science Teachers (CAST) in El Paso. I was asked several times about the rumor, and found that teachers most certainly are interested in having the ammunition to defeat such misinformation. They get questions about this, at every turn.

Why did NASA cancel the production of the booklet? My inquiries to NASA are not yet answered.


Reader Tony Hegwood suggests we go to www.miracle2soap.com/scientific.htm to see the very latest in pseudoscientific gobbledygook directed at the unwary. I agree that this is just about as crazy as these sites can get, but Tony assures us that someone of his acquaintance is thoroughly satisfied with the product offered, and even drinks it, for reinforcement....! Take a look.


The "improved" and "updated" zodiac that I proposed last week (and suggested by some readers as a dandy T-shirt!) is reflected in a new version of the traditional Tarot card themes. It's called The Silicon Valley Tarot, and has "The Fool" replaced by "The Hacker," "The Magician" by "The Guru," and "The Hierophant" by "The Consultant." The "Strength" card is now named "Double Latte," and "Death" has become "The Layoff." I particularly related to "The Devil" becoming "Spam," and, as they describe it,

"The Empress," the Tarot's classic "mother figure," is replaced by "The Garage" — the true "mother of invention" of Silicon Valley, the metaphorical womb from which great code will eventually emerge.

Best of all, "The World" card is now "The Net." But we all knew that, didn't we?


I was advised by a reader to go to http://www.gotpsi.org and do the tests there. Why I allow myself to fall into these traps, I dunno.... Today I attempted to do the tests.... I registered dutifully, then when I reached the last page, where I was to perform the tests, I found, first, that I could not read the "Remote Viewing Test" nor the "Lottery Test." Second, there were no instructions on what to do, on any of these tests! In the "Card Test," I saw five spaces, one labeled "Your Choice" and one with a picture of gold bricks. I didn't make any choice, so what does "Your Choice" mean, to me? What does one do, here? There are no instructions! If I'm supposed to make a choice, it's a choice of what? After experimentation, I found that the solution is to click on the representation of the test, which brings it up on screen. So far, I've been getting just average, "expected," scores. No significance at all. Strange.....


Concerning the keypad puzzle of last week, I can tell you that I received some one hundred or so responses. Two of them were quite correct, giving the actual combo, though I only asked for the six most likely combos. Almost everyone spotted the evidence showing that numbers 1, 3, and 8 were the most used, judging from the heavy dirt that had accumulated on those buttons and the areas immediately surrounding them. But then the observations got pretty crazy. Some comments were very puzzling, such as those from a few who wondered what the fourth number could be, because only three showed usage! Hey, I believe these are equal-opportunity keys, capable of being used more than once!

Most figured correctly that in order to have a 4-digit code, one key had to be used twice. However, a number of readers stated that key 8 appeared — to them — to be used most. A more careful perusal shows that key 1 was much more stained than key 8. Look at the amount of stain on the actual button itself!

I'll run here the solution of reader Thomas R. Harrington, which was perceptive, but erred in the same way that most did. The general opinion was that my math was wrong. It wasn't only the math, but the math-plus-evidence that gave me six possibilities.....

Thank you for the years of entertaining sanity you've given me through your books and, for the past two years now, your JREF web site. May you and your ilk flourish and spread.

Your November 8th online JREF newsletter challenges us to figure out the old code number to the JREF's door lock keypad (before you changed it), using only a photograph of the keypad and the given that it's a 4-digit number. It is indeed a simple and quickly-solved problem in logic. I'm sure many, many others will figure it out and will let you know, but here goes my own analysis:

The keys "1", "3" and "8" are surrounded by noticeably more smudged dirt than the remaining nine keys. This phenomenon is also often seen on heavily-used telephone keypads and computer keyboards. It comes, of course, from accumulated dirt building up from repeated presses by fingers of varying degrees of cleanliness. The "halos" of dirt plainly show these three keys are used far more than the others.

Only 3 keys have the halos around them, but we're told the "secret" number has 4 digits. Clearly, this means that one of them has to be used twice.

But which one of the three is used twice? Applying the same logic that identified the original three, we deduce that the dirtiest one, the one with clearly-visible dirt actually piled up on the keytop, is the one most-used of the three. It is therefore the one that is pressed twice in the combination: the "1" key.

Writing down all the possible permutations of the four digits 1, 1, 3, and 8, we get: 1138, 1183, 1318, 1381, 1813, 1831, 3118, 3181, 3811, 8113, 8131, and 8311.

Well, this is 12 possibilities, not the 6 you indicate, but it still shouldn't take too long to whip through them all. Indeed, statistically, I shouldn't have to do them all before succeeding: on average, I should hit the right number after 6 tries. Of course, depending on dumb luck, I might have to do all 12, or I might be lucky enough to hit the right one the first time. At worst, I might have to stand furtively outside your door for a whole minute before entering.

Thomas, though I didn't mention it, after three incorrect entries, our system siezes up. After a long pause, it re-sets, but at that point does not tolerate another incorrect code entry, setting off the alarm instead, and connecting directly to police headquarters. After that, all hell breaks loose, and there's much excitement.

Other readers adopted a Sherlock Holmes approach, trying to deduce from their knowledge of facts that we'd find easy-to-remember, how we'd decided on the code we used. I'll not share any of that with you, because you're too damn smart. I'll only say that we did have a mnemonic base, and now that we've changed to another combo, we still use a mnemonic. Don't go nuts trying to guess; it's not something you can come up with, believe me. One of the Sherlocks wrote, asking whether his solution was correct, and if he would have gained entry, and I responded:

I don't see any numeric connections in JREF's address or phone numbers, nor in such details as the founding date of the organization.

Of course not! We would never have chosen anything that obvious!

Another avenue was closed when I found you were apparently born in 1928, not 1931. January 8 or August 1 of 1931 would have made too compelling a connection to ignore.

Again, too obvious — too "compelling? — for us to choose! My birthdate is available in several biographical dictionaries (Who's Who, for example) but beware! I have specifically incorrect data in those sources to confound the "psychics" who often "reveal" that to me, and are WRONG!

And, in answer to his question, no, he would now be behind bars.....

Others — many others — after making correct decisions on the evidence presented, thought that 1-1-3-8 would have to be the correct combo, because I'd probably be a George Lucas fan (I am) and "THX 1138" is a well-known science fiction film of his. Exactly why I would avoid using that combo! Applying logic to such a problem, should involve some use of your knowledge of the person(s) who came up with the code!

Hans Lehmann noticed that the last four digits of the JREF ZIP code are 1815, and guessed that 1-8-1-3 would be the code. Nope, not for that connection. For reasons given above....

But back to the puzzle. Since the 1 key is used far more frequently, it certainly is the one that's twice used, as Thomas and so many others correctly deduced. But I thought about just how that dirt gets on there. It seems evident that a person approaching the keypad with a dirty index-finger (I assumed that one finger was used, and subsequent inquiry proved me correct when I asked my staff) would tend to leave more residue on the first key pressed. I experimented by running my finger over Sophia's beautiful blue finish (she's my car, remember?) and then pressing my finger on a sheet of paper. Yes, most of the Sophia-dust went into the first smudge. That would lead to the conclusion that 1 is probably not only the first digit, but also — probably — the one twice-used, thus only combos 1138, 1183, 1318, 1381, 1813, and 1831 should — probably — be considered.

I must credit Thomas Kowal Andersen of Denmark for the first answer that arrived in my e-mail box giving the six correct possibilities....

Well, after all that, I'll tell you that the old combo was 1-8-1-3. So there! That was a really good exchange, and I thank you all for participating!


Raher than spoil the impact of this next item, I'll just send you to http://bettybowers.com/misscleo.html to enjoy a website that should have come to my own attention, years ago. The remarkable Betty Bowers, "America's Best Christian," issues a warning to us all:

Once Miss Cleo is sent back to behind the counter at Taco Bell, will the FCC, in its stated desire to protect the American public from chicanery, turn its attention to other people on TV who hawk the future like it was theirs to sell for an exorbitant fee? I am, of course, talking about Pat Robertson. What of the televangelists who promise to cure everything from cantankerousness to cancer, in exchange for a generous "love offering"?

Will the Attorney General of New York swoop down and padlock all the Catholic confessionals? After all, Miss Cleo is only promising the hair color of next Thursday's fling, not a rendezvous with God, eternal life and a charmingly appointed mansion of gold overlooking the Milky Way. Indeed, when it comes to having the ingenuity to package the future and market it to the public for a retail price, Christianity makes Miss Cleo look like quite the hapless amateur. Once tithes and other contributions to our rather prosperous enterprise are spread out over the course of a light afternoon of confessions or faith-healings, Christianity's minute-by-minute fees reduce Miss Cleo to a below-market bargain.

As the CEO of a Fortune 500 Christian ministry, I admit to harboring disdain for any woman who indulges the amusingly gullible public's quaint hankering to know the unknowable — and parlays it into cash or real estate. That is, after all, my demographic. Nevertheless, while I have always considered Miss Cleo's syntax and mode of dress criminal, it worries me that she may be criminally liable for duping an audience verily begging to be deceived and fleeced. To blame Miss Cleo for someone else's desperation is tantamount to jailing the man driving the train that Anna Karenina found herself under.

Enough. Go to the web site.....

Next, still on the subject of religious paradoxes, consider this sign that I photographed last week outside a local church. In common with other churches, this one rents out facilities to other interests, and it seems that a traveling "Health Fair" rented space there. Perhaps the minister saw a possible rivalry of goods being offered, and as you see, his posted promise of "Eternal Life" certainly out-classes the other of only "Longer Life." However, I don't see competitive prices being offered.....


In my book, "Flim-Flam," I describe a dowsing test that I conducted in Italy, in 1979, with the cooperation of RAI-3, a major TV network in that country. Piero Angela, the host of the show that resulted, is a major figure in the Italian media, widely known and respected. There was one event that took place in connection with the test, that I thought I'd share with you.

We had chosen an area outside of the town of Formello, 24 kms. from Rome, to set in place the buried pipes that were to be detected by the eager dowsers who had applied to RAI-3 to demonstrate their skills and win the then-$10,000 prize I was offering. The local city dump featured a cleared area nearby that was suitable, and very early in the freezing, rainy, and windy winter morning, Piero and I arrived at the site in his tiny Fiat accompanied by the huge mobile studio-truck that would be recording the test. Our vehicle was covered in a thin layer of ice.

Piero decided we would explore the area briefly, and we drove to one of the dumping spots where huge trucks were coming in to discharge their loads of garbage. We had armed ourselves with a thermos of hot coffee, and confidently parked at the edge of a cavernous pit of trash, turning the heater up full. Engaged in conversation relating to the planning of the upcoming taping task, we did not notice when one garbage truck pulled up adjacent to us and began unloading a most astonishing mass of amorphous material that turned out to be a full load of bright pink styrofoam "packing peanuts," the sort of thing used to cushion fragile objects. How and where this stuff came to be part of Formello's trash, we'll never know.

The wind shifted the majority of the fluffy bits toward the Fiat, and Piero switched on the windshield-wipers as we rapidly lost sight of the outside world. As quickly as we could, we backed out of the place, and made our way back to the spot where the TV crew were waiting for us.

We had to heave at the doors to get them open, and as we emerged into the drizzly outside, we saw what had the crew screeching with laughter. I ask you to picture a little Fiat covered, wheels and all, in a layer of frozen-on pink styrofoam peanuts, topped with a peaked mound of them. Piero and I both exclaimed at once, "A wedding cake!" and fell to joining the others in their glee.

I turned to Piero and asked, "Are you sure we're not in the middle of a Fellini movie?" The question was not all that fanciful....

As for the subsequent dowsing test, it went as expected. By the time the applicants arrived, delivered their inevitable theories and anecdotal tales about their wondrous abilities and past successes, and probed the area for the water-carrying pipes — with no significant results — the wedding cake had melted away, and we realized what I still regret, that we had not thought to snap a photo of the Formello Wedding Cake phenomenon. Drat!


Reader Michael Draper writes to tell me:

I'm a professional entertainer/acting teacher from Scranton, Pa. Most of my life was spent believing in the "absolute" truth of all paranormal phenomena. I was enthralled by the concepts of psychics predicting world events, and Uri Geller's spoon bending. I knew there was life after death. Hell, the "psychic" past-life tarot-reading entity channeling automatic-writing shaman, whom I paid a small fortune to, told me so. It must be true. She also told me that I was a current incarnation of a sixteenth-century French Negro prostitute who sold her/my children into slavery, and that this was the reason I had a current aversion to blood. (?) I've never had an aversion to blood; I'm a horror movie fanatic! Yet, I still believed without question.

I remember seeing you on television several years ago vehemently denying the existence of psychic powers, and I clearly remember thinking that you we're a cranky coot with a bug up his butt. Now I have a bug up my butt too.

I don't know how it happened, but slowly I came to realize that sceptics like yourself and Carl Sagan (a man truly to be missed) were absolutely right. I'm embarrassed at how gullible I was. I was made a fool of in almost every way, especially in my pocketbook! I'm a streetwise individual who can smell a con a mile away — or so I thought. If someone tried to sell me a lemon auto I'd spot the fraud right away, yet I bought the "other side" hook, line, and sinker. This does not sit well with me. I feel I need to do something about it. . . .

Here our reader suggested some ways in which he and his spouse might serve the JREF, and we're considering those possibilities seriously.... He continues:

I think people like John Edward are twisted — soaking money from grieving families, giving them fairy-tales instead of honest grieving, getting loved ones to cry on camera so that his ratings could inflate alongside his bank account.

I apologize for the lengthy E-mail. I was sitting in a doctors office waiting-room this morning and was reading an old Newsweek issue devoted to hoaxes. I came upon an article on you and your foundation and started remembering my past, somewhat biased, opinion of your skepticism. I recant that opinion

Thanks, Michael. It's always good to hear that we've made a difference!


Reader Ian MacMillan always keeps us up with the most outrageous/ludicrous items on the Internet:

Someone with yet another free energy invention lists himself as having a few titles. I kid you not, he's Robert Adams, with all this flapdoodle after his name:

PROF., DR., SIR., K.C.M., M.D. (TM), Ph.D., D.Sc., K.St.J., Dr. LIT,. ROBERT G. ADAMS, M.S. & M.N.,(U.K.)., FOUNDER, MEMBER & CHAIRMAN 1968-1970 of I.E.E.E (USA) NEW ZEALAND SECTION., M.N.Z.E.I., F.N.Z.E.I.,CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE OF THE ANCIENT ROYAL ASSYRIAN ORDER OF MERIT.

It's the last one that gets me, Ian. If it weren't for that one, I might suspect he's a quack.....


Peter Gayton of Brisbane, Australia, alerts us to this "Global announcement" http://www.8march2003.com. This is a good example of an unsophisticated person with a keyboard connected to the Internet, but not much else. The major problem with such folks, in my opinion, is that they also get to vote....


Reader Mark "Hawkeye" Louis, of 96.3 KSCS radio, informs us:

I co-host a morning radio show in Dallas, Texas. We were recently offered an interview via satellite with John Edward. I told the co-ordinator that I would love Mr. Edward to be a guest on our show but to please inform him that I am a skeptic and I would bring up my doubts during the interview.

The coordinator (Wayne Fisk of ABC Radio Networks) informed our show that Mr. Edward's camp has chosen not to do interviews with "people who are skeptics," during this radio tour.

Just thought I would pass that along.

Thanks, Hawkeye. I'll add here that it was Edward's flacks who were calling around to get him on radio shows, they called KSCS and when you accepted, they were the ones who refused an appearance when you leveled with them on your opinion. Just what does Mr. Edward fear so much? Does he only participate in programs where he knows he'll be interviewed by airheads? Is he that incapable of defending his claims? We can only wonder, because he's also declined to be tested for our JREF million dollars — in line with Sylvia Browne, who's now into 438+ days of that same offer! You out there somewhere, Sylvia....?


As I said last week, Brady J. Phelps, Ph.D., is a behavior analyst and Professor of Psychology at South Dakota State University who recently attended a John Edward performance. He wrote me in advance of the show, asking advice on how he might discover the Edward routine, and very little that I suggested could be used, except that I told him to take along a concealed tape recorder. It served him well. Here's his report:

John Edward gave a seminar in Omaha, Nebraska, on Nov. 3rd, 2002, before a crowd of approximately 2,500, with people traveling from as far away as Kentucky to see the man who talks to the dead. Tickets were sold in advance for $45, but street hawkers were selling them for about $200. The setting had the feeling of a revival meeting ,but instead of Bibles, Edward devotees clutched copies of his recent best seller, "One Last Time." The crowd was between 5- or 10-to1, women to men. Since there was no reserved seating, there was quite a bit of unorganized chaos as the crowd poured in.

During the approximately 60-70 minutes before the show started, faces who later became clear as Edward's security and crew, milled about and mingled anonymously with the crowd. A group of men in black leather coats with in-ear headphones and in-sleeve microphones were mixing in with the crowd outside the auditorium and in the foyer. Some of these individuals were taking Polaroid or digital photos of the crowd, and a cameraman filmed before and during the show from the back of the auditorium. Obviously this information could have been used to identify individuals or distinguishing clothing or personal items.

We were told that the performance was not being taped for broadcast on his TV show, as it was advertised as a seminar. When the star emerged, the applause was thunderous, fans clapping like trained seals. This must be what it's like with Rush Limbaugh and his "dittoheads," or what Oprah experiences at the start of her shows. The star told us that a seminar is an opportunity for questions-and-answers from the crowd, and readings "from beyond" for the remainder of the show. Before taking any questions, Edward told the audience that he wanted them to know the true purpose of — in his words — "his mission," which ironically is that people don't need mediums except as a last resort — and Edward refers to himself as a medium! The intent of this statement was, I believe, to reassure people that they didn't need to rush out and hire a medium to be told what they hope to hear from lost loved ones, lest they be taken for a ride. He said that he "won't tell people just what they want to hear, as that would be unethical." The phrase "honor among thieves" came to mind when I heard Edward talk about his ethics.

One of the first questions that Edward took from the audience was something to the effect, "Are the dead always with us?" His answer was reassuringly vague, that the dead have a very different conception of "always" than we do, and they're not with us always. We wouldn't want them to be considering some of things we might be caught doing, he said, which brought a very big laugh from his devoted audience. This comes across as a poor man's psychotherapy, akin to Dr. Phil or Dr. Laura, but Edward has them beat easily. He offers the possibility of resolving guilt and other issues with a loved one who will always accept your overtures of love and pleas for forgiveness, and will leave the past in the past.

Another questioner asked if he ever received any hatred or animosity "from beyond" to convey to the living. No, he never did, he said, as the dead would never want to say such things to us. Edward blends conventional Christianity with "new age" beliefs. He made the analogy that the body is just the vehicle and the soul is the driver, so after the vehicle is wrecked and finished, the driver can go on. The souls of the dead, he said, are now, however, on a "very different frequency" — whatever that means. Edward appeared to be relying largely if not exclusively on cold reading techniques or fishing for clues, especially when he was trying to do readings for people on the upper levels, as the people seated there were probably very difficult to see, given the poor lighting.

A few terms seem to be key to understanding Edward-speak. For a starting point, no one was ever said to have passed away. The dearly missed have merely "passed" or "passed over," as if death were just another phase of life. Secondly, Edward did not "reveal" as much as he "validated." He always tried to validate the love from beyond. Anyone who has browsed in what is offered as a self-help or psychology section of a major bookstore will no doubt recognize this happy-sounding psychobabble aimed at those who insist they need therapy the most.

After just a few questions, Edward jumped into an attempt to read for one section on the upper level balcony; here he truly went on a fishing expedition. "I'm getting a Joe, Joseph, Jack, or a "J" word, and this is from a father, father-in-law, or a father figure to someone up there. I am also seeing this connection with a maimed arm or possibly amputated arm from being caught in some type of machinery, possibly farm machinery. It could also be that the arm was run over by a tire." When the audience member he focused on couldn't make a connection, he repeatedly asked, "Who is near you?" or "Who else is with you?", looking for the connection himself. The audience in that section were no doubt separately trying to come up with some of relevant connection to please Mr. Edward. They were trying to play the part of Clever Hans to "validate" what the star was seeing for them. One person volunteered that they had a grandfather who had a finger amputated, but no, that was not what Edward was seeing. After three or four audience members couldn't make a connection, he jokingly threatened, "Don't make me come up there..."

He finally told the section to go home and think about it, to see if the name and the father connection didn't then become apparent to them. It could also be in their future, of course.

Randi comments: This is the ploy that James Van Praagh also uses repeatedly. As soon as he very clearly has missed his guess, he tells the victim, "Well, you keep that," which is spirit-talk for go-home-and-think-about-it. We can be sure that something will occur to them that fits the bad guess, one way or the other. Continuing....

Edward explained more than once that he didn't see differences between a son, a son-in-law, daughter or daughter-in-law, and so forth. He said that blood relations could not be distinguished from legal relations as long as the relationship was a loving one, it seemed, which is very convenient for someone who wants to speak in generalities. Also, talking to someone in the upper balcony, Edward went on another fishing expedition: "I'm getting a name that sounds like Blackie, Blocky, or Biloxi or just a b-l-k-sounding name" directed at several people in a section of the audience; no one seemed to connect with it. He again tried for this connection with several individuals sitting together in a section, but without success. For one audience member, he revealed, "I see your dead son or son-in-law" — unnamed — until the audience member revealed the name of her son who had passed. "I see that your son died from some event that had an impact upon his body," to which the audience member revealed that her son had shot himself. "Oh, that must be the impact that I saw..."

Note the subtle re-directing and going from general to specific. "Impact upon his body" can mean an auto accident, a fall, a punch, a blow, or a gunshot. And remember that if that guess is wrong (if the son died from a disease, for example) it's just forgotten and ignored! Continuing....

At another point, when Edward was targeting the audience directly in front of him: "I'm getting a flag image, or a flag. Did somebody bring a flag with them? No sir, it's not you," referring to an audience member wearing an American flag sweatshirt. "Do you have a flag with you?" pointing to a lady nearby. Yes, on the front of her purse was a very large, clearly visible, flag.

There you have it. I believe that Edward had spotted the flag on the purse, threw out the "I'm getting a flag" guess, and expected this woman to volunteer something that it could be assumed he'd not noticed. She didn't cooperate with his plan, so he had to specify her, to take advantage of this clue.

Edward said he was getting a Laurie, Linda or an L-word name, in connection with this audience member. Yes, her name was Linda. For Linda, Edward said he was getting "an older man, a father or father-like figure who died of liver damage or cirrhosis of the liver. I am seeing that this person who has passed, lived their life to the fullest and wouldn't change a thing." Linda replied that it could be her uncle who had passed. "Linda, what's the card trick or poker trick? Do you know any card tricks or did the person who passed love to play cards?" "Yes." "Would he have been the type to possibly cheat at cards?" "Yes, he could have." "I'm getting the message that he was called an S.O.B., or a bastard, but in a playful way, and he would say that back to you in return, also in a playful way?"

Linda again validated Edward's messages from beyond, to the believers present, but anyone who couldn't see the logical connection between those generalities didn't know much about human nature. Edward then pointedly asked, "Linda, what's wrong with your left leg?" To this Linda again validated, "It's my knee, it sometimes hurts me." Given that Linda was middle-aged or past, a shot in the dark about a specific-sounding complaint that is very common, was not such a long shot.

The little boy in the movie "The Sixth Sense" had it easy compared to Edward, who told stories of seeing the dead so clearly that he often confused them with the living. In one hospital room where he had worked, Edward said he had become a friendly acquaintance with the son of a woman who was slowly dying, as the two men nodded at each other in a simple daily hello-and-goodbye exchange. When the woman passed away, Edward said he waited patiently outside her room for the son to pay his final respects. When a coworker told him the room was empty and that no such "son" had ever been to visit, Edward said, he was shocked.

The dead, Edward said, could also be captured on film in the form of amorphous "orbs" which most readers of this site should recognize as a current buzzword among ghostbusters. To the believers who were present, Edward was clearly batting a thousand, and no price would have been too much to pay. To anyone who actually tried to keep score of his hits and misses, well, he wouldn't make it, even in Little League baseball. Since Edward asks questions in rapid succession and doesn't wait for an answer to each, he is difficult to score. But in this unedited performance, his misses far outnumbered his hits, by about 20:1. The believers who were present saw and heard what they wanted, and nothing was going to change their beliefs.

To the few skeptics present, Edward came across as nothing more than a fast-talking emotional parasite.

Thank you, Professor Phelps. We're educated by your observations and conclusions.


I regret that a woman who offered us a run-down on a Sylvia Browne involvement for publication, has had to withdraw her account. She's been advised that Browne is litigious, and would likely recognize her from the extensive problems between the two of them. And, she rightly fears litigation that could cripple her financially. It may be that we may at some future point have the advantage of this person's statement, but not presently.


The Amazing Meeting may feature a very special surprise, one that we're trying to arrange. Wish I could tell you about it.... But, anon.