We're very happy about registration for The Amazing Meeting! We now have visitors coming from 28 states, three provinces of Canada, eight different countries! The number has passed 150, and it's climbing. So get your form in, and don't miss out. We'll soon have to cut off registration when we run over the number we can properly handle, folks. This is going to be a really fun week-end.

And, either Friday or Saturday night (weather dictates!), the "star party" courtesy of the Buehler Planetarium, will take a maximum of 30 of you — free! — for special viewing through their spectacular instrument. You must notify us, to get on that guest list — which is also filling up rapidly. Saturn, Jupiter, and Orion are expecting you....!

Reader Jörgen Jensen, in Sweden, has a very important message for us. His story is the perfect example of how pseudoscience can not only mislead the public, but can also ruin individual lives. I've seen young people who were quite taken in by the junk science material created by the paranormalists, and who then went on to waste their futures on what I've come to call, "The Search for the Chimera." Jörgen tells us his story:

It seems to me that one of the most important "outlets" of extraordinary claims to debunk, is faulty scientific research. If one maintains a healthy skeptical attitude in general, if it not too hard to look through such silliness as Bigfoot or Sylvia. It is much harder when the data is presented as scientific and in a scientific format.

A case in point is myself. Around thirty years ago I read about the work on ESP by Dr. Joseph Banks Rhine at Duke University. Up until that point in time I did not believe in any such things, in fact I would say I had an active disbelief in them. I regarded claims of the paranormal as nonsense, and I was on the way to becoming a scientist myself. In fact I had just started studying chemistry at the University of Stockholm. However, as a result of what I read about ESP, the direction of my interest switched over to this new subject. And since the information came from recognized academic institutions, I bought into it all the way. Of course once I had undergone a complete change of paradigm, it was not hard to pile further similar data on top of it. Reincarnation, out-of-body experiences,"reality is created by spirits" — all such ideas were readily acceptable to me, once the scientific foundation for this new paradigm had been established.

As a result of this — to make a long story short — I ended up abandoning my studies at the university, and instead pursued a career within a "new age" religious organization. I worked within this organization for almost 15 years, and remained closely connected to it until now. During this entire time it never occurred to me to question the "paranormal" paradigm, although I have to interject that I never even in my most extreme moments believed such people as Sylvia & company.

The first crack in the foundation came when I started reading Skeptical Inquirer and the book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer. But the real demolition took place when I read "Flim-Flam" by yourself. The solid ground that everything else was built upon for me, was the university studies by Rhine, and also the experiments with Ingo Swann, which I read about just as I joined the religious group mentioned above.

When those "scientific reports" were thoroughly debunked in the book "Flim-Flam," the entire paradigm came apart. From having had what I considered knowledge that the paranormal was factual, it became, at best, a hope. I had to concede that there was no solid evidence whatsoever of anything paranormal.

Now, others might be happy and content with just having beliefs. For me it doesn't do anything. There is a huge difference between thinking that perhaps there is something paranormal, and thinking that you know that it is factual. So when the old paradigm came apart, I became extremely depressed for a prolonged period of time. Suddenly all the things that "non-believers" have their entire life to deal with, came crashing down all at once. Things like death, aging, losses, etc. All of these things had conveniently been solved in the past, but now no longer were.

Is it a good thing to demolish someone's spiritual paradigm? I'm not sure. I can say for myself that what I've gone through I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. And yet, my love for truth and knowledge is such that I cannot go back on that road now. And in a strange way I feel better off, although definitely not happier.

Now, just a couple of weeks ago, the whole cycle apparently started all over again! I ran across the work of Robert Jahn. I have just finished reading a book about the experiments he has conducted over the last ten years on the influence of consciousness on random event generators. I have to admit some of the statistical interpretations are above my level of mathematics, but other than that I have been unable to find any holes in the protocol and scientific rigor of his work. It seems perfectly valid. But so did the work of Dr. Rhine until a very close inspection was done. From what I can see, Robert Jahn is much more rigorous in his protocol.

Do you have any insight or comments on the matter?

Well, Jörgen, I do. There's much to be said about Jahn's work, far more than I can describe here. I'll confer with my colleagues James Alcock and Ray Hyman, and get back to you. But think of this: if Rhine's work had been replicated and had become part of science, the entire world-paradigm would have been changed, That very same statement applies to the "research" done on Uri Geller, Jacques Benveniste, John Edward, and other persons and claims — not one aspect of what we really know about the universe, has changed a bit as a result of these "discoveries," which should have been absolutely devastating to our view of the real world.

That's the most important aspect here. Other real discoveries — the transistor, antibiotics, space travel, the computer — have changed our world. The others have not....

Reader Nathan Teske alerted me to the site http://antigravitypower.tripod.com/Grebennikov/index.html, where a Russian inventor named Grebennikov is claimed to have constructed a platform that provides a levitation effect. But don't go there yet. First, here's a photo of his machine. Next, study illustration "A." The inventor is shown standing on his device, on the roadway at left, and floating on the right. Hey, maybe he's got something here!

Now look at illustration "B." This is what you'll see on the Grebennikov web site. Equally convincing? Sure. But then look at illustration "C", which is identical with "B" except that the shadow of the floating platform has been replaced with the shadow from the "grounded" one. In both photos, left and right, it appears that the platform is resting on the roadway. It's that shadow that makes all the difference. Look back at "A." This illustration is one that I prepared from the original photos, but I used the "on the ground" (left-side) photo in both the on-roadway and the "floating" version. The only difference is the placing of a shadow!

This is an old optical illusion, and I've duplicated it right here at the JREF by simply photographing a copper bowl on a table. The illusion that the bowl is floating, is strong, given away in the second view, which is taken from a different angle. Yes, the shadow meets our expectations for a floating bowl, but that's just a circle spray-painted on the newspaper....

Of course I've no idea of whether or not the photo published as evidence of levitation by the Russian inventor, is such a trick. But we can evaluate his claim by referring to the reference above, questioning why these claimed miracles haven't changed our international community in any respect. Always ask that question, especially with claims that have been around for a long time. Consider: Uri Geller was first announced as the new paranormal paradigm, thirty-one years ago. And nothing's happened since....

We're familiar with the "no-Moon-landing" bunch out there created by Fox TV, who don't seem to have any limit to the fakery they'll enter into to prove a fallacious claim. As you know, at The Amazing Meeting we'll have "bad astronomer" Phil Plait to tell us the nonsense involved, but now NASA, after — in our opinion — unwisely withdrawing their commission for a book by James Oberg that would further put an end to the controversy, following criticism that it was wasting money by taking on the lunatic fringe, may be rescued by another project that will invite exactly the same kind of criticism from the conspiracy buffs.

Astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory by using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) — by far the most powerful telescope in the world — to spot the Apollo lunar landers on the lunar surface. Operated by European astronomers in the Chilean Andes, the VLT has four mirrors eight meters in diameter, and we're informed that it can "see" a single human hair from 16 kilometers away. Trained on the Moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the base of one or more of the six lunar modules that NASA insists landed on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

It's been said that conspiracy buffs have welcomed this news, but Marcus Allen, of the UK's Nexus magazine, and a long-time promoter of the "no-landing" theory, said that at least for him, photographs of the lander would not prove that the US put men on the Moon." Let's ship Marcus off on the next trip.....

It occurs to me that a far more visible evidential artifact would be the Lunar Rover tracks. As Phil Plait just discussed with me, taking the VLT photos when the sunlight hits the landing-sites at just the right angle, would provide very strong verification. Except to Marcus, of course. Haven't we dropped him off yet....?

Quotable quotes: From William Sumner Davis, in an article at www.skepticreport.com/december/noahark.htm on Noah's Ark:

[The Bible says that Noah brought aboard] somewhere around 50,000-75,000 species of birds and animals, and nearly one million species of insects. . . . By my calculations, [the Ark] would have had to be at least twice the size the Bible claims — just to hold the beetles.

Robert Sezak, seeing this article, asked me:

The Beetles? What about the Rolling Stones?

Good question! Enquiring minds want to know! And see the bit by Seth, further down this page....

Jason Rustig writes us from Ireland. His comments on the dialog are in parentheses:

A medium appeared on the "Late Late Show" in Ireland last Friday. This show is broadcast live every Friday with a studio audience and the medium was [really] blind. The host asked the medium to work on the studio audience. After reading your commentary, I knew I was watching a cold reader at work.

Medium: "Concentrating intensely, I am getting a Margaret (very popular name in Ireland), is there a Margaret in the audience?"

Two ladies put up their hands. The medium asks to hear both their voices and chooses the elder of the two.

Medium: "I am seeing a small woman, your Grandmother (we all had Grandmothers and very few of them were over 6 ft.)"

Margaret: "Yes"

Medium: "I am also sensing a miscarriage of some kind." (This woman's grandmother would have lived in the early 1900's when miscarriages were commonplace. Both my wife and I could trace miscarriages in our family tree.)

Margaret: "Yes, I had."

Gasp from the audience. Note that the medium never explicitly stated that the woman had a miscarriage.

Medium: "Your Grandmother says she loves you etc., etc., and she knows you had some difficulty getting here tonight."

Usual barb and a statement. The country was experiencing extreme flooding and a lot of roads were closed. Highly likely.

Margaret: (shaking her head) "No, no problems getting here." (Guess she was a local girl.)

Medium: "I am now getting a Mary who died from head injuries." (Nobody put up their hand.) "I am getting a John in a uniform." (A gentleman put up his hand but was too uncomfortable to continue.)

HOST: "You have chosen very common names, everybody knows a John or a Mary.)

Medium: "I am getting a Sally." (Less common, but a gentleman in the audience puts up his hand.)

HOST: (I have to disallow this, because I know you were seated beside and spoke to this gentleman earlier today.)

Medium: "I am getting a man who drowned, in a river near a bridge." (Young woman puts up her hand.) "He mentions a blue car, and to be careful when reversing."

Young Woman: "I have a blue car and am learning to drive."

Young Woman's husband: (Announces he is skeptical and that the car is not really blue.)

Medium: "I am getting a little girl who died very young, and she is trying to contact a fair-haired woman." (Fair-headed woman puts up her hand and is quickly becoming quite emotional. Having got a hit, medium persists and comes out with the usual barb as woman starts crying and doesn't want to continue. Medium mis-diagnoses cause of death and is thankful for not being able to continue.)

I found this particularly sickening, watching a fraud exploit a person's emotions so cheaply. To conclude, my friends who watched the show were amazed at her performance. They highlighted the miscarriage, the blue car, the baby, etc.

Thanks for your contribution, Jason. Yes, those who analyze these readings always look for the "hits" and never trouble with the misses, nor with the proportion between the two. Just last week here in the USA, a very popular cable-TV Comedy Central cartoon show titled "South Park" caused a sensation with a program dedicated to the flummery of John Edward, current reigning king of dead-talking in the USA, and seen on his show, "Crossing Over," all over the English-speaking world. Though the characters on South Park tend to speak — to put it mildly — in the crude vernacular, they certainly got their points across, hardly missing a single facet of the Edward cold-reading techniques. A brief excerpt will serve here.

After the kid, Stan, calls Edward a liar and a fake, Edward asks, "Everything I tell people is positive and gives them hope. How does that make me a d-----?" Answers Stan, "Because the big questions in life are tough. Why are we here? Where are we from? Where are we going? But if people believe in a------- d----- liar like you, we're never going to find a real answer to those questions. You aren't just lying, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind, you d-----."

We're now seeking permission from Comedy Central to run this episode in "streaming video" right here on our site. You just might be able to see it here, though judging from the 60+ notices I got from readers, most of you already caught the show!

A reader tells us:

Reading the commentary archived about the Remote Viewing challenge of Dane Spotts I was reminded of an event that happened when I was in college. A very good friend — who really is quite intelligent and capable of some astonishingly complex thinking — was explaining about his "astral projections" and how he was able to depart his body and travel, etc. etc.

I remarked that I found this fascinating but would require proof of such a thing. I suggested that since he could travel through walls and knew where I lived on campus, what I would do is open up a dictionary that night, highlight a word at random, and he could tell me what word I'd highlighted the next day. His response to this was to explain to me that if he were to do that, the shock of being proved wrong would be so severe that it would damage me.

I had no idea I was so frail...

Do you run into arguments (?) like that a lot?

Oh, yes. These folks are overly kind. Some don't want to prove their claims, because it would cost me a million dollars. Oh, go ahead. Break me.

Hello? Sylvia? Josephson? Edward? Anyone....?

Reader Paul Gallimore tells us a fascinating tale, which is our puzzle this week....

I have a story that might amuse your JREF readers, as it includes a strong "what-happened-next element," plus an insight into how an unusual, but fairly mundane occurrence could easily be mis-interpreted as something more exceptional — something paranormal, even. In fact, had the true facts of this event not dropped into my lap immediately after the incident occured, I am sure that this might remain one of the great unsolved mysteries of my life.

It happened at 3 AM on a summer morning about twelve years ago. My eldest son was only two years old and he was having a bad night. To help him settle down, I swapped beds with him; he went in with my wife at the front of the house and I went into his bed in the back room. By midnight I was asleep, but was awakened in the early morning by a loud humming noise and what appeared to be a flashing blue light beyond the curtains.

Our house was part of a new, unfinished, housing development. Directly behind us were other houses, but to the left of the house (when looking out of the back windows) was a huge empty field, the size of many football pitches, yet to be built upon. Further to the back of us was a farm.

I groggily climbed out of bed to see what was going on. I pulled back the curtains and was surprised to find that the back garden was impressively lit up. The humming noise was turning a somewhat misty-looking night into clear day. The effect was very similar to lightning, except the flickering blue light was continuous. I craned my neck to look skywards, assuming that a plane must be about to come down on the house, then looked out towards the big field to see if any kids had stolen a ride in a combine harvester with a blue light on it. Neither of these two explanations made sense of course, since planes and combines don't hum, but it was 3 AM and I was starting to get frightened and confused. At this point I have to say that I began to wonder about aliens from space, too.

Since I couldn't see much from the bedroom window I came out of there and ran into the bathroom. By climbing into the bath and opening the smaller window in there, I was afforded a much better view of the big field. Upon taking up my position in the tub I was amazed to see that the whole of this enormous field was being spectacularly illuminated by blue light. By now I had witnessed the equivalent of 30 — 40 seconds of sustained lightning.

However, even by looking all over the big field and by turning my eyes to the sky again I still could not locate the source of the humming and the super blue light. I realized that I would have to move again to the front of the house, back to my bedroom.

As I left the bathroom I was full of trepidation, I truly half expected to reach the front of the house and find an open window and evidence of an alien abduction involving my wife and child. What I actually found was that they were both still asleep and the room was dark. I rushed to look out of the window and, sure enough, everything out there was dark, eerily, unusually dark exacerbated, no doubt, by the faint mist. What I could see, however, was a single point of orange flame at ground level which was coming from a distance of what I now know was about half a mile away. I was thinking that this must be where the humming plane (or space vehicle) must have crashed. But then, all of a sudden, the flame extinguished completely. All was black outside, save for a vague suggestion of extra smoke in a misty night.

At that point I not only knew what the great show had been all about, but I was able to prove my theory without leaving the room! So, what had happened?

Solution next week!

Some weeks back, reader Joshua F. Borntrager decided to challenge CNN in regard to the agreement (now made 459+ days ago!) Of Sylvia Browne to be tested by the JREF. He asked CNN:

Do you have any pull that might hold Sylvia Browne to her on-air commitments? I'll spell it out, four-hundred and eight days; and counting.... (crickets*).

I'm not some hard-core Randian. I just think, in the interests of journalistic integrity, that your show might follow-up on this thread. After all, I never thought that CNN was "for entertainment only."

Their reply follows:

Thank you for your interest in Larry King Live. While we cannot answer each e-mail, we appreciate your feedback. And, we hope that you keep watching.

That's the entire response, friends. You can see the intense interest and commitment CNN has for their program content....

Reader Roger Wells tells us that last weeks commentary regarding accuracy of measuring devices reminded him of the moment that his illusions regarding aircraft design were shattered. Yes! Read on:

I was a young engineering apprentice working for a world-famous aeronautical design and manufacturing company. My task was to calculate the bending moments which would be seen by the brackets which attached the wings to the fuselage for a new advanced fighter plane. I carefully made the calculations and presented the results to my supervisor who then proceeded to give me the worst "chewing out" of my life. My "sin" was to use my slide rule to make the calculations. This resulted in a number which had only three significant digits. I don't remember the actual figure, but it was something like 243,000 pounds feet. I was told that we had just bought a very expensive electronic calculator which would give me a number "accurate to 12 decimal places."

Now we get to the method for arriving at this stupendously accurate number: The plane was in its design stage and the target weight estimate was 40,050 pounds. The position of the single point on the wing where the lift is assumed to act, is called the "centroid of area" of the wing's profile. To determine this position, I used an amazing device called an integrating planimeter and a 1/50 scale drawing of the wing. The planimeter is very much like an artists pantograph, where a stylus is used to manually trace around the outside periphery of the drawing. A planimeter has a small dial which gives a number representing the area of the shape which is traced. This particular device was also able to give coordinates for the centroid of area. To be very sure of the results, I performed the operation ten times and averaged the results. The dial on the planimeter only provided three significant digits, which were then multiplied by a scale factor to give the area in square inches and the coordinates in inches. These in turn were multiplied by fifty to give full size dimensions. Other factors such the lift provided by the fuselage, tailplane and control surfaces, were ignored.

By my supervisor's logic, the answer should have been 243,145.002345738761 or some similar number. To use such meaningless additional digits would not adversely affect the results of the ultimate design, but what was so mind-bogglingly amazing was the sheer ignorance of an intelligent and educated person who was in awe of a marvel of technology that could give such "accurate results."

This obviously occurred in the early 1960's, when personal calculators did not exist and computers were giant behemoths owned by universities, but it brings me to a point of major concern in today's world where the computer's results are always assumed to be correct. When we used slide rules, we had to make approximations of the result, so that we knew where to put the decimal point. I close with another true anecdote which clarifies my point.

My son, who has a PhD in Physics, was teaching an undergraduate class. One of his students was extremely upset that her grade for a test was "C," and she demanded an "A." My son pointed out to her that her calculations showed that an electron was traveling at 600 times the speed of light and that it would take four years to travel just six inches. Her answer was, "that was the answer from the computer," and apart from her putting the constant for the speed of light on the wrong side of the equation, she considered that her answer was correct and worthy of an "A."

I think not, Roger. I'm not a scientist, but I think not....

On the same subject, reader Dave Mercer reminds us:

An everyday example [of over-precise measurement] can be seen at the gas station. The newer digital pumps "measure" your gas in thousandths of a gallon. I still haven't gotten my change in hundredths of a cent. Maybe they round it off.

Reader Matthew Fields adds:

When considering the counting of the pulse in beats-per-minute using a 15-second sample, I'm reminded of the wise guy who said "to find out how many people are in a crowd, count ears and divide by two, rounding up."

I'd heard that one with counting sheep. Count the legs, etc......

Max Muir informs us:

However, a health care worker does not drop your wrist after those 15 seconds. Indeed, she will usually hang on for at least 30 seconds, appearing to check your pulse the whole time. What she is actually doing during the remaining time is counting your breaths to determine your rate of respiration. She's actually trained to misdirect you into thinking that she is still taking your pulse so you won't be conscious of your breathing and foul the data on your resting rate of respiration. I just thought that you, as a magician, might like to know how your admitting nurse may be attempting to fox you in the future.

I try to avoid being foxed, Max. Thanks for the warning....!

There's a brilliant Danish site that you just may not be aware of. It's http://www.skepticreport.com/general/index.htm, where you'll find really useful articles on many current scams and deceptions that you might have been wondering about. Editor Claus Larsen explains the purpose of his Skeptic Report web site....

Skeptic Report — Why?

After centuries of discovery, we are much more aware of how the world around us works. Mice do not spontaneously regenerate from dirty rags. Thunder is not the sound of Thor's chariot. Disease is now much better understood and dealt with than it was just a hundred years ago. The length and quality of life has soared. We should be happy, grateful and full of confidence in the future.

And yet, we see beliefs that were once thought banished by the light of science continue to exist, even flourish. Astrology, healing, the "spirit world," acupuncture, zone therapy, angels, demons, homeopathy, ESP, remote viewing, out-of-body experiences and alien lore — these ideas all form part of our daily life, in one way or another.

Maybe we have not yet mentally come out from the shadowy caves, even if our bodies have. Maybe we just cannot understand this brave new world we have created. Maybe it simply goes too fast for us.

Are these excuses for delving into the realms of irrationality? Should we give up on our advances and go back to the "good old days" of superstition? Of course not. But we need to address these issues, in a way that doesn't turn us away from reason, but makes us welcome it.

Knowledge is a double-edged sword: We gain from it, but we discover new pitfalls too. Fire could be an obedient servant, but also a fierce master. With every step forward, we tend to take a half step back: We worry about technology and where it will lead us.

Fear of the future and what it will bring us, is deeply rooted in Man. But we will not be released from this fear by reading animal intestines by the fire, or casting spells in the full moonlight. We stand a much better chance with science. We gain nothing from ignoring the vast benefits that science and technology has brought us. We must always be looking for new ways of thinking, new ways of improving. But we must not be so open-minded that our brains fall out!

Skeptic Report hopes to help dispel the darkness by providing a forum for skeptical and critical thinking.

Well, Claus, we're very supportive of those motives and goals. We hope our readers will visit your site regularly. I know that I will.

A reader identified simply as, "Seth," tells us:

When I was a lad in Sunday school, I wondered why we always sang a song that went:

Who built the Ark?
No one, no one...
Brother, no one built the Ark."

Years later, I realized my error. Even more years later, I realized I was actually correct.

Try telling that to The True Believer....!

Reader Larry Thornton, from Canada, comments on such programs as the very popular Art Bell show:

The fact that they can legally dispense such hokum on the public airwaves speaks volumes for the general decay of America's concern for science education and general common sense. The scale of this nonsense is mind-boggling: tens of millions of gullible listeners drink it in as gospel. There are nations in Europe who view this as just another indication of the great "sickness" of the American condition.... Didn't say this quite right but you know what I mean....

Actually, Larry, I think that's very well put....!