You'll remember David Blaine and his 44 days of fasting in a box in London? Well, that's nothing, it seems. An ageing Indian "guru" claims that he has survived nearly seventy years without food or water, and with no apparent damage to his health. He's Prahlad Jani, and after ten days of "close surveillance" by doctors, locked in a glass room watched over by closed-circuit cameras, he was not seen to eat food nor drink liquid, nor did he visit the lavatory, a feat that astounded those doctors, as well it should — if it happened that way.

The neurologist who oversaw the test, said: "This is a one-of-a-kind case." No it's not. These claims are very common, not only in India but in other parts of the Far East — and even here in America. I've had quite a few apply for the JREF prize.

Mr. Jani, who dresses in the female costume of a devotee of the goddess Ambaji, a red sari-like garment, nose ring, bangles and crimson flowers in his graying hair, offered an explanation, yet to be tested by the doctors. "I get the elixir of life from the hole in my palate, which enables me to go without food and water," he said. Okay. That we can test. Or will we? Did those doctors think to look for the hole in his palate? Funny, they didn't mention it, if they did so.

A number of persons have been asking me why I won't test any more of these claimants who say that they don't eat or drink anything for years on end. There are a few dozen of them out there at this time, and new ones come up every month or so. See above. Such a claim is difficult to test merely because of the time involved and the personnel necessary, and the claimants moan that they can't afford the costs involved. I've been out on a couple of these expeditions in the USA, and I get bored out of my mind sitting in a car in a parking lot waiting for the claimant to emerge from a Holiday Inn room, sneak down the stairs, and visit the local burger joint for the needed nourishment. There's no end to it. And, the claim is just so obviously silly and frivolous, and I'm a grown man — too busy with serious claimants, to spend time on these nut-cases. Yes, I'm aware that doctors — trained medical people — have observed a few of the claimants, but I've yet to see any evidence that these learned observers have the correct and necessary qualifications to detect sleight-of-hand. Until that time, those episodes remain as examples of the naive watching the cunning.

Reader Ricardo Guzmán of Monterrey, México, writes:

I read in your last commentary what my fellow citizen Ing. Alejandro Medina de Wit wrote to you. I had the same feeling you had. Paraphrasing you: "from a promising start, this argument suddenly became a metaphysical conundrum." The turning point was the expression that "there are many things in our reality that simply cannot be explained" or, as you corrected, "things that have not yet been explained."

There came to my mind the founder of positivism, Auguste Comte, who, in the XIX century used an example of questions that could not ever be answered: "What are stars made of?" Before the end of that century, astronomers knew the answer to that question, thanks to spectrography.

I want you to know that here in Mexico you can also find "brights" (I don't like that designation but it is a way in which we identify our world-view) who are dedicated to rational thinking.

Ricardo, I'm already quite convinced of that fact. My friend Mario Mendez is only one citizen south of the border who labors to bring folks around him into the light.

The December 16th issue of the Anchorage Daily News ran a gushing article on the latest quackery to reach those shores, based on the old high-voltage-high-frequency "aura" — actually "corona" — phenomenon that once charmed the quacks all over the world. The News touted it as mainstream science. I wrote Elizabeth Manning, the reporter, as follows:

Ms. Manning: I'm appalled to read the uncritical article on the "gas discharge visualization" technique that was published last week in the Anchorage Daily News. This is merely a re-polished version of the old "Kirlian Photography" quackery that was so thoroughly debunked years ago, a mere high-voltage corona effect that the uninformed took to be something supernatural, and tried to apply to diagnostic purposes. No number of imaginatively colored illustrations and appeals to science-through-ignorance will give this notion any validity.

In today's atmosphere of everything-must-be-true, this latest incarnation of the "aura" nonsense will probably survive long enough to make a bundle of money for the quacks, and will lead the unwary away from legitimate, effective, diagnostic tools that might have saved them from injury, pain, and/or death. The Anchorage Daily News owes its readers more than pseudoscience and superstition.

"Researchers" Lyn Freeman and Derek Welton can easily win this Foundation's million-dollar prize by simply proving their claim that there exists "… a flow of energy between human beings," as they have stated. I'm sure that they will offer all sorts of excuses to wriggle out of satisfying that request and winning the million; they know they cannot, and they depend upon uncritical acceptance and inertia by the public and the media, to perpetuate their outlandish claims. If I'm wrong, let them prove it and win a million to finance their "research." But they won't.

Please ask yourself, why won't they? They will retreat to their flimsy ivory towers, and thereby insulate themselves from reality.

If Ms. Manning or the ADN choose to answer, I'll let you know... Don't hold your breath.

The Reuters news service tells the world that a Norwegian witch has won subsidies from the state to run a potions/fortune-telling/magic business. Now, this is something that I've been concerned with for years. I very much want to see licensed witches and such, given subsidies. Come again? What did he say? You read that correctly. But note that I wrote, "licensed." By that I mean a witch who has actually passed a proper test to establish that she/he is a witch. And, not to your surprise, I'm sure, I did very much want the JREF to be the agency that would design and conduct such tests. That can be, and should be, done; dentists, florists, carpenters, and roofers are licensed after passing rigorous examinations. Why should that not apply to the granting of any business license?

Witch Lena Skarning won a start-up grant of 53,000 crowns ($7,400) after promising not use harmful spells with her business, Forest Witch Magic Consulting. She said that the runaway success of the Harry Potter books about a boy wizard may have made society more tolerant of sorcery. At this moment, Lena is the only state-backed witch in Norway, though I'm sure not the last.

One reason that I'm so willing to have witches licensed, is that they would then be required to meet certain standards of business practice; a failure to teach flying-by-broom, for example might call for substantial refunds and perhaps sanctions of some sort, don't you think? However, I frankly don't think that anyone would get by the licensing procedure, in the first place.

A serious note, folks: isn't it rather ridiculous that the sovereign state of Norway is actually taking such a matter seriously? No, I'm not terribly surprised, but I am appropriately dismayed. Norway has produced great advances in the arts and in science; have they abandoned all that progress and returned to medieval times?

Reader Vikram Paralkar brings up an important question, one that I've struggled with myself on more than one occasion. This is something that I believe we will be discussing at The Amaz!ng Meeting 2.

I have been a bright for as long as I can remember. I always ensure that those I interact with on a regular basis know exactly what my opinions on God, astrology and the entire paranormal menagerie are, and during my school life I've submitted several articles to in-house publications regarding the need for skepticism in day to day life. I have never, in any way, considered my active initiative to be wrong, especially considering the number of (futile) attempts that have been made by my well-wishers to induct me into the immortal realm of religion. In my endeavors to make people think more rationally, I have often been quite puzzled by the degree to which most people continue to cling to their beliefs.

Vikram, I used to say that people want certain things to be true in order to fit them into their personal philosophies; now, I say that they need them to be true. Personally, I believe I would have no problem if my world-view were radically altered by the introduction — for example — of real "mental" spoon-bending. Yes, it would be a shock, but I'd survive it, and I would incorporate it appropriately into my philosophy. Regardless of how correct we think we are, if we lose sight of other people's sensitivities, we lose our battle. I admit that I'm rather blunt in my approach to such matters, but a closer study of my methods and my results might show that my approach works, though a few receiving noses might end up somewhat bent. Vikram continues:

A recent experience however, enhanced my understanding of the psychology of belief and faith to some extent. I won't (and can't) go into the details, but the gist of it is this: a few months ago, during my medical school rotations, I interacted with a twenty-year-old patient who, as a result of genetic tests performed for the diagnosis of a disorder that was suspected to be inherited, came into the knowledge that the man to whom his mother had been married for twenty-five years was not his father. What passed through the mind of the boy can hardly be imagined, and I suppose that it was akin to the tumbling down of a façade with the exposure of very ugly revelations within that he perhaps could have very well lived without.

This particular incident set me thinking — since paternity is something that can be conclusively established only by genetic testing, skeptics should be perfectly fine with questioning their own. In the spirit of rationality, they ought to be able to say quite nonchalantly, "I physically resemble this man, and I have been told that he is my father, but I do not know this to a mathematical certainly." Now let's be frank here — how many of us would actually be willing to be that objective? At some level or the other, we, too, take some things on (I cringe as I type this) faith, and are comfortable with our non-questioning acceptance of them. Perhaps this, to some extent, explains why a lot of people prefer to adhere to their long-held convictions and why they react unfavorably to those who try to poke holes in their belief system — simply because they aren't emotionally comfortable about questioning them.

Vikram, I appreciate your method of leading us into the more basic question here, I must drop in a note to the effect that the question of paternity has never been important to me, personally. Perhaps the fact that I very highly resemble the man I believe was my father, subconsciously convinced me about my not having to investigate the situation, but in any case I feel that it wouldn't have worried me at all. I believe it's Abraham Lincoln who is credited was saying something like, "I am not so much interested in who my grandfather was, as I am in what will become of his grandson."

This has led me into a dilemma — is it permissible for me to tamper with someone else's thought processes? Is it proper of me to demonstrate to a believer, through step-by-step reasoning, why he ought not to believe in God? Am I not forcing him to counter something that is likely to be very disturbing and potentially disorienting? I have concluded that it might not be prudent to confront the extremely devout — one ought to work rather on the "borderline" cases, the ones who believe but who are not excessively emotionally attached to their convictions.

I am elated whenever I hear accounts of skepticism being taught in classrooms and schools because I feel it's best to encourage people to question, at an age when their minds are not yet dependent on their beliefs. One just needs to sow the seed at the time when the soil is fertile.

Aside from the million dollar challenge, (which I take a bizarre amount of delight in flaunting in the face of anyone who attempts to convince me that "palmistry is a science") I think the JREF is a wonderful boon merely by virtue of the fact the it EDUCATES — something that is vital to the promotion of science. I look forward to each weekly update with the greatest of anticipation.

Thank you, Vikram. I have found that my work with younger people is much more effective. Being very pragmatic, I aim to influence the next generation, so that those who succeed them will begin a chain of descendants who are thinking more rationally. As I mentioned before, conversions of the older folks is very rare. For that reason, I believe I agree with you that it might be unfair and out of order to disturb those who depend upon their mythology and/or delusions to sustain them. The only problem with that process, is that those folks vote....

Reader Stanley Rose opines:

Demanding proof of the efficacy of an "alternative medicine" is somewhat problematic. If I were to accidentally discover that drinking motor oil can cure cancer (or at least believe that method to be effective), how would I go about proving it? I have a hunch that if I shopped the idea around to various research facilities my idea would be met with less than overwhelming enthusiasm! So I would have to somehow fund and do the study myself (virtually impossible for the example I've used) or resign myself to the land of disgraced purveyors of snake oil.

The difficulty of establishing "proof" of the efficacy of a treatment is one reason so much "alternative" rubbish manages to thrive. Of course, just because something lacks "proof" does not mean it doesn't work. The one problem I have with the skeptical argument (and I am a skeptic) is that it often assumes proof is an easy thing to come by. I sometimes think the greatest thing about your organization is not that it debunks fraudulent claims — which is a very good thing — but that it encourages people to attempt to prove claims that haven't been accepted by the mainstream. Unfortunately, certain realms (like medicine) do not lend themselves well to simple testing.

Stanley, we can certainly agree with "just because something lacks 'proof' does not mean it doesn't work," but some of these claims are just so silly and preposterous that no reasonable person would spend more than 20 seconds considering them. And yes, medical research and validation is expensive. That's regrettable, but understandable. My admittedly very limited experience with drinking motor oil, I can tell you, does not indicate that it's very helpful in any way...

Reader Joshua Moretto is astonished:

I ran across this book a few months ago while I was working at a bookstore, where I was forced to assist people in, amongst other things, finding and purchasing work by Sylvia Browne and her ilk, to my regret. Entitled, "You're Every Sign!" the basic gist of this book seems to be just that: forget about being matched to your birth sign, you take qualities from all of them! I admit, I was flabbergasted. This was the "selective memory" principle turned into actual process. It seems at least one astrologer has decided on a novel tactic for attempting to explain away some of the many failings of astrology. The book can be found here: (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558749632/qid=1071280489//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/002-2471582-0496864?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), should you want a look at the back-cover nonsense and the entertaining, if depressing, gushing reviews.

Reader Eric Rapp says:

The letter from E. Bert Wallace that you quote in [a recent] SWIFT shows that even intelligent people have the capacity for self-deception. It may be well written and well thought out self-deception, but that's exactly what it is all the same. Faith of any sort is not rational, if "faith" is defined as a belief in something for which no evidence exists. This does not necessarily mean that faith is bad or cowardly, just incorrect.

For instance, every April, I really believe that the San Diego Padres will win the World Series in October (or failing that, that at least the gosh-darned Yankees won't win it again). Truly, I have faith. But I also know that there's no evidence to suggest that even though it could happen, it will. I know that in believing in a baseball team, I am being as just as irrational as anyone who thinks Uri Geller can really bend spoons with his mind.

I do not begrudge Mr. Wallace his faith, as I hope that he would not begrudge me mine. But I would hope he can recognize that if he were to apply reason to his faith in the same manner that he applies it to what he calls charlatans, that his own beliefs would be seen to be just as lacking in evidence.

Moreover, there is another argument Mr. Wallace uses that bothers me — the "but look at all the good religion does!" claim. He notes that only the bad examples of religion such as faith healers and money grabbing televangelists get reported on, while the good examples such as the church soup kitchens and the charity drives aren't. First of all, I don't think that's really accurate. The bad guys are on my television every Sunday begging for money, and unless one of them gets in trouble they'll continue to do what they do.

Second, surely religion isn't necessary to be charitable? I contribute money and blood to the Red Cross, not because I want to go to heaven or because an invisible magic sky fairy told me to be nice, but because I think it's the right thing to do. Sure, religious organizations do a lot of nice things. But it's not necessary to have faith in anything just to be a good person.

Okay, Eric, but the Padres...?

Reader Shane Wheeler comments:

I was reading the letter from Jawaid Bazyar on evolution, and noted particularly where he says that many processes could be described as a sort of evolution, including law. I just thought I'd point out that while I agree that the law is ever-changing, having new bits added or re-interpreted here and there in response to the needs of society, it lacks that crucial feature of natural selection whereby the old, less efficient or just downright useless parts are eliminated. Hence, the law is riddled with antiquated, useless statutes — take, for example, the recently downstricken "anti-sodomy" law in Texas. Law still has a long way to go before it can be compared to the masterful efficiency of evolution.

Reader Peter Illi, of Sweden, who has contributed before, tells us of the current rage in his country:

I don't know if you're familiar with the phenomenon of Hair Analysis. It's an apparently growing branch of health care. What you do is you send a sample of hair to a "homeopathic therapist" who, after examining the sample, returns you a diagnosis of your state of health. Well, not your state of health, but your horse'. Along with people claiming to be able to talk with horses, we now have people who perform remote medical examinations from hair samples. In Sweden, horses mean big bucks — the horse-keeping community is a lucrative lot.

I think it was last year that we had a documentary on TV3 who tested the claimed abilities of some of these "therapists". One of the test samples sent was taken from a stuffed horse in The Royal Armory — well over 300 years old, as I remember. The diagnosis from the "therapist" based on that sample was optimistic...

In this years' no 22 of the Swedish magazine Ridsport (Riding Sport), two Norwegian veterinaries reported on a test they had performed themselves. They cut four hair samples from the same horse and put them in separate plastic bags, marking them with four different names: A, B, C and D. Samples A and B where sent in the same envelope, samples C and D in separate envelopes. Samples A and B differed in color due to the fact that one was taken from the withers. The horse is the vets' own — they are very familiar with the horse's health records.

The samples were sent to one "therapist" and when they received the diagnosis from him, they reported that:

1. The "therapist" was not able to establish that samples A and B, sent in the same envelope, came from the same horse.

2. The "therapist" sent different and partly contradictory diagnoses for all the 4 samples taken from the same horse.

3. The "therapist" did not manage to give a correct diagnosis for any of the samples, nor even get close to the fact that the horse suffers from a serious disorder.

4. The diagnoses of samples C and D were somewhat similar, but not correct for this horse.

As a result of the article, the vets have now received threats from a Tampa Bay-stationed company, Group 8 Marketing, Inc., who are marketing this "product" in the US: http://www.swedishhorsepower.com, if you want to check them out.

I guess some things never change; if you're out of arguments, turn to brute force. And witchdoctors will always be witchdoctors — even if they carry Swedish names and look like your grandpa.... I'll try to keep you up to date on this one if there is any development.

Thank you, Peter. And keep your ear to the ground for more of this nonsense.

Reader Michael Turner is properly incensed:

Early this morning I turned on my television set and was startled to see a vaguely familiar, somewhat sinister face. I watched for a while, and soon learned that I was watching an infomercial for the ministry of one Peter Popoff. I asked myself, isn't this the guy that Randi exposed as a complete fraud on the Carson show back in the 80s? After finding confirmation on the Web, my heart sank. How can this be? You completely shredded this man's credibility, showing him to be one of humanity's worst — someone who scams money from gullible, poorly-educated people, possibly endangering their health in the process. And here he is on TV again, this time pushing "miracle water" with stories about, for example, a desperate woman who, after sprinkling the water on the home she was about to be evicted from, miraculously received $30,000 and paid off her debt.

I mean, isn't there a law against this? The guy is a proven fraud! And his wife is right there on the infomercial with him — the wife who you caught on tape providing Popoff with information he "couldn't have known" through a concealed earpiece. As you recall, Popoff's wife was audibly laughing at the poor people she was helping her husband scam.

Just when I thought I couldn't get more despondent, the Popoff show ended and the next infomercial began. This one featured another bogus preacher, Robert Tilton. Back in the 80s, Tilton had a thriving TV ministry which involved encouraging viewers to send in "prayer requests." He promised to ask the Lord to answer each and every prayer. An ABC reporter discovered that the prayer requests were sent straight to the trash after the enclosed checks had been removed. Tilton used his considerable revenues from this operation to buy mansions, scotch, women and plastic surgery. (He claimed he needed the plastic surgery to correct for the negative cosmetic effects of ink poisoning he got from handling so many prayer requests.) And this guy is back in business!

While I am regularly uplifted by witnessing the good work you and your colleagues do, I sometimes despair that we can ever hold back the tide of hogwash. I guess the only thing to do is to keep plugging. Sorry, I just needed to rant. Now I'm better, and ready to join the fight again.

Unloading on this page is recognized as excellent therapy, Michael, and registering for The Amaz!ng Meeting 2 is even better! Both may be reimbursed by Medicare...

Andries Krugers Dagneaux, in the Netherlands, suggests to JREF:

It is now about 25 years ago that more than 900 members of the Rev. Jim Jones People's Temple committed suicide in Jonestown, Guyana. Maybe this is a good occasion for you to point out on your website that Jim Jones' false miracles played an important role in this religious scam. I am myself an ex-follower of the Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba and one of the contact persons of http://www.exbaba.com so you will understand my interest in false miracles and the other similarities between Jones and Sathya Sai Baba.

Here is an excerpt about the persistence of belief in Jim Jones' miracles. To her dying day, Thrash credited Jones with curing her of breast cancer in the late 1950s. She continued to believe that even after she saw him fake faith healings by "removing" bloody chicken livers from people's bodies and proclaiming their tumors were gone.

Refer to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/18/JONESTOWN.TMP

Reader Shaun Bowen writes:

I certainly agree with many of your comments regarding the ridiculous use of polygraphs by the American government and police force. However, while spending a couple of hours as a passenger in my friend's car a couple of weeks back, I had time to consider a slightly different perspective. That is the benefit of the "Empty-Speed-Camera" principle, as I've decided to call it. In the UK it seems you can't travel 5 miles on a road without passing a police speed-camera (or "Gatso" as they are often referred to, after the name of the manufacturer). It has become common knowledge that there are many working Gatsos out there but also a number of empty shells that contain nothing but air. Since no-one quite knows which are which, they all act as deterrents against speeding.

I wonder if the department in the American government responsible for the use of polygraphs is fully aware of their lack of actual efficacy in the field of lie-detecting and yet still employs them to prompt a confession from a guilty criminal. Since his lies are about to be exposed anyway, he may as well own up! In essence this would be employing an "Empty-Speed-Camera."

Point taken, Shaun. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if we were to find that the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies use this idea. Years ago, I managed to beat a polygraph run by New York City's then-official operator, as a demo. Remember, however, that I'm likely to be able to do that simply as a result of my experience as a magician. Also, I've a fair awareness of what might give me away, and can guard against those elements. Polygraphs can be beaten, be assured of that.

Richard Saunders, ever-enthusiastic President of the Australian Skeptics, tells us what they're up to, down under:

[insert AustralianSkeptics.jpg here]

Inspired by your video "Secrets of the Psychics" [the Nova/PBS show] in which you visit a group of students, Alynda (a vice president of Australian Sceptics/Skeptics) and I have set up a new business called "Mystery Investigators." We are visiting high schools in the Sydney area (soon to move all over Australia) to give our show entitled "That's a Good Question!", in which we demonstrate how to use science to test claims of the paranormal and supernatural. See: http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com

For example, students take part in a water dowsing experiment, not only to test the claim, but also to learn how to conduct a double-blind test, and why it's such an important part of the scientific method. A fire walking demonstration (the fire pit we use is in the imagination) is used not only to explain that fire walking is not "mind over matter," but also helps to teach the difference between heat and temperature. And so on. (Optical illusions to show the fooling of the senses, a bed of nails to help explain surface area and pressure… and many more.)

Reaching out to kids, letting them know that these claims have been looked at and found wanting, showing them how to put things to the test, is to us very important.

A highlight of the show is the Astrology example you so kindly sent. The amazed reaction from the students when all is revealed, is priceless. It's early days for the venture, but we have already received a great deal of interest. Although "Mystery Investigators" is separate from Australian Skeptics, it does enjoy the Skeptics' moral support.

Richard deeply regrets that he's unable to attend the Amazing Meeting 2, but he's sending a message of support with his two vice presidents from Australian Skeptics. One of them is a speaker at TAM2, Peter Bowditch. You'll hear him just after lunch on Friday.

Jim Wilder III, of Birmingham, Alabama, relates:

I'm a 26-year-old school teacher at a private Christian school . . . My purpose in writing you is over an incident between me and a female "friend" regarding psychics. I know that you must receive hundreds of emails and contacts via snail mail regarding similar stories as this. And I know you probably become tired with dealing them, therefore, I will try to be to the point and quick, hopefully maintaining your attention before deletion of this email.

My female "friend" is in her mid 40's and a believer in psychic abilities. I am not an aggressive person, nor do I like conflict. However, when the subject came up about psychics, my "friend," Deb, began telling me of a visit she made to a psychic that could not tell the future, but rather see the past. The psychic gave a reading about her grandmother, quadriplegic stepson, and her other stepson who died in a car crash. Deb proudly spoke of the accuracy in which the psychic spoke with. I listened carefully to everything she said regarding the reading.

Then she confronted me with, "Now, how do you explain that?" As I began revealing, most likely, how it had been done, I was met with disregard and redirected to, "And what about all those psychics who help police find dead people who have been murdered?" Reflecting, in a non-biased manner, I see that I was the one who acted calm, cool, and collected, and she was the one who became very confrontational and a bit hot under the collar when confronted with the truth. I did go on to mention that I did not or do not mean to minimize her experience or say that what she experienced was not real. However, equipped with knowledge from literature — Flim-Flam, Baloney Detection Kit, and Encyclopedia — as well as references from Penn and Teller's BS program, I did try to explain how unlikely such events are to be paranormal and rather trickery for profit.

Thank you if you made it this far in reading the letter, and I know that this story is just a "broken record" for you and that you have experienced much more and worse. But I learned multitudes about people and their eager belief in psychic powers. Thank you again and I hope to see and meet you at Amaz!ng Meeting 3.

Again, I'm amazed at how easily some folks can see the transparent flummery in the "psychic" world, but not in their religious one. Don't the same rules apply? Does the encephalon fail when drummed-in ideas are put to the test of being examined? I really can't answer all that.

Readers, at the end of this year 2003, have looked back at prophecies made by the luminaries who make this their profession. George White clicked in on Sylvia Browne's web page:

I am amazed this link (for 2000) is still on her web site. Have you seen it? Number 28 predicts "Democrats will win the election with Bill Bradley, with close competition from the Reform Party." Also, Letterman will call it quits (Number 36). I wonder why the year 2000 is still there on display when it is so wrong?

http://www.sylvia.org/home/2000pred.cfm

Also, I found these hidden links — substitute 1998 and 1999 for the "2000" in the above address — that we can look at to see how she did! The 1998 health predictions about AIDS going into full remission were a little off! Also, I have not read about laser light curing cancer! Print these off before she removes the links!!

Reader Carl McCaskey points out some other instances of "Riley G. [Matthews]" falling on his nose, predictive-wise, aside from the spectacularly-failed Saddam Hussein "viewings" we mentioned last week. These were gleaned from the JREF Forum:

Mr. Matthews also made followup posts such as the following made on April 4th, 2003: "I see that Saddam Hussein was threatened by my remote viewing and was forced to show himself today in a Baghdad street. My work was done with a 100 percent success rate..." This claim made AFTER he posted on April 1st: "Suddam [sic] Hussein and his Sons were in fact killed in the initial US aerial bombings." (?) I don't know who taught Riley math, but when one claims that the man is dead and then the "dead man" shows up in public, that's a 0 per cent success rate, not 100 per cent.

I don't have enough information on Riley's past predictions, but in the same thread, Wally Anglesea asked: "Riley, didn't you remote view Killer Andrew Cunanan, several days after he was dead? Didn't you claim to have 'effected' the Mars Sojourner, and it turned out to be a communications buffer overrun?"

Just for laughs, I think I'll see what other documented "remote viewings" have been posted by Mr. Matthews. One of my favorite comments on Riley came from a Mr. Joe Walker who stated, "...remote viewers have about the same track record as a compulsive gambler in a fixed crap game."

On the same subject, reader Martin Delaney adds:

Saw your commentary about Riley G. Matthews and his failed remote viewing regarding the honorable "Suddam" Hussein. I heard similar predictions from Sean David Morton, top psychic/remote viewer/religious huckster promoted on the George Noory Show. Mr. Morton also claimed that Saddam had been killed in the initial bombing raid. He also claimed that the weapons of mass destruction had been buried over the border, inside Syria, and that the US would invade Syria and declare the weapons to the world. The date for that one came and went in September. Oh, and Osama's been dead for some time too.

I think all this is due to a new malady afflicting these people: Remote Blindness. The single symptom is that they have no idea of what's going on if it's not right in front of them. Not an eligible claim for the JREF prize...

However, here's an example of NBC's Tom Brokaw using common sense to set the record straight: a couple of weeks ago, his colleague Tim Russert was at a Washington, D.C., party when the "Meet the Press" host bumped into George Tenet, the CIA director. Russert eagerly related to Tenet an unusual dream he'd just had, a dream in which former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been captured. The next morning, by the time that Saddam's capture was already big news, Russert relayed the story of his dream during an interview with Tom Brokaw, who easily put it all in perspective by reminding Russert of his other bizarre dream: that the Buffalo Bills would win the Super Bowl. . . .

Reader Clay Sills tells us of a very strange situation which could have resulted in yet another "haunted house" story, had the witness not been a reader of this site...

Seven years ago, I lived in England for about 6 months. My company rented me a townhouse to stay in. This townhouse was very narrow and deep. My room was at the end of a very long hallway with no doors along most of its length.

Every night, about half an hour after I went to bed, I could hear heavy footsteps coming down the hall toward my room. This of course caused me a fair amount of consternation. Being mostly skeptical and rather under the influence of G. Gordon Liddy's autobiography, I resolved to prop myself up in bed and watch down the hallway.

Half an hour went by and I heard the footsteps start up.... Clomp! Clomp! Clomp! Seeing nothing (certainly no depressions in the carpet) I scooted town the hall and heard (and felt!) the footsteps go right past me... to the end of the hall, and stop. Since (as far as I could tell) my soul wasn't sucked out, I resolved to keep watch in the hall the next night to see if I could learn more.

The following night, I parked in the hallway. Half an hour after my usual bedtime, I heard a faint "click" and then the footsteps started. That's when I figured out what it was. To save money, the landlord had put the radiator system on a timer. When it started up, the system forced hot water down a very long, fairly cold pipe.

I still managed to get a few girls over to meet the ghost....

Way to go, Clay! No, though you didn't get into the local papers with a center-spread and spooky photos, you learned something about plumbing and heating systems! But I don't understand why you'd invite girls over after you'd solved the mystery! Oh. Something just occurred to me...

Reader Mike Andrews of Frodsham, Cheshire, UK, suggests we look at the site www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/scams/page1.htm#dis. He notes that the references to legislation are either for the UK or the EU, so they'll not help citizens of other countries, but he thinks the advice looks pretty reasonable and is quite trenchant for Government. I agree.

The Amaz!ng Meeting 2 is sailing along. All the Slammer Tour places are sold, and all the tickets to the Penn & Teller show, and the Dinner With Randi, as well. If you plan on attending, get that registration in now. There are 63 persons in the Solved Mysteries Workshop group, and we can admit only another seven to that function. Phone, or fax, or e-mail.

We'll have a very special video — shown only at TAM2 — to run for you. It's 15 astonishing minutes of The First Card Trick In Space, filmed by NASA and the JREF. You'll love this. I surely did, and I know how the trick's done!

Can't wait!