Navigate the JREF Website Join Now
James Randi Educational Foundation

November 9, 2001

Ruined Runes, Von Däniken Yet Again, "Overly Rational," Dennis Strongarms, and Cleo Crashes.....

In 1898, a farmer near Kensington, Minnesota, announced that he'd discovered a 90-kilogram stone entwined in the roots of a tree, with Norse runes carved on it. That would indicate that Vikings were there traveling in Minnesota at the date inscribed on that rock, 1362. The rock became known as the Kensington Runestone, and it is housed today in a museum in Alexandria, Minnesota. A 24 thousand-kilogram replica stands in a nearby park. It's quite a local attraction, and, if genuine, a valuable discovery.

From the very beginning, archaeologists argued that it was a fake, but there were those who supported its validity, even up to the present. Six months ago, another similar rock was found in the area, and the validity of the original artifact seemed enhanced. Now, two people say they are the ones who carved the inscriptions on the newest find, not a band of Vikings. Kari Ellen Gade and Jana Schulman have come forward admitting their hoax. "One of the reasons we came forward was we saw that people were being asked to make financial contributions to have the rock tested," Gade said. "We didn't feel it would be right to carry this further."

In 1985, a group of five University of Minnesota graduate students in a seminar on runic inscriptions, carved the rock "for fun" and to cast doubt on the validity of the original Kensington Runestone, they said, since they thought believers in the Runestone were naive. Gade and Schulman called it a scientific study, rather than a hoax. Both now hold responsible teaching positions. They informed the Minnesota Historical Society about their role in the creation of the artifact.

Geologist Scott Wolter, part of the team that announced the discovery of the new stone, says he still believes that the older Kensington Runestone is valid. That's not impossible, at all, though highly doubtful because of the incorrect style of the rune-writing and the unlikely circumstances of the discovery. The Swedish farmer who "discovered" it, for example, spoke the same local dialect of Swedish that is reflected in the language used on the stone, and it would seem to be a devout wish he could have had, to show that his ancestors were there in early times. Dr. Wolter is a member of the Kensington Runestone Scientific Testing Team, a group dedicated to study of the stone. We celebrate the fact that a scientific team is persisting in their examination of the artifact. That's what real science is all about.


Several readers expressed comments about my item last week on the Von Däniken re-appearance on the lecture circuit. One wrote: "[His] first US lecture in two decades? Pure hype. I attended his lecture for MUFON-Los Angeles on May 16, 1999." MUFON is the Mutual UFO Network (at www.MUFON.com) which, in my opinion, spends far too much time analyzing lens-flares for deeper import.


Reader Gustavo Pineda reflects much of what I've previously written and said about Von Däniken and his nonsense:

I read your article/opinion about Erich von Däniken in your latest posting on your Web site and I felt compelled to share my thoughts with you. I hope you'll forgive the intrusion. I used to be an avid reader of von Däniken's books. In my defense, I have to say that I used to read anything within my reach, that I mostly read his books because I found them entertaining. and that I was in my teens. Now, many years later looking back on my readings: "The Arrival of the Gods", "The Return of the Gods", "Chariots of the Gods" (yes, I read them all, and I think someone made a movie based on his "work" and I saw it, too), I think they are disturbing, to put it mildly.

Not only is he a phony who lies about his credentials, about his findings or lack thereof, who scams funds and other resources that could be put to better use, but also his theories have a certain "je ne sais quoi" that smells like racial prejudice. He is almost obsessed with trying to prove that ancient non-European civilizations could not have attained a high level of technological sophistication. He talks about the amazing accomplishments of ancient peoples as something that only extraterrestrials could have built, when in fact they represent the finest examples of human ingenuity, dexterity and determination to survive — the Egyptian pyramids, the figures on the plains of Nazca, the heads in Easter Island, the Aztec and Mayan pyramids, etc.

The same spirit and the same drive are still pushing us forward in spite of the efforts of people like Mr. Von Däniken. The achievements of those ancient cultures reflect upon us, if nothing else. They made enormous progress, each in their time, each in their own way. They were all striving for better health, longer lives, more prosperous societies, and their works in stone are testimonials to that. Let's make the younger generations understand it. Let's explain to them that, regardless of skin color, language, religion, etc., we all share the same basic needs and wants.

So, the younger-than-thirty group hasn't heard of Mr. Von Däniken? Good, let's keep it that way. We don't need yet another phony man filling the minds of the young with prejudice and pseudo-science.


My observations on John Edward continue to invoke the ire of his fans, and of those who think I too easily dismiss the possibility that he just might be the real thing. One is a chap we'll just call "George," who illustrates nicely how poorly prepared and presumptuous some critics can be. He criticized my column in SKEPTIC Magazine.

George apparently perceives (using his five senses and who knows what else) that I've "declined" to respond to his comments. Au contraire, Georges! I have a busy life, and I'm often distracted by somewhat more important matters than answering to presumptive criticisms. But it's Saturday afternoon, we're waiting for a hurricane to arrive in Florida, and I'll spend a few minutes to clarify a bit of George's world view....

He writes:

An "overly rational" world view would be one which excludes the existence of a sixth sense, the importance of perceptual phenomena such as intuition, and what preliminary scientific data seems [sic] to indicate may be anomalous communications which do not originate in the encephalon (crassly referred to as "talking to the dead," as in the case of John Edward, the subject of my letter in opposition to Randi's "Twas Brilling."

Oh, enthusiastically agreed to, George! With music! Though I would disagree with the term "overly rational" for the same reason that "overly terminal" would offend my idea of lexicological propriety, I cannot imagine ever excluding the possible existence of more than five senses. I've argued for years that there are such things as the sensing of temperature, of pressure, of acceleration, of balance, and others, that might well add to that main list. But I'm sure that George means to chide me for excluding ESP and other possibilities, which I have never done. I chafe at the fact that folks like George are so fond of ascribing to me a wide spectrum of attitudes, opinions, statements, and convictions that I have never embraced, nor espoused. I certainly have not, ever, stated that such extra-senses as ESP — in it's variety of identities — cannot or do not exist. I have said only that the evidence for such matters is not sufficient. Santa Claus, too, boasts much evidence, but the quality is poor. Perhaps even George will agree with that evaluation.

Intuition, which George says my "over-rational" viewpoint excludes from existence, most certainly exists and is a valuable asset in our day-to-day functioning. Some intuition is hard-wired into us at birth and some develops from experience. Much to George's surprise, I'm sure, I have been an ardent consumer of this mode of perception ever since I can remember. Again, it is a presumption by George that I deny the existence of this useful modus. (The difference between intuition and instinct arises here, but is a matter for another time.)

George states that "preliminary scientific data seems to indicate" the existence of an ability to communicate with dead folks. I agree. The words "preliminary" and "seems" are operative words here. As always, I'm willing to be shown — a million dollars worth of willing — but I've yet to be presented with even this "preliminary" data, and so I've no idea whether it's scientific, or not. I was promised this data (an old story, I know) but it was never given me. Why? Ask others; I can only suspect the reason.

(For the unsophisticated reader, I will explain that George writes, "encephalon" rather than "brain." Never use a simpler word when a more profound one is available. Just hope that abstruseness may be mistaken for erudition.)

But George continues:

To answer your second question, yes. I would advocate that a "proper world view" would cease to right [sic] off experiences and phenomena commonly referred to as belonging to "the residue effect."

Okay. Agreed. I think.

And, says George,

It is my opinion that scientists should not dismiss the exigency of examining mediumistic phenomena as potential science fact versus science fiction.

Again, yes. You see, George and I agree on many points. However, I know of no scientists who have actually advocated dismissing such a possible line of investigation, as he suggests, though I do know of many who decline to pursue the matter simply because the evidence is just so shoddy, or because they have better things to occupy their attention.

George concludes:

. . . Mr. Randi, unfortunately, declines to communicate with me presumably because he has made up his mind on the matter.

There you go again, George, presuming. Wrongly presuming. And, having considered your comments with care, I've not changed my mind one whit.


Last week, we announced a public appearance by free-energy-seller Dennis Lee. Reader Michael Turner tells us:

Tipped off by the JREF site, I checked out the site of the so-called United Community Services of America and learned that Dennis Lee would be giving one of his demonstrations of miraculous free energy machines near where I live in North Carolina. This sounded like fun!

Mr. Lee's chief technique is what I would call "The Great Bamboozle." He speaks very rapidly and semi-incoherently, tossing about technical-sounding but meaningless terminology in a rapid-fire manner designed, I am certain, to bewilder his audience. He did not allow challenges. At one point he described some previously-unknown natural phenomenon having to do with a rod of radioactive material and a compass, and said the effect had been shown to exist and studied in depth — but had never been explained by traditional science! — at six "major universities." At this audacious statement, an audience member raised his hand. Mr. Lee immediately responded by stating his "no questions" position. He said that his demonstration was usually six hours long, and he was trying to squeeze this one into four hours, so he had no time to answer any questions.

Our intrepid audience member persisted by shouting out one simple request: "Name one university at which this phenomenon has been fruitlessly studied." Mr. Lee then went into a speech, insisting that he hadn't time to name even one of these major universities. (This diatribe lasted long enough to name at least twenty universities.) He then called for one of his burly henchmen to eject our brave defender of skeptical thought out of the auditorium. At this development, many other audience members got up to leave.

Two further observations: when the questioner was being ejected from the auditorium, I was alarmed at how much hostility he received from audience members. I had to remind myself that these were the vocal ones. About twenty quieter people left in the wake of Dennis Lee's obvious attempt to stifle critical appraisal of the material being presented. (There were perhaps 200 people at the event.) I went out of my way to thank the questioner as he left.

If Lee had been accepting questions, I would have raised my hand during his demonstration of a metal-cutting torch that supposedly used not acetylene, but an 80/20 mix of water and fuel. He claimed that the technology would be revolutionizing the industry except for the fact that "the acetylene people" wanted to suppress this wondrous breakthrough. I would have pointed out that the acetylene industry is surely made up of competing companies, any one of which would be glad to stomp their rivals with such a superior product, if such a product existed.

I stayed for another forty minutes, but eventually grew tired of the rambling mumbo-jumbo. One other thing Mr. Lee said sounded as bogus as the rest, but I haven't the knowledge of chemistry to know for sure how he was trying to hoodwink us. Perhaps a visitor to the JREF site could tell us if this "explanation" is so much hogwash, as I suspect it is. Mr. Lee was demonstrating an engine that runs on water (he said it, not me). Incidentally, he referred to it as an "infernal combustion engine" without apparent humorous intent. He said the engine worked because, while most water is HHO, the water he was using is HOH. My recollection of a 3D model of a water molecule leads me to believe that there would be no difference between HHO and HOH, but it has been many years since I took chemistry. Any insight on this?

Let's see if a knowledgeable reader can tell us, Michael....!

My comment: the hostility shown by the audience to the questioner, demonstrates just how willing — no, insistent — the sheep are to be shorn. And to eventually be reduced to mutton.... They see nothing at all suspicious in Lee's refusal to answer legitimate questions, and they accept the pseudoscientific blather and unsupported verification, because they imagine that this man is going out of his way to make them wealthy. Why, given a choice, would a man like Dennis Lee choose to make an honest living? What he's doing is much easier, far more profitable, and probably very satisfying to him, knowing that he's selling absolutely nothing, at a high price.

And, as we know, don't we, unless some politician's favorite aunt puts money into Dennis Lee's con game, NOTHING will be done about it. He's perfectly safe, and he knows it. But let a bad word creep into a school principal's vocabulary, and he'll go straight to the pokey. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.


Missouri State Attorney General Jay Nixon, one of the few government officials who have actually come out fighting against the "psychic" swindlers, said last Friday that legal actions taken against Florida psychic "Miss Cleo" foretell the future of others who might choose to violate Missouri's limits on telemarketing. "A lot of people watched the Miss Cleo case," said Nixon, "The results of the case show you can't violate the `no-call' law in Missouri without repercussions." Miss Cleo appears on nationally-televised commercials promising insights into love, money and other personal matters. The Florida-based company that owns her television "psychic hotline" has been ordered to pay a $75,000 fine for violating Missouri's no-call law.

Okay, a good move. But don't think for a moment that it will slow the crooks down, or that any other state's Attorney General will stand up and go after Cleo — and others — as A.G. Nixon has done. As for the $75,000 fine, that comes out of petty cash, for these operators.


View the Commentary archive.


Want more? View all of Randi's Opinions by visiting the archive. Click here.

Help support the JREF through donations, grants, gifts and memberships. Click here to learn more.

Subscribe to Randi's email "Info List." For details, send an empty email message to JREFInfo-help@ssr.com


Home | Commentary | Lectures | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | Swift | Library | Donations | Contact | Internet Audio Show
Join Now | Books & Videos for Sale | About the JREF | Randi's Calendar | Scholarships and Awards | Learning Resources | Press Center
© 2001 James Randi Educational Foundation

Web Design and Maintenance provided by Innovation Design, Inc.