linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basismay.88

Text File | 1997-06-27 | 38KB | 785 lines

-----------------------------------------------------
May 1988 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
-----------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 7, No. 5
                Editor:  Kent Harker



RANDI DAZZLES SAN FRANCISCO AUDIENCE
by Yves Barbero

[After a tour of China and Australia, James "The Amazing" Randi
made an unscheduled stop in the Bay Area April 8th to speak about
his investigations into the paranormal.]

Randi reminded a jammed meeting house that although some impact
has been made against the phony faith healers, they are still in
business. Peter Popoff, for instance, was taking in one and a
quarter million dollars a month at his peak, and declared himself
bankrupt shortly after the publication of Randi's book, "The Faith
Healers" (Prometheus, 1987). Despite the fact that Popoff's
electronic tricks were exposed on national TV (the Johnny Carson
show), he's now beginning to re-emerge via the radio.

Randi said that the danger of faith healing is two-fold. One, it
takes people from real medicine and two, it gets them into the
habit of magical thinking.

"Magic doesn't work!" he pointed out with emphasis. In a humorous
allusion to his stagecraft he observed, "Cheating works better."

Next he discussed the Chinese parapsychologist he met there who
used children to demonstrate psychic powers. Although the man had
great sincerity, a simple, double-blind experiment showed how
easily the various claims could be disproved. There were ample
opportunities for the children, who wanted to please their mentor,
to cheat. The Chinese, he said, have had little experience with
elementary precautions such as the double-blind method, and were
so pleased with his demonstration of the technique that they
invited him to return. He smiled and added, "...and I haven't even
finished high school."

In one setup, Randi demonstrated that when a traditional healer was
not in the same room as his patient, despite the fact that he
claimed to be able to control his patient's movements, there was
no apparent correlation between their actions even though the
healer claimed that the healing method, based on the pseudo-
scientific meridian acupuncture system, a form of sympathetic
magic, would work even if he were "half a world away."

Moving on to Australia, and with the connivance of the Australian
version of "60 Minutes," he brought in "Carlos," an alleged
channeler, who in fact was a gentleman named Jose Alvarez. They did
everything to make the ringer seem unpalatable, including the
growth of a "bandito" mustache and a stooped walk. They made
outrageous claims about his background, claims that even a
rudimentary check would have exposed. The object was to test the
press's gullibility.

They fell for it, hook, line and sinker. "Carlos" was an instant
hit.  They packed the Sydney Opera House with channeling believers.
Great amounts of money were offered for his services and, Randi
added, they could have sold his "crystals" (actually lucite) for
thousands of dollars.

Only the Australian Skeptics decided to check up on him, but, due
to their almost nonexistent budget, the reply to their letters of
inquiry to the United States about this "Carlos" didn't arrive
until after "60 Minutes" exposed the hoax.

"Nobody checked anything!" Randi said, despite the fact that
Australia had already been hoaxed by Steve Turbot, a.k.a. Bob
Steiner, a few years before in much the same manner.

He concluded his talk by saying that people have a choice.  They
can be dragged back into the cave by psychics who offer
superstition or they can take part in the great adventure of
science which will someday take us to the stars.



CREATIONIST COUNTER
by Everett Peterson

[Mr. Peterson is a devout Christian and articulate defender of
creationism. He has followed the creation/evolution debate for many
years and has written extensively on this and Christian apologetics
in general. "BASIS" welcomes his rebuttal.]

The April 1988 issue of "BASIS" carried an article titled, 2nd Law
vs. Creationism, by Jim Ardini and Dick Kidd. They wrote,
"Scientific creationists claim the 2nd Law denies the possibility
that a closed system can spontaneously become more `organized'.
Since life forms are more highly organized than their inanimate
precursors, it could not have arisen without divine intervention,
they say."

In order to enlighten us with information that the creationists
supposedly do not know, or at least do not admit, they made the
following statement: "The earth's surface has never been an
isolated system because it has always received energy from the sun.
Therefore, there can be local decreases in entropy at the earth's
surface while, at the same time, the entropy of the sun-earth
system essentially an isolated system, increases."

However, if they had done a little more research, they would have
found this statement by Dr. Henry Morris, in the book, "Scientific
Creationism", p.33, which says the same thing.

"Although it is true that the two laws of thermodynamics are
defined in terms of isolated systems, it is also true that in the
real world there is no such thing as an isolated system. ALL
systems in reality are open systems and, furthermore, they are all
open, in greater or lesser degree, directly or indirectly, to the
energy from the sun... There do exist a few types of systems in the
world where one sees an apparent increase in order, superficially
offsetting the decay tendency specified by the Second Law. Examples
are the growth of a seed into a tree, the growth of a fetus unto
an adult animal, and growth of a pile of bricks and girders into
a building."

Ardini and Kidd continued their quote by saying, "The evolution of
living things is simply a local decrease of entropy and is not a
violation of the 2nd law."

Let us let Dr. Morris answer this.

"Now, if one examines closely all such systems to see what it is
that enables them to supersede the Second Law locally and
temporarily (in each case, of course, the phenomenon is only
ephemeral, since the organism eventually dies and the building
eventually collapses), he will find in every case, at least two
essential criteria that must be satisfied: (a) THERE MUST BE A
PROGRAM TO DIRECT THE GROWTH (b) THERE MUST BE A POWER CONVERTER
TO ENERGIZE THE GROWTH. The available environmental energy is of
no avail unless it can be converted into the specific forms needed
to organize and bond the components into the complex and ordered
structure of the completed system."

Ardini and Kidd must address this last point if they are to
maintain that creationists don't know what they are talking about.
We all know that the sun's energy, while necessary to preserve
life, is destructive. Things do NOT "spontaneously become more
organized" when left to themselves, as they claimed. We must
constantly work to transfer the sun's energy into a form that can
be utilized for man's benefit.

Ardini and Kidd then referred to Stanley Miller's experiment in the
50s in which they say that he "produced, from simple precursors in
a closed system, complex organic molecules required by life forms."

This, they say, is "rudely violating the creationist's law of
entropy."

Morris already explained that when there is a program to direct the
growth of something, and there is a power converter to energize
that growth, then the 2nd Law is superseded. Miller devised the
"program" and supplied the "power converter." The results did not
happen "spontaneously." So Ardini and Kidd are hitting at a straw
man.

They also are a bit in error in their explanation of Miller's
experiment, which they describe as follows: "Into a closed but not
isolated system -- a sealed glass bulb containing a soup of raw
chemicals -- he introduced ultraviolet light and high-voltage
electricity, conditions that were believed to duplicate the early
earth's surface. In short order complex organic molecules were
produced."

Miller's experiment was written up in "Science", vol.117, pp.528,
529, a copy of which I have before me. The energy source was NOT
ultraviolet light.

"Electrical discharge was used to form free radicals INSTEAD OF
ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT." (emphasis mine)

The second discrepancy is Ardini and Kidd's use of the phrase, "in
short order." This seems to imply that the results were obtained
while one watched and that the output was substantial. However,
Miller reported that "the discharge was run continuously for a
week," and, "The total yield was small for the energy expended."

Another point to clear up is that of the composition of the
apparatus used, and its contents. It was NOT just a "sealed glass
bulb containing a soup of raw chemicals." First, the material
zapped by electrical discharge was NOT a soup,a term that implies
a liquid. The mixture was a gas. Next, the apparatus was a
sophisticated piece of equipment. The diagram of it is complex, and
Miller describes it in these words: "Water is boiled in the flask,
mixes with the gases in the 5-1 flask, circulates past the
electrodes, condenses and empties back into the boiling flask. A
U-tube prevents circulation in the opposite direction."

As Morris said, "We do not disparage in any way the impressive
achievements of biochemists working in this field." But I must
point out several things about this experiment. Its purpose was,
Miller said, "to test this hypothesis," i.e., Oparin's idea of the
composition of earth's primitive atmosphere. He just added the
electrical discharge, saying that it "may have played a significant
role in the formation of compounds in the primitive atmosphere."

The title of Miller's article was, "A Production of Amino Acids
Under Possible Primitive-Earth Conditions." But while he was
testing out the supposed "primitive" conditions, he added something
to his apparatus that certainly was NOT primitive. And that was the
U-tube which he installed to keep the circulation going in just one
direction.

There were four phases in the experiment. First, the boiling water
phase to produce water vapor. Second, the gaseous phase where the
water vapor was mixed with the other gases. Third, the combined
gases were forced into a neck in the apparatus and bombarded with
electrical discharge. And fourth, the water vapor was condensed and
settled into the U-tube section. Miller stated, "The acids and
amino acids formed in the discharge, not being volatile, accumulate
in the water phase."

Apparently, if Miller had let the acids circulate into the boiling
phase, they would have been destroyed right after they had been
formed. But where in the supposed primitive Earth would there have
been such a trap, to collect the acids that had been formed?

Undoubtedly there are creationist ideas that one could fault.  But
Ardini and Kidd did not prove that the area they were criticizing
was one of them. A little more research on their part would have
revealed what I found. It is hoped that they would add the above
clarifications to the paper on thermodynamics that they pass out
to their students.



KURTZ IN OAKLAND

Dr. Paul Kurtz, a man who needs no introduction to skeptics and
humanists, is coming to speak to the Secular Humanists of the East
Bay, at 411 28th Street, Oakland (Oakland Humanist Fellowship) on
Saturday, May 7 at 11 a.m. There will also be a reception for Dr.
Kurtz in the afternoon, at another location, at 2 p.m. for which
a $2.00 donation is suggested. Since space is limited for this
gathering, SHEB respectfully requests that you 'phone for
reservations. Call Marlene at [phone].



COUNTER COUNTER
by the Editor

What is the logical basis for Mr. Peterson's argument? Creationists
allege that if evolution were true it would violate the 2nd law of
thermodynamics because increasing complexity occurs, so evolution
must be false. (As a side issue, one of the mainstay creationist
arguments is that evolutionary theory is non-falsifiable, and
therefore non-scientific dogma, requiring just as much faith as
their belief in a 6,000-year-old universe -- and then they set
about raising propositions to prove evolution is false.)

Their logic is that complexity cannot NATURALLY increase (this
would be a DECREASE in entropy). Is this true? In other words, is
it possible for things to go from a less- to a more-orderly state
without help?  The 2nd law says it cannot -- in a CLOSED system.
Which implies, of course, that it can in an "open" system. Since
the law clearly allows entropy decrease under certain
circumstances, how do creationists deal with this exception?

The premise for Mr. Peterson's thesis appears to be that entropy
decrease can occur only if some kind of intelligent direction is
coupled with the available energy, even though the law does not say
an open, INTELLIGENT system. They point out that a seed has DNA
software to direct solar energy to decrease its entropy as it
grows, for example.

An important key to the matter lies in a subtlety that the apostle
of creationism, Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation
Research (ICR) tries out on us in the quote from Mr. Peterson's
rebuttal: "Although it is true that the two laws of thermodynamics
are defined in terms of isolated systems, it is also true that in
the real world there is no such thing as isolated systems."
Therefore, according to Dr. Morris, entropy cannot EVER decrease
naturally, even though he does not want to come right out and say
it.

The tactic is clear, and it is a polemical device. Moreover, Ardini
and Kidd (April "BASIS") addressed the question of ideal systems
in their article by stating that systems are "essentially
isolated." The fact is that all scientific laws are formulated for
ideal conditions. Boyle's law which relates temperature and
pressure of a gas is only valid under ideal conditions. Because a
sample of gas never exists in ideal conditions, can this be
stretched to imply that all pressure and volume relations are
therefore invalid? Does it mean that Boyle's Law has no application
in the real world?

We know conditions are not ideal, BUT WE ALSO KNOW HOW AND IN WHAT
DEGREE THEY DIFFER FROM IDEAL SO AS TO MAKE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS
WHEN WE APPLY THE LAW. The speed of light (c) is only valid in a
perfect vacuum, and since there is no such thing as a perfect
vacuum, should we maintain that real-life considerations of c are
without merit? This is all painfully absurd, and it demonstrates
that the ICR is at least as concerned about tactics as the truth.

Can one find examples in nature in which entropy is going in the
"wrong" direction, i.e. decreasing?

Ardini and Kidd gave an example to show entropy in an (essentially)
open system can naturally increase. Mr. Peterson chose to attack
the Miller-Urey experiments on grounds other than what the example
was trying to present: simply that entropy may decrease in an open
system. It is irrelevant whether or not the equipment was simple
or elaborate, or whether humans manufactured and assembled the
apparatus.

The point is they were trying to duplicate the earth's complex
systems, and it is no small feat to duplicate those conditions by
a "U-tube" or any other means. Moreover, Peterson only offers an
opinion that the experiment does not replicate the primeval
biosphere. While we agree it may be impossible to determine to a
high degree of certainty what the primitive conditions of the earth
were, that must not cause us to capitulate to ignorance and bow our
heads in defeat.

To say that, since we are not PRESENTLY sure how life originated
it was therefore supernaturally accomplished is to fold up all of
our equipment, abandon science, go home and sit in a corner and
read the Bible. Thank God for our indomitable inquisitiveness. The
creationist logic seems to be, "Since we don't presently know how
it happened, we know: God did it."

The ICR logic is lifted to new heights of absurdity when it insists
its view is scientific. There is nothing particularly wrong with
believing that life originated by divine decree -- in fact it might
be true, but it is not science.

The creationist bag of tricks is not empty yet, for Dr. Morris
comes within a razor's edge of contradicting himself in "What Is
Creation Science?", co-authored by Gary Parker, on page 166:
"Entropy always TENDS to increase in ANY system. [original
emphasis]" Again, this is a polemical gambit that strives to draw
the inquirer away from the real problem, viz. that there can indeed
be an entropy decrease by using that word "tends." The attempt of
the expression is to cut the question to such a narrow ledge that
the reader will fall off trying to see where the 2nd law allows
natural decreases. The earth system is indeed TENDING toward
increasing entropy, but that cannot erase the clear evidence that
there is, if only temporarily, local entropy decrease. Morris'
statement is designed to turn our attention from the present
reality to the ultimate reality in hopes we will overlook the
former.

Mr. Peterson wants us to clamber aboard his train when he is so
sure that we collectively agree with him: "We all know that the
sun's energy, while necessary to preserve life, is destructive."

Is energy, from the sun or otherwise, ALWAYS only destructive?  Is
there anything in the universe that can be achieved without the
expenditure of energy? The supposition that energy may only sustain
or destroy the existing complexity of systems is quite simply
wrong. Peterson merely restates the 2nd law, which says that
entropy can only (ideally) remain constant or increase, ignoring
the exception in which energy can naturally build and construct.

Consider a supernova. The formation of a large star begins with the
coalescence of matter most all of which is hydrogen. Through
gravitational collapse, the energy is sufficient to begin a LOCAL
reversal of the entropy machine to create more complex elements by
fusion beginning when the star is born. Upon the death of these
super-massive stars, the overall entropy cost of the exploding star
to create new elements is staggering -- the star is destroyed. Even
in its death throes there is creation: the so-called "heavy"
elements (above iron) are formed. The 2nd law is a brutal and
niggardly taskmaster; his exchange ratio is a farthing on the
dollar.

For an example closer to home, when atmospheric conditions are just
right, a calm, cloudless day can be turned into a seething tempest:
a violent thunderstorm. Entropy has greatly decreased in going from
the homogeneous calm to the storm conditions, and the increased
energy available to do work is sadly manifest in the destruction
wrought by a tornado as it rips a swath across the land. (Just
watch creationists miss the point of this example of decreased
entropy OF the storm by jumping to the destruction produced BY the
storm. They will say destruction is the only result of the entropy
change, not creation.)

What is the net energy cost of these local entropy decreases here
on earth? On the scale of the solar system, the most complex
changes here are but tempests of the teapot variety. The earth
receives less than 1% of the sun's total energy, and most of that
is wasted in heat. The overall expense is billions of watts per
hour squandered to make almost immeasurably tiny entropy decreases
here on our minuscule orb floating in the abyss of space. The cost
of life on earth could be described as a profligate waste of energy
but for our self-centered anthropomorphism. There were a lot of
perfectly good photons wasted over the eons while producing the
most noble among us.

Nobel physicist Murray Gell-Mann observed that the notion that
scientists world wide have suffered the same mental lapse in
failing to notice that evolution violates the 2nd law makes as much
sense as asserting that physicists have overlooked the liquid
properties of water.

Creationists precipitate further problems by making a jumble of
biological evolution and abiogenesis -- these are two distinct
areas of study. Biological evolution is considered pretty much a
closed question. Study and controversy only continue over some of
the mechanisms, not whether it happened. But all evolutionary
scenarios assume the existence of life. How life first originated
is still very much an open question, and theories about that are
as diverse as the number of researchers.

Creationists don't want to accept this important distinction
because it would force them to argue against their literalist
Genesis account, and they would have to recognize that the first
life, however it originated, was simple and that within billions
of years that simple life diversified and proliferated into the
vast (some 3+ million distinct species) store that is life on earth
today. Darwin recognized the formidable gulf that exists between
inanimate matter and the simplest living things. He said there was
at least as great a distance between elementary life and humans as
there is between inanimate material and elementary life.

Ultimately, creationist must bow to the truth that complexity can
indeed occur locally, but they quickly rejoin that the 2nd law is
not elastic enough to allow the manifest complexity of LIFE -- it
is altogether too complex. Here again is a matter quite apart from
the heart of the issue. Life may be so complex and unlikely that
it has occurred but once in the entire universe, or God may have
sprinkled it all over the place, or animation may be an almost
inevitable consequence of certain (uncommon) initial conditions.
To confuse this question with the statement of the 2nd law seems
like yet another diversionary ploy -- an attempt to keep the
scientifically unsophisticated off balance with scientific-sounding
rhetoric.

If we peel away the last layer of this creationist argument, we
find in the core the "Argument From Design": all this complexity
could not happen naturally -- it requires an intelligent
designer.And it is here the creationist wants to bring an end to
all inquiry before we may in turn ask how the most highly
organized, complex entity in the universe -- God -- came to be. Of
course, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander; we must
explain (for which we do not complain) but this creationist
position is declared immune from question.

Evolution means gradual change. The FACT of evolution is the fossil
record: there is a mountain of ever-accumulating data showing a
world-wide progression from very simple to very complex over
enormous time spans. The THEORIE(S) of evolution are attempts to
explain how that increasing complexity occurred. Natural science
seeks to find natural means whereby it happened.

Some religions -- and I emphasize some, because the major Christian
religions have accepted the evidence of evolution -- allege divine
fiat over six, 24-hour days. This is a theory, but not a scientific
one, because there is absolutely no way to verify or falsify it,
since any natural law may be abnegated by this fiat. There is
nothing that could disprove an assertion that everything came into
being 15 seconds ago, complete with a memory and appearance of a
non-existent past, by a wave of Jehovah's hand.  Because
creationists' suppositions are not scientific, scientists (and most
other religions) strenuously oppose their attempts to have their
faith presented as science in the public school system.



CHIROPRACTIC: FROM THE INSIDE

J. Keating, PhD, Director of Research at Northwest College of
Chiropractic and Robert Mootz, DC, Asst. Dean at Palmer College of
Chiropractic, presented a revealing picture of the status of
science from within chiropractic. Posing chiropractic as primarily
a clinical art, the authors state that DCs only pay lip service to
the role of science in chiropractic, and that the dominant
chiropractic metaphors have functioned to inhibit the development
of chiropractic science.

They say that many view chiropractic science as a system of
knowledge which requires only the application of deductive
reasoning. This view, "combined with isolation from the scientific
and allied health care communities have been an important
obstruction to science within chiropractic," they candidly offer.
They "believe that significant increases in chiropractic research
are not likely so long as the prevailing beliefs and attitudes
(philosophy) in chiropractic fail to support and encourage
scientific efforts."

Five areas of prevailing attitudes which impede scientific
development were identified and elaborated. They are: (1) The
definition of science, (2) research priorities in chiropractic
science, (3) the practitioner's role in chiropractic science, (4)
interdisciplinary dialogue and research and (5) the goals of
scientific research.

The authors state that "Chiropractors have good political reasons
to encourage manipulation research," and that "organized medicine's
continuing (and accurate) criticism of chiropractic's lack of
rigorous data to support the clinical art" must be addressed if
chiropractic is to make significant progress toward scientific
credibility.

(Reported in "NCAHF", the National Council Against Health Fraud,
Feb. 1988.)



A RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR ONE ASPECT OF UFO BEHAVIOR
by Jef Raskin

UFOs are often claimed to be either extraterrestrial or
supernatural on a number of bases. One of these is the observed
acceleration of the UFO. Observers such as airline pilots, whose
reliability seems unimpeachable, and whose reports do not go beyond
describing the behavior of a remote object (that is, do not raise
the kinds of questions raised by an encounter of the third kind),
have reported accelerations beyond anything that humans could
survive and often beyond anything achievable by human technology.

I have observed such accelerations twice. The first occurred when
I was driving across the desert with a companion. I suddenly
noticed an orange light floating in the sky as I looked through the
center of the windshield of my truck. As we drove on, it slowly
drifted to the left, then surprisingly accelerated to the left and
upwards and disappeared into the sky.

I stopped the truck a few seconds later and got out. My companion
had not seen the object, and I could see nothing in the sky.

Being a skeptic, I found this very clear sighting somewhat
disturbing, and decided to investigate further. After waiting a few
minutes to see if it might come back, I turned the truck around,
drove back a mile or so, turned around again and drove the way I
had first come. All of a sudden, there was the light, and it
performed the same accelerating and vanishing act. At the same
time, my companion noticed a sodium vapor lamp some distance off
to our right, nearly invisible except within a narrow line of sight
between two hills. When I backed up, the apparent light in the sky
retreated. It was a reflection of the light in the windshield of
the truck, which, when it reached the smaller radius of curvature
at the ends of the windshield, seemed to move much more quickly and
vanish.

I was struck with the apparent reality of what I had seen, and
would suggest that any report of moving lights seen from a moving
vehicle be treated with special skepticism. A very strong illusion
of a remote flying object can be created by reflections darting
across the window of a moving vehicle. Ripples in the glass can
cause even more amazing apparent behavior of a light in the sky.

The second and more interesting observation of acceleration
happened a month ago, while I was standing on my porch looking east
from my house in the Santa Cruz mountains on a clear evening when
there was just enough light to see the outlines of the Diablo
Mountains. My house is at an altitude of 1500 feet overlooking
Silicon Valley from Monte Bello ridge.

A white light was moving slowly from south to north. I took this
light to be an aircraft at an altitude between 1500 and 3000 feet.
I was confident in this altitude judgment since the light was lower
than the peak of Mt. Hamilton (about 3600 feet) and at or above my
line of sight. It is not easy to judge whether a remote object is
slightly above or below your position, but I had often taken
sightings on the mountains with my Suunto optical level and had a
number of accurate reference points. The light seemed to be about
10 miles away.

It is nearly impossible to accurately estimate the distance to a
point light source by eye. In this case, I had a maximum of 17
miles to the mountains behind the light, which fixed an upper
bound: my guess was based on seeing many aircraft land at San Jose
and on the ASSUMPTION that this was an aircraft with a light of
typical brightness. I have no real basis for determining a lower
bound to the distance except that it was at infinity as far as my
binocular vision was concerned. I was amazed when the light
accelerated with what seemed impossible rapidity.

Within a few seconds, the light accelerated to about ten times its
former speed. At first I had thought the object was a light
aircraft traveling at about 100 mph. Now, it seemed to be going
about 1000 mph. I should mention that I have a lifelong hobby of
plane watching. I often listen to aircraft and ground
communications as I watch planes coming in and out of the three
airports in my view, so I often know exactly how far a plane is
from me when it is landing or taking off. I also know their speeds
-- the landing speeds for airplanes are published in Jane's "All
the World's Aircraft". Thus my eyes are probably better calibrated
than those of the average observer.  As a consequence of my
experience, I was especially startled by the incredible
acceleration.

I rushed to get my 8 X 56 night binoculars but the object was lost
from view by the time I ran outside again. After a few minutes, I
saw another impossibly sudden but somewhat smaller acceleration.
This time I was able to make out a perfectly ordinary aircraft with
the binoculars: it was closer to me than I had thought when viewing
with the naked eye.

The explanation turned out to be simple: Some aircraft have a fixed
light visible from nearly any direction. This light is often much
brighter than the flashing lights on the same plane so that the
light is not immediately identifiable as an aircraft. The plane had
been flying on a path nearly toward me, and its apparent motion
across my field of view was very slow. Since aircraft rarely fly
below 100 miles per hour, my impression was that of a plane flying
perpendicular to my line of sight at about 100 miles per hour and
farther away than it was. Then it turned so that its path was
perpendicular to my line of sight. Since I was at about the same
height as the aircraft, there is no way to tell that it had turned.

Mentally holding to the original impression of a speed of 100 mph,
and assuming that its path was a straight line since it looks that
way, the light seems to undergo a sudden acceleration. An illusion
of deceleration is, of course, also possible.

I was thus satisfied that I had seen nothing impossible and that,
in the absence of other information, there is a rational
explanation for apparent sudden accelerations of lights that must
be ruled out before more spectacular explanations need be
considered.

It also occurred to me that my observations might explain a number
of otherwise inexplicable UFO sightings, including those made by
experienced observers such as pilots, who often fly at about the
same altitude as other aircraft. A person on the ground might see
the same illusion if a plane is descending toward him or her and
makes a turn, or if it is so distant that its apparent path is
close to a straight line even when it turns.

Any reports of a light suddenly changing direction and accelerating
should be treated with extreme suspicion and are almost certainly
instances of the illusion that would have convinced me that I had
seen an eerie phenomenon were I less of a skeptic.

[Jef Raskin is best known for having originated the Apple Macintosh
computer. He has been a skeptic for many years, ever since the
sixth grade when he was taken on a Flying Saucer watch by family
friends. On the expedition he identified aircraft and satellites
where believers saw the lights of extraterrestrial visitors (he
cheated by bringing along binoculars). The other thing he learned
at the same time was that speaking the truth is not always
welcome.]



FEBRUARY MEETING
by Ivan Linderman

The February meeting was well attended (about 50) and about one-
third of those had had dealings with cults (Krishnas, EST, etc.).

The speaker, Richard Gallyot, was introduced as a Cult Buster (he
counsels the families of those who have entered cults) who had come
to know many of the People's Temple members while managing a nearby
flower shop. Following the Jonestown deaths in 1978, Mr. Gallyot
interviewed most of the surviving members.

Ironically, Gallyot became the subject of controversy to those in
attendance when it appeared he believed that the whole Jonestown
debacle was some sort of government conspiracy.  He offered several
examples he thought demonstrated the conspiracy link, but most in
the audience were unconvinced. Don Henvick made a "psychic
prediction" that Gallyot would run into trouble when he entered
into the conspiracy notions. Don proved to be correct. In fairness,
Richard prefaced his talk by saying some of his conclusions were
his own, although he hedged by invoking the well-known "residual
effect", claiming that if "75% of what he said was mistaken,
there's still that 25% that needs looking into."

Using a 1976 videotape of a Jim Jones sermon in Ukiah (poorly
prepared by Temple members), Gallyot illustrated some of the
techniques used by Jones to control his followers:

1. THE CULT LEADER HAS SPECIAL POWERS. Jones mysteriously
materializes lost objects from the ether, discloses personal facts
about a cult member that could not have been previously known to
him, and, the most outrageous display of chicanery, faked his own
assassination and then claimed to resurrect himself. In the
videotape, Jones described how he removed the nurse's fingers from
the bullet holes, passed his hands over the wounds, and was made
whole again!

2. THE CULT LEADER AS GOD. Repeatedly, Jones said things like "I,
the God...shall do all the miracles your God said he'd do but never
did. Modestly, Jones claimed, "It's a great effort to be God..."
and offered to pass on these labors to anyone who wanted them.

3. THE CULT LEADER DESTROYS CURRENT BELIEF AND FILLS THIS VOID WITH
BELIEF IN HIMSELF. Jones said, "I have come in the phenomenon of
religion to get people out of religion." Jim Jones stomped on a
Bible to remove existing belief systems, so that Jim Jones, the
God, is the only remaining belief system.

4. THE CULT LEADER IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF PROTECTION. Jones told a
member she was almost killed in an automobile accident except for
his spiritual protection: "I wasn't there, but I AM there!"

The most chilling portion of Mr. Gallyot's talk concerned the
murder of disaffected cult members. Many lived in hiding for a long
time in mortal fear.

5. THE CULT LEADER OBTAINS OFFICIAL PUBLIC SUPPORT. Jones used
bribery to public officials by providing block votes and free
political workers from the Temple ranks. False rumor and then
blackmail were used to bring officials into line.

The power of this demonstrated that the cult then has protection.
Six months before the Jonestown deaths, cult member escapees
reported to officials that mass suicide was being planned and
rehearsed. These were dismissed as the ravings of paranoid former
cult members.

As to how and why people become cult members, Mr. Gallyot provided
the following comments:

1. PEOPLE DON'T USUALLY INTEND ON JOINING CULTS.

2. CULTS CAREFULLY SELECT VULNERABLE PEOPLE FOR RECRUITMENT. Cults
seek out aimless, lonely, hurting, and those without a support
system.

3. CULTS TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. Jonestown was billed
as a paradise on earth, the solution to all problems.

4. ONCE CAPTURED, ESCAPE FROM A CULT IS DIFFICULT. The new recruit
is rarely left alone. Drugs, sleep and dietary deprivation, hard
physical work, and punishment combine to control every waking
moment of the initiate's life. Murder may be the ultimate threat
for dissention.

My conclusion was that Cult Mind Control (and perhaps Political
Mind Control) is a disease that can effect anyone -- even a cult
buster. All it takes is a susceptible host, a portal of entry, and
a sufficiently virulent organism in sufficient numbers. Something
like catching a cold. Only much worse.

[Ivan has an M.S. in cell biology, was a research scientist for
about seven years, and now is V.P. of his own company in San
Rafael.]



JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS SAFE TO TEACH EVOLUTION!

Dr. Eugenie Scott, BAS advisor and Executive Director of the
National Center for Science Education, will be our speaker at the
May meeting.

What has happened since the Supreme Court case in which
creationists lost their bid to have creationism required in the
public schools? There have been a number of interesting
developments, which Dr. Scott will discuss, including a case in
federal district court in Chicago filed by a creationist who
asserts it is his First Amendment right to teach creationism in his
class.

Eugenie has been a tireless soldier in the battle against
creationist attempts for equal time in the public schools. She
earned her Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Missouri,
and taught at the University of Kentucky, University of Colorado,
and in the California State College system.  Her special interest
is medical anthropology and health fraud.

Be sure to put this event on your agenda. See the "Calendar" for
directions.

                             -----

Opinions expressed in "BASIS" are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect those of BAS, its board or its advisors.

The above are selected articles from the May, 1988 issue of
"BASIS", the monthly publication of Bay Area Skeptics. You can
obtain a free sample copy by sending your name and address to BAY
AREA SKEPTICS, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122-3928 or by
leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS (415-648-8944) or
on the 415-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1988 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-