linuxmafia.com 2013/2013.06.linuxmafia.com/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basisjan.89

Text File | 1997-06-28 | 36.4 KB | 730 lines

---------------------------------------------------------
January 1989 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
---------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 8, No. 1
                Editor:  Kent Harker



I CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW
by Don Henvick

[Our resident psychic mole, Don Henvick, can't keep his hands out
of the cookie jar for very long. He's at it again, this time at
SRI. While many skeptics try to carefully work themselves into a
situation to witness what goes on inside, Don brazenly barges in
unannounced, unregistered and unwanted! Don doesn't like the
armchair theorizing of which most of us less ambitious sorts are
guilty -- he will be in the thick of things or he has nothing to
say.

Don is becoming something of a minor celebrity around the circuit
for his imaginative exploits. It's always a pleasure to learn about
his latest feather rufflings.]

D'ya remember SRI? You know, the research outfit that got involved
with Uri Geller and parapsychology "experiments" back in the
seventies? Remember Targ and Puthoff and how they tried to put the
stamp of scientific legitimacy on metal bending, remote viewing and
"you-name-it-we'll-believe-it"? Remember how silly they all looked
once critics got a good look at how they actually did their work?
Well, settle back in your chair with a big bowl of popcorn. It's
time to watch "SRI-II: The Nightmare Continues."

In June I hear about screening going on at SRI for participants in
remote viewing experiments. It's only open to SRI employees but
through the good offices of some skeptical employees there, I get
inside to see what is going on. What is going on is that a hundred
or so SRI people have gathered in an auditorium to listen to Edwin
May describe SRI's involvement in "psychoenergetics," or ESP to us
common folk. He tells us the program started in '72, reached its
public height with Targ and Puthoff in '76 and then continued in
a more quiet vein since then.

Translation: since the Targ-Puthoff work was shown to be so shoddy
once it appeared in print, the new team has taken the precaution
of not publishing. Mr. May explains that the folks at SRI have done
some THREE THOUSAND trials of remote viewing since then and have
found significant results in about ten percent of them. We are
assured that previous, unnamed shortcomings in the testing
procedures have been overcome and that the tests are now scored in
an objective, statistical manner.

Well, it doesn't sound too flaky so far, and it looks as if the
uncredited criticisms of men like Ray Hyman and James Randi may
have had an effect of making this kind of research more reliable.
May gives an example of a still picture used as a target in one
test and the response the subject drew, and explains the basis for
scoring it a partial hit. Seems a bit subjective to me, but I'm
willing to give them the benefit of doubt as long as they don't
claim their results prove remote perception.

Enough of the explanations, now is the time to get down to the
reason everybody's here: SRI is looking for a few good men and
women who might have The Power, and we're to be tested to see if
any of us is a promising candidate for future study. Since I don't
work at SRI, I won't be able to get further than this test, but I'm
looking forward to see how my guesses stack up against those of the
rest of the participants. We're given triplicate answer forms (we
are told we can keep one copy to ourselves for posterity) for four
different tests.

The procedure looks fairly legit. A member of the staff will leave
the auditorium to go to a second-floor lab in the building, and,
at a given time, will turn on a laser disc player which will
randomly select a scene and run it on a monitor in that roomfor
thirty seconds. Then we're to try to "remote view" the remote
monitorand write whatever words or draw whatever pictures come to
us. Finally, all the responses will be collected and sealed in an
envelope, and only then will the staff on the 2nd floor play the
video disc target for us on TV monitors in the auditorium so we can
see how we did. Feedback, we are told, is a good learning tool.

At the appointed time we start concentrating -- or rather not
concentrating, since we've been told that weshouldn't think about
what the target might be, but we should be receptive to whatever
pops into our heads. I make my mind a blank (gee, that was easy!)
but nothing pops in. I don't try even harder than I was not trying
before and now I think my blank mind is becoming a blankey-blank
mind, 'cause whatever they're looking for, I ain't got. In
desperation I draw some lines and blocks and write things like
"wispy" and "angularity" down so maybe I'll hit SOMETHING in the
picture and not be a complete doofus.

The answers are collected and the target finally showsup on the
monitors and I am shocked, folks. All this time May has been
talking about THE target and THE image to be transmitted and I
think we were all thinking of a single picture to concentrate on.
I mean, how else could you score a test unless you kept the target
relatively simple so one could get some idea of what response was
close and what was not. Well, kiddies, it turns out this particular
target is not one picture, but at least SIX: a thirty-second video
montage centered around the theme of the Allied code-breaking
efforts in WW II! You got a picture of the words "Project Ultra,"
you got a picture of a Nazi, you got a picture of a code machine,
you got a picture of women working at an early computer, you even
got a picture of the wreckage of Coventry Cathedral, which was not
defended from Nazi bombing so as to protect the secret of our
having broken the Nazi codes.

This, then, is THE target for the first test. Mr. May tries to calm
the general disconcertedness of the crowd by explaining that the
subjects in the previous tests generally did better with multiple
or free-form targets than with simple pictures! Well I guess so!
To paraphrase Chairman Mao, "Let a thousand targets bloom." How
they could begin to score responses to so many images is quite
beyond me. In fact, I'm amazed that my own pitiful response has so
FEW hits. I can only conclude that my effort is a wonderful example
of "psi-missing." At least now I know what they mean by the
usefulness of feedback.

Armed with a better knowledge of what a target is likely to be, I'm
ready to play the next round. Before we start, however, a picture
of a room briefly flashes on the screen. Apparently the
experimental controls aren't foolproof. Second test is coming up.
I skip trying to receive impressions, and, betting that the random
images may not be as random as advertised, I try to think of a
PLAUSIBLE response. I draw a pair of converging lines, some
scattered shapes and a face. I write "fast air" and "strange
language." I cross my fingers. The papers are collected and up on
the monitors comes film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsing due
to high winds in 1940, accompanied by a sound track of a Calypso
song! Don't ask why. I check my notes. The lines could be a
perspective view of the bridge cables; the fast air and strange
language fit. The face isn't there, but I'm getting better. This
is fun.

Ready for number three? Number two was outdoors so this time I
think I'll go urban. I draw a kind of grid and below it sort of a
street-like thing with branches. I write "massive, imposing" and
"looking from above?" and "many people far away; different faces,"
because this is stuff we haven't had yet and I say we're due. And
the target is . . . I'll be damned, it's the same picture which
flashed momentarily after test number one! So this is their idea
of random targets? Mr. May acknowledges the goof and says maybe
we'll have to discard this one because the protocols were broken,
but what the heck, we can look at it anyway.

Turns out this thirty seconds is a clip from the movie "War Games"
and the scene we just got a glimpse of is the big war room with the
giant map on the wall with lines of missile tracks, kind of
"massive, imposing" I calls it, and the Air Force personnel "many
people far away" walking in front of it. This IS fun. May says if
anybody got something grid-like, that would be a pretty good hit.
He's a nice man. I like him.

I'm really getting into this stuff, but we have only one target to
go. Let's see, if these were really random, it wouldn't matter what
the previous target was, BUT, since the last one was indoors and
technological, I'm gonna go with outdoors and bucolic and see if
it pans out. I sketch a scene with a river going through trees and
past a rocky hill and to cover my bets I put in a fence and write
"barren and hot." At the top of the whole mess I write "outdoors,
fresh air, light." The final target on the monitor is a clip from
another movie featuring a closeup of an eagle in flight. No prize
for that one, but the camera pans over what the eagle is
overflying: a jungle with plenty of trees and a stream culminating
in a waterfall and closeup of rocks. Yippee, I'm psychic!

I've come closer than the other people I've talked to, but as a
non-employee this is the end of the line for me. I would love to
know how I scored, how other people scored and how in the world
they scored any of it anyway. However, every time I call to inquire
about the status of the remote viewing experiments, I get the big
run aroundski. I suppose I could assume that it all went well, that
there are no more glitches in the equipment, that targets are more
precise, and that they really do have a statistically valid method
of scoring responses. I could accept on faith that the reason they
haven't published their findings after twelve years and three
thousand trials is because they don't like to brag. And I can
certainly accept that if they continue to get funding, it might be
another twelve years before they publish. I can take it all on
faith.



SAM INVITES BAS

The Society of American Magicians local affiliate in Concord, CA.
invited BAS to their monthly meeting. Several of us went to see how
magicians are with magicians.

The Concord group is doubly interesting because BAS co-founder Bob
Steiner, now international President, attends this local, and the
President-elect of the Concord affiliate is none other than
parapschologist Loyd Auerbach. Two more widely-divergent opinions
could hardly be held by two different people -- proof that
personalities can transcend ideology. In a warm display of mutual
respect, President Auerbach presented President Steiner with a 1.5'
x 3' photographic portrait of the latter in a hilarous pose, to the
delight of all.

The proceedings were fascinating: several people unconsciously
manipulating a deck of cards; one fellow doing what appeared to be
knitting stitches in the air with no thread; and others producing
various objects from what seemed empty hands.

We wondered how magicians would perform for magicians. Steiner's
and Auerbach's were amongthe scheduled acts. Several of the
lessexperienced had a few moments to present some effect they had
worked up. The "oohs!" and "aahs!" seemed to be a little forced,
and the applause was politely enthusiastic. How does one wow a
fellow prestidigitator?



                            WRITERS!

Please send materials for consideration in "BASIS" directly to the
Editor, address in the "CALENDAR"; the high mail volumn at our S.F.
address can delay your requests. Electronic transfer is available
at the BAS bulletin board or direct to the Editor at (408)
946-5531.



SOVIET SILLINESS

With all the hue and cry raised in the revelations that the
President of the United States consults his horoscope before
arranging his calendar, some have wondered what his counterpart in
the Soviet Union does.

In a special report in the "New York Times", Bill Keller did a
little research into the extent of mystical behavior in the country
that prides itself as the land of scientific materialism. The
results are worse than we could ever have imagined. Keller reports,
"In the United States, land of all faiths, people laugh at Nancy
Reagan for consulting an astrologer, "while in Russia such things
are almost a given.

A case in point is Madame Dzhuna Davitashvili, a psychic healer and
reigning queen of the Soviet occult, who operates a one-room clinic
"just a step from Moscow's most popular pedestrian mall." People
flock from all over for her healing touch -- which she calls the
"Effect - D" for Dzhuna, naturally. She is accepted so widely that
when Brezhnev was failing beyond conventional medicine, Dzhuna was
called in. When questioned about the case, she says the Hippocratic
oath precludes her discussing the details of her work.

The main difference between Mme D.D. and her American peers is that
she has a state business license, "an honored spot on the Soviet
Peace Committee, and a coterie of friends that includes scientists,
artists, journalists and intellectuals." The sad reality is that
horoscopes, psychic medicine and every brand of mysticism pervades
every level of soviet society apparently with the open blessing of
the state, according to Keller.

"It is our secret silliness," said the wife of a government
official. "Leave Nancy Reagan alone," she chided. She admitted that
as soon as Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet leader he immediately
looked up his horoscope. He is a Pisces.

Horoscope swapping in Red Square is a most popular pastime. When
a world-renowned Soviet physicist received permission to emigrate,
the first thing he requested on American soil was where he could
get his horoscope cast. This despite the fact that Soviet
Encyclopedia lists astrology as a "false science." Parapsychology
is accorded serious discussion in the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Maybe we'd better see how the charts look for a Bush-Gorbachev
compatibility.



ACUTE PUNCTURE
by Kent Harker

BAS advisor Dr. Wallace Sampson, M.D. addressed our November
meeting on the topic of acupuncture. This article is a summary of
Dr. Sampson's presentation.

Dr. Sampson began by noting that there is very little data on AP
effectiveness available in refereed journals -- no extensive
studies have been done in the scientific community. This is either
a surprise, given the length of time AP has been around, or it is
testament to the indifference MDs feel toward it. The amount of
hard data even in AP journals is very sparse. (As a point of
interest, Dr. Sampson told us that the formal Clinical Trial method
was only developed in the early 1940s.) Stringent testing is very
costly in money and time -- millions of dollars and several years
for a rigorous study. Why should practitioners bother? AP "works."
Recipients attest to the worth of it. In effect, the craft has
nothing to gain from any sort of testing, and potentially much to
lose, so the motive for research is next to nil.

The difficulty of testing is compounded by the inability to blind
the therapist (a double-blind procedure). But the patient can be,
and so can the evaluator (this is called a triple-blind study). In
all, Sampson found only thirty-five studies that had been done on
AP, and in them he found the procedures laced with protocol errors,
the most glaring of which was patient selection.

Understandably, those seeking AP help are predisposed to believe
in its curative effects -- they are often refugees of primary
medicine. Thus, there could not be a valid randomizing of the data
base, and randomization is essential to ensure accurate statistical
analysis. The other major flaw was that control groups were sparse
to non-existent. When control groups WERE used, they were so
disparate it is scientifically impossible to comparethe results of
one trial with those of another. The tests were done to measure the
response to pain. What is pain? Is pain a medical condition? The
difficulty and subjectivity of what we term pain throws another
cloud over whatever results one might hope to glean from the data.

Dr. Sampson graded the papers on the strictness of controls, and
found that the more careful they were the less significant the
results. To the best of his knowledge, no general study has been
done to compare the studies as he did.

Acupuncturists tell us "it works." Sampson advised us that when
offered a claim that some procedure works, we need only respond,
"Where are the data?" If one cannot produce hard data to support
the validity of the claim, we need go no further.

In the U.S., AP burst on the scene around 1973, coinciding with
Nixon's journey to the People's Republic. The reportage brought
home some incredible pictures and the story of one of his aides,
stricken with an acute appendicitis attack during the trip. They
could not get him to an outside facility soon enough, so he
underwent surgery there. Pictures showed him fully awake,
ostensibly suffering no pain, thanks to AP, while the gore in full
color lay before us on the photo plates. AP had arrived.

The truth was that, besides the AP technique, surgeons had
administered heavy doses of topical morphine. Dr. Sampson pointed
out that abdominal surgery is effectively impossible without heavy
anesthesia: the quantity of nerves in and around the abdomen is so
great that severe pain is almost impossible to overcome, and, just
as important, the involuntary nervous reactions of the patient
tighten the muscles to such an extent that the surgeon cannot work
effectively. Thus, if for no other reason, anesthesia is necessary
for the surgeon to have a relaxed patient.

Surgeons have used AP in some thyroid operations with success, but
that is because the area of the thyroid has few sensory nerves, and
the thyroid itself has none. Pain receptors are only in the skin,
so once that is breached there is not much interference. As far as
its anesthetizing capabilities are concerned, AP acts as an
interference -- a kind of distraction, and distraction is effective
only for mild pain. Local agents such as cocaine and morphine are
administered in addition to AP in cases of acute pain, but rarely
mentioned in write-ups. The road to legal recognition of AP is
interesting and important. Dr. Sampson noted that after the rapid
spread of public awareness, it took only a short time for
licensing, diplomas, etc. A "degree" of OMD (Doctor of Oriental
Medicine) may be earned in a few weeks, and the certified
acupuncturist may treat any condition except cancer. Acupuncturists
may advertise any way except to offer a cure. Since the practice
has been around for so long, and there are so many people using it,
the California legislature felt it had to do something to control
the practice and proliferation of AP. The AMA officially denounced
AP adding that there is no scientific basis for its practice, but
did not vigorously oppose the institution of regulatory laws and
concomitant recognition acupuncturists would thereby enjoy.

The reasons for the AMA's uncharacteristic tameness are
significant. AP is mostly a cultural practice, and to oppose it
could easily be construed as racially motivated. The AMA recognized
that the practice is so widespread that it would continue in spite
of sanctions -- it would be better to legalize it and thereby be
able to control it. The negative trade off would be that regulation
would accord a certain legitimacy that could lead some to seek help
from AP, foregoing primary health care.

After weighing all this, the AMA ultimately decided to keep a low
profile for one reason: AP is largely benign. With the exception
of the real threat when a patient skips legitimate medicine, the
acupuncturist is likely to do little harm to his patients outside
of the obvious problems of unsterile needles and puncturing vital
organs, dangers that would be greater without controls. Legislation
ensued and with it, recognition; there began a veritable explosion
of AP clinics.

Dr. Sampson wanted to understand the foundations of the ancient
practice of AP. He found that it harks back to the Chinese yin-yang
-- a kind of "give-and-take" dichotomy closely paralleling Greek
thought. At the core is the thoroughly discredited notion of the
elan vital, the life force. Anciently, feelings were assigned to
organs: excitement, the heart; anxiety, the stomach; depression,
the respiratory system; fear, kidneys; anger, bile. It is easy to
understand how prescientists made these associations. These
associations were taken for granted well into the 19th century,
even in the West. In China, the life force was (is) the "chu-e" and
its various transliterations. Other forms of fringe medicine still
center on the notions of a life force, e.g., chiropractic.

Dr. Sampson pointed to what is perhaps the most important reason
that AP was so popular before the advent of modern medicine: the
LESS that was done to a patient, the better off he was! The
draconian measures of primitive procedures proved as often as not
to be fatal to the unfortunate victim of the doctor's knife:
Purging, leaching, blood-letting, and poisoning, coupled with
unsanitary conditions were at least as dangerous as any condition
the poor patient could ever have suffered. Since the body is a
marvelous instrument of curative and restorative powers, most
conditions, left to themselves, will ameliorate if the victim
survives.

Hence whatever procedure had been performed last would get the
credit for the cure in a "post hoc, ego propter hoc" reasoning.
Since AP is benign, it was often the procedure of choice and
therefore got the credit, so anecdotes flowed freely.

Modern Chinese medicine is still imbued with vital force
traditions. AP is part of a holistic, philosophic approach to
healing. Homeopathy, herbal medicine, iridology and chiropractic
are all very similar in their approach to medical problems, and
they all are philosophically centered on the ethereal "energy" that
vivifies the human body. In each of these systems, the procedures
are not directed at a specific condition, and this is probably the
greatest single distinction between them and modern medicine. The
function of these types of fringe treatment is to "realign the body
with the forces of nature." AP designates the points of alignment
as the "meridians," which are arbitrarily assigned to organs, which
are in turn associated with EMOTIONS, not disease. This is why
there need be no real diagnostic process or correlation between
the locus of the condition and the placement of needles. If one has
a malfunction in the kidney, one might get a needle in the earlobe
because that is the site where the "force" is most "out of
alignment," and it is that "misalignment" which caused the kidney
problem.

Dr. Sampson contrasted the approach of modern medicine with these
holistic genres: modern medicine is disease specific. There are,
for example, over 100 different kinds of cancer (Dr. Sampson is an
oncologist) each with its specific treatment. The only degree of
similarity in their various treatments is excision of the tumors.
The revolution in modern medicine is that it sought to understand
the function of each organ. The western mind has taken hold of AP
without understanding the real function of AP, and has tried to
take it in the direction of empirical science. This has caused
confusion both in the practice and public understanding of AP.

                        ACUPUNCTURE TODAY

One of the most common medical conditions is back pain. Doctors do
not like to treat back pain because it is so complex and often non-
specific. It can arise from simple lack of proper conditioning to
the most intractable diagnoses. Treatment can be long, expensive,
and often unsatisfactory. Enter chiropractic and AP. In cases other
than disease or chronic conditions, back problems respond favorably
to the passage of time.

The best evaluation of AP is that it works by distraction (a
counter-irritation), suggestion, consensus and the placebo effect.
AP is upbeat, requiring high rapport between patientand therapist.
Wally compared this with the veritable confrontation between a
medical doctor and his patient when the latter is required by law
to read and sign the "informed consent" papers before surgery in
which he is told of all the pitfalls and side effects he may
experience!

Acupuncture is definitely here to stay, and the establishment will
probably have little effect on its practice. For those on the
fence, the facts may help, and all of us can help spread the facts.



CSICOP IN CHINA

There is no evidence to support the claim of amazing paranormal
abilities of Qigong masters and extraordinary psychic Chinese
children, according to a report issued by CSICOP. The report is the
result of a two-week, three-city tour of China by a CSICOP
delegation.

The CSICOP team traveled in China in late March and early April at
the behest of the Institute for Technical and Scientific
Information of China. Members of the Institute wereconcerned by the
rapid rise of belief in the paranormal in China and the lack of
scientific criticism of these claims. The investigators provided
lectures, conducted seminars, and offered demonstrations on a
number of topics of the paranormal. They also carried out tests on
individuals claiming paranormal abilities.

"We had heard fantastic stories of the miraculous abilities of
these people," said CSICOP chairman Dr. Paul Kurtz. "We were quite
curious to see if they could actually do the things they claimed."
One such series of tests included an examination of alleged psychic
children. It was claimed that they could read characters written
on bits of paper stuffed in their ears, held in their hands, or
placed on top of their heads. They also supposedly had the ability
to break or restore matchsticks sealed inside boxes by the power
of their minds. The CSICOP team found that in all of the trials
they ran on the miracle children, under controlled conditions and
strict observation, in no instances were the children able to
perform as alleged.

The CSICOP paper reports on one test conducted by a Chinese
researcher, in which CSICOP members acted only as observers when
"strange" results were obtained. Four children were each given a
matchbox containing either a broken or unbroken green matchstick.
The children were to reverse the condition of their matchstick. The
Chinese experimenter wrapped the matchboxes with paper and tape and
gave the sample to the children. The children immediately ran from
the testing room and were seen to leave the building entirely.

After a period of time, the children returned and said they wereas
yet unsuccessful and requested more time. The experimenter agreed
and allowed the children to take their boxes home with them. Eight
hours later, the experiment resumed. One child did not return his
box claiming it had been destroyed while he was playing. Two boxes
were returned in fairly good condition. They were opened and no
change in the matches' condition was observed.

The fourth box proved to be a different story. Upon casual
observation, the box showed obvious signs of having been tampered
with. Vegetative matter and hair were under the tape. Upon opening
the box, it was found that the broken green match was now an intact
red match. Despite the evidence of cheating, and the total lack of
control over the test sample, the Chinese experimenter maintained
that this experiment could be "proof of paranormal abilities." The
CSICOP team examined television tapes of similar testing done by
Chinese scientists who found that Chinese children were prone to
cheat and that this explained so-called paranormal effects.

CSICOP was also able to test the claims of Chinese Qigong masters.
Qigong (pronounced "chi-gung") is a form of traditional Chinese
medicine dating back more than 2500 years. In its most basic form,
it is a system of mental concentration and deep- breathing
exercises to reduce stress. Some Qigong masters claim that they are
able to direct their "chi" energy into others and affect cures of
tumors, cancer, and ulcers.

The CSICOP team was permitted to observe a Qigong master as he
treated a patient for a spinal tumor. The master began a series of
rhythmic movements and the patient began writhing on the treatment
table. After the demonstration, CSICOP placed the master and
patient in separate rooms. In a number of trials, the master was
asked to direct his "chi" towards the patient. Although the master
said his power could go through walls and travel some distance,
there was no correlation between the movements of the master and
those of the patient.

Next, the CSICOP researchers tested a Qigong master and his psychic
sister who claimed to be able to diagnose team members' relatives
back in the United States and Canada by merely seeing their names
and relationships written on a piece of paper. The results of these
tests were also negative. In one trial, the psychic "saw" that a
relative had liver and leg ailments -- the person had been dead for
two years. Kurtz commented, "Belief in the paranormal is a world-
wide phenomenon. We have found, however, that when you submit the
claims to rigorous testing, the evidence just isn't there."

CSICOP's full report on the experiments conducted in China are
published in the Summer 1988 edition of "The Skeptical Inquirer".



RAINING FISH
by John Lattanzio

No self-respecting skeptic would believe stories of fish falling
from the sky. Whiting and flounder, to be precise. I imagine we
would not openly embrace claims of frogs or crabs plummeting to
earth from the heavens, either. But suppose the claims persisted?
It would be nice to have some explanation. I know, I can hear some
screaming "Show us the evidence first. If it is convincing, THEN
we look for an explanation, not before." Quite right.

But in lieu of further evidence or information, I might hypothesize
that one day a couple of frogs fell from a tree. Someone noticed,
and commented on it "raining frogs." The story gets retold,
distorted, overheard . . . and presto. It's raining, if not cats
and dogs, then crabs and frogs. Maybe even fish. It's not a
particularly convincing explanation, but at least it seems more
likely than the claim that it did rain frogs.

Well, there is more information and evidence. On May 20, 1984, Ron
Langton found six fish (whiting and flounder) on the roof and in
the backyard of his home in East Ham, London. Two residents of
nearby Canning Town independently reported 30 to 40 fish in their
gardens. So much for my explanation.

More impressive, perhaps, are the many eyewitness accounts of frogs
falling from the sky. Once, in 1844, people held out their hats to
catch them. On June 5, 1983, Julian Gowan saw a huge spider crab
fall on the grounds of his Brighton home.

Enter TORRO, the Tornado and Storm Research Organization, a
privately supported research group which studies severe storms.
These diligent detectives have an explanation for these "remarkable
showers," as they have dubbed them. They use the showers as a tool
to probe meteorological phenomena.

TORRO believes that whirlwinds are to blame, because a vortex can
explain how objects can be lifted and transported long distances.
The fallout usually covers an elliptical area on the ground, again
suggesting a concentrated updraft, consistent with a waterspout or
tornado hypothesis, and waterspouts were observed at sea around the
time of the storm which deposited the crab in Brighton.

Although TORRO may have provided an explanation of these
"remarkable showers," this is not their main area of research. They
are concerned about the more serious threats waterspouts can
pose.There is a lesson here, of course. We are reminded of the
dangers of dismissing "ridiculous" stories (like rocks falling from
the sky, later called meteorites). We must judge ONLY according to
the evidence. No conclusion is far more desirable than jumping to
the wrong one.

(For further information on "remarkable showers" and TORRO see "New
Scientist," 2 June, 1988.)

[Perhaps another lesson of this event is that, given hard evidence
and a workable theory, even the most fantastic claims can be easily
established or refuted.  -- Ed.]



BAS IN THE NEWS

BAS's year-end roundup of psychic fizzles has made the rounds. The
efforts of erstwhile BAS chairman Robert Sheaffer have been
appreciated as far away as Philadelphia. We have subscribers there
who sent a clipping from the "Philadelphia Inquirer" which quoted
Robert's article we ran in "BASIS" last year almost in its
entirety.

Media contacts are opening up more and more, affording us
increasing column space and air time to present an alternative to
the barrage of nonsense that clogs the minds of millions. Time was
when the fringe had a corner on the media. The newsfolk didn't know
where to go for a counter. Now that there are specific centers of
information with the formation of CSICOP and like-minded local
groups, we are pleased to report that we are being sought.

We can only hope that information is the main problem, not just
soft brains.



BENNETTA AT APPLE

BAS advisor William Bennetta spoke to the employees of Apple
Computer and their guests in November. The monthly presentations
are part of Apple's Distinguished Lecture Series in which speakers
are invited from all walks to address the employees. Organizer Joe
Wujek is the heart and mind of the program, and he has provided a
long list of interesting and varied topics, very few of which have
anything to do with computing or corporate structure. BAS founder
Bob Steiner and BAS director Andy Fraknoi are among the names on
the speaker's list and their success has led to other requests from
the fount.

Bill Bennetta is probably one of the best authorities on the
legislative and legal forays creationists have sprung on our
educational system. He has written extensively, and has had his
articles and essays published in professional journals, newspapers
and special interest papers, so he is eminently qualified to teach
on the subject.

Very few Americans are aware of the extent to which creationists
are willing to go to wage their campaignagainst science education
in the public schools. Apple Computer, in their Distinguished
Lecture Series, asked Bill to speak about this very important and
sensitive subject.

Bennetta began by defining scientific creationism as the political
arm of ultra-orthodox fundamentalist Christianity and its
insistence on absolute Biblical literalism. He alerted his audience
that the creationist agenda is not, as fundamentalists would have
the public believe, to have equal time for alternate theoriesof
origins. The fundamentalists want to have the entire science
curriculum turned out: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.

In short, they want total control of the schools, and they have
shown their willingness to use the courts to have their way -- arm
twisting is too slow, and they cannot bring scientific evidence to
bear to make their case in the custom of the scientific method.

Some of the creationist legal maneuvers are astonishing for their
brashness; Bill covered the Louisiana and Arkansas cases and traced
their histories through the system all the way to the Supreme Court
in the Louisiana instance. They lost, but only because of
preparation near the end to present the case in the true light of
the creationists' goals. The Justices found that the case really
turned on the transparent attempt to have the narrow religious
dogma of a specific sectarian religion introduced into the
classroom. The Constitution, of course, precludes such favoritism.
The question whether the notions of creationism have any scientific
validity was not at issue in the court cases. This is fortunate,
because it would put the judiciary in the position of trying to
understand and rule on the scientific validity of a claim; of
course, such a role for the courts is entirely misplaced.

Bill's talk was well attended and well received. Almost all those
in attendance came to the front to get literature Bill had prepared
(copies of some of the articles he has had published) and to ask
questions at the conclusion.

BAS would like to recognize Apple Computer and Joe Wujek for the
courage they have shown in addressing sensitive and controversial
subjects. Few major corporations would dare invite speakers to
express their views on themes as potentially volatile as religious
beliefs. Congratulations, Apple. Congratulations, Joe Wujek. And
thanks to Bill Bennetta for his worthy representation of BAS.


                             -----

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 January, 1989 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) 1989 BAY AREA SKEPTICS.  Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco,
CA 94122-3928."

                             -END-