linuxmafia.com 2013/2013.06.linuxmafia.com/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/newsletters/basis/basisoct.92

Text File | 1997-06-28 | 43.7 KB | 944 lines

---------------------------------------------------------
October 1992 "BASIS", newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics
---------------------------------------------------------
         Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                   Vol. 11, No. 10
                Editor:  Rick Moen



INSIDE . . .

Frequently Asked Questions
    by Officers of local skeptics' groups
BAS Annual Picnic
   by John Taube
Lake Champlain Monster
Earthquake Predictions
EuroSkeptics Book Available
Welcome from NTS
   by John Blanton
Fate Magazine Considered
   by Rick Moen
Nutrition Book Review
   by Michell Renee Dick
Meeting Coordinator
   by John Taube
 Crop Circles
   by Gary Posner, M.D.
Nostradamus Strikes Again!
   by Michael Savastio



DON HENVICK: HEALED FIVE TIMES!
by James Randi

[Ed. note: This article is reprinted from the Summer 1986
issue of "Free Inquiry", by kind permission of Executive Editor Tim
Madigan. This was the issue containing James Randi's expose of
faith-healer Rev. Peter Popoff (and numerous others), in which
many BAS activists had assisted. Our "well-healed" Mr.
Henvick will discuss his experiences at our October meeting.]

Don Henvick, of Bay Area Skeptics, proved to be a valuable part of the
faith-healing research team. Volunteering his services for the
Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, Don dressed in
various disguises, even going so far as to shave his beard and head.
He was able to present a convincing and tempting target for the
faith-healers. In Stockton, California, he was called out of the
audience as "Tom Hendry", a fictitious name, by the Reverend David
Paul, and was healed of a "broken home and alcoholism". In San
Francisco, the Reverend Peter Popoff succumbed, as well, calling out
our man as "Tom Hendry", and curing him of the same problems. In
Anaheim, Don scored again when Popoff fell for another of his aliases,
this time calling him again out as "Vergil Jorgenson", and attempted
to heal a bogus "serious arthritic condition".

Subsequently, Popoff broadcast both of these healings on his shows,
apparently so enthralled by Henvick's acting abilities that he even
featured Don's Anaheim healings on three successive programs. Popoff
again fell for Henvick's charms in Detroit, where Don dressed as
"Bernice Manicoff", suffering from "uterine cancer and edema" and
confined to a wheelchair. Her doctor was Dr. Kurtz. Don provided this
information to Popoff before the healing session, and Popoff again
called him out -- this time as "Bernice" -- and healed him.

Don Henvick also went to Philadelphia on April 19, where the Reverend
W.V. Grant approached him before the performance and questioned him
about personal details. Later that evening, he called him out during
the service as "Abel McMinn", cured him of a "prostate condition and
arthritis", and identified Dr. Lambert as his physician, whom Don had
invented. . . .

As detailed elsewhere in this issue, other "healees" planted by the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Religion were Ivars
Lauersons, Marty Post, and Steven Schaefersman. The reason that CSER
used this ploy in the course of its investigation was to show that
there were only two conclusions to be drawn: EITHER God was informing
Grant and Popoff through the "gifts of the spirit" and giving them
wrong information, OR the Reverends Grant and Popoff were obtaining
the fictitious information before the service began, and were feeding
it back by deceitful means. Either God was lying to the faith-healers,
or the faith-healers were lying to everybody.



FLYING SAUCER-GATE

Yet another transparent government cover-up! This time, it was a
brilliant "flash" UFO seen all over California on Tuesday, 15
September, and called in to talk shows and local news stations all
over the state.

"They" tell us that it was just another missile launch from Vandenberg
Air Force Base near Santa Barbara, shot over the ocean to the central
lagoon of the Pacific atoll of Kwajalein (used as a target for U.S.
military practice shots). Yes, we saw launch footage and government
claims of "atmospheric conditions", leading to reports of unusual
lights in the sky.

We won't be fooled, though, will we?



FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, OR "SO YOU'RE A SKEPTIC"
by Rick Moen and distinguished colleagues

Most members of the public (and the press) think being a skeptic is an
odd thing to do -- if it occurs to them to think about it at all. The
questions long-time skeptics tend to hear from them, usually the same
questions year after year, strongly reflect this prejudice. Your
questioner may be moderately curious about your strange hobby, and
willing to make conversation about it, but is generally one step away
from dismissing skeptics as an odd sort of blowhard crank harassing
(for some reason) harmless New Agers, and is just looking for an
excuse to do just that. Nonetheless, this is your opening, your chance
to establish that you are a reasonable, intriguing person worth
listening to, and also your chance to start dispelling misconceptions
widely held concerning skeptics, often spread by hostile parties.

Having brought this matter up at the recent CSICOP "Skeptic's Toolbox"
workshop in Oregon, I was assigned the project of compiling a list of
the most common questions and some effective answers. "Effective" here
means not so much providing a literal answer as conveying a sense of
humor and proportion, and an air of benignity, tolerance, respect for
one's audience, and due modesty -- for THOSE are the very qualities
the questioner (most often) expects not to find. At that point, THEN,
you may be taken seriously and listened to -- which is why making a
good first impression on these near-inevitable first questions is so
important.

I've had considerable help in compiling these questions and answers
from across the skeptics' movement, via electronic mail: Becky Long,
President of Georgia Skeptics; Keith Parsons, founder and former head
of the Georgia group; and Jan Willem Nienhuys, officer of the Dutch
group Stichting Skepsis, all contributed responses, marked below with
our initials. This is an ONGOING project, whose results may eventually
be included in a handbook for skeptical activists. Your contributions
of brief answers AND QUESTIONS are welcome.

=> If it doesn't hurt anyone, why bother?

RM: Skeptics are simply curious about which fringe-science claims have
merit, and which don't. It's a hobby. Of course, some such claims
(like psychic surgery) DO hurt people, and skeptics disclose that.
Other claims don't hurt people, but that's beside the point -- is the
claim BOGUS or not? Many fringe-science fans consider truth merely a
booby prize. Skeptics don't: Although they don't claim to have a
lockhold on it, they DO pursue it.

JWN: Good point. If ignorance doesn't hurt you, then don't become a
skeptic. Much superstition makes life quite miserable for quite a few
people. Having millions of people killed because of
pseudoscientifically bolstered race theories shouldn't happen again.
More people than you think are ripped off by the paranormal racket,
e.g., [provide anecdote]. Billions of dollars are being spent on very
doubtful cures -- so people's wallets ARE hurt.

KP: Selling out your intellect is always going to hurt you --
financially, intellectually, and even emotionally. Anyone who thinks
that entertaining nonsensical beliefs aren't harmful should read W. K.
Clifford's essay, "The Ethics of Belief", which makes and wonderfully
illustrates the point that we should not form beliefs except on
adequate evidence and sound reasoning. Accepting shoddy beliefs can
erode your whole way of thinking.

=> You say it doesn't work, but how do you explain x anecdote?

RM: Hey, you got it wrong: I never volunteered to explain everyone's
weird stories. Of course, I like weird stories, especially unexplained
ones, but some are unexplained because of missing details or ones that
the questioner (totally honestly) has gotten wrong, and maybe some
will never be explained. The point is for YOU, not me, to look for
alternative, conventional explanations before jumping to conclusions.
Now, if you want, I can tell you about a similar, baffling case that I
DID explain when I chased down enough facts. . . .

JWN: I haven't been there, and I can't form an opinion on the accuracy
of the witness involved (erring is human), but [other anecdote about
same or related matter].

KP: When the evidence for the claim is an anecdote, that's precisely
the reason I don't have to explain it. Uncorroborated anecdotes are
worth very little, for many reasons: They must generally be unusual,
to stick in our memory, and therefore aren't representative. Also,
most anecdotes have been told and retold, and become closer to
folklore than to real evidence. Even when it's something one person
says he himself remembers, memory can play numerous tricks, and is
less a tape recorder than a village storyteller. In a sense, each time
we recall events, we tell ourselves a story reconstructed to fit our
beliefs, wishes, and expectations.

=> What do skeptics believe, anyhow? What's a skeptic?

RM: You might as well ask what a carpenter believes. Carpentry isn't a
belief: It's the effective application of tools. That's also what
skeptics do, in their case with MENTAL tools applied to claims on the
fringes of science, tools like scientific methods, old-fashioned
footwork, and checking whether those claims contradict themselves.

JWN: Someone who is interested in examining paranormal and other
claims that seem to contradict scientific knowledge. They believe in
tests. Skeptics, by the way, are usually interested in testing things
that official science finds a bit below its dignity.

KP: The kind of skepticism that skeptics' organizations practice is
the kind espoused by scientists. Skeptics welcome new ideas, but
suspend belief until a claim has been subjected to a conclusive test.
They don't accept a theory just because it sounds appealing, or makes
them feel good.

=> When did you become a skeptic?

BL: I joined organized skepticism as soon as I discovered that there
actually were folks out there scientifically investigating
supernatural claims, instead of dismissing them out of hand. I suppose
I didn't quite know what to make of the whole unsolved mysteries media
genre: Although I didn't believe the supernatural explanations, at
some level I naively assumed that "they" (something like the FDA)
wouldn't allow publication or TV-special coverage of such claims
unless the descriptions were at least somewhat truthful. Learning how
many of the most familiar claims are fabrications from start to finish
was an eye-opener.

RM: That's kind of like asking me when I finally started thinking just
a bit. I've always been a bit interested in this stuff because it's
fun, but noticed organized skeptics' efforts starting in 1975, and in
1982 found a local group that intrigued and entertained me enough to
get involved with it. Maybe I was given a push when my congressman,
Leo Ryan, was murdered by a sometime faith-healer and his cult in
Guyana, in 1978.

KP: The first time I realized I had been duped by something. As a
child, I really wanted to believe in flying saucers, the Loch Ness
Monster, ghosts, and the like. At some point, I began to realize on
what a shoddy basis it all was built. Becoming skeptical was not,
however, a datable experience like being "born again": Skepticism is
something you grow into, as you learn about critical thinking.

=> What do skeptics think about spiritual matters? Are skeptics
atheists?

RM: No, skeptics basically aren't involved with religious issues, and
their own religious beliefs, in their private lives, are all over the
map. Religion is mostly concerned with questions like "what must I do
and not do" and "what must I take on pure faith". Skeptics AS SKEPTICS
are curious about claims (on the fringes of science) that can be
checked for evidence, not about morals or pure faith. However, some
matters of EVIDENCE that are CALLED religious, such as faith-healing
and so-called scientific creationism, are skeptics' business as
testable claims, rather than as religion.

JWN: Most skeptics I know are agnostic (atheist sounds like someone
actively opposing something and preaching about his/her belief), but
as a rule, skeptics don't interfere with others' beliefs or faith,
unless empirical claims are made (like weeping Madonnas, Indian
statues that can make women pregnant, or faith-healers using tricks,
or people who say they can fly). Non- interference with religion and
faith is more or less standard policy for skeptic organizations. An
exception is India, where lots of people proclaim themselves godmen on
the basis of simple magic tricks.

KP: Religious orientation varies with the individual. Some skeptics
hold religious beliefs; quite a few are agnostic. In my experience,
skeptics tend not to be dogmatic atheists, because being dogmatic
about anything goes against the skeptical attitude.

=> What do skeptics do that's constructive? Isn't skepticism a
negative concept?

RM: First, skeptics have fun looking at fringe claims to see if they
might have merit, and often actually hope they do. At worst, that's
harmless. Second, when skeptics do a good job, they help people avoid
wasting their time on notions that don't pan out. I'm grateful for
being steered away from wild-goose chases, aren't you? Sounds
constructive to me! Third, on rare occasions, we've confirmed that
we've actually saved lives. [Describe helping Randi with faith-healing
investigations. . . .]

JWN: They figure out what's behind all kinds of strange things.
Usually, reality is more wonderful than what's dreamt of in all
superstitious philosophies.

KP: T. H. Huxley said that someone who clears the weeds and thistles
from a field does service, just as much as someone who comes along
later and plants an edible plant or grain. So, skepticism is certainly
worthwhile. More than that, though, skeptics do many constructive
things, such as encouraging logic and critical thinking, and promoting
science education.

=> Shouldn't people have a right to believe whatever they want? Who
elected you thought police?

BL: I believe thought control occurs when misinformation is knowingly
propagated, depriving people of their right to base their beliefs on
the facts.

RM: Of course people should believe what they want, and skeptics
wouldn't want it any other way. Also, they CAN'T be thought police,
even if skeptics wanted to, since all they do is give out information
-- usually information most people haven't seen or thought about. If
anything is thought control, it would have to be DEPRIVING people of
skeptics' work and ideas. Skeptics want to give ALL explanations a
fair chance on their merits, while many less critical paranormal fans
don't. Who are the thought police, then?

JWN: We are more like a consumer's organization. We provide
information to anyone who is interested, and we challenge those who
are actively trying to sell worthless or doubtful information.

KP: Of course, anyone has a right to his own opinions, and no one
should be persecuted over personal beliefs. Skepticism is not a
religious movement to convert the unrighteous, nor are skeptics
busybodies out to set everyone else straight. Basically, we advocate
being an educated consumer in a huckster-filled marketplace of ideas.
People have a right to believe whatever they want, and skeptics have a
right to question it. Ours is a small voice, hardly anybody's "thought
police".

=> What do you get out of being a skeptic?

RM: Entertainment. An excellent chance to make a fool of myself in
public. On rare occasions, a suspicion that I might be doing someone
some good.

JWN: I meet interesting people. I find a way to explain about science
to people who would otherwise not be interested.

=> Skeptics want to give all explanations a fair chance on their
merits, while many less critical paranormal fans don't.

KP: I feel I am making a contribution to something I consider
important. I also admit to a mildly vindictive pleasure when I see
rip-off artists and con-men (by no means all those making paranormal
claims) exposed for what they are.

=> Isn't skepticism a closed-minded, dogmatic position? How can you
pretend to do impartial inquiry when you are logical
positivists/fundamentalist materialists/secular humanists/
reductionists/scientific realists . . . ?

RM: Look, if I partook of ALL the highly varied ideologies I've been
accused of mindlessly following as a skeptic, I'd be one horribly
confused little guy. However, this misses the point: Skeptics DON'T
ASK to be trusted on faith, based on their personal impeccability:
Things they say either have merit or don't, and you can judge that for
yourself. They AIM for impartial inquiry, but it's the RESULTS' merit,
not THEIR merit, that either stands on its own or doesn't. You be the
judge.

JWN: We don't like inquiry in matters of opinion: If someone says he
always knows in advance whether the baby is a boy or girl, some people
may think this nonsense, others believe it immediately, but the
skeptic would be interested in testing. (Often, scientists don't like
to do that, because they think it's a waste of time).

KP: These labels don't reflect the way skeptics are, but rather the
way true believers see or want to see them. To true believers, anyone
who even mildly questions their precious beliefs is not just wrong but
also a dogmatist or dangerous fanatic. Statements like this attempt to
brush aside skeptics' reasoning by attacking them personally. (One
would be hard pressed to find a single living, breathing logical
positivist on earth, today.)

Skeptics are open-minded, in that solid evidence DOES persuade them.
Having an open mind doesn't mean refusing to learn from experience:
After disproving 100 poltergeist cases, you hold out little hope for
case 101. Skeptics will be persuaded if the evidence warrants, but
have high standards for what they WILL believe.

=> Have you ever had what you considered a genuine psychic experience?
What would convince you that a particular claim is genuine?

BL: I've had a few intriguing experiences that I can't explain, and
that friends have adamantly labeled psychic, but I don't have the ego
to think that when I can't personally explain something, that means
it's contrary to the laws of nature! It's reasonable to ask a skeptic
what evidence would convince him of a particular claim's validity.
However, the focus should be on the weight of the evidence, itself:
The claim's validity doesn't hang on whether a particular skeptic is
convinced.

RM: I've had experiences I FOOLED MYSELF into thinking were genuinely
paranormal -- specifically deja vu sensations. I've also seen eerie
lights in the sky. The former are well-known quirks of brain function
that I didn't understand at the time, and the latter I never did chase
down, and no longer remember enough details. Those aside, as far as I
know, I've never had a paranormal experience -- yet. The point is that
I fool myself and jump to conclusions like anyone else, which is why
magicians love people like me as audiences. The point is NOT to claim
that people don't have anomalous experiences (they do), but rather to
find the best INTERPRETATION for them, instead of jumping for a
psychic one. [Tell story about Randi being amazed by Arthur G. Lintgen
successfully "reading" classical records' grooves.]

As far as a particular claim being genuine, I'd do my best on my own,
investigating it. Then, if it still looked interesting, I'd bow to
real expertise and find out what a VARIETY of people who REALLY know
the subject think. (That's where "skeptical" experts help, by adding
to the variety of views to consider.) I'd try to figure out how
preliminary the results are. I'd consider alternative interpretations.
In the end, I'd either say "yes", "no", or "I don't think we know yet"
-- judging each case uniquely.

JWN: No. The closest was a vivid dream of my mother the day after she
died. I'd be convinced by a recipe for a not too complicated
experiment that can be done by anybody and that consistently yields
the claimed results.

=> What about [cases of skeptics making intolerant statements;
lawsuits against skeptics; sundry controversies]?

RM: Well, first, skeptics aren't perfect: They lose patience, they
lose tempers, they make mistakes. They're also perceived as a threat
to some very lucrative businesses that don't appreciate critical
scrutiny. So, they must be extremely careful, and expect to pay dearly
if they mess up. Second, unfortunately, any crank or zealot can call
himself a skeptic, and some do. Therefore, SOME statements by
self-described skeptics I absolutely disavow. However, respectable
skeptics' GROUPS make every effort to get rid of people like that,
make amends for their misdeeds, and distance the groups from them.
This is far more than you see from uncritical fringe-science groups,
and what more can one do?

KP: As with all organizations, many people who call themselves
skeptics make statements not in keeping with skeptical ideals, and
they SHOULD be criticized by other skeptics. However, intolerance
among skeptics is unquestionably less common than some claim: Often,
the very act of questioning cherished belief systems is automatically
labeled intolerance. It is NOT intolerant to criticize shoddy
thinking, poor logic, fallacies, and manufactured evidence. If that's
intolerance, then I'm happy to admit that I'm intolerant.



ANOTHER GRAND PICNIC
by John Taube

It couldn't be done! The Baumgartners tried to outdo their previous
bar-b-que/picnics -- and the August one of this year was just great.

The picnic grounds were good; the food was, as usual, super. Moen's
pies were the highlight of the dessert table. Sperling, Henvick, and
Steiner, the main thrust of the entertainment, were really good,
again.

However, it rained on our picnic! I said that I was not going to take
a chance again, and, on the NEXT picnic, was going to come prepared
and bring my overcoat. I was one of the Chicken Littles who went home
when the rain came.

Well, John, leave your overcoat home, next time. Carol Baumgartner,
our neophyte psychic who got her training at the CSICOP workshop in
Eugene, tells us that she can influence weather, and can guarantee a
perfect day for us.

[Editor comments: Maybe somebody was trying to tell us something!
After a clear summer morning, a freak thunderstorm descended on us,
just as the feast got underway -- with actual lightning strikes to the
ground visible right in the park. Understandably, more than half the
attendees beat a hasty retreat to their cars, but the remainder struck
out for the adjacent elementary school's covered walkways, for the
magic show and al fresco banquet. Magicians Henvick and Steiner were
duly accused of arranging all the flashy special effects, but nothing
could be pinned on them.

No sooner did the picnic wind down than the storm disappeared
completely: Some thirty slightly damp, overstuffed picnickers emerged
to blink at the suddenly bright sunshine. (Calling Charles Fort!) This
bit of Technicolor weirdness notwithstanding, everyone had a wonderful
time. Be certain to come next year: There's something for everyone,
including us dessert-hounds.]



"I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education."
                                    -- Wilson Mizner



NESSIE EMIGRATES?

"Unsolved Mysteries" of Wednesday 23 September featured a segment on
the Lake Champlain (New York) "monster". Did we see good, clear photos
of the beastie? Take a wild guess.

No, according to skeptic David Bloomberg: What we saw was a bit of
video footage showing nothing more than bumps in the water, which the
witnesses were nonetheless SURE were really a GROUP of monsters! One
of the photographers claimed that a monster raised its head out and
STARED RIGHT AT HER, but the camera was pointed the wrong way. Darn!
Don't you hate it when that happens?

The prize evidence in this case, though, was a print photo from a
woman who, we are told, was so embarrassed that she threw the negative
away, retaining only the print. Fortunately, she overcame this shyness
long enough to provide the latter to a visiting "researcher", who then
made it public. (BAS will gladly hold people's embarrassing
cryptozoological negatives for them, to help ward off all those nasty
suspicious types suggesting that PHOTO HOAXES might be easier without
inconvenient scrutiny of the original film.)

Narrator Robert Stack intoned to the viewers that there were numerous
other sightings, just after the picture was published. Imagine that!



MA NATURE'S WAKE-UP CALL

Bay Area Skeptics has made something of a tradition of unsportingly
reviewing the accuracy of psychic predictions AFTER the fact, in
"BASIS's" much-quoted year-end articles. Naturally, we get lots of
California earthquake predictions.

Just to get a head-start on the whole affair, here are a couple from
clairvoyant Gordon-Michael Scallion of New Hampshire (a safe distance,
one assumes): His newsletter claims that Sonoma County's due for a bit
of rockin' and rollin' by September 28th (a Richter 7.8, give or take
0.4), and San Diego will get a 7.1 by October 14th. Scallion says he
pegged the Florida hurricane in advance, bang-on, and claims in
general such accuracy that the U.S. Geological Survey and National
Weather Service might as well retire now and save face.

You can see all this for yourself, you closed-minded scoffers, by
sending a note to the Matrix Institute, RR1 Box 391, Westmoreland, NH
03467 (tel. [phone]). Best of all is his color, 22"x34" "Future
Map of the United States". Suffice it to say that you'll be able to
get beach-front property in Denver, and Atlantis will be making a
comeback, just off Miami. Just $11.95. "Not Sold in Stores!" The map
comes annotated with "Early Warning Signs, Migration Regions,
Political Changes, Weather Insights", etc. Great stuff!

Better ScotchGard it, though: If Scallion's giving us the straight
dope, you could be in for a truly horrendous mildew problem.



EUROSKEPTICS BOOK AVAILABLE

Last October 4-5, in Amsterdam, the Dutch group "Stichting Skepsis"
hosted a landmark gathering of speakers on fringe-science topics from
all over Europe, plus some very familiar American names. Now, just
hitting the printing presses is the resulting book, "Science or
Pseudo? The Mars Effect and Other Claims: Proceedings of the Third
EuroSkeptics Congress," edited by Jan Willem Nienhuys. While this 200+
page English-language volume had not yet been released at this
writing, the list of topics sounds very promising. To quote from the
editor:

      Read articles by Kurtz, Hines and Randi. The inside story on
      crop circles. The last word about the famous Mars effect of
      Gauquelin and the amazing defense of Madame Françoise
      Schneider-Gauquelin! The saga of a successful rebuttal of a
      creationist claim, the value of psychotherapy, and what you
      wanted to know about quantum mechanics (but were afraid to ask).

The price of this work will be DFL 25.00, including shipping -- which
works out at this date to a bit less than $16.00. (I'm sure a gift of
four more dollars would be appreciated by Stichting Skepsis.) Payment
can be made by VISA, MasterCard, Eurocard, Diners Club, or American
Express (no checks, please), and should be mailed to J.W. Nienhuys,
Dommelseweg 1A, 5581 VA Waalre, The Netherlands, OR sent by fax to
011-31-40436685 or 011-31-40463992, marked to the attention of J.W.
Nienhuys. You must include your card number, expiration date, your
signature, and a statement that you want the EuroSkeptics book at an
amount of at least DFL 25.00.

A listing of the presentations follows: In the Eye of the Beholder:
The Psychology of Paranormal Belief (Paul Kurtz), The World According
to Quantum Mechanics (J. Hilgevoord), Should the State Interfere in
Paranormal Practices? (Steven F. Hartkamp), Skeptics and
Parapsychologists. Let's Cooperate! (Rob H. Nanninga), The Struggle of
Alternative Medicine for Recognition (Wim Betz), Science in Everyday
Life (M. Heap), Placebo Practitioners (Terence Hines),
Psychotherapists as Native Healers from Park Avenue to Borneo (Terence
Hines), Looking for a Witness of the Flood (Michael E. Howgate), A
Pedagogical Project of Paranormal Research in an Engineering School
(Claudio Benski), A Test of Dowsing Claims in Kassel. Aims, Methods,
Results (Robert Koenig, Juergen Moll, James Randi, and Amardeo Sarma),
Crop Circle Expertise (Martin Hempstead), Introduction to the Mars
Effect (J.W. Nienhuys), Spurious Periodicities in Planetary
Correlations and the Mars Effect (Cornelis de Jager and Rieks Jager),
Circannual and Circadian Biological Rhythms in Relation to Eminency
(P.H. Jongbloet), The Mars Effect Unriddled (Carl E. Koppeschaar),
Mars Effect Survives Critique of Dutch Skeptics (Suitbert Ertel),
Examining Rational Explanations of the Mars Effect (Françoise
Schneider-Gauquelin).

This appears to be one to get and keep handy as a reference!



"Nothing so much needs reforming as other people's habits."
                                    -- Mark Twain



WELCOME FROM THE NORTH TEXAS SKEPTICS
by John Blanton

To all attending the October CSICOP Conference in Dallas: The members
of the North Texas Skeptics welcome you.

We are proud to be hosting the conference this year, and we look
forward to seeing you at the Conference. The NTS will have a desk set
up in the lobby, at which you will be able to obtain:

1. Information about the NTS.
2. Help and assistance in finding your way around the Dallas area.
3. A daily information sheet about the Conference.
4. Messages left there by others trying to contact you.

If we can be of any assistance prior to the conference, please
contact, me, John Blanton, Secretary, North Texas Skeptics, P.O. Box
111794, Carrollton, TX 75011-1794, (214) 416- 8038, signing for: Joe
Voelkering (President), Laura Ainsworth (Vice President), Mark Meyer
(Treasurer), Ron Hastings (Director), and Mary O'Grady (Director).



EDITORIAL: WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT "FATE"

This month, we are in the quite delightful position of having TOO MANY
GOOD ARTICLES TO PRINT (but don't stop writing!). So, many things will
have to be delayed to November, and this editorial will be a short
one. Last month's promise to start surveying the Bay Area's often
wild-and-woolly New Age institutions (a daunting task!) will, in
particular, have to be put off for a month. What we DO CONTINUE to
need is local stories and newspaper clippings. Please consider
starting (for BAS's benefit) a "weird things" file: I'll photocopy and
return your submissions, and will greatly appreciate your help.

Judging from the response to my first issue (9/92), I seemed to have
annoyed a couple of people and satisfactorily entertained the rest --
which I would call an auspicious start, suitable for building on. So,
in that same spirit, I'd like to say a few appreciative (if
judiciously qualified) words on behalf of "Fate" magazine.

It would seem safe to observe that "Fate" -- a venerable
pro-paranormal/spiritualist monthly founded in 1948 by pulp sci-fi
editor and UFO-yarn promoter Raymond A. Palmer -- doesn't care ONE BIT
for skeptics. It published in 1981 Dennis Rawlins's extremely long,
rambling anti-CSICOP rant, "sTARBABY", and every issue, without fail,
has had one or more angry reference to us nasty, evil, closed-minded
(if not government-paid) skeptics, sometimes descending into
more-than-tacky personal attacks.

Ignoring this fixation, which gets a little tedious, "Fate" always has
interesting articles from the whole range of fringe-science claims,
and the ads alone make it worth a peek. (A future issue of "BASIS"
will almost certainly review this magazine properly.) The September
"Fate", though, has something truly praiseworthy: a broad-minded but
tough and well-researched DEBUNKING OF PSYCHIC CON ARTISTS by Bay Area
parapsychologist and conjurer Loyd Auerbach, in his regular column,
"Psychic Frontiers".

The article describes in detail one variety of gypsy-style
psychic-reading confidence scam, of the sort that annually take untold
amounts of money from victims impressed by simple magic tricks.
Auerbach, trained as an anthropologist and a student of genuine Gypsy
culture, points out in passing that the perpetrators are usually not
Gypsy at all, and that these cons are hardly unique to that culture.
Then he goes on to powerfully warn readers against some of the classic
signs of psychic cons: cold readings, sudden needs for cash (that
often mysteriously vanishes) to appease spirits, and so on.

Above all else, Auerbach warns against throwing away one's
decision-making faculties, when consulting spiritual advisors: "Beware
of giving up responsibility for your own life to anyone else", he
says. He closes with the hope that those seeing psychics will "do so
with a bit of discrimination, and will consider carefully any and all
instructions and advice given by the `reader'."

I ask you: Isn't this a rare and fine public service? Writing to the
audience some would say needs it more than most, in fair-minded
language it will listen to, Auerbach delivered a powerful (and
EMPOWERING) lesson in how not to be taken. I think this is worthy of
our respect and admiration.



POPULAR NUTRITIONAL PRACTICES
Reviewed by Michelle Renee Dick

Here's a book for those who enjoy critical analysis of fringe and
pseudo-science. This one is on the subject of nutrition.

TITLE: Popular Nutritional Practices: Sense and Nonsense.
AUTHOR: Jack Z. Yetiv, M.D., Ph.D.
PUBLISHER: Dell Publishing. (Gee, I'm surprised Prometheus didn't grab
this one.)
YEAR: 1986, 1988. (6 years old? How did I miss it for so long?)

Covers homeopathy, herb treatment, food additives, fad diets,
cholesterol cures, megavitamins, vegetarianism, and much more. There's
a whole chapter on that dynamic duo, Pearson and Shaw, a fun few pages
on (Un)Fit for Life, and a short discussion on the appropriateness of
super-low-fat diets a la Pritiken (5-10% fat diets).

I loved the section on Fit for Life. Lots of hilarious quotes from
Diamond's book, and a little info on Mr. Diamond's "doctorate in
nutritional science from the American College of Health Science in
Austin, Texas." A quotation from the book:

      ". . . [T]his institution is not even allowed to grant degrees
      in Texas -- the degrees have to come out of Mexico. . . .
      Furthermore, Texas has required this correspondence `school' to
      remove the word `college' from its title. . . . [All] that is
      necessary to get a `doctorate in nutritional science' is the
      payment of $1250 and the taking of a series of tests consisting
      of open-book questions. . . . [T]he only people that have
      flunked this program `are people who really couldn't read and
      write that well."

What a riot!



HELP WANTED
by John Taube

One important but little-recognized position in BAS is that of meeting
coordinator. Kate Talbot has been handling this position for some
time, and our interesting meetings are testimony to her success. Kate
is planning an extensive trip, and BAS needs someone to temporarily
take over her duties.

Kate contacted many people without success. While Kate is gone, we
will be working it this way: Everyone associated with BAS, either
actively or as a subscriber to "BASIS", must consider him/herself as
part of the staff of meeting coordinator.

Maybe you have in mind some particular person who would make a good
speaker. The person must be qualified to speak on any paranormal
subject, any rip-off, or any science subject related to the fringes of
science. We ask that you forward article(s) or other information
on/about the person, and, if possible, an address/phone number. Send
information to John Taube, 55 Chumasero 7E, San Francisco 94132, phone
[phone]. Be sure to include your name and phone number.

We also would appreciate all information about meeting places anywhere
in the Bay Area that might be available free of charge. Please try to
find such a place, and, if you do, contact the above.



CROP CIRCLE SOLUTION?
by Gary Posner, M.D.

[Ed. note: This article first appeared in Tampa Bay Skeptics' journal,
"TBS Report", of which Posner is editor.]

Two bipedal humanoids have come forward to claim responsibility for
the genesis of the "Crop Circle" craze. Initially appearing as simple
circles confined to British wheat fields, the phenomenon has in recent
years become world-wide, with increasingly intricate geometric
patterns being found in increasingly remote areas. As previously
reported in "TBS Report," Richard Hoagland, author of "The Monuments
of Mars" (and now the former "Science Advisor" to Chuck Harder's "For
the People" radio program), claims to have found mathematical proof
that the Martian "monuments" and the crop circles are related, and are
conveying a message about the existence of an easily tapped
fourth-dimensional source of free energy, rendering fossil fuels (and
even solar cells) obsolete.

To illustrate their point, Bower and Chorley, using their trusty, if
primitive, wooden boards (and accompanied by a reporter), created a
crop circle that author and self-styled expert Patrick Delgado
declared the genuine article. Later confessing the obvious (that he
had been duped in this instance), Delgado protested, "Yesterday, there
were circles discovered on a prairie in Canada. Have these guys been
out there with their board?"

Delgado's associate, Colin Andrews, [Ed. note: Andrews and Delgado are
authors of the leading book on crop circles, "Circular Evidence".] has
been a bit more outspoken than his colleague. Appearing with Bower and
Chorley on "Good Morning America", on September 10, Andrews railed:
"These gentlemen cannot begin to account for the change in the
crystalline structure of the plants . . . . They cannot explain what
we have on film: the unusual objects seen actually in these crop
circles . . . . It is most disturbing that . . . an irresponsible
intrusion into this research, in the form of what appears to be a
[British] national newspaper coup . . . has seen fit to go along with
these gentlemen who . . . showed how clever they were in constructing
a circle that was a mess in every respect . . . nothing like the
phenomenon we've been looking at for the last 12 years."



AT A LOSS FOR A PROPHET

There's a long tradition of off-season April Fools pranks on the
electronic mail forums. Occasionally, someone pulls a wonderful one on
the Usenet Skeptics' forum (sci.skeptic), and we saw a beauty this
past September 12th. The best part of this is the totally serious
replies that immediately appeared, CRITICIZING SAVASTIO'S TRANSLATION,
totally missing the hilarious disclaimers at the bottom, and the other
broad tip-offs in the text. See, superior-grade street theater can be
as close as your computer screen!

From: Michael Savastio
Re: Did Nostradamus predict the end of communism?

Richard Long wrote: "Nostradamus's `Seventy-three years and seven
months' in quatrain B.44 may mean the duration of the communistic
regime in Russia. What does the original quatrain say?"

Here is the quatrain of Nostradamus that foretells the fall of
communism:

Original French:

Nous sommes ici, mais ou sont tes amis, Alice
La bas, sur l'herbe.
Qui est le garcon en maillot rouge?
C'est Guy, mon cousin. Et le garcon sous l'arbre est son compain.

My Translation:

A man with a map on his forehead shall rise and fall.
Once a king, now he waits in line for toilet paper and chicken feet.
The old man who rides the great eagle called it the evil empire.
Three-score and thirteen years, and now bleeding-heart liberals are
    calling it the same.

You'll have to forgive the lack of meter in my translation. I believe
it is more important to capture the author's intent than to make it
sound nice.

As you can see, this quatrain (along with every other one written by
Nostradamus) leaves a lot of room for speculation. You could say it
refers to the fall of the Soviet Union, if you use your imagination,
but I'm not totally convinced myself.



THE SKEPTIC'S BOARD BBS

Public computer access to worldwide and
continent-wide discussion conferences, and
worldwide e-mail through the Internet. Free
of charge.

[phone] (San Mateo exchange), parameters 8N1.
NOTE: THIS IS A NEW NUMBER!

Speeds: 2400 through 14400 bps (V.32bis or HST).



BAY AREA SKEPTICS

Chair: Norman Sperling
Vice-Chair: OPEN
Secretary: Wilma Russell
Treasurer: Lucinda Ben-David
Directors: Barbara Bowman, Shawn Carlson, Larry Loebig, Rick Moen,
Eugenie Scott, Kate Talbot
"BASIS" staff:
Rick Moen: Editor
Wilma Russell: Distribution
Kate Talbot: Meeting Coordinator



BAS ADVISORS

William J. Bennetta, Scientific Consultant
Dean Edell, M.D., ABC Medical Reporter
Donald Goldsmith, Ph.D., Astronomer and Attorney
Earl Hautala, Research Chemist
Alexander Jason, Investigative Consultant
Thomas H. Jukes, Ph.D., U. C. Berkeley
John E. McCosker, Ph.D., Director, Steinhart Aquarium
Diane Moser, Science writer
Richard J. Ofshe, Ph.D.,U. C. Berkeley
Bernard Oliver, Ph.D., NASA Ames Research Center
Kevin Padian, Ph.D., U. C. Berkeley
James Randi, Magician, Author, Lecturer
Francis Rigney, M.D., Pacific Presbyterian Med. Center
Wallace I. Sampson, M.D., Stanford University
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., Anthropologist
Robert Sheaffer, Technical Writer, UFO expert
Robert A. Steiner, CPA, Magician, Lecturer, Writer
Ray Spangenburg, Science writer
Jill C. Tarter, Ph.D., U. C. Berkeley



CALENDAR
October meeting . . .
FLEECING THE FLOCK

WHO: Don Henvick, Investigator
WHERE: El Cerrito Library
WHEN: Wednesday, 21 October
TIME: 7:30 pm

Don Henvick was part of a faith-healing investigation team headed by
James (The Amazing) Randi. To avoid detection, Henvick donned five
different disguises, and the self-proclaimed faith healers "cured" him
of "illnesses". The first and second healers cured him of "broken-home
syndrome" and "alcoholism"; the third of arthritic conditions, the
fourth of a prostate condition and arthritis; the fifth (with Henvick
in drag) of uterine cancer and edema. Henvick had none of these
diseases -- certainly not uterine cancer. Henvick and the team want it
understood that they are not anti-religious.

The El Cerrito Public Library is at 6510 Stockton Ave. From Route
80, take the Central Ave. exit (the third exit north of University
Ave.). Go east about three blocks and turn left on San Pablo Ave.,
continue three blocks and turn right on Stockton. The library is on
the right in the third block.

Watch for coming events in the BAS CALENDAR, or call 510-LA TRUTH
for up-to-the-minute details on events. If you have ideas about
topics or speakers leave a message on the hotline.

WARNING: We STRONGLY URGE that you call the hotline shortly before
attending any Calendar activity to see if there have been any
changes.



                             -----

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 October, 1992 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, 17723 Buti Park Ct., Castro Valley, CA 94546-1413, or by
leaving a message on "The Skeptic's Board" BBS (415-572-0359) or on
the 510-LA-TRUTH (voice) hotline.

Copyright (C) 1992 BAY AREA SKEPTICS. Reprints must credit "BASIS,
newsletter of the Bay Area Skeptics, 17723 Buti Park Ct., Castro
Valley, CA 94546-1413."

                             -END-