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



LUNACY ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
by Shawn Carlson

[Physicist and BAS board member Shawn Carlson has incurred the ire of
astrologers world-wide with his study, which was published in that
most prestigious scientific journal, "Nature". In that definitive
study, Shawn demonstrated that astrologers cannot do what they say
they can do, pure and simple.

Shawn's efforts for the cause of rationality are a boon to our
purposes. People in the media are taking note of him and seeking his
analyses and comments.  -- Ed.]

What is it about California anyway? Does all this year-round sunshine
and fair weather make people crazy? Perhaps  the Chamber of Commerce,
in an attempt to add color to our lives, takes ads in asylums across
the country offering all certifiable kooks eternal happiness if they
migrate here and multiply. How did California, once renowned for its
industry and prestigious universities, become the international
smorgasbord of lunacy?

First it was Shirley MacLaine telling us of her torrid trysts with
spirits from Atlantis. Then last August came the Harmonic Convergence,
which involved, among many other silly things, throngs of New Agers,
crystal gazers and time-warped, tie-dyed, mantra-chanting hippie
people seeking God on the slopes of Mt. Shasta. And now, just when
the Golden State is bracing itself for a fall -- again -- into the
ocean, we learn that our own Nancy Reagan regularly consults a
California occultist about the President's agenda.

Don't laugh too hard. Millions of Americans take astrology very
seriously. Some people use astrologers as psychotherapists. Others
decide whether to get married, to enter into a business deal, or when
to have children on the basis of astrological counseling. Others use
astrologers to discover where on the earth the astrological influences
would be better for them and then move, even emigrate, to a prescribed
location. Still others seek out astrologers to advise them about
medical conditions, and even about treatment. Yes, astrology, that
ancient inanity that was part of the "dark" of the Dark Ages, is alive
and well in the 1980's.

Despite the fact that most astrologers who give psychological
counseling have no training in counseling and most who advise on
medical issues have no medical expertise whatsoever, astrologers  are
usually well compensated for their advice. A typical session, lasting
about an hour, can cost between $50 to $1,000. In fact, astrological
counseling is estimated to be a 100-million-dollar-per-year industry
in the United States alone. And when one  considers the enormous
revenue generated from the sales of hun-dreds of thousands of
astrology books and magazines one thing becomes clear: Astrology is
big business.

Surprisingly, many people who secretly snicker at astrologers don't
overtly object to their trade. After all, they reason, what harm could
these dopey prognosticators possibly do? I Have professionally
investigated the business and practice of astrology for some years
now, and the answer is plain: Plenty! The scientific evidence is
direct and overwhelming. Astrology is nonsense. But if people take
this nonsense seriously; if they uproot and relocate to where the
astrological influences are supposedly more favorable; if they delay
getting urgently-needed medical treatment; if they put their faith in
an occult counselor's ability to discern their problems they clearly
risk serious personal, emotional and financial injury. And if you
don't accept that astrology is a danger because you can't believe
that anyone could really take this stuff seriously, I have letters
from believers who have responded to articles like this I have had
published.

But what about this mysterious mystic whose occult advice has
clandestinely influenced our illustrious President? Joan Quigely
describes herself as a scientific astrologer, touts her work as
"highly technical," and makes much of the fact that she is a Vasser
grad. This class-of-'47, art/history major is author of "Astrology
for Teens" which, as the name suggests, is neither technical nor
scientific. Another book, "Astrology for Adults", requires perhaps a
ninth-grade education to read. This one ain't so technical either. In
fact, the only technical aspect  of a modern astrologer's livelihood
is the use of a computer to  calculate horoscopes. Loading pre-written
software, keying in  someone's birth date and pressing the return key
does not a technologist make.

I am annoyed. Particularly with astrologers who promote their malarkey
by rubbing shoulders with science while shirking what science has
discovered about their craft. I'm annoyed at mystics who seduce a
credulous public with their oh so scientific-sounding jargon and who
awe the uninformed with such torrents of astro-babel as to dull even
the sharpest mind into thinking that there may be something to this
nonsense.

Sorry Joan, but no one could be scientifically competent,
knowledgeable of the evidence and still think that astrologers  can
perform the service for which they receive their large fees.

What Joan lacks in scientific competence she certainly makes up for in
business acumen. She has parlayed her astrological expertise into an
extremely successful enterprise. The Nob Hill  soothsayer reportedly
receives $5,000 per horoscope -- not bad for ancient superstition --
and she acknowledges that the First Lady pays for her services. Now my
deep-seated cynicism makes me  wonder.... Donald Regan says that every
day on the President's  calendar, 365 days a year, was marked by the
First Lady's  direction according to how astrologically auspicious it
was.  Marking out each day for the President must have required Joan
to do an awful lot of horoscoping. Now let's suppose that Nancy
consulted her astrologer only once a month. At $5000 a pop, that's
$60K a year and almost half a million dollars since Reagan took
office. Who's paying for this meandering excursion into rubbish
anyway, Nancy Reagan or us?

Nancy Reagan is in the enviable position of having the greatest
experts in the world no further than a phone call away. But did our
intrepid First Lady bother to talk to any scientists before setting
sail into the arcane? Did she find out that the forces on a baby from
the planets at the moment of birth are dwarfed by those of the
doctor, the hospital building and passing buses? Did she learn that
many prestigious astrologers have been tested numerous times under
scientifically controlled conditions -- and always failed? Did she
discover the fact that astrologers' track records are abysmal? No.
Nancy Reagan did not avail herself of this nation's scientific
expertise. She chose instead to ignore all the evidence,  abandon
reason and indulge in astro-fantasy. "Time" paints her as an "astro-
junky" who needed the security of her regular astrological fix in
order to perform her role in the White House. Nancy insists that she
isn't embarrassed by these recent revelations. She should be.

Such trysts with idiocy won't matter a year from now when the First
Lady is plain-ol' Nancy Reagan again. But now, like it or  not, her
husband is still the leader of the Free World. By indulging Nancy's
obsession, and thereby tacitly endorsing the occult in Government,
Ronald Reagan is shirking his public trust to govern this land
responsibly. Those who govern must make decisions based on reason and
understanding, not soothsaying. To fulfill his oath of office he must
have the respect of Congress and world leaders. That takes dynamic
leadership, not reliance on omens and signs. Occult practices simply
have no place in governing a modern democracy.

What I find most upsetting is the message that this whole affair sends
to our young people. The Reagans are role models whom our future
voters, leaders and entrepreneurs must be able to respect and emulate.
When Gallup polls show that more than 55% of high school and college
students think that there is something to astrology, the recent
disclosures about astrology in the White House can only enhance public
credulity. When voters are asked to make informed and intelligent
decisions about complicated issues, encouraging occult irrationality
does little to serve the public good. The White House has sent the
message that it's OK to let occultists help run your life but the
scientific evidence is clear: Astrology has nothing to say about your
character, temperament, personality or future. Acting on astrological
advice is likely to be a prescription for disaster.

Nancy, next time an occultist offers you and Ron advice do us all a
favor... Just say no.



KOKO SMOOCHA WANT
by Robert Sheaffer

As the 1980s draw to a close, more women than ever before are uneasily
listening to their biological clocks ticking away loudly, and for Koko
it is quite the same, even though she is a gorilla. At age 17, she is
approaching a gorilla's middle age, nearing the end of her
reproductive years. However, what sets Koko apart from just ANY old
gorilla is her alleged mastery of inter- and intra-species
communication using a modified sign language, although this has not
been demonstrated in a way which is convincing to knowledgeable
critics such as Drs. Herbert Terrace, Thomas Sebeok, and Norm Chomsky,
all of them experts in the field of communications and language, and
has not been sufficiently validated for acceptance by refereed
scientific journals. (Those scientific journals are always  SO closed-
minded when wonders such as this are reported. They want to see
evidence which is tangible and conclusive!) It is therefore left to
the popular press to inform the public about such miracles, a
responsibility in which they have not been remiss. The loquacious
Koko can allegedly tell us, in her own words, just what is on her
mind, provided that her trainer, Dr. Penny Patterson, is on hand to
translate for her.

While Koko is no doubt the center of attention at The Gorilla
Foundation, a converted trailer on a fog-swept mountain ridge in
Woodside, at the summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains, life is
nonetheless bittersweet for her there. She has everything a gorilla
could want, except one. "Want gorilla baby," Koko is now telling all
and sundry, especially if they happen to be reporters; the San Jose
"Mercury News" carried two different stories on Koko's heartache this
spring. Desperately striving to keep alive the oral tradition of
clever apes (the manual tradition?), Koko seems so concerned about
passing on her linguistic skills to her offspring that she is now
said to spend much of her time practicing teaching signing to her
dolls. She has also been complaining for some time about the chilly
and often damp climate of the mountain forest, but Patterson's pleas
of Koko's plight has thus far failed to bring in sufficient funds to
move the entire operation to hopefully more permanent quarters
someplace warmer.

The oddest thing about the dilemma is that Koko lives with Michael, a
perfectly healthy male gorilla, who unfortunately shows no sexual
interest in her. This might not seem too strange -- it has been
suggested that they perhaps regard each other as brother and sister --
but you would think that somebody could EXPLAIN the situation to
Michael. For Michael, you see, is ALSO a clever ape, perhaps not as
accomplished linguistically as Koko, possibly because he spends a good
deal of  time under physical restraint owing to his unpredictable and
sometimes dangerous behavior. Nonetheless, Michael's purported
signing has also been cited as proof of simian loquacity. It would
seem that Ms. Patterson could take advantage of the communication
skills she has developed in her charges and ask Michael for his
cooperation in this matter. It is, after all, a proposal not without
some benefit to him. Perhaps she could sign for him some appropriate
passages from Masters and Johnson, or possibly the Kama Sutra. They
have already tried showing Michael X-rated gorilla films, in which he
seems to show no interest.  Perhaps a smutty story in sign language
might be more appropriate.

Failing that, one would think that Koko should easily be able to
explain her longings to him, frank communications being no less
important among gorillas than any other modern couple. Koko seems to
understand the mechanics of the reproductive process well enough; she
lifts her doll to her nipples, points, and reportedly signs "drink
there." Why she has not been able to convey a similarly direct
anatomical suggestion to Michael, instructing him as necessary in the
matter of birds and bees, is a mystery that no mere human can
understand. We shall have to wait for the gorillas to explain it to
us.



HYPOTHESES VS. SPECULATION
by George O'Brien

A year ago I attended a meeting where a proponent of psi made a
comment that he was not claiming that psi exists, only that he treats
it as a working hypothesis. He made it sound so reasonable; it's just
an hypothesis, right? Wrong!

It's one thing for laypersons to misuse terms like "hypothesis" or
"theory" when they mean speculation, but for someone with any pretense
of being a scientist, the term hypothesis has a very special meaning.
I will go so far as to suggest that the easiest way to spot
pseudoscience is to determine if there really IS an hypothesis. (By
the way, this is speculation.)

An hypothesis is a statement which conforms to specific rules. While
there may be circumstances where one or two of the rules are absent,
the violation of most of these rules is a signal one is dealing in
speculation rather than an hypothesis.

-- Proper definition:  A proper definition has a genus and a
differentium. A genus is simply a criterion which shows what is
included in the definition, while the differentia exclude what is not
within the definition. For example, if "man" is defined as a
"featherless-furless biped" (a classic Aristotelian definition), the
genus would be all bipeds and the differentia would be "featherless-
furless." A man covered with fur from head to toe or a plucked turkey
would be exceptions to the definition. If exceptions to the definition
can be found, it must be revised.

-- Logical:  For an hypothesis to be logical, it must be internally
consistent and must follow from the assumptions given (see below). It
is not necessary for an hypothesis to immediately make sense or to be
reasonable, since new ideas often seem strange. However, if a
statement is internally inconsistent, it will never make sense.

-- Explicit assumptions:  An hypothesis may require modification of
several aspects of currently accepted theory, so the nature of those
changes will have to be defined for the hypothesis to be accepted.
Pseudoscientists often seems willing to throw in all kinds of
speculation and assumptions after the fact whenever they are
challenged.

-- Basis:  An hypothesis does not come from thin air. There needs to
be some evidence or at least some logical inference from other
evidence as a starting point. A statement that there are little green
men on Mars does not qualify as an hypothesis until there is some
evidence from which to start. An hypothesis can be rejected if the
basis from which it was formed is demonstrably erroneous.

-- Falsifiable:  This is the favorite of skeptics; an hypothesis must
be subject to tests which could mean the hypothesis fails. An
hypothesis may be modified to take into account the circumstances of
a failure (removal of various external factors, etc.), but the new
hypothesis must also be falsifiable.

-- Independent verifiability:  It should not be necessary to take
someone's word about the evidence.

-- Positive statement:  An hypothesis is a positive statement, meaning
that the person making the statement has the burden of proof. It is
not enough to attack an opposing position (as is the case with
scientific creationism) or to insist something is true because no one
can prove the hypothesis wrong.

This is not to deny the validity of various speculations. Philosophy
and much of social science ends up being speculation because of the
nature of the subjects being investigated. However, by virtue of
their very claims, pseudoscientific topics must be subject to the
rules of scientific inquiry.

If a scientific claim is to be treated seriously, the first step is to
make a real hypothesis.



RAMPARTS

Ramparts is a regular feature of "BASIS", and your participation is
urged. Clip, snip and tear bits of irrationality from your local scene
and send them to the Editor.  If you want to add some comment with the
submission, please do so.)

Is there a modicum of sanity in the Pentagon? All that talk we hear of
how they are spending our millions chasing that wil-o'-the-wisp "psi"
has resulted in something any of us could have told them for half the
price: it don't work, boys.

Evidently, the Army, frustrated by defeated efforts, employed psychics
to help find General James Dozier in 1981 when the Italian Red
Brigade kidnaped him. The exercise was a minor disaster and generally
embarrassed the generals.

Never to learn from their mistakes, hundreds of thousands of dollars
have been spent on such new-age nonsense as Project Jedi in which
marksmen tried to learn to shoot, a la Han Solo: without looking!
Another fiasco resulted with the Ultimate Spy research which was
launched when the military thought that the Russians, as learned from
defectors, were developing remote viewing. The generals wanted to
have our people shuck their trench coats and go on out-of-body forays
into the Soviet Union and just snoop wherever their out-of-bodies
wanted to go.

This whole thing was probably started by those clever commies as a way
for us to waste time and money on perfectly harmless drivel.

                       **************

The newspapers are still cranking out tons of stuff about the new
presidential star wars. And most of it has been highly critical of the
administration and therefore indirectly critical of astrology in
general. In what is some of the more penetrating observations of the
state of state, Ellen Goodman of the "Chronicle" reflects, "In
general, these [aversion to science] attitudes fall on friendly
American turf, because most of us today share not only a touch of
superstition but a bushel of [anti-]science skepticism.

"But at the outer edges, this skepticism about science easily turns
into a kind of naive acceptance of non-science, or even nonsense. The
same people who doubt experts can also believe any quackery, from the
benefits of laetrile to eye of newt to the movement of planets. We
lose the capacity to discriminate, to make rational -- scientific --
judgments. It's all the same."

Congratulations, Ms. Goodman.

                       **************

A reader, perhaps too ashamed to send his or her name, mailed sections
of the "NEWS", a supermarket tabloid of phantasmagoria, about the
alleged capture of bigfoot and a crashed UFO, both events occurring in
Russia. (No need to be so reticent; we all pick through those things
at checkout time.)

It seems this good stuff always comes down in the Soviet Union, safely
distant and locked behind an iron curtain. The captured  cousin to
Yeti is only 5 feet tall -- a little big foot. The story has a Dr.
Shalnev, a Soviet zoologist, saying,  "Frankly, we're just a little
bit disappointed in these findings."

"BASIS" was a little more than disappointed -- we expected to run a
photo of this mini monster for you, but the best the "NEWS" could do
for us was an "artist's conception." We guess it is not surprising
since it would be so hard to smuggle photos out of Russia.

So how did they manage to spirit out the photos of the Soviet
surgeons, operating on the crew of the saucer that crashed in
Siberia? The published photo from the O.R. was taken from about two
feet off the floor. Too bad the photog couldn't have lifted the
camera just a little so we could take a peek at the specimen on the
table. Probably was taken by a Don Adams' hidden-shoe camera so the
film could be secreted to the West.

And who donated blood for the operations? What anatomy course did the
intrepid surgeons take to know that the object they thought was a
clot, and removed, wasn't really the hapless creature's  heart? Seems
like it would be like 15-year olds operating on us.

It's for sure the rescued spacemen will be grateful to their saviors
and will repay the Ruskies handsomely with some high tech that will
put SDI to shame.

We don't have a chance, so you just as well start learning Russian.



APRIL MEETING
by Ivan Linderman

ARCHAEOLOGY AND REMOTE VIEWING: Good-bye Columbus

Mr. Marco Maniketti was introduced rather hurriedly, but I gathered he
was an underwater archaeologist associated with the Institute of
Nautical Archaeology and teaches at the California Academy of Science.
Mr. Maniketti is also a magician.

A good portion of his presentation discussed the history of Columbus'
voyages and included nearly 50 slides illustrating the  Institute of
Nautical Archaeology's search for the wreckage of  Columbus' fourth
voyage to the Yucatan in 1502. At that time  Columbus was marooned in
present-day Jamaica in an area he previously discovered on his second
voyage to the New World. Two ships (the Capitana and the Santiago)
were abandoned in (now) St. Anne's Bay, Jamaica, formerly Santa
Gloria. The ships were believed to have been abandoned in the "Blue
Hole," a mysteriously dark and deep area behind a protecting reef.

By this time, Columbus had fallen into disrepute due to his failure to
find a passage to the Orient on his previous voyages.  Conditions were
unpleasant for the marooned sailors and Columbus used his ability to
predict a lunar eclipse to convince the local natives to feed him and
his crew.

Diego Columbus later founded a city near the area where Christopher
Columbus had been marooned, and ruins of this city still remain.
Later, the English settled the area which is now full of ruins from
several occupations.

In 1981, the Institute of Nautical Archaeology began searching for the
remains of Columbus' abandoned ships. After four years without much
success, the Mobius Society of Hollywood was contacted to help locate
the wreck.

The Mobius Society has reported success in locating various
archaeological ruins using "remote viewing." The President of the
Mobius Society, Steven Schwarz, documented some of their successes in
a book "The Alexandria Project". "Respondents" (psychics) are
interviewed and then given, for example, a map of the area to be
searched. They then indicate  on the map areas where they believe the
item can be found -- without going to the site. Results from various
respondents are compiled and correlated in "field appraisal
equipment," i.e., a computer, and by consensus, the area to be
searched is narrowed.

After predictions were made, three respondent came to the site to
further refine predictions. They included a photographer from the "L.
A. Times", the psychic used in the Atlanta child murders, and a French
psychic and musician.

Unfortunately, although the Institute of Nautical Archaeology
requested the Mobius Society send maps showing predicted search areas
prior to their arrival on site, this was not done. Instead, map were
prepared two days after arrival.

In January 1988, the Mobius Society presented their results at a
colloquium on archaeological techniques and claimed 72% "elegant hits"
on the hull of the wrecked ship even though the ship was never
discovered! An "elegant hit" was defined by the Mobius Society as a
prediction which can be verified precisely and is verified.

Mr. Maniketti summarized that of the 3,000 original statements made by
the respondents -- varying from "I see a golden pendant with certain
initials" to "look for rays" to "holes that are tunnels or bottoms
that are not bottoms" -- 2,000 were reasonable, 500 - 800 were capable
of being verified, about 150 could be field tested and some 35 were
indeed verified. The varied statements however, were of a general
nature (e.g., "I see palm trees" or "ruins," etc.). The fact remains
that neither the Institute for Nautical  Archaeology or the Mobius
Society discovered Columbus' wrecks.

One of the important tenets of remote viewing is that if an object has
high emotional content, it "radiates" more strongly and has a greater
likelihood of being discovered.  However, when some respondents were
taken to "Bloody Bay," the scene of murders and massacres (unknown to
the respondents), they registered nothing unusual.

Mr. Maniketti concluded remote viewing, and the Mobius Society, was no
more useful in discovering Columbus' wreck than are magnetometers,
common sense, local legends, etc.



SAI BABA SNOW JOBBA
by Don Henvick

I'm over in Berserkely at a meeting of the California Society for
Psychical Study. They have meetings every month and often have
interesting, if wacky, speakers. My kind of people. Tonight we're
going to hear about the miracles of an Indian guru from one most
qualified to investigate such things, an Icelandic psychologist. Guy's
name is Erlendur Haraldsson, the pride of Reykjavik, and he's written
a book called "Modern Miracles" about Satya Sai Baba, the pride of
Bangalore. Seems that Sai Baba has for the last forty years been
producing things out of thin air and for some reason Haraldsson's
parapsychologist colleagues haven't given these miracles the
attention they deserve, so E.H. decides to rectify that situation.

"Produces things?" What do you mean by "produces things"? Well, he
might reach up in the air and come down with a handful of candy, or a
nut, or a gold ring with his picture set in it, or a hot pancake. You
know -- "things". Forty years he's been doing this, maybe twenty or
thirty times a  day. I mean this guy has built himself a rep in India.

So Erlendur decides to gather his professional credentials together
and investigate Sai Baba. Off he goes to S.B.'s ashram  and from the
slides we're shown of the place, we know one thing  right off the bat:
Sai Baba may have been given miraculous powers, but he was hiding
behind the door when they handed out good taste. He hangs out in this
immense gothic-rococo, gingerbread nightmare done in garish pink,
blue and gold. Does it mean something? Sai Baba doesn't say. E.H.
tries to make an appointment. Sai Baba doesn't make appointments. The
way to see  Sai Baba is to sit outside his door with hundreds of
others, look adoring, and hope that Sai Baba, on his twice-daily
walks will judge your groveling to be sufficient to merit and
audience.  Apparently our fearless investigator is obsequious enough
to earn the presence of the Great Man after only a few days of this
waiting. Does Sai Baba have a good method of preparing people to be
uncritical observers and singling out only the most uncritical to
witness his miracles?

Anyway, the big moment arrives for E.H. -- he gets to ask Sai Baba to
do his stuff under controlled conditions. Sai Baba declines. Why?

"My powers are not for show."

Lemme get this straight, now. He does his thing twenty times a day for
forty years in order to gather one million followers and he doesn't
do it for show? Indeed, it seems that's the ONLY reason he does do
it, since E.H. is unable to find anyone, even Sai Baba, who can
ascribe any meaning or significance to what he does, aside from that's
what he does. At least Jesus would give you parable or moral along
with the miracle  -- Sai Baba just gives you a piece of candy and
sends you on your way.

So, E.H. tells us, not only won't Sai Baba submit to controls, he
won't even say when the miracle is going to happen so E.H. can  watch
a little closer. The professor tells us that "We have no solid
experimental evidence for the genuineness of the phenomenon."

I guess that wraps it up for the speaker tonight -- he doesn't have
any real confirmation, so as a scientist he won't accept anecdotal
evidence for the book he's written. I guess wrong.  Apparently E.H. is
not one to let lack of facts get in the way of revealing the Truth.

E.H. tells us he spent the next year and a half interviewing people
who had witnessed miracles. You want miracles? We got miracles. Sai
Baba disappeared in full view of a group of disciples and then
reappeared far down the road. His car ran out of gas, so he changed a
bucket of water into gasoline. Some people were hungry, so he
produced a hot meal for them out of thin air.

Don't ask why, just eat.

E.H. does not rely on second-hand stories only, oh no. He's too good a
scientist for that. He relates his own experiences of Sai Baba
reaching into the air and producing a 14K gold ring set with a
handsome portrait of Sai my-powers-are-not-for-show Baba. E.H. relates
that his friend got a similar ring on an earlier trip but the
portrait had fallen out. We are shown a picture of a finger wearing a
ring with a missing stone: Evidence! Then we are shown a picture of
the finger wearing a ring with the stone restored.  Sai has conjured
up a new stone, whooshed it on the ring and it fit perfectly. How
about them apples?

Someone points out that the two gold settings look different. Well,
E.H. explains, what Sai Baba actually did was ask for the old ring,
make it disappear, and conjure up a new ring with a stone in it. Why
didn't he just conjure up a new stone? Don't ask. E.H. didn't.

Most people in the audience are eating this stuff up but a few have
questions. Does Sai Baba make this stuff out of thin air or is it
regular stuff that he gets from somewhere and just makes appear. E.H.
has studied the problem (of course Sai Baba won't explain) and has
decided that if he doesn't make the stuff  miraculously, he must have
an army of jewelers working night and  day to keep him supplied with
rings and stuff. E.H. asked around  and nobody had heard of an army of
jewelers making Sai-Baba  souvenirs, so that settles that. However, in
the interest of  scientific objectivity, E.H. relates that once he saw
Sai Baba  reach into the air and produce a piece of candy wrapped in
paper  with the brand name printed on it, just like you would buy in
the  store. So it makes E.H. wonder a bit about his hypothesis. It
makes me wonder if E.H. refills his brain pan from an oatmeal box.

I remember several years ago hearing Baba Ram Das speaking about Sai
Baba and relating similar miracles, but Ram Das said Sai Baba would
produce wrists watches, and that obviously he wasn't producing them
but was teleporting them from a warehouse -- still a big-caliber
miracle. I mention this alternative explanation with the hope that
allying myself with  Ram Das, a goofball in his own right, will go
over better with the crowd. No such luck. Only the most terminally
out to lunch will let themselves believe that while Uri Geller has to
sweat bullets to bend a spoon with his mind, Sai Baba can, with no
effort (and no reason) conjure up a watch complete with hands, gears,
logos, and serial numbers, ticking away. Just as the crowd and E.H.
are giving me piercing looks, an Indian chap in the audience says HE
saw Sai Baba produce a watch from somebody's hair, which, upon
inspection, proved to have been made in Switzerland. E.H. does not
indicate that he wants this guy's testimony for his book, especially
as the guy declares that the demonstration he saw was a load of
rubbish. The audience is a mite confused but recovers nicely when
someone else shows off the pendant he got from Sai Baba and says he
was looking closely and KNOWS Sai Baba didn't pull any tricks to make
HIS souvenir. Now HE might get in the book.

I don't doubt Dr. Haraldsson has made a few more believers in the
audience tonight and peddled a few more copies of his book. I also
don't doubt that so-called serious parapsychologists don't think much
of the enormous conclusions he has reached with such a stunning lack
of evidence, but I don't see them standing up to protest the shoddy
work of their colleague.

Makes ya wonder.



SPREAD SOME MISERY
by Joseph Garber

I suspect that many BAS and supporters share with me a common
frustration. We are frustrated by an inability to strike back. We lack
the time and/or the talent to mount debunking campaigns against
psychic frauds, quack healers, and profiteering prophets. While we
applaud and financially support, for example, Randi's exposure of
Peter Popov, we ourselves do not have the wherewithal to strike our
own "personal" blows for reason and sanity.

Happily, the April 1988 issue of "BASIS" suggests a wonderfully nasty,
quite legal and very effective method for hitting the hoaxers where
it hurts them most: in their pocketbooks. This method is based on the
little-known economics of the direct mailing industry.

Your correspondent, Richard Cleverly, writes that he sent the sum of
$1 to one Madame Daudet. The Madame had run an advertisement
promising those who sent this token sum (to cover postage and
handling, of course) their "lucky number" -- useful for playing the
lottery, backing horseflesh, and otherwise reaping wealth beyond the
dreams of avarice.

In return for his $1, Mr. Cleverly received "a bulk mail envelope"
apparently chock full of dubious material -- and coincidentally, part,
but far from all, of his "lucky numbers." The flinty-hearted Madame
wanted another $35 to reveal all of the lucky number -- and certain
other cosmic secrets as well. Mr. Cleverly concludes his article by
noting that the Madame, adding insult to injury, peddled his name and
address to a rather sizable number of kindred flimflam artists. As a
consequence, his "box is full of mail from astrologers, psychics and
spiritualists."

Mr. Cleverly should feel gratified at this outcome because direct mail
pieces do not come cheap. The con men behind them must invest serious
money to produce and distribute their materials. According to the
Direct Marketing Association, in 1984 (the last year for which I have
statistics), a "low end" direct mailer costs an average of $.58 per
package, stamped, sealed and delivered. From Mr. Cleverly's
description, the junk he has received likely is of an even more
costly nature. Indeed, I suspect the Madam lost money on the $1 bait
he sent her. Even if she did not, every other swindler who sent him a
piece of junk mail did! Mr. Cleverly's $1 investment probably
penalized the psychic community $5, and perhaps twice that sum -- not
at all a bad return on investment. And, in passing, Mr. Cleverly seems
to have tripled his vengeance by mailing the Madame $3 from three
different mail drops.

Now $5 is a trivial enough sum when one takes into account the
millions that psychic chiselers reap every year. But, if the entire
skeptical community were each to extract similar sums from these
frauds, the results would be real money  -- and real losses. Of equal
importance, the addition of several thousand non-productive names to
the mailing lists used by these bilkers would severely corrupt them,
reducing mailing list value enormously. The sale and resale of
productive mailing lists is a significant source of income to such low
lifes. Degrading those mailing lists would result in a sizable
deterioration in the worth of a critical asset.

Accordingly, I offer the following modest proposal: the members of BAS
should select a target psychic to "help." Let us call it the "Adopt-A-
Psychic" program. The BAS board should nominate a worthy communicant
with the Powers Beyond. BAS members should support this nominee by
responding to his or her advertisement -- more than once. Our pet
psychic, hereinafter to be known as "The Chosen One" should be the
bunko artist who mails out the most expensive package in return for
the lowest "postage and handling" charge. The results should be
refreshing; indeed a sufficient level of kind interest and support by
BAS might even put the likes of a Madame Daudet out of business. And
wouldn't that be a pity?

The only downside to this proposal is the likelihood of cluttered mail
boxes. For those who are concerned with such a possibility, I suggest
that, the price of cat litter box liners being what they are, psychic
direct mail is an economically viable substitute.

[I have even participated in a more sinister and costly plot. I order
and pay for the stuff that has the "satisfaction guarantee" promise,
get the junk and promptly demand a refund because I am dissatisfied.
I'm two out of two so far, and that has to have cost them a fair
amount. However, I am told that this venture may be risky as they may
simply not return the money. -- Ed.]



NO LUNACY HERE!

If the rest of the world lolls back and watches while the Joan
Quigleys of astrology continue their nonsense unmo-lested, the single-
most potent force for rationality does not. CSICOP has launched into
the forefront in an active campaign to let what is mistakenly referred
to as the enlightened era, the 20th century, know that all is not
well, and that it is not business as usual.

In a somewhat unprecedented move, CSICOP has directly challenged the
focus of astrology attention, Ms. Joan Quigley. Normally, those
alleging some marvelous miracle come to us to take advantage of our
offer to pay for demonstrations of psychic phenomena.

Mark Plummer, Executive Director of CSICOP, formally requested Ms.
Quigley to participate in a scientifically controlled demonstration. A
copy of his letter was mailed to all local groups for publication:

"Dear Ms. Quigley,

"We were interested in your claim reported in an Associated Press
article on May 9, 1988 that you were `a serious scientific
astrologer.'

"As the world's leading scientific organization investigating
astrology, we would like your co-operation to conduct a scientifically
controlled double-blind test of your claims.

"We would appreciate it if you could set out in your reply your skills
and specialized abilities so that we may draw up a proper protocol to
test your claims.

"We look forward to hearing from you so that arrangements for the
protocol for the test may be drawn up as soon as possible.

"We feel that such a test is in public interest. As a scientist we
feel sure you will co-operate to prove your claims in a scientific
manner." (signed) Mark Plummer

A copy of the letter was sent to Nancy Reagan at the White House and
included a complimentary subscription to the "Skeptical Inquirer" and
back issues dealing with astrology.

While it is very doubtful that Quigley will act in any scientifically
responsible manner, the very act of the challenge and her virtually
certain rejection of it will serve to notify the public that maybe she
isn't all she's cracked up to be. "BASIS" is working to see that the
CSICOP challenge receives as wide coverage as possible.


                             -----

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 July, 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-