width="100%" "...the chief end I propose to myself in all my labours is to vex the world rather than divert it." - Jonathan Swift

Video documenting the fifth Amaz!ng meeting in Las Vegas. Speakers include: Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, The MythBusters, John Rennie, Scott Dikkers, Phil Plait, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, Neil Gershenfeld, Hal Bidlack, Richard Wiseman, Peter Sagal, Christopher Hitchens, Nick Gillespie and Ron Bailey, Eugenie Scott, Lori Lipman-Brown, Jamy Ian Swiss, James Randi, and many more! Includes all Sunday papers! 6 DVDs total spanning over 17 hours. Price: $69.00 (International Price: $76.00 )* US Orders | International Orders | View Cart International shipping requires a phone number. Please enter in "comments" field during check out.



MORE RELIGIOUS POLITICS You really have to wonder about the mental state of some of our legislators. Last week, at a Utah County, District 65 Republican Convention, Chairman Don Larsen submitted a resolution saying that Satan – yes, the chief evil spirit, Lucifer, Beelzebub, the Devil of medieval mythology – has a plan to destroy the United States by means of the stealthy invasion of illegal immigrants! Larsen, in all seriousness, wants the GOP to oppose the devil′s plan. Friends, are we in Never-Never-Land, or in the United States of America? Can we expect Tinkerbelle to flit in the window at any moment…? Larsen′s resolution says:

In order for Satan to establish his "New World Order" and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S…. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nations the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness. Larsen's resolution calls for the closing of national borders to illegal immigrants so as to "prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion." And airspace, too, Larsen, to keep Tinkerbelle out? Seriously…





MONTEL′S CYNICISM Now, it′s obvious that Montel Williams has no way of keeping track of the thousands of pieces of mail he receives, and he′s not responsible for this affront to Hal Bidlack, in non-response to Hal′s earnest letter, which can be seen at tinyurl.com/22vo6b. Here is the postcard, a form answer that says nothing… Reader Zachery Messer has further evidence that Montel and his organization simply rebuffs any criticism of his program content. They just ignore any appeal to their ethical sense, which appears to be quite absent. Zachery writes: First of all, let me say what a huge fan I am of yours – you've been a real inspiration to me. I whole-heartedly support your efforts, and think that the cause you are fighting for is both real and very, very important. I promised myself I wouldn't turn this email into a gushing love letter, so I'll get on with what I intended to bring to your attention... I originally emailed all of the following to Robert Lancaster of www.stopsylviabrowne.com but seeing as the three of us have similar interests, I thought you might want to hear of it as well. About a week ago, on the Junkies radio show, Montel Williams called in to discuss a few of his upcoming shows. During the course of the show, he was directly asked whether he believes in psychics and specifically in Sylvia, to which he replied that he has stated "a million times" on his show that he does not, and that he does not think that Sylvia has any powers. I've included with this email an .mp3 of the clip of the show in question and a word document wherein I've transcribed portions of the conversation with time marks so you can hear it yourself. Hope that this is helpful in some way, and keep fighting for this worthy cause. Here′s a transcript of the excerpt from the ″Junkies″ radio show. It′s a perfect demonstration of the callous disregard that Montel Williams shows for the emotional security of his listeners, and for the integrity of his show: Host: We′re talking to talk show host Montel Williams, and today he′s got psychic Sylvia Browne on. Can you ask her who′s going to win the NBA finals? I need to make some money… Montel: Yeah, well I′m trying to make some money too…I might ask her, I′ll do it if… I might ask her… I′ll see if she′ll, she′ll give it up. It′s really funny she′s ah, she′s not a big sports fan, but she will definitely throw down on personalities and what′s going on people′s relationships in a heartbeat… Host: Do you believe in that stuff Montel? Be honest. Montel: Oh, come on, I′ve said it clearly on my show a million times, I don′t believe in psychics. You know, I happen to believe that, that for, for whatever reason, this woman has a little bit more intuition than most people I know, but the thing that′s funny about it, she′s great, she′s a funny character… Host: Right. Montel: She′s funny, she′s hysterical, you look at her, you listen to her, she gives some of the funniest answers, people love her – and hate her! But you have a right to do either one. She happens to be on today if you want to love her or hate her, or look at her and just laugh. Host: Is she one of those who claims she can talk to the dead, and all that? Montel: Umm…she doesn′t claim like she actually talks to them, but she kinda… Host: They communicate somehow? Montel: Yeah, she communicates. They pass through. Now, bear in mind that Montel Williams knows Sylvia Browne is a fake. He also knows that millions of his listeners accept that her appearances on his shows, validate her claims – because they trust Montel Williams not to deceive them. No, this is not just a joke, Mr. Williams. Sylvia Browne isn′t at all ″funny,″ except to those who cannot see how vicious and uncaring she is. The grief and sorrow of your listeners are not personal playthings that CBS Radio handed you for your amusement. Or hadn′t that occurred to you…? But why do I waste my time trying to find some integrity in this man? He doesn′t care – and right now he and his staff are laughing at the fact that we′re trying to get him to care…





WHAT IS SCIENCE? Australian reader Pat Bullman tackles the question, and offers a subtle definition… My blood boiled as I watched the YouTube video of Arthyr Chadbourne trying to sidetrack criticism of astrology. (See randi.org/jr/2007-04/042707chop.html#i3.) I find it so disheartening to hear people talk about science when they obviously don't have a clue what it means. That's just ignorance and it says a lot about modern western educational systems. Also, this concept of leaving woo-wooers alone in their beliefs doesn't work, simply because they're the type likely to go out and force their beliefs on others. I have had a chronic illness for over ten years and I'm frequently hospitalized. It seems that every second person who learns of this has a cure for me and is not in the least shy about giving me advice. I get proffered all sorts of things on what will help. It comes mainly in two strains, firstly there's the "it worked for me/friend of mine" or "native peoples have known about it for ages." The second approach is that of "I know of [insert any complementary health practitioner here] who can fix your problem by using [insert any complementary health practice here]. In both approaches there's always an underlying theme that "science can't explain/doesn't/know everything." Of course, when you answer that you're being well cared for by doctors and hospital staff or dare to mention modern medicine or science, or indeed show any other signs of not following their advice, they become indignant. Some go on the attack and I've copped on more than one occasion the soul destroyer: "Well, Pat, maybe you don't want to be cured.″ It's all very tiring and depressing, very depressing. I now try not to let the conversation get this far by short-circuiting the inevitable opinions by asking what they think science is. The answers have been amazing and this brings me to my next point. I don't think people understand what science is. The answers I′ve received were all over the place, abstract ideas like physicists or chemists, or computers, laboratories, chemicals and equations. We′re not talking big numbers of people here, maybe twenty people, but not one gave an answer that resembled an educated definition of science. I think this goes some way to explain comments like those made by Arthyr Chadbourne when he asked, "What is the science of love?" or – what you were once asked – "What is the formula for a soul?" In my situation, I explain that, to me, science is a process of finding the truth by testing if something works or not, and that I only use methods which have been shown to work under test conditions. This shuts most people up. Thanks for reading my ravings and please keep up the good work. Your commentary is informative and entertaining and in plain (and proper) English that any age group can understand. And then Pat adds: PS: With my condition I suffer from chronic pain, and as part of the ongoing treatment I see a Pain Management Clinic. One of the standard techniques is what's called Distraction Therapy. Basically this involves keeping yourself busy, or distracted, which lessens the effects of pain. It's a well-used method. Knowing this, it amuses me to see reports showing the immediate reduction in pain levels in test subjects through procedures like acupuncture. Of course they would reduce pain. Something like acupuncture would make ideal Distraction Therapy, as would Reiki, reflexology, ear candling or aromatherapy. So would playing with your dog, and it'd be a lot less expensive. And far more useful and pleasant, Pat! In my recent very long bout with pain and sleeplessness, I opted to work on mental mathematical calculations – simple four-by-four multiplications and extraction of square roots, as examples – and found the distraction rather effective. I declined most of the chemicals that were offered me, as much as I could, and I found that to be very satisfying. Being fed from a bag of what looked like Gatorade via a tube in my arm, got to be part of my routine with the sequence of nurses who tended to me, and I developed comedy routines that somewhat cheered them, and me… My personal brief definition of ″science″ has always been: An organized method for discovering how the world works, by observation, experimentation, and analysis of results – independently of any biases, needs, or prejudices that might color or alter the conclusions – followed by competent, independent, replication of the findings. Those findings must be subject to rigorous attempts at falsification, and adjusted to more accurately reflect the reality, if and when necessary… Or reversed…!





APPROPRIATE ACTION TAKEN I received a copy of this alarming invitation/announcement from my friend Jerry Mertens, who specializes in behavior analysis at St. Cloud State University, Minnesota. He′s ever-alert to crapiola: The SCSU Health & Wellness Committee invites you to attend! – Electrodermal screening (EDS) is a scientific approach to health assessment. It utilizes the meridian system of the body, along with an FDA-approved testing device. EDS has been very valuable in helping people regain their energy and health (i.e. stomach problems, fibromyalgia, fatigue, allergies, sleep disorders, persistent coughs, rashes, etc.) It also screens the body for weakness and stress due to chemicals, pesticides, heavy metals, parasites, bacteria, viruses, allergic reactions, etc. Come to this presentation to learn about this cutting edge process to maintain your health! Presenters: Kathy Hagemeister, Carol Athman & Shanna Seguin, EDS Technicians. I responded that it all sounded like woo-woo to me, and referred them to tinyurl.com/p7ymc for a similar matter. Jerry added: I had not even heard of the event advertised. At a big university in a 45-minute session, even in a small room just about anything can be done! Having gone through this with other supposed psychic speakers and events, those giving campus rooms for this kind of thing will defend their position on freedom of speech issues. One can recite this kind of nonsense, and it is freedom of speech – but say the word "shit" in class and you would think they′d never heard of freedom of speech. Some good skeptical students were in my office when your e-mail came in, and we will go check it out. I will email Dr. Terry Polevoy for information about the group. Also, by chance do you have anything on it? Jerry promptly heard from Canadian Dr. Polevoy, who told him: The presentation at St. Cloud State is purely and simply a scam. There is no evidence that electrodermal screening does anything claimed in your announcement. How in the world did your university allow these type of scammers onto your campus in the first place? I suggest that your school review its policy in regards to the promotion of fraudulent health practitioners. It may be interesting for you to review this site for more details: tinyurl.com/3ch67v -Terry Polevoy, MD Only a day later, I heard back from Jerry Mertens with this happy news re a notice on the St. Cloud bulletin board: Randi, one of the students with me when your email came in, sent the material off of the skeptic website to a campus health source, and here is the resulting announcement: The informational presentation about Electrodermal Screening scheduled for May 1st at 12:00 pm is CANCELLED. Sometimes the skeptic network does pay off. More than just ″sometimes,″ Jerry. I get a regular stream of mail telling me of how information sources like Canadian Quackery Watch and our good friend Stephen Barrett at quackwatch.org often get the attention of responsible authorities. We win more than we′re aware of, I think.





THE CLARINS FRAUD REVISITED Reader Ian MacMillan refers to our item at

randi.org/jr/2007-04/040607mi.html#i7 when he tells us: There is an online Flash video in which the creator of the Clarins spray, "Doctor" Lionel de Benetti, dresses in a white coat (scientist chic) and discusses the spray. The video contains blather about "DNA arrays" and "energy." It can be viewed at clarinsnews.com/expertise3p/video.html Clarins is a French company founded by Jacques Courts-Clarins. The full name of the spray is Clarins 3P, which is derived from Poly Pollution Protection, the full name of the product. There is also a critical article about the spray at quackometer.net/blog/2007/03/beauty-and-quack_20.html All in all, there is nothing much new about the Clarins spray, but it is becoming ultra-fashionable to blame all manner of vague aches and pains on electromagnetic sensitivity (a few years ago it was food allergies). As I pointed out just a few weeks ago here, at randi.org/jr/2007-03/032307hope.html#i1, this″electromagnetic sensitivity″ nonsense is a classic example of something that can be easily, quickly, definitively, tested… But, back to Ian:

Here is a mildly amusing anecdote: During my childhood in the late 1960s – early 70s, there was a shoe shop in my home town of Paignton, Devon which had a pediscope. This was a device used to produce x-ray images of the bones inside a person's feet, and it looked something like the attached image. Nowadays pediscopes are banned because they are considered to be too dangerous, and people are allowed to undergo x-rays only when they are considered to be medically necessary. The science part can be traced back to Planck's Law, which states that the higher the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation, the more energy the individual quanta will have. X-rays have a frequency of around one million, million million Hertz, so the quanta pack quite a punch. Radio waves have a much lower frequency and are not considered to be a health risk, although there is always room for new research in this area. One of the depressing things about claims of electromagnetic sensitivity is the lack of double blind testing. If you blindfolded me and put my hand on a stove, I would soon tell you whether it was turned on or not. Similar tests need to be carried out when a person claims that electrical appliances and mobile phones give them violent headaches. Without research of this kind, doctors will look askance at claims of EM sensitivity, since they are usually self-diagnosed. And Ian adds: As you probably know, Uri Geller has got in on this act as well. He holds US Patent #5,726,383 for a mobile phone radiation shield, see tinyurl.com/ytc7m5 from March 1998. By the way, I used the pediscope and lived to tell the tale. It produced a dim grey image showing the bones inside the feet, and I remember being disappointed on learning that the device had been removed from the shop. I remember these machines well, to be found in almost every shoe shop. We kids would mount the small step, stick our feet into the opening at the bottom, look down into the top of the device, and press the button to see a gray-green X-ray image of our feet, and if we got to use a multiple-viewer model, such as that shown here in the illustration, others could look in and see, too, as we wiggled our toes! Of course, we didn′t know that it was a very unwise action. It′s a wonder we didn′t all get mutated appendages. I assume that all you folks have the usual twelve toes…?





A WIN IN PHILADELPHIA A huge amount of e-mail arrived following a recent announcement by the city of Philadelphia concerning a law that has been on the books for more than 30 years, making fortune telling "for gain or lucre" a third-degree misdemeanor. Police alerted the Department of Licenses and Inspections about the law a week or so ago. How that department could have been unaware of a law that's been staring them in the face for three decades, is something that I cannot answer. Let's just say, they never saw it coming… As a result, city inspectors shut down more than a dozen psychics, astrologers and tarot-card readers. They didn′t make arrests or issue fines, but assured the scam artists that if they try to return to work, they will face penalties. Inspectors have closed 16 shops since last Tuesday and they expect to close more. Suddenly, these fakers are facing a very unhappy future. In most cases, unless they've had a sideline of bank robbery or mail fraud, they′ve nothing else they can do to make a living. This is a very specialized profession; for example, when you're a spoon-bender, and you don't tap-dance or do accounting, there is little else you can turn to. Already, there are complaints of discrimination being leveled. The fortunetellers say that the police are discriminating against gypsies, and one disgruntled out-of-work practitioner noted that earlier critics ″considered that Jesus was a psychic, a fortune-teller, and they crucified him." Well, I don't think it'll get that bad, at least not in Philadelphia, but this practitioner went further with his prognostications. He said, "We might be coming to the end of the world." Now, that's a prediction.





KEEPING UP WITH SCIENCE Reader Drew Vics tells us: I caught a segment of "Ask Dr. Oz" on a recent episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show. Most of his advice followed common sense, except maybe the one about soaking your feet in tea to cure foot odor (which I guess could work – hey, I'm no doctor), but he had an interesting suggestion for releasing tension and relaxing the muscles. It was a massage technique called ″rolfing.″ Never heard of that, but apparently you can become certified. He even had a Certified "Advanced" Rolfer join them on stage. I guess just being certified isn't always enough, there's the advanced rolfing to aspire to. The demonstration looked just like some variation of massage. While I appreciate the use of massage in physical therapy, or as a tension or stress reliever, is this rolfing really such a big advancement?



No, Drew. Dr. Oz is a true woo-woo person, and accepts it all as true, even the ″Therapeutic Touch″ nonsense; he has TT nurses in his operating room, actively running about and evening out ″human auras.″ See the entries at randi.org/jr/021805a.html#1 for his participation in the ABC-TV fiasco I contributed to. Speaking of ABC-TV, I′ll be coming up next Friday (May 11th) on 20/20, dealing with the Peter Popoff scam. Rolfing is just another way to take money from the naïve. See skepdic.com/rolfing.html for more information.





JUST FOR FUN? Reader Andy Coombs returns me (ugh!) to the Gore brouhaha that I got myself into, with a pertinent observation: Just a quick note about the Al Gore-mention in this week's newsletter. I've read through the comments on the original blog link, and comment number 6 by user Scooter clarifies the issue. A quick google reveals that in the 10/25/05 Michigan Daily, Gore discussed the same thing. However, here is how they describe it: When he brought up a graph showing human population growth over the past 100,000 years or so, Gore at first made light of recent debates over the origins of human life: "You don't have any new laws here I should know about?" he quipped before labeling the point at the beginning of the graph "Adam and Eve," provoking laughter. But then Gore adopted a more prudent tone, adding, "In all seriousness, I really do not see any conflict between my religious faith and sound science." Seems to me this is a more accurate telling of the lecture. I have attended his Global Warming speech and that is how I remember it also. And, as the date reveals, this is not a new addition. It seems to be a standard part of his lecture. The last phrase describing religious faith and sound science also accurately describes what many scientists feel. It may not be the way many here feel but it was surely not said in the manner described by the original post. If that′s the case, I′ve learned more about politics, techniques of public speaking, and human nature…





MY BOO-BOO Understand, I′m a strictly-amateur astronomer – with a Questar, a 6-inch Newtonian, and an RFT instrument – but I certainly should have spotted what several readers such as Jon Blumenfeld pointed out to me: The newly-discovered planet, Gliese 581c, is only 20 light years away, and so could not possibly be in another galaxy, regardless of the sloppy language used by a number of news outlets, including CNN. If there was another Galaxy that close, we′d all be in a LOT of trouble.



Notably, the closest planet that qualifies as ″earth-like″ by the definition applied to Gliese 581c, is Mars. The rankest amateur should have recognized that a planet only 20 light-years distant, would be in the Milky Way – our galaxy. I blame it all on CNN and NBC – and my own carelessness. But both Jon and reader Chris Wilson have an even more important point to make about my thinking-process. Writes Chris: The second problem with this item is more subtle. This is with your reasoning that we are definitely not alone because of the "almost-infinite" number of possibilities in the universe. Unfortunately, "almost-infinite" is not a term with any mathematical or scientific meaning. It is a statement about intuition. Unfortunately, as Richard Dawkins points out, it is precisely the human mind's poor intuition about very large and very small numbers that often leads the undisciplined astray. It is the use of intuition rather than strict mathematical reasoning about large numbers that leads creationists to think evolution is not plausible. While the number of planets capable of supporting life in the universe is vast by standards of human intuition, the chance of us finding life is the product of the number of planets times the probability of life starting given such a planet. We have no way to know what the probability is, and it could be so low that even multiplied by the number of worlds it is very low. Intuitively, we aren't used to thinking of such low probabilities, so most people assume that with such a vast number of worlds, the probability of finding life on one must be high. But that is an intuitive response, not a scientific one. In fact, our complete lack of knowledge of the probability of life arising given the right planet must compel us to admit a complete lack of knowledge of the probability of any life on any other planet in the universe. This will not always be so – as we gather data from other planets with Earth-like conditions, we will have data on which to narrow the probability, but until then, any opinion about how likely life is elsewhere in the universe is an unscientific opinion about a scientific subject. I have two comments here. First, the use of ″almost-infinite,″ though strictly incorrect and ″fuzzy,″ is something that the average reader can relate to on what we might call a ″conversational level.″ The number of grains of sand on all the beaches in Florida, for example, I would label, ″almost-infinite,″ and the number of errors made by all such amateur philosophers as I, would be adequately described in that manner – for all practical purposes – but not technically, strictly, correctly, of course. Mind you, I won′t get into the matter of ″aleph″ infinities, or we′d go mad within an hour… Yes, there are different degrees of infinity, folks, as I discovered at the age of 19 in George Gamow′s captivating book, ″One, Two, Three…Infinity,″ where several different kinds of infinities are discussed. Aleph Null, I seem to remember, is the number of single numbers, Aleph One is the number of points on a line, Aleph Two is the number of possible lines – which must be greater, because lines consist of points, you see – and so on. It′s a study that presents many paradoxes, and makes one mad within an hour, as I just warned you… When I consider the almost-infinite – there it is again! – amount of time during which permutations and combinations of elements and compounds have been occurring, the huge range of gravitational, temperature, pressure, and radiation influences, and the corresponding possible number of viable experiments that have taken place, I cannot imagine that a large number of those experiments have not been successful. Now, though the largest percentage of them doubtless failed to survive their emergence, the number of those that did survive – on the ″vast… number of planets capable of supporting life in the universe″ that reader Wilson cites, surely are around, or were until ″recently″ – meaning within a few million years of today. We′re one of those successful experiments… So, I weakly beg off on the excuse that the layman will relate my usage to the real world…





BOOK REVIEW REVIEW A recent review in the Journal of Parapsychology by parapsychologist John Palmer of William Roll′s new book ″Unleashed,″ has come to my attention. I′m surprised to see that Dr. Palmer appears to accept the Tina Resch case as a genuine example of RSPK (Repeated Spontaneous Psychokinesis) despite the gaping holes in the account and the firmly demonstrated contradictions in the evidence. However, that is Dr. Palmer′s choice, for whatever reason; our previous contacts, where we participated in investigations of certain psychic claims, had shown me a person of more cautious mien. I′m concerned with the 268 words there that deal with my involvement in the ″Columbus Poltergeist″ case. A very attractive item appeared in the media back in 1984, when a girl in Columbus, Ohio, reported that genuine poltergeist phenomena were taking place in the presence of a fourteen-year-old girl named Tina Resch. The Columbus Dispatch newspaper followed the titillating story for a week, during which flying telephones, loud percussive noises, swinging and falling lamps, and other events were plentiful. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the girl was an adopted child who wanted to discover her true parents, and she was using the media attention to plead for that information. Every time the media assembled to interview her, she asked them to find that information for her. Then, a video camera from a visiting TV crew that was inadvertently left running, recorded Tina cheating by surreptitiously pulling over a table lamp while she thought she was not being observed. Other reported occurrences were shown to be outright inventions of the press or highly exaggerated descriptions of quite explainable events. Descriptions given by a parapsychologist, William Roll, who specialized in poltergeist investigations and had examined the situation in person, turned out to be of quite impossible sequences. In 1994 Tina Resch was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of her three-year-old daughter. It was the culmination of several disastrous marriages and serious psychological problems. Though the case of the Columbus Poltergeist faded away after a few months and is not now seriously discussed, Roll has now written a book about it. That book, ″Unleashed,″ is the subject of Dr. Palmer′s review, from which I quote: Additional spice was added by the appearance of CSICOP's erstwhile debunker of things that go bump in the night, James "The Amazing" Randi. Several days after the news conference, magician Randi held an impromptu press conference of his own in front of the Resch's home, waving the eternally unclaimed $10,000 check he offers to anyone who can show him a psychic event he considers genuine. As I′ve made very clear to Dr. Palmer and to others, I am not a debunker; I am an investigator. If my investigations, by their findings, result in a debunking – and that′s usually the case, when sufficient evidence is presented to enable any proper examination – that′s the natural outcome of such projects. I showed up at the Resch home at their invitation, straight from the airport, and was intercepted by the media waiting outside who were expecting me. I would not categorize that event as ″holding a press conference,″ though Dr. Palmer was not there and obviously made an incorrect assumption. Also, I was not ″waving″ any check, since I′d gone to Columbus directly from Tennessee following a lecture date there, and I was not traveling with the check. Furthermore, and again as Dr. Palmer well knows, any winner of my long-established prize – now at an improved $1,000,000 – need not ″show″ me anything, nor does my opinion of their claim enter into the matter; that is all covered in the published rules. Dr. Palmer continues: He [Randi] asked to conduct his own investigation of the case, along with two scientists from a local university. Joan [Resch] was willing to let the scientists in, but Randi's usual abusive rhetoric dissuaded her from having him join them. Not true. I′d been invited there to investigate the matter, and I never met Joan Resch, Tina′s adoptive mother, nor ever spoke to her. Later, I found out that William Roll himself was already in the house when I arrived on the scene, and he had personally denied me admission, telling the media that he ″simply didn′t want Randi in there.″ Seeing how ruthlessly Mr. Roll subsequently manipulated, misreported, and distorted the evidence on the Columbus Poltergeist case, that fear was understandable. Dr. Palmer continues: In fact, such behavior makes one wonder if Randi expected and wanted to be denied an invitation. As the affair actually played out, he was able to make his point and garner the desired publicity without running the risk of seeing something in the house that he might not be able to explain. The scientists declined to go in alone. This is not surprising either, as Randi considers scientists to be particularly poor observers, who might not be able to detect fraud if such occurred. The scientists obviously were brought along solely to add scientific credibility to the escapade. As I said, I already had the invitation, withdrawn by William Roll. Dr. Palmer′s facetious suggestion that I feared to find a genuine phenomenon, doesn′t fool anyone. However, Roll′s fear that I would uncover the trick, was quite genuine. The scientists, well aware that they could be fooled, turned away when they saw that the event was being orchestrated by Roll. As for scientists being – in my quoted opinion, here – ″poor observers,″ that only applies to scientists who are out of their field of expertise, as I′ve often said. A perfect example of one scientist who recognized that fact? After a demonstration by ″psychic″ Uri Geller, a prominent physicist was asked how the trick was done, and he frankly stated, ″I don′t know, but then, I′m not a magician, so I don′t know how any of these things are done.″ That physicist was Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman… I agree with Dr. Palmer that there was an ″escapade″ involved here, but it was the Resch-and-Roll show… Palmer continues: Randi subsequently appeared on a panel devoted to the case at the 1984 Parapsychological Association Convention, and he later published his conclusions in Skeptical Inquirer (Randi, 1985). The latter was essentially a critique of Roll's investigation and Shannon's photographs. Roll and Storey devote several pages in the book to answering Randi's attack, accusing him of misrepresenting or ignoring facts that did not fit his interpretation. Dr. Palmer, just where was the evidence in the Columbus Parapsychologist case? It certainly was not in the testimony of Shannon, the photographer, who contradicted himself repeatedly, nor in other stories that were told, each discrediting the other, as we found later. It was in ″Roll′s investigation and Shannon′s photographs″! I think that′s an excellent reason for me to have critiqued those areas, don′t you think? I have not yet seen the Roll book, but I can fully understand why the authors would devote much text trying to escape the damning facts that I produced to show that Tina Resch lied, and that William Roll misrepresented the facts. A few words should be said here about William Roll′s responsibility in the Tina Resch tragedy. Roll treated this 14-year-old child like royalty. He knew he was on to a hot item that would further his career as a parapsychologist with the media and with his colleagues, and he played that situation all the way. Tina got to travel, to be interviewed, featured in the media, and believed by millions of fans all over the world. This was a cause célèbre that promised to equal the previous advent of Uri Geller on the woo-woo horizon, though that promise was soon over. As a result of this fame, Tina Resch, I think, began to believe that she′d fooled just about everyone, and could continue to do so with impunity. When that bubble burst, she entered into a series of failed marriages, culminating in the murder of her own child, a crime that got her a life sentence. Had Roll not been there to cultivate the mess he′d fostered and encouraged, I do not think the tragedy would have reached the culmination it did…

