The Arizona SkepticA Journal Promoting Critical Thinking

Volume 6, Issue .5

CSIeOp Questions Truth ofMovie Based on Travis Walton

UFO AbductionCSICOP has issued the following press release:The Committee for the Scientific Investigation ofClaims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) challenges theclaim of Paramount Pictures that its new film "Fire inthe Sky" which opens on March 12, 1993 is based on a"true story." In a statement released today Paul Kurtz,chairman of CSICOP, commented that "the film ·islargely fiction and ought to be labeled as such. Thepublic is being deceived by Paramount's promoting thefilm as a true story.

"Fire in the Sky" is based on the claim· of TravisWalton, of Snowflake, AZ, that in late 1975 he was"zapped" and abducted by a UFO (Unidentified FlyingObject) and held hostage l for five days.

Philip J. Klass,chainnan ofCSICOP's UFOSubcommittee, who spent many months investigatingthe alleged incident shortly after it was reported,uncovered extensive evidence to indieatethe incident wasmost likely a hoax. This evidence and details ofKlass'rigorous investigation were reported in his book UFOs:The Public Deceived (published in 1983 by PrometheusBooks).

Klass learned that shortly before Walton's allegedabduction he had to~d· his mothet·t.ilat if he was everabducted by a UFO she should not worry because hewould be all right. Later, when Travis' mother wasinfonned that her young son·had allegedly been zappedand abducted by a UFO, she toolethe news calmly an<lresponded, "Wen, that's the·way these things happen,"according to a law enforcement officerwho was present.

During the several days that Travis was "missing"his older brother Duane was asleed ifhe was concerned forTravis' wen-being. Duane replied that Travis was"having the experience of a lifetime... All lean say isthat I wish I was with him."

Shortly after Travis reappeared, he was given a· "liedetector" test, administered by Jacle McCarthy, then oneof the most experienced and respected ··polygraphexaminers in Arizona.2 After a lengthy test involvingWalton's claims of UFO-abduction, McCarthy reported~

"Gross deception." Further, McCarthy reported thatTravis was holding his breath to try to "beat themachine."

Professor Kurtz said: "The public is being inundatedby Hollywood· films and television programs .claimingtbat thousands of Americans are being abducted byaliens. These programs offer no credible scientificevidence or critical dissent. They seem to be motivatedsolely by profits, and no matter how outrageous a claimthere is always somebody willing to turn·it into a 'true'movie."

"None of the cases," stated Klass, "stand up underscrutiny. They can be given natural, prosaicexplanations without postulating extraterrestrial

MarchiApril 1993visitation and kidnapping. But,· of course, Hollywoodwouldn't be able to·.turn that into a movie."

"Many in the media release irresponsible andsensationalistic reports of abductions. There is a criticalneed for balanced reporting and labeling," said Kurtz.

CSICOP, an organization devoted to the scientificinvestigation of claims of the paranormal, includeshundreds of scientists and sleeptical investigators.CSICOP also publishes the quarterly journal, theSkeptical Inquirer.Editor's Notes1. Presumably "prisoner" is meant.2. This should probably·not be interpreted to be giving

credence to the claim that a· polygraph isa "liedetector." Certainly·one should be sleeptical·of sucha claim.

MIS-Fire in the SkyBy Chris RutkowskiI saw "Fire in the Sley" at a·preview last night. Therewas mixed reaction from the audience.

First of all, the·movie does not resemble Walton'sbook in the least. I thought his ghostwritten version ofwhat he claimed .was .bizarre enough·withough TracyTorme's "artistic licence." If you liKe movies with lotsof gore, shock effects and gallons of brown goo, this isthe one for you. Walton's original claim of a sterile,antiseptic alien spaceship 1hT}d operating room has givenway to an interior that attempts to outdo the "Alien"series of flicles. Membraneous pods, "E.T~"-like aliensand slimy honeycombs populate the ship's interior.

Good news for horror buffs: the audiencelileed thatstuff.

What was odd· was the complete contrast with therest of the movie, in which crusty James Gamer grilledthe other worle crew about their apparent murder ofWalton. Gamer's· character, the sheriff, didn't believe aword of the alxluction story, and leept trying to trip themup through his investigation. That part of the movie,including the social and.public effects of an alleged UFOon a community, was actually very good.

In essence, it's not necessary to debunk the moviebecause it bears no resemblance to even the· originalstory. I'm amazed that MUFON devoted half of its mostrecent issue to a preview of the movie, inclu<ling anewarticle by Walton. In the movie, APRO investigators,with the group name changed to AFAR, are .. portrayed·ascomplete geeles with absolutely no scientific credibility.Why a UFO organization would want to be associatedwith such a portrayal is beyon<lme.

Walton is said to be rewriting his boole, The WaltonExperience, to be released with the movie title. A muchmore interesting boole about the case is Bill Barry'sUltimate Encounter (Pocleet Booles, 1978), which givesmore background and includes sleeptics' comments. Idoubt if that boole will become available again.

In summary, "Fire in the Sky"· is a misfire.Although the investigation process is fairly well detailedand the dynamics of the characters is acceptably

2 The Arizona Skeptic MarchiApril 1993

portrayed, the movie skews badly after Walton is found,degenerating into a slimy horror flick with noresemblance to the original account, however truthful itwas in the first place.

Skeptics don't really need to bother with the movie.It should be forgotten soon.Chris Rutkowski is a Science Educator for the RoyalAstronomical Society of Canada whose last appearancein AS was "The End of Crop Circles" in theNovember/December 1992 issue. This article wasoriginally posted to the Usenet sci.skeptic group onMarch 12,1993.

Linda Napolitano UFO AbductionCase Criticized

By Jim LippardIn several presentations. at UFO conferences and inarticles in the September and December 1992 issues ofthe MUFON UFO Journal, abduction researcher BuddHopkins has promoted· an alleged UFO abduction case inNew York City involving Linda "Cortile" (since revealedto be a pseudonym for Linda Napolitano). The case hasattracted attention because of several alleged independenteyewitnesses to the abduction,. including a prominentpublic official. (It was later claimed that this person wasfonner United Nations Secretary General Javier Perez deCuellar.)

Now this case has come under considerable fife fromJoseph J. Stefula (former MUFON State Director forNew Jersey, who resigned as a result of this case),Richard Butler (a former law enforcement andsecriritypolice specialist for the U.S. Air Force), and George!?Hansen .(a parapsychology researcher and CSICOPcritic-see "Articles of Note," AS, May/June 1992· andJanuarylFebruary 1993). Stefula, Butler, and Hansenhave issued a 25-pagereport which they have circulatedthemselves, both electronically and on paper, pointingout numerous flaws in the evidence. They have heavilycriticized Hopkins, as well as Jerome Clark (editor of theInternational UFO Reporter), Walter Andrus (head ofMUFON), and David Jacobs (UFO researcher, author,and history professor at Temple University) for theirhandling of the case and the overall role they play inufology-the report compares their actions to players ina role-playing game such as Dungeons and Dragons.Clark and Andrus are singled out for the heaviest attackfor allegedly attempting to suppress criticisms of thecase, a charge which Clark disputes. (Clark has sinceagreed, despite.personal animosity between himself andHansen, to publish ~ article from Butler, Stefula,andHansen criticizing the case.)

Linda Napolitano claims to have been kidnapped andassaulted by federal agents named Richard and Dan whowere eyewitnesses to her UFO abduction, which ledButler, Stefula, and Hansen to ask why this hadn't beenreported to the proper law enforcement authorities. Thisin tum led to a vitriolic exchange of correspondencebetween Clark and Hansen, in which Clark stated that hewas unconvinced that the kidnapping and assault actuallytook place.

Butler, Stefula, and Hansen identify a possiblesource of Napolitano's story in the science fiction novelNighteyes by Garfield Reeves-Stevens, which waspublished a few months before Linda Napolitano llfstclaimed to have been abducted. Two pages of their reportlist similarities between the novel and elements ofNapolitano's abduction reports.

Copies of the Butler, Stefula, and Hansen reportmay be obtained for $4 from Bob Girard, ·1443 S.E. PortSt. Lucie, Port St. Lucie, FL 34952, .or via downloadfrom GEnie's PSI-NET software library.

Book Review'fhe Retreat to Commitment by WilliamWarren Bartley III2nd revised edition, Open Court Publishing,1984, 283pp.Reviewed by David A. SnodgrassPersons who consider themselves skeptics would nodoubt also be willing to consider themselves rationalists.It is safe to say that it is difficult· to imagine that anyonecould be a skeptic without at the same time being arationalist. (An exception might have to be made for so­called radical skeptics.) The essence of the skeptic'sapproach to paranonnal claims, for example, is that he,in thinking about and investigating those claims, is ftrstand foremost concerned to be rational in that thinkingand investigating. We can generalize this conceptbeyond the realm of investigation ofparanonnalclaims.The essence of the skeptic's approach to the world and tolife in general isthatiiemakes a conscious and constanteffort to be·rationai in that approach. Since the practiceof skepticism is inseparable from the practice ofrationality, it behooves us to think critically about whatthe practice of rationality consists of.

In his book The Retreat to Commitment, WilliamWarren Bartley III presents an original and importantthe,ory about what· it is to practice rationality. Bartleymakes two central claims in his theory of rationalpractice. The flfst claim·is that the practice of rationalityis identical with the practice of criticism, and that thereexist no logical barriers that would in any way limit thepractice of criticism. (Bartley·concedes that there are, ofcourse, other barriers that limit the practice of criticism,and··tberefore of rationality; subjective barriers such asneuroses, and objective barriers such as those discoveredby physics, for example, the uncertainty principle or thespeed of light. The point of Bartley's claim about thelogically unlimited character of criticism, and therefore ofrationality, is that in the course of the criticalexamination of, and argument about, for example,theories of psychology and physics, it is never logicallynecessary to. say: "Here all criticism must stop.") Thesecond claim is about why the unlimited nature ofrationality (or criticism) bas generally gone unnoticed, atleast in the main rationalist traditions of our culture. Ithas generally gone unnoticed because it has generallybeen assumed that the practice of criticism is inseparablefrom the practice Q(justifying our theories, ways oftife,and so on. According to most rationalists, in order tocritically support a theory, it is necessary to rationally

MarchlApril1993 The Arizona Skeptic 3

justify it. ·A common way of rationally justifying· atheory is to claim .. that its rational justification is basedon the fact that there is empirical evidence for. it. Theoriginal and important facet of Bartley's theory ofrationality is that it clearly shows .how the ubiquitousand apparently innocuous practice of rationally justifyingtheories, ways of life, etc. is really not so innocuousafter all. In fact, the practice of rational justification basmade.it impossible. for persons wbo strive to practicerationality to consistently claim that they in fact practicerationality in all aspects of their lives, simply becausethey are unable to consistently claim that they practicerationality with regard to the most fundamentalprinciples of rational practice: the fundamentalprinciples of rational practice itself. But why is arationalist who claims that rational practice consists ofthe justification of, for example, theories, unable toconsistently make the claim that he practices rationalitywith· respect to rationality itself?

Consider again the common method of rationallyjustifying a theory by showing it to be based uponempirical evidence. What if the rationalist is now askedto justify this fundamental principle of rational.justification itself? Wbat criterion of rationaljustification is he to. appeal to? Well, the options arepretty limited. In fact, there is just one: An empiricalrationalist can only justifybis own fundamentalprinciple of rational justification by claiming that it,too, is based upon empirical evidence. But this reallyamounts to no justificau()ll at an, ~ecause the critic of ­the empirical rationalist will simply poin~ out that the"justification" of the practice of rationally justifyingeverything by appeal to empirical evidence, by appealingto empirical evidence, is merely arguing in a circle. Thecritic of empirical rationalism could at this poin~ dismissit as being irrational. But suppose that he is charitableand accepts the empirical rationalist's '1ustification" ofempirical rationalism (perhaps on the ground that thereisempirical evidence that persons who practice empiricalrationalism tend to live longer because, for example,they tend to cross the street against the light less oftenthan persons who do not practice empirical rationalism).Since we grant that a position is rationally acceptable. if,and only if, it is rationally justifiable, the critic can goon to demand the rational justification of the"justification" just given. Again,. the only option open \to the empirical rationalist is to justify the previousjustification by appeal to empirical evidence. And again,tbe malicious critic can demand (on pain ofits beingadlnitted that there is none) the rational justification ofthe previous justification of the first justification, and soon, ad infinitunl. It is clear, then, that the classicalrationalist principle "Accept all, and only, thosepositions that can be rationally justified"cannot beext.ended to that fundamental rationalist· principle itself.The result is that if we identify the practice of rationalitywith the practice of rational justification, thenrationalists cannot consistently claim to be rationalists"all the way down," because the fundamental principlesof their rational practice cannot themselves be '1ustified"without resort to circular reasoning or entrapment in

infinite regress. If the practice of rationality is identicalwi til the practice of justification, then the scope ofrational practice is severely limited.

According to Bartley, the failure of justificationistrationalists· to justify their own practice of rationality hasled to a crisis of integrity for rationalists in general.Moreover, the failure of justificationist rationalists tojustify their own rationalist .practice has provided apowerful and insidious weapon for irrationalists to useagainst rationalists. This "weapon" is in fact· a verygood argument, wbich is precisely why it is so powerfuland insidious when used against rationalists. Bartleycalls this anti-rationalist argument-weapon the tu quoque,and it goes like this: Since rational practice cannot itselfbe rationally justified, so-called rationalists cannotcriticize and reject any other practice, including thepractice of irrationalism, .on .the .grounds that those rivalpractices are unjust~fied and so irrational. The failure ofrationalists to justify·· their own practice of rationalitymeans that the playing field has been totally leveled inthe contest between rational practice, irrational practice,and any fonn of nonrational practice whatsoever. Thechoice of one of these kinds of practice must in fact bebased upon something other'than rational justification(whim, pleasure, taste, existential anguish, and faith aresome of the more common substitutes for rationaljustification in choosing one practice over another) andthe robust irrationalist is much more self-critical andhonest-much more rational-in his recognition of thisfact than is tile self-righteous, self-deceiving rationalist.So the tu quoque argument against rational practiceconsists simply in the irrationalist's replying "You too!"to the rationalist, every time that the rationalistchallenges the irrationalist's irrationalism on the groundsthat it is unjustified. The best that we can do, given thefailure of rationalists to justify their own rationality, isto commit ourselves (througbwhim, faith, or whatever)to our practices, including tbe practice of rationality.Hence "the retreat tocommirment" ()fBartley's title.

It would be a mistake for us to think, as skepticsand rationalists, that the crisis of rationalist integritydescribed by Bartley is of academic interest only. Bartleyfocuses upon tlie moral, cultural, and· practicalconsequences of the failureo,f rationalists to justify theirown rational practice. In his book, Bartley analyzes thespecific consequences of that failure for contemporaryProtestant theology and religious life, but he carefullypoints out that his focus on Protestantism is forillustrative purposes only..Protestant theology's gradualmovement away from rationalism and into fideismhappens to provide a particularly vivid illustration of theconsequences of the rationalists' failure to justify theirown practice, but those consequences are by no meanslimited to Protestant thought. The main consequence forour culture as a whole is that the tu quoque argumentagainst rationalism has put down deep and extensiveroots. (A bit of anecdotalevidence for this claim: I havemyself encountered the tu quoque four times over thepast two years, twice in conversation and twice in print)The specific consequence of that failure for contemporaryskeptics should be clear: If the tu quoque argument

4 The Arizona Skeptic March/Aprill993

against rational practice is valid and sound, it followsthat the choice between, for example, the practice ofskepticism and the practice of occultism can never bemade rationally. Another important consequence of thecultural spread of the tu quoque is that argument itself isseverely devalued. Arguments are no longer takenseriously as arguments, but are used instead (if they areused atall and not abandoned in favor of the use of brutephysical force) for such purposes as the spread ofpropaganda and the evocation· of emotion. Under thereign of the tu quoque argument against rational practice,we may take or leave argument in precisely the sameway that we may take or leave a given flavor of sodapop.

Bartley's solution to the "dilemma of ultimatecommitment" posed by the failure of justificationistrationalism is simple and profound. Bartley shows thatrationalists have been skewered·on the dilemma preciselyand only because they have mistakenly assumed thatcriticism, for example the criticism of a practice, isidentical to the justificatiIDnl of thafpractice.. It iscrucially important. to realize and appreciate just howmistaken that assumption is. In fact, there is nothing. inlogiC that shows criticism- and justification to be thesame kind of thing. The rationalist's propensity to makethat identification, and to cling·. to> it so tenaciously, canbe explained by closely examining the history o(rationalpractice itself. For one thing, our ideas about what it isto practice rationality have·· largely or wholly sprungfrom our Western philosophical tradition, and, as ;Bartleypoints·.out, that tradition has developed iII tandem withChristianity which,. in its orthodox forms, isfundamentally concerned with the justification of itsbeliefs. (Think of the genre of Christian literatureknown as "apologetics.")·· Thus,whenrationalists. haverebelled against (Le., criticized) various forms· ofreligious authority, they have felt compelled todemonstrate that rebellion (criticism) will not lead tosocial anarchy ·by showing that the rebellion (criticism)is itself grounded .upon (justified by) some· form ofrational authority. ;But, as we have seen, at the end ofthe justificationist road lies the tu quoque argumentagainst rationalist practice itself.

Bartley shows that, contrary to the standardassumptions of Western ·rationalists, the practice ofcriticism can be completely decoupled from the practiceof justification. He offers the following as the coreproposition of rational practice: "Nothing gets justified,·everything. gets criticized" (p. 112; emphasis Bartley' s),and the very first thing that goes unjustified but getsseverely criticized is this core proposition of rationalpractice itself. An immediate consequence, therefore, isthat the tu quoque argument against rational practice isdefanged: One can be a rationalist "all the way down" aslong as one holds all of one's beliefs and actions open topotential (and optimally continual} criticism andpotential refutation including, most importantly, one'sfundamental principle of rational practice itself, which isjust the proposition that one ought to hold all of one'sbeliefs open to. potential (and optimally continual)

criticism and potential refutation. The tu quoqueargument is valid but not sound, because·its fundamentalpremise is false. Rational·practice is not identical withthe· practice of justification, but it is identical with thepractice of criticism. ;Bartley calls his theory of rationalpractice "pancritical rationalism" because of thecomprehensive 10gic31·scope that the practice of criticismhas. There are no logical barriers to the practice ofcriticism, and therefore there are no logical barriers to thepractice of rationality. .In fact, we become involved inanother kind of "infinite regress" if we practicepancritical rationalism: the practice of criticism can becarried on ad infinitum. And it ought to be, if we aspiretOr practice rationality with regard to everything,including our rational practice itself.

An .. important consequence of the decoupling ofcriticism· from justification is that the onus is now onthe irrationalists and nonrationalists to practice"pancriticism" themselves, if they expect to maintainintellectual parity with rationalists. As;Bartley puts thispoint:

March/April 1993 The Arizona Skeptic 5

attempt to disjustify them by showing that, forexample, there is no empirical evidence for them.Throughout this review, the concept of"justification" should be taken to imply the conceptof "disjustification" as well.

2. My immediate inspiration for the writing of thisreview stems from two comments made by JimLippard. The first comment was made at a meetingof the Phoenix Skeptics during which Jim wasdescribing his exchanges with a group of Australianskeptics following his criticism of their handling ofa debate with creationist Duane Gish. Jim stated(and I paraphrase, but this paraphrase captures thecore of his comment) that everything .is open tocriticism, most especially one's own views. Itstruck me as amazing and important that this ideawould have to be explicitly stated during t.hecourseof a discussion between skeptics, and that the criticalspirit Jim espoused seemed to play no part in theAustralians' response to his criticisms. Bartley'stheory of pancritical rationalism provides us with apowerful argument in support of Jim's dictum, andthe Australians' dogmatism provides us with anexample of why· Bartley's assertion that "There isnothing intrinsically rational about· any particularposition or context-including. that. particularcontext known as 'rationalism' or the 'rationalistidentity' or 'the rationalist tradition'" (p.171) istrue: simply substitute "skepticism," "the skepticalidentity,"and··"the skeptical tradition" into Bartley'ssentence.

The second C6mment by Jim that inspired thisreview appears in his note to Jeff Jacobsen's aRicle"Science and Dianetics" (AS, July/August 1992). Inthat rfote, Jim observes that, in reference to KarlPopper's attempt to find a line of demarcationbetweens'cience and pseudoscience based upon thenotion of falsifiability, "it is the opinion of manyphilosophers that there is no principled ·way ofdistinguishing science from pseudoscience, or evenfrom nonscience." It is important to note thatBartley claims that his theory of pancriticalrationalism is a generalization of Popper's approachto the problem of criticism and justification(p.xiii), but that Bartley can be counted among thephilosophers who have questioned the importance oftrying to demarcate between science andpseudoscience. He argues that "the fundamentalproblem of modem philosophy.. .is the problem ofdefeating the tu quoque by showing that it ispossible to choose in a nonarbitrary way amongcompeting, mutually exclusive theories, and~morebroadly.speaking-am6ng competing 'ways ·oflife'"(p. 83). Thus, the fundamental problem here is notthat of distinguishing between science andpseudoscience, but of finding a principled way 6fdistinguishing between competing and incompatibletheories and ways of life. If Bartley's theory ofrational practice is correct, there isa principled wayof making. that distinction.

Camille Paglia: Astrologer"I'm an astrologer-people don't mention this! I mean,everyone's attacked me for everything else. I mean, I'man astrologer-it's right in my book. I endorseastrology. I believe in astrology. Will someone attackme for that? . No!" -Camille Paglia, "The M.I.T.Lecture: Crisis in the American Universities," in herSex, Art, and American Culture (1992, Vintage), pp.253-254.

Skeptical NewsEldon Byrd's libel lawsuit against James Randi andCSICOP is scheduled to go to trial on May 24. UriGeller's lawsuits are still pending.

Mike Stackpole and Ted. Karren were guests on thePhoenix local cable TV show "Arizona Now and Then"on February 1 to discuss predictions by psychics and thePhoenix Skeptics. (Our predictions were published inthe last AS.)

Phoenix Skeptic Jeff Jacobsen attended the recentconvention of the Cult Awareness Network and reportsthat Scientology members were there distributing anti­CAN literature, picketing the hotel, aIld occasionallyrepresenting themselves as CAN members in dealingwith the hotel. Jeff also reports that someone· set off thehotel fire alarm in the middle of·. a speecb by ASUpsychologist Robert Cialdini, the author of the excellentbook, Influence. In related news, CAN has been fightingoff numerous lawsuits filed by Scientologists~

Jim Lippard's "Report on the 1992 CSICOPConference" is· being reprinted by BASIS, the Bay AreaSkeptics' newsletter, and (in smaUpieces) by TheSkeptic, the newsletter of the North Texas Skeptics.One comment prompted by this summary is that theRobert Young explanation of the Kecksburg UFO (beingthe Lake Erie meteor). is contradicted by satellite data,according t6 skeptic James Oberg,·.whohas speculatedthatlt may have been a Russian satellite reenay. {Obergemphasizes, however, that it is more likely that nothingat all landed at Kecksburg.) Young's SI article (Spring1991) has also been criticized for overlooking the contentof Stan Gordon's investigation of the Kecksburgincident, while making indirect reference to .it onp. 284of bis article. (Gordon is founder of the PennsylvaniaAssociation for the Study of the Unexplained andPennsylvania MUFON director.)

National Capitol Area Skeptic and National Instituteof Standards and Technology research chemist MichaelEpstein now has a regular column in the Journal. ofScientific Exploration. The column, titled "TheSkeptical Perspective,"· has so far run for two issues.The first, in voL 6, no. 3 (1992), reported on localskeptical group activities and skeptical computer bulletinboards. The second reported on appearances of the VirginMary and two works by CSICOP Fellows which Epsteincharacterized. as "rather disturbing verbiage"-HenriBroch's Skeptical Inquirer comment on the liquefyingblood of St. Januarius, which used unverified anecdotalevidence to discredit a claim, and Susan Blackmore'sbook Beyond the Body, which discusses the use of the

6 The Arizona Skeptic March/April 1993

drug ketamine to produce OBEs without mentioning therather serious warnings which accompany that drug'sdescription in the Physicians Desk Reference. A futurecolumn by Epstein will include some coDlments onskeptical computer forums by Jim Lippard. (The JSE isavailablefor $30/year for the frrst year, $4O/year foreachyear thereafter from JSE, ERL 306, Stanford University,Stanford, CA 94305-4055.)

Suitbert Ertel and Arno Muller have analyzed thedata from the French skeptics' "Mars effect" replicationstudy, and conclude that it shows the correlation betweenthe position of Mars at .time of birth and sports abilitypredicted by the late Michel· Gauquelin. (See "EditorialNote Regarding the 'Mars Effect,'" AS, May/June 1992,pp. 6-7.) Claude Benski of the French CFEPP and JanWillem Nienhuys·· of the Dutch Stichting Skepsis areexpected to produce their own analysis of the data in thenear future; this analysis is expected to be .negative.(This replication study was agreed to by CFEPP andMichel Gauquelin in the French science magazineScience etiVieway back in October 1982, and the datahad been collected by June 1990. It was because of thelong delay t11at Ertel and Muller obtained the data fromCFEPP and did .their own analysis.. The "Mars effect"has been·studied by the Belgian Comite .Para (in the late1960's), CSICOP(in the late 1970's), the FrenchCFEPP (1980's to present), and the Dutch StichtingSkepsis (1990's). Of these groups, the Comite Para,CSICOP, and CFEPP did their own replications. TheBelgians replicated the effect whileCSICOP did not­but Ertel's reanalysis of CSICOP' s·data, published in theWinter 1992 Skeptical Inquirer, casts some doubt onthat, and Ertel is continuing to examine some·puzzles intheCSICOP data. The explanation offered by theComitePara for their replication was falsified by anexperiment proposed by CSICOP Fellow Marvin Zelenconducted by Gauquelin, by other analysis by Gauquelin,by analysis by ex-CSICOP Executive Council memberDennis Rawlins, and by unpublished work by theComite Para itself. The Dutch skeptics have suggestedvarious explanations in terms of selection bias, bula fullexplanation· of the "Mars· effect" anomaly is stillawaited.)

The February 1993 Spy magazine (p. 19) reportedon apparent vital mythical numbers (see Max Singer,"The Vitality of Mythical Numbers," AS, March/April1992) from the Centers for Disease Control. Spypointed out that news reports from October 1, 1985 topresent have given the number of HIV infections in theUnited States as one million-despite· claiming (NewYork Tilnes, October 1, 1985) that "the total may beclimbing by 1,000 to 2,000 per day." While thisnumber was definitely mythical in 1985, it may not infact be mythical today. Spy's article may be misleadingbecause newspapers tend to report the highest number ina range of possibilities and neglect to give anyinformation· about confidence limits. Further, theaccuracy of projections has improved over the last eightyears-the initial projections were a bit high. Forinstance, in 1986 the PUblic Health Service's AIDSexperts projected a· cumulative total of 270,000 AIDS

cases (as opposed to HIV infections) by the end of 1991,with 179,000 deaths (according to Randy Shilts, And theBand Played On, 1987, St. Martin's, p. 586). The totalnumber of AIDS cases in the United States·reported tothe CDC by the end of 1991 was 199,516, witll133,233deaths (HIVIAIDS Surveillance, January 1992). Themost recently reported U.S. figures, for the end of 1992,are 244,939 cases of AIDS and··171,890 deaths(HlVIAIDS Surveillance, January 1993).

This will be the last issue of AS .edited by JimLippard. ·A new editor is still being sought. Anyvolunteers?

Upcoming MeetingsThe Phoenix Skeptics· will meet at the Jerry's Restauranton Rural/Scottsdale Road between McKellips. and theriver bottom, with lunch at 12:30 on the frrst Saturdayof each month except where it conflicts with a holiday.

Books of Note(Books listed here may still be reviewed in depth infuture issues of AS. Submissions of reviews of thesebooks are, in fact, encouraged.)Richard Broughton, Parapsychology: The Controversial

Science, 1991,N.Y.: Ballantille~408ppl Probablythe best popular overview of the evidence for psi todate. <Highly recommended for skeptics, but bewarned that Broughton frequently overlooksskeptical criticisms of the evidence he presents (e.g.,the Summer 1989 Skeptical·· InqUirer criticism ofZhang Baosheng). He also uncritically cites RonMcRae's Mind Wars, overlooking Philip Klass'sSpring 1984S1 critique. (McRae has Sinceconfessed ·tomaking up much of his research forcolumnist Jack Anderson and making up many ofhis stories, in the June 1992 issue of Spymagazine--see "Articles of Note," AS, May/June1992.) Especially recommended: the account ·of thelate Charles Honorton' sganzfeld research on pp.99­114 and the description of·the debate betweenHonorton andCSICOP Executive Council memberRay Hyman on pp. 285-288.

John Crewdson, By Silence Betrayed: Sexual Abuse ofChildren in America, '1988, N.Y.: Harper & Row,267pp. A detailed but relatively unsensationalaccount of the extent and nature of child sexualabuse in the United States. Crewdson, a Pulitzerprizewinning journalist for the Chicago Tribunewho broke the story .of Robert Gallo's nondiscoveryof the HIV virus, unfortunately fails to takeseriously the possibility of suggested falsememories, leading to his endorsement of even somerather unbelievable Satanic ritual abuse claims. Onthe other hand, he does present some evidence ofchild abuse in cases such as the McMartin Preschoolcase and the Jordan, Minnesota case which should betaken into consideration by those who think that theSatanism elements are sufficient to refute themolestation charges.

Marcel C. LaFollette, Stealing Into Print: Fraud,Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific

MarchiApril 1993 The Arizona Skeptic 7

Publishing, 1992, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 293pp. Another new book onscientific fraud (see last AS's review of RobertBell's Impure Science); this one focuses onpublication issues such as plagiarism, questions ofauthorship, the review process, etc. One major flawis that the LaFollette fails to take her own advice onpage 105: "unresolved issues, like varyinginterpretations of data, should be described explicitlyin print." She heavily criticizes the late Cyril Burtfor fraud in his twin studies (on pp. 54, 57, 125­126, and 152, among other places), but fails to noterecent reevaluations of the case which put Burt in amuch more favorable light and his critics in a worselight (e.g., Ronald Fletcher, Science, Ideology, andthe Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal, 1991, NewBrunswick: Transaction; Robert B. Joynson, TheBurt Affair, 1989, London: Routledge). The chargethat Burt invented research assistants, for example(which LaFollette repeats on p. 152 and in afootnote on p. 228), appears to be completelyunfounded (see especially Fletcher's book).LaFollette also brings up charges that Archaeopteryxfossils are forgeries, without mentioning the natureof tile charges (that feathers were stamped on thefossils; alleged by astronomer Fred Hoyle andmathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe in aphotography journal). While she does cite a rebuttalto Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's charges (A. Chariget aI.. , "Archaeopteryx Is Not a Forgery," Science232(May 2, 1986):622-626), she doesn't mentionthe most recently discovered specimen, which alsohas feather impressions (P. Wellnhofer, "A NewSpecimen of Archaeopteryx," Science 240(June 24,1988):1790-1792).

Articles of Note"Biospherians to have oxygen pumPed in ag~~," Arizona

DailpStar (Wednesday, January 13', 1~93):IA.Repo* on the planned Janu~ 13 introdvction ofenough pure oxygen to bring the oxygen leyel downto th~quivalent of a 6,400-fOOt'elevatioq'.;from its13,4~foot elevation equival~qs(!.

Sharon Begley with Mary Heget,';:"Ne,\y. cks in ilieGlass House: The Science ~dvisers esign fromBiosphere 2," Newsweek 121(March 1, 1993):67.The entire science advisory committee resigned,citing as one reason fear of damage to ilieirreputations for being connected with the project.

Raymond Bonner, "Crying Wolf Over Elephants: Howthe International Wildlife Community GotStampeded Into Banning Ivory," The New YorkTimes Magazine (February 7, 1993):16-19,30,52­53. Reports on some negative consequences of ilieivory ban for elephants and misinformationpromulgated by groups such as ilie the AfricanWildlife Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund.While elephant populations have been declining inKenya and Tanzania, the populations in many areasof those countries are still too great-resulting inelephants destroying the habitat of oilier animals

such as impala, giraffes, bush babies, and monkeys.In other countries such as Botswana, Zimbabwe, andSouth Africa, elephant populations have beenincreasing and are almost double what iliey were tenyears ago. (See also Julian Simon, "Truili AlmostExtinct in Tales of Imperiled Species," AS,March/April 1992.) Letters of reply from PaulSchindler of the African Wildlife Foundation andRussell Train and Kathryn Fuller of ilie WoddWildlife Fund appear in The New York TimesMagazine (February 28, 1993):10,12. A few moreletters appear in the March 7, 1993 issue, p. 12.

Bruce Johnston, "Vatican Sets Evangelical Sights onOuter Space," London Daily Telegraph (October 28,1992):15. Discusses the Vatican's new telescope, ajoint project with the University of Arizona on Mt.Graham near Tucson. Fr. George Coyne, head ofthe Vatican Observatory (who splits his timebetween Rome and the University of Arizona), isquoted saying that if extraterrestrial life is found,"the Church would be obliged to address ilie questionof whether extraterrestrials might be brought withinthe fold and baptised." Coyne is also quoted in thearticle as saying that extraterrestrials would have tobe asked "Have you ever experienced someiliingsimilar to Adam and Eve, in other words originalsin?" and "Do you people also know a Jesus whohas redeemed you?"

Jenny Randles, "Keep Watching The Skies!" ForteanTimes #65(OctoberlNovember 1992):24-26. Givessome good advice on identifying common UFOs­lenticular cloud formations, meteors, variousphotographic errors-wiili ten example photographs.

Bob Rickard, "Ghostwatch: Whatever PossessedParkinson?" Fortean Times #67(FebruarylMarch1993):38-42. Looks at reactions to BBC TV's"Ghostwatch"media hoax, a 90-minute fictionalinvestigation of "the mo~t haunted house in Britain"which ended with the demonic possession ofMichael Parkinson, a popular talk show host. (Theshow also featured a phony live satellite link-Up to"Dr. Sylvester" in New York, portraying a skeptic.)The BBC received over 20,000 calls asking if theshow was for real, and was apparently responsiblefor the suicide of 18-year-old Martin Denham threedays later. Among those commenting negatively onthe BBC's hoax (p. 42) is CSICOP ExecutiveCouncil member Susan Blackmore.

Andy Roberts, "Curiouser and Curiouser," ForteanTimes #67(FebruarylMarch 1993):53. A report onthe Linda Napolitano UFO case which, while itdoesn't mention the Butler, Stefula, and Hansenreport (see article in iliis AS), states iliat "I iliinkthis is going to be the case on which abductions asalien events stand or fall. If (and in my opinionwhen) it all falls down, the nonsense iliat aliens areabducting human beings can be laid to rest and wecan sort out just what is behind iliese experiences."

Carl Sagan, "What's Really Going On?" Parade (March7, 1993):4-7. CSICOP Fellow Sagan discussesUFO abductions.

8 The Arizona Skeptic March/April 1993

Kathleen Sharp, "The New Hidden Persuaders," Self(March 1993):174-175, 194-195. Reports onstudies of subliminal tapes for behaviormodification-they don't work. Quotes SkepticalInquirer (Spring 1992) author Anthony Pratkanis andCSICOP Executive Council member SusanBlackmore.

Brian Siano, "All the Babies You Can Eat," TheHumanist 53(2, March/April 1993):40-41. TheHumanist's "Skeptical Eye" columnist responds tothe unsubstantiated stories of ritual human sacrificetold by the pseudonymous "Elizabeth Rose" in arecent issue of Ms. magazine.

Paul Sieveking, "Fear and Loathing in France," ForteanTimes #67(FebruarylMarch 1993):48. Describes achild murder hysteria (there is no evidence of anykillings) in Calais, France from late last year, whichnearly led to a lynching of a 19-year-old former drugaddict. It started with a city surveyor takingphotographs outside a school in an area of Calaiswith an over 50% unemployment rate. A childreported to his parents that a man was takingphotographs outside the school, which led to rumors

of children being found with their throats slit, beingburned alive, etc.

Peter Smith, "Childhood Terrors" (letter), Fortean Times#67(FebruarylMarch 1993):65. Reports that a four­year-old son of a friend regained consciousness whileundergoing a tonsillectomy and now has troublesleeping-he will wake and claim that he is beingchased by ghosts. The letter writer postulates thatthis phenomenon-waking during surgery,surrounded by masked beings-may be responsiblefor the imagery reported by UFO abductees and ritualabuse survivors. FT editor Bob Rickard replies thata biography of Bram Stoker by Daniel Farsonreports that such a childhood experience inspired thewriting of the novel Dracula.

"Real Incest and Real Survivors,:,Readers Respond," NewYork Times Book Rel!,ibw'f~(February 14,1993):3,27. Critical;md "'~up'p<>rt~v'~~l~~ters inresp?nse to Carol Tavfi~,'Z~~wa,r~J!1e J~cest­Survivor Machine" (January l:'11s~m'~last AS)from Judith Lewis Hermari, Frntrcel'Lear, Ellen Bass" ',> '" "\ ", .,,'and Laura Davis, E. Sue' Blume, and others. Carol

- .,' . . i.'~~ :,<' -: ~ ,tj '<

Tavrisreplies on page 27."i?~:.;- ~

The Arizona Skeptic is the official publication of the Phoenix Skeptics and the Tucson Skeptical Society (TUSKS). The PhoenixSkeptics is a non-profit scientific and educational organization with the following goals: l. to subject claims of the paranormal,occult, and fringe sciences to the test of science, logic, and common sense; 2. to act as clearinghouse for factual and scientificinformation about the paranormal; and 3. to promote critical thinking and the scientific method. The contents of The Arizonallin!i£ are copyright © 1993 by the Phoenix Skeptics unless otherwise noted. Material in this publication with PhoenixSkeptics copyright may be reprinted provided that The Arizona Skeptk; and the author are provided copies of the publication inwhich their work is reprinted. Address all correspondence to the Phoenix Skeptics, P.O. Box 62792, Phoenix, AZ 85082-2792 orelectronically to REVENANT on GEnie. All manuscripts become the property of the Phoenix Skeptics, which retains the right toedit them. Subscription rate is $12.50 per year. Editor: Jim Lippard. Production: Ted Karren.

Phoenix SkepticsP.O. Box 62792Phoenix, AZ 85082-2792

lim Li1)'{>&'d117 li.~ifid A~teTUi,7;SOfi, AZ 85705

If there is an X in this box, your subscription has expired: