In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, we're trying something completely different! Are rich people harvesting organs from clones? Did Hitler fake his own death (six times)? Are CIA remote viewers peering inside your mind? Join Ashlyn and Lauren as they watch "Unsealed: Conspiracy Files" to find out!
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism that is produced by the Winnipeg Skeptics.
Correction: While it has been widely reported that the Mars Curiosity Rover sings itself “Happy Birthday” every year, and this did indeed occur in 2013, it seems to have been a one-time event (but this has been frustratingly difficult to verify).
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem, Lauren, Ashlyn, and Laura discuss the Ganzfeld Experiments, the Global Consciousness Project, Rupert Sheldrake, Daryl Bem, and a psychic dog, and then we finally find out exactly how psychic the panel is with a game of Psychic Fact or Psychic Fiction!
Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a program promoting secular humanism and scientific skepticism that is produced by the Winnipeg Skeptics.
In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Ashlyn Noble discusses the life and times of recently deceased "psychic medium" Sylvia Browne with Donna Harris and Gem Newman, and Gem hosts a game of Psychic Fact or Psychic Fiction!
This is a talk that I gave at TEDxManitoba on 9 February 2012. Below the video you can find the full text of the talk, with annotations and sources provided.
As a kid, I loved playing Monopoly. I was great at it, too! I was very nearly unbeatable.
I remember one game, looking down at the board and wondering how I was ever going to win. My mother had just pulled a $500 bill out from where she'd hid it between the couch cushions, my stepfather's hotels were crowding two sides of the board, and my houses on Mediterranean and Baltic just weren't paying off. How could this be? I thought to myself. I'm a smart kid. I'm great at Monopoly! But the odds were stacked against me, and the situation seemed impossible.
But that's what made me such a great Monopoly player, I guess. Somehow, I'd always pull out a win in the end. Thinking back, I don't remember losing a single game!
At some point, we all need to come to terms with the fact that maybe things didn't happen quite the way we remember them. As humans, we're just not that great at telling what's true from what we want to be true. Let's be frank: I was ten. I probably sucked at Monopoly. But I remember being awesome.
As Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella notes, "Our memories are not an accurate recording of the past. They are constructed from imperfect perception filtered through our beliefs and biases... Our memories serve more to support our beliefs rather than inform them."[Source]
We're not great observers, we humans, and we tend to pay much more attention to data that confirm our preconceived notions than to details that don't fit our theories. We have a marked tendency to remember the hits and forget the misses; presumably why people like Sylvia Browne and John Edward remain so popular.
It's for this reason that independent confirmation is one of the cornerstones of science.
I'm not a scientist, but I do think of myself as a "science cheerleader". And science needs cheerleaders, for a couple of reasons.
First, because it's important for everyone to have a basic scientific understanding. Professor Art Hobson put it this way: "the most crucial decisions [in industrialized nations] concern science and technology, and in democracies, citizens decide."[Source]
The second reason that science needs cheerleaders is that it is so oft maligned. Scientific skepticism is often portrayed as cold, unfeeling; antithetical to compassion or human emotion. Those with a penchant for whimsical nostalgia stubbornly insist that life was better and that times were simpler before science got all muddled up in society.[Note]
Could it be that they're right?
Science is the quest to understand ourselves, our universe, and our place in it. Science is curious by nature, for its goal is to figure out what's really true—but for that reason, science must also be skeptical. It insists that we shouldn't simply take claims at face value, but instead we should proportion our belief in a proposition to the evidence supporting it.
A series of studies conducted in the 1980s found that roughly 80% of people consider themselves above average drivers.[Source][Source] A 1987 study of Australian workers found that only 1% of them rated their workplace performance as below average.[Source] Unless I badly misremember how numbers are meant to work, it seems to me that something very near to half of them are mistaken.
The way that we see the world is coloured by many things, our own egos foremost among them. Perhaps when it comes to Monopoly games we can be forgiven if we see ourselves through rose-coloured glasses. Concern may become warranted when our callous assumption that we outperform our contemporaries affects the quality of our work or the safety of our driving.
But what about when it really counts? What if your child is sick? There are clearly many cases where we simply cannot afford to let our petty biases influence the way we see the world. And that's where science comes in.
While it's true that public support for science has remained generally high over the last several decades, and scientific literacy has been increasing more-or-less steadily, there have been some troubling developments in the popular media and in culture at large.[Note]
The image of the "mad scientist" is deeply ingrained in our culture, and probably dates to Mary Shelley's celebrated Frankenstein, in which the relentless pursuit of knowledge leads inexorably to unspeakable horrors. This idea is not a new one. Anti-science messages have been with us for hundreds of years.
Here's the problem: science is seen by many as unnatural, inaccessible, or even sinister. Scientists are widely regarded as arrogant, superior, or closed-minded.
What's the common thread here? Aside from being totally awesome, that is. Any guesses?
As unbelievable as it might seem, all of these stories are riddled with anti-science or anti-reason messages. Even in science fiction, the genre that inspired so many of the technologies and conveniences that we take for granted today, it is common to see science portrayed as sinister and destructive.
In Star Trek, a series that celebrates human ingenuity, Spock is set up as a straw man, his much lauded Vulcan logic inevitably knocked down by Kirk's emotionally driven human pluck. When it comes time to choose between thinking with your head and thinking with your heart, the message is clear: human emotion wins every time.[Note]
In Jurassic Park, the audience is shown the consequence of scientists "playing God". As in Frankenstein, disaster is the inevitable result of scientific excess.
In Lost, John Locke constantly admonishes the other characters to have faith, that they are all on the island for some mysterious purpose. And, because it's a fictional story, it turns out that he's right.
Oh, and then there was that episode of The X-Files that showed faith in the supernatural triumphing over the skeptic... Which one was that again...? Oh, right: all of them. Don't get me wrong: I loved The X-Files, but seriously—it was always a monster? Every time?
And even Scooby-Doo, a longtime favourite among skeptics of the paranormal, isn't blameless. Recent adaptations are much more likely to feature real monsters than grumpy old groundskeepers who would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
But perhaps the most egregious example of anti-science rhetoric in popular fiction is found in Ronald Moore's 2003 reimagining of Battlestar Galactica.
While dramatically enjoyable, the emphasis of faith over reason was a thread that wound its way through the entire series. What's worse, the final episodes first hinted then proclaimed that in a society that embraces science and technology, a technologically driven holocaust is inevitable. This has all happened before, we are told, and it will all happen again.
The series culminates (spoiler alert) with the entire human race abandoning all technology in favour of founding a nomadic hunter-gatherer society. Science fiction becomes luddite fantasy—famine, disease, and the concomitant contraction of the human lifespan be damned.
This message is getting through to the public, loud and clear. A 2001 NSF survey found that 50 percent of Americans believe "We depend too much on science and not enough on faith".[Source] I find this distressing.
From The Terminator to The Matrix to 28 Days Later, the idea that science will lead to some sort of technopocalypse is ubiquitous these days. And after all, why not? Isn't there a grain of truth to the idea?
Perhaps you might rightly scoff at Ben Stein's contention in the pseudo-documentary Expelled that the science of evolution led to the Nazi holocaust...[Note]
...but what say you when the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are laid at scientists' feet? Who can help but shiver upon hearing Oppenheimer's words? "I am become Death, destroyer of worlds." How can we answer such a charge?
In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were forbidden the knowledge of good and evil, but their curiosity got the better of them. According to this story, it was our thirst for knowledge that led to the fall.
Curiosity, we're told, is what killed the cat.
Knowledge can, of course, be used for good or for ill. Scientists invented the bomb—but it was politicians who called for it, taxpayers who funded it, and the military who saw it deployed. If you want to lay death and destruction solely at the feet of scientists, I don't think that you're playing fair.[Note]
"Curiosity killed the cat." How unjust!
That we should be incurious is perhaps the single most damaging message that our children receive from popular culture. Curiosity is one of the greatest assets that we as a species possess. It fuels free inquiry! It fuels innovation! Without nurturing our curiosity we risk retarding our progress as a civilisation.
Knowledge is not evil, nor is the pursuit of it. Knowledge of the way this wondrous world really works equips us to better our own situation and that of every other living being with whom we share this planet.
"Curiosity killed the cat." You would be hard pressed to find an idiom that irritates me more.
You want to know what probably didn't kill the cat? Diabetes, hyperthyroidism, intestinal parasites! For every cat killed by curiosity, I would wager that there are hundreds who have been saved by veterinary practices unknown a century ago.
Curiosity cured the cat!
Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, is credited with saving one billion people from starvation. We have indoor plumbing and flush toilets, and hand-washing, and the germ theory of disease, all of which save countless lives every day. These victories aren't just victories for science; they are victories for humanity. Science wins this fight.
As for the arrogance and closed-mindedness of scientists: I find this charge frankly startling, for in the process of skeptical inquiry I see the most amazing intellectual humility. The success of the scientific endeavour requires us to admit to our human foibles and failings, our petty biases and conceits. It is only in accounting for these human weaknesses that we make progress. Science is rooted in curiosity, and one cannot be curious without being humble. To wonder how something works, first you must admit that you don't know.
So if science is so successful in improving our lives, why does science still have such an image problem? Why do people fail to understand that science isn't the enemy of nature, but merely the study of it?
It probably isn't news to you that the media has a huge effect on how we think and behave. That's what advertising is all about, after all, and study after study shows that it works, even when we think that it doesn't.
In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan laments that "Scepticism does not sell well. A bright and curious person who relies entirely on popular culture to be informed about something like Atlantis is hundreds or thousands of times more likely to come upon a fable treated uncritically than a sober and balanced assessment."[Source]
In a culture so steeped in irrationality, a culture that prizes faith over evidence, it can be difficult to make progress in promoting science. Right now, the greatest obstacle to the public understanding of science is the way it's presented in the media.
So what if our stories had skeptical, pro-science messages? What if they encouraged the audience to think critically, rather than just nodding along? What if the heroes of our stories weren't those who simply fought for what they believed in, but those who had the courage to ask themselves why it was that they believed it?
We have the power to reignite the public passion for learning new things. We need to teach everyone (everyone) what science is, at its core. That may sound daunting, but it's really a very simple idea: Beliefs should be supported by good evidence.
None of us are perfect, and so if we're serious about figuring out what's really true we need to understand our own biases and apply a basic skepticism to all claims to knowledge. We need to avoid the temptation to look only for the evidence that confirms what we already believe. Or, as Randall Munroe put it, "You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right."[Source]
And we already have allies in the popular media.
On the front lines, I see novelists like the excellent Robert Sawyer (from whom you heard only a moment ago) and the unbelievably popular J.K. Rowling.
Sawyer is famous for stories that show rationalism triumphing over superstition. In the Harry Potter series, Rowling provides an excellent role-model in Hermione Granger, whose success is due not to some innate talent, but to hard work and a willingness to question popular wisdom.
There are musicians like George Hrab and the inimitable Tim Minchin who encourage us to be skeptical of extraordinary claims. Sara Mayhew infuses her manga with a love of science. Randall Munroe and Zach Weiner pen comics that make us laugh and make us think. We have Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson working to communicate science to people of all ages. Adam Savage, Jaimie Hyneman, and rest of the gang at MythBusters remind us how exciting it can be to figure out what's really true.
At this point, you might be wondering what you can do to help.
Be curious. Question everything. Prize learning over simply knowing, because even things that we think we know can turn out to be wrong. As Carl Sagan said, "it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."[Source]
With everything that science has done for us, it deserves our support. So when you hear someone complain that science is arrogant, closed-minded, or dangerous: speak up. Because you know better.
[9] Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, page 16
Notes
[1] They set science and rationalism here and they set mystery and compassion there and demand that you choose between them, even though such a choice makes no sense. Science is no more a cold, unfeeling monstrosity than is a screwdriver or a pair of spectacles. Science is a tool that helps us overcome some of our inherent limitations. And yet, the idea that life was somehow better, humbler, and more existentially satisfying in some misty, bygone age is pervasive in our society.
[2] In our culture, the scientifically illiterate can get on by saying that they're just not "science people". Basic scientific literacy is very important, but ScienceDaily reports that in North America it sits around 30%. It's perfectly acceptable in our culture for a person to be scientifically illiterate, but just imagine what it would be like to have a similar attitude toward those who can't read or write.
[3] To learn more about the Straw Vulcan, I refer you to the TVTropes page that coined the term. I also highly recommend Julia Galef's talk from Skepticon 4, The Straw Vulcan.
[4] For more about the absurdity that is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, I refer you to Expelled Exposed, a site created and maintained by the National Center for Science Education. This site cheerfully exposes the anti-science propaganda behind this so-called documentary, while managing at the same time to be an enjoyable read! I doff my proverbial hat to Eugenie Scott and the rest of the folks at the NCSE for their tireless work in combating creationism masquerading as science.
[5] Neil deGrasse Tyson expressed this sentiment well. "Scientists don't lead marching armies!" he said. "Scientists don't invade other nations! Yes, we had scientists who invented the bomb, but somebody had to pay for the bomb, and that was taxpayers, that was war bonds. There was a political action that called for it. But everyone blames the scientists! ... At the end of the day, a discovery itself is not 'moral', it's the application of it that has to pass that test." (This quotation is taken from an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberley Academy. The interivew was conducted by a rare out-of-character Stephen Colbert, and is fantastic. You can watch it here.)
I received the following message the other day from a close friend of mine.
Hi!
I saw this and for a moment was terrified until I remembered that I'm friends with YOU and therefore a much more rational person than I might otherwise be just by sheer proximity. Regardless, please remind me again that microwaves aren't destroying my baby and various loved ones.
The link she provided was The Dangerous Truth Behind Microwaves by Mike Barrett of TruthTheory.com. Ah, EMF scare-mongering. It's been too long, old friend!
I didn't have much planned for the next few minutes (aside from playing some Super Meat Boy), so I dove right in.
The article is, as you might expect, riddled with misinformation. That misinformation, however, is crammed cheek-by-jowl with accurate statements, leading me to suspect that the author is guilty only of sloppy research, and readily accepted claims from both scientific and unscientific sources—with perhaps a modicum of cherry-picking thrown in. (This is borne out upon an examination of his source list, but we'll get to that later.)
How Microwaves Work
Let's start with the author's description of the process by which microwave ovens heat food:
In order for something to heat in a microwave oven, water must be present within the substance. If water is not present, heating will not occur and it would remain cool. The reason for this is that water molecules within the food vibrate at an incredible speed, creating molecular friction which is responsible for the heating of the food. The structure of the water molecules are torn apart and vigorously deformed. This is much different than any other method of cooking, as other methods such as convection ovens heat up food by transferring heat convectionally from the outside inward.
This description is almost correct, but is guilty of much hyperbole. First of all, it is not true that, lacking water, heating will not occur. What we're talking about is dielectric heating. While it's true that dielectric heating works best on water or substances containing water, it will also work on fats, sugars, and anything that contains electric dipoles.
Second, while stating that "the structure of the water molecules are torn apart and vigorously deformed" sounds scary, I've been unable to find any evidence that this occurs, and it's unclear what the dangers would be even if it did. While the molecules certainly do increase in kinetic energy (they move), the author seems to be suggesting that the molecular bonds are actually broken, which would cause the water to decompose into its component hydrogen and oxygen, as occurs in electrolysis. This is a fairly incredible claim that I've been unable to substantiate.
The Dangers of Radiation
The author admits that microwaves are not a form of ionizing radiation, although he stresses that non-ionizing radiation can still effect physical alterations. Sure! Like cooking stuff! He then says:
Other forms of ionizing radiation are visible light, ultraviolet and infrared waves, and waves emitted from televisions, cell phones, and electric blankets.
This is completely false. These are forms of non-ionizing radiation. While it is certainly possible that this was simply a typo, it remains irresponsible misinformation.
And then the real absurdity begins:
Although we've conducted study after study concluding that no amount of radiation is safe, we don't really know what all of this means in the long term.
I'm not even sure the author knows what he means, here. He seems to be conflating all forms of radiation, and then stating that the body of scientific literature on the subject concludes that there is no safe amount of any form of radiation.
Of course some amount of radiation is safe! If there were no radiation, we would be blind and we would freeze to death! Just lumping all spectra of electromagnetic radiation together is eggregious, irresponsible nonsense.
The author claims that "Tissues directly exposed to microwaves are subject to the same deformities molecules go through". This is very misleading.
Sure, microwave radiation can cause burns: that's why microwave ovens have doors on them specifically designed to block microwave radiation. You don't want to bathe your hand in high intensity microwaves for the same reason that you don't want to stick it in a campfire: it'll burn.
Now you might be worrying that your microwave door could be broken or cracked, and you're being exposed to dangerous invisible microwaves without your knowledge! Well, stop fretting. If this were happening, you'd know it pretty quickly, because the microwaves would literally be cooking your flesh, and that's something that we humans tend to notice.
Remember: microwaves are non-ionizing. They don't cause cancer: they cause heat.
"Microwave Sickness"
The author of the article then provides a laundry-list of nonspecific symptoms that he attributes to so-called "microwave sickness":
Impaired cognition
Nausea
Vision problems
Depression and irritability
Weakened immune system
Headaches
Dizziness
Insomnia and/or sleep disturbances
Frequent urination and extreme thirst
Sound familiar?
This so-called "microwave sickness" is just a repackaging of electrosensitivity syndrome, a discredited (and probably psychogenic) disorder that has been shown in controlled trials to no correlation (let alone a causal relationship) to EMF exposure.
Here's the list of symptoms attributed to electrosensitivity:
Some of these people may have a real underlying disease, and can get distracted from pursuing a proper diagnosis by the offer of a simple fake one. Many people need lifestyle adjustments, and that is where they should focus their efforts – not on magic supplements to treat nonexistent syndromes.
It's true that mobile phones, WiFi, etc. use radio waves in the microwave spectrum, but they are hilariously low-intensity. One of the ways that you can tell is that even the tiny bit of radiation that leaks out of a microwave oven is enough to interfere with wireless router traffic: and, as I said earlier, that's obviously not enough to do any damage.
Cell phones and WiFi, and their related impact on health, are heavily scrutinized, and there is no strong or even middling evidence linking these devices to health problems such as cancer. There are a small number of studies by a few fringe researchers which have failed reproduction by the scientific community. Many of these experiments have startling methodological flaws. Dr. Steven Novella has a great summary of some new research on the subject here.
Also worth noting: any case or covering that purports to block the EMF emitted by cell phones, laptops, etc. (and such devices are popular!) will fall into one of two categories: (1) it won't do anything; or (2) it will work, and your cell phone/WiFi will immediately stop working, because its signal is blocked.
So... keep that in mind.
The Nazi Connection
And this is where the author of this article really jumps the shark:
Microwaves were first invented by the Nazis in order to provide a method of cooking for their troops during World War II.
Godwin always makes me laugh. Also, I can find no evidence that microwaves were invented by the Nazis, and substantial evidence to the contrary.
The Sources
The author of this article has obviously taken no care in choosing his sources, which all seem to share strong (and fairly transparent) ideological convictions that bias them against good science. They are also uniformly hilarious.
Here are the websites linked to in the "Sources" section at the bottom of the article:
Relfe: "Valuable natural health, mind, spirit, financial and other information unifying the whole, rather than just educating a part of the whole." The main page contains multiple embedded Alex Jones videos, which describe in detail exactly how the government and the scientific establishment are trying to kill you.
The Library of Halexandria: "Halexandria is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality." Need I say more?
Lita Lee: The website of "nutritionist" (and Ph.D. chemist) Lita Lee. She would love to sell you all sorts of herbal concoctions, so why not mosey on over?
During a phone interview last week, Sylvia Browne told the Free Press that on top of her lecture, she'll be able to deliver psychic messages to as many as 300 audience members whe she appears at Pantages Playhouse Theatre on Thursday night.
Gem Newman has his doubts -- which is why he plans to be at the theatre well before the crowds start pouring in.
No, Newman is not a super fan hoping to intercept his idol and score a private reading.
The 26-year-old computer scientist is founder of the Winnipeg Skeptics, a group for people interested in the "investigation and critical examination of extraordinary claims."
And if anyone provides grist for that mill, he says, it's Browne and her infamously inaccurate predictions about missing and murdered children.
Newman says he and his cohorts plan to show up outside Pantages before the show simply to offer some food for critical thought to ticket holders who paid up to $96 to hear the self-proclaimed psychic and medium lecture about the afterlife and relay messages from dead relatives and spirit guides.
"A few of us are just going to hand out pamphlets to passersby, explaining how they, too, can appear to be psychic by using some common methods like cold reading," the animated redhead says over morning coffee at a downtown eatery.
Newman, who is wearing a T-shirt that reads (once you solve the mathematical equation) "Nerds Forever," stresses that the Sylvia Browne Awareness Campaign is not a protest and skeptics will not be getting in people's faces.
"Our intention is not to be intrusive or offensive, it's to educate. A lot of people see these shows and think they're pretty impressive -- and they are if you don't know what to look for."
For context, here's the
equation
expression she's talking about:
(Incidentally, you can find that shirt for sale here, in my Zazzle store.)
As an aside, I've discovered that I have a lot of trouble smiling in pictures. I was under the distinct impression that I was grinning as hard as I could for that shot.
In addition to online discussions, monthly Drinking Skeptically nights at the King's Head Pub and an annual SkeptiCamp (a free, day-long "conference for the sharing of ideas"), members also go on field trips. To date, they've visited a psychic fair and Winnipeg's own creation museum. (Christian Evidences Museum is located in the basement of Oxford Bible Church, at 621 Oxford St.)
Scott Carnegie, a 37-year-old television producer, says joining the Winnipeg Skeptics gave him back the sense of community and support he lost when he stopped going to church a few years ago.
"Anybody is who is interested in how the world really works would probably get something out of it," Carnegie says.
"It can be a real challenge to look at your beliefs and positions and ask yourself if they're true. That's a skill I don't think many people have."
Carolin Vesely, the reporter who interviewed me, managed to make our two-hour, meandering conversation somewhat coherent. She ended the article with the most important idea that I tried to express during the interview:
"To me, everything is provisional; it's always open for re-examination."
The article even features an excellent sidebar on Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (which was at the top of my list when the reporter asked for skeptical literature)!
All in all, I think that the piece is a definite skeptical win.
Edit: I've added a scan from my hard-copy of the article. It was at once both startling and humbling to have my image set next to that of Carl Sagan.
This is the eighth in a series of posts discussing The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which took place at South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, 8–11 July 2010. You can find the previous post here. You can find the next post here.
Joe Nickell
Joe Nickell is friendly and mildly self-deprecating, calling himself "the warm-up act for Adam Savage." He was an undercover detective for several years, and begins by briefly discussing the ethics of undercover (and thereby inherently deceptive) skeptical operations—they are, in his assessment, necessary, and do more good than harm.
He speaks about his investigation of Camp Chesterfield, and the tell-all book by confessedly fraudulent psychic M. Lamar Keene, entitled The Psychic Mafia. Nickell went in under the name Jim Collins (an homage to Houdini's assistant of the same name), and the results of his investigations were eventually published in Skeptical Inquirer.
Joe tells the audience of a spiritualist church service in which participants were instructed: "Please address your billet to one or more loved ones in spirit, giving first and last names." Nickell asked how he was to fold his paper, and one of the people assigned to pick them up replied, "Just fold it in half once." Nickell points out that when all papers are folded in this way it is impossible to tell which is which.
The papers were gathered together in a basket, and the psychic at the podium would take one and hold it to his forehead. With head bent in prayer, the medium would read the paper with his mind, announcing its contents.
Joe Nickell explains that this is rather easy to do. Simply take a paper and hold it to your forehead, while taking a second paper behind the podium with the other hand, flipping it open, and reading it under cover of prayer. Announce the contents of the second paper to your astonished audience: they won't know the difference.
Joe gives a brief rundown of common forms of hucksterism that he's encountered over his long career, mentioning faith healing (Popoff, Hinn, etc.), psychic detectives, and others of their ilk. He castigates the Oasis of Hope Hospital for selling laetrile after several studies have shown that it has no effect on cancer survival. He discusses the stigmata of Lilian Bernas, and faked holy blood in Belgium. Finally, at the spiritualist camp at Lily Dale, Bartlet drew him a portrait of Yellow Bird, his recently fabricated aboriginal spirit guide.
It seems like Joe Nickell has had a fascinating career. If you'd like to read more about him, visit his website.
This is the sixth in a series of posts discussing The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which took place at South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, 8–11 July 2010. You can find the previous post here. You can find the next post here.
These posts are compiled from notes taken on my iPhone during the presentations. I am now turning the screen brightness on the device way down in the hopes that its battery will make it though the day.
James Randi Interviewed by Jamy Ian Swiss
It looks like they'll be talking about Johnny Carson and how influential he was in the United States and abroad. Randi was on the show a total of twenty-two times. During the presentation, many old clips of Randi and Carson are aired.
Randi tells us that Johnny had a habit of sitting outside the studio in his white Corvette after the show, and as Randi exited Johnny would call him over. The two of them would sit in Johnny's car while the TV host smoked cigarette after cigarette, and they would talk.
Carson had a policy of never meeting with guests before they appeared together on-screen—but he constantly broke this rule for Randi. Johnny always had another question for him.
Randi got a call from Carson's show one day, asking him to appear on the show that night. Uri Geller would be a guest on The Tonight Show, and they wanted Randi to replicate or explain some of his parlour tricks. Randi, not wanting to tip off Geller, instead asked to speak to the prop master, who told him what was up.
Geller had requested several silver spoons and plastic film cannisters. Randi told the prop master to scotch tape the spoons to their tray and to put rubber cement on the bottom of the film cannisters.
Although Geller's dubious ability to bend spoons and keys using the power of his mind (in addition to the power of his hands) has been discussed in detail, the film cannisters were a fairly new trick: apparently several were to be presented to Geller, sealed, on a tray, one of them containing a small object. Geller would then lift the tray, and by surreptitiously observing the ways in which the cannisters slid slightly as he lifted it, he could determine which were empty and which contained hidden items. However, applying rubber cement to the bottom of the cannisters would greatly increase their coefficients of friction, preventing them from sliding and revealing the location of the hidden object.
The prop master did as Randi recommended, and Geller spent some eighteen minutes floundering before eventually giving up.
Randi went to see Peter Popoff at one of his many faith healing performances, and together with Banachek they discovered his trick: his wife was backstage transmitting via radio all of the relevant details about each audience member. They taped everything. Johnny Carson's producer bumped a few actresses, and allowed Randi to surprise the host with the stunning reveal.
Amazing.
"It turns out that God's frequency is 39.17 MHz..."
Popoff was ruined—but it didn't last. According to Randi, in 2009 Peter Popoff brought in $1,000,000 more than he did the year they shut him down.
During the discussion, Randi reveals that Johnny Carson was a heavy contributor to the JREF—he would frequently mail Randi letters containing short notes and cheques for $100,000. Randi relates that Penn Jilette once donated $50,000 on a humongous ten-foot cheque, saying that he wanted to be half the man that Johnny Carson was; much hilarity ensued when Randi went to the bank attempting to cash it.
The presentation ends with a clip of Randi performing psychic surgery on The Tonight Show.
In case you missed them, I'll link to parts one and two.
We were at a psychic fair, so I figured that I might as well get a reading.
Oddly enough, her testimonials were 100% positive.
One of the psychics billed herself as 90% accurate, and I was in favour of seeing her. Unfortunately the line was appallingly long, and I heard from several people that she was "bad" (I can only guess at what that means). So I asked around, and soon the four of us (myself, the missus, and two friends) were waiting to see a tarot card reader who was supposed to be excellent. There was some debate, then and afterward, regarding whether a tarot card reader could be considered a "psychic". Probably not, and some (but not all!) avoid making claims about the future, but regardless the practice of tarot certainly does involve certain, shall we say... unjustified metaphysical claims?
One of my friends went first. I couldn't hear any of what was said, as it was quite loud in the church, but afterward, he actually seemed impressed. This is completely understandable. He was apparently told that his sister was on some sort of journey (why such information would be useful to him, I have no idea; presumably the psychic was showing off)—which she was.
"I see a haircut in your future..."
Unfortunately, I can't really comment on this as I didn't hear exactly what was said, and have to rely on second-hand reports. Even if it were as simple as the reader saying, "Your sister is on a journey," this would not be an extraordinary claim. In the event that my friend has a sister (he does), she would be likely to be near in age to him, and thus the appropriate age to go on a trip (after high school, with friends, etc.). Even if she weren't on some sort of vacation, journeys are so often metaphorical! The reader has only to claim that she is seeking out her true self (again, not an extraordinary claim for someone in her late teens or early twenties), and suddenly she's right! In the event that my friend did not have a sister (I'm not convinced that he hadn't mentioned his family earlier in the reading, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), the reader had certainly seen us milling about before the reading—if he didn't have a sister, he obviously had two close female friends who could easily fit the bill: "someone who is like a sister to you".
When it came time for me to take a turn, I tried to be earnest and excited; ready to learn. I wanted to see what would happen, and I didn't want to get the reader's back up by being overtly skeptical. I didn't want to lie to the reader, but I also didn't want to supply her with any unnecessary information. Being no slouch, I had removed my wedding ring before entering the fair, and my OUT Campaign lapel pin as well. One of my friends later claimed that removing my wedding ring was a form of lying, and this resulted in quite a rousing debate between the two of us. I define a lie as an intentional misstatement of fact, and I believe that failing to provide information is not the same as providing false information. She disagreed, opining that my wedding ring was part of me, which I found to be an unjustified assertion. But I digress.
Throughout the experience, the reader was constantly seeking confirmation, and I decided to give it to her. "Is any of this making sense to you?" she'd ask? "Absolutely!" I'd say. I understood exactly what she was trying to achieve, and it made perfect sense to me!
One of my friends decided to try a different tactic. About halfway through her reading, she started answering "no" to that question. Apparently the reader was somewhat upset by this, and began thrusting her finger into the tarot card in question, as though my friend were myopic and unable to make out the figures and symbols that were so apparent to her.
I made a recording of my reading so that I wouldn't have to spend my time madly scribbling notes, however it was very loud in the church and at times I couldn't make out what the reader was saying. (It didn't help that for the first half of the reading there were folks wandering around banging drums. At one point in the recording one of them is heard to say, "Just clearing the energy...") I've transcribed the reading in its entirety here, with a summary of the predictions made at the end. You'll see me repeating what she says quite a lot; I did that to ensure that I had heard her correctly, and as a way to remain involved without volunteering too much information.
Reader: Have you had your cards done before? Gem: No, I haven't. Reader: Oh, good: a virgin! Okay... Gem: Just tell me what to do. Reader: Nothing! Gem: Oh. [Laughs.] Well, that's easy! Reader: Tell me what you want to look at. Gem: I... I'm not sure what you mean. Reader: School, work... Gem: Oh! Reader: ...girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever. Gem: Relationships, I guess. Reader: Okay, relationships? Gem: Sure. Reader: All right, all right. [She shuffles, then lays out the cards in three stacks.] Pick one. Gem: A pile? Reader: Yep. Gem: That one. Reader: [She begins laying out cards.] We are definitely looking at the changes around you. Gem: Okay. Reader: Like... it's like the end of one era and the beginning of a new era.
Gasp! I got married less than three months ago! How did she know?
She may have, but she probably didn't. Let's look a little more closely at this statement. I'm in my mid-twenties: I'm at the age when people are graduating from university, switching from "jobs" to "careers", getting married, having their first children, buying or renting their first homes... I'll readily admit that I was a little startled when she said this (unaccountably so), but that's the point. It's a Barnum statement: we're all going through changes all the time, and I helpfully filled in the blank with the specific recent change that occurred in my life. If she'd said it to you, what would you have thought of?
Unfortunately, she ruins the illusion with some needless shotgunning.
Reader: You accomplished something, you finished something: maybe school, maybe university... something. You finished something, so you're moving on. Gem: Okay, that makes sense. Reader: You're really looking. Did I do the right thing? Where am I going? What am I—? You know? Those kind of things. Gem: Yeah. Reader: Pick one card that's gonna be you. Gem: Why not this one? Reader: Okay. [She flips the chosen card.] Well, you're definitely a pentacle man. Gem: Okay. What does that mean? Reader: That your feet are frequently firmly planted on the ground. You know what you want and you're gonna go for it. It's almost like you're making a plan... Gem: I make a plan... Reader: You know what I mean? Gem: Yeah. Reader: In your family... it's like you hold it together. You know. Gem: Yeah. For sure. Reader: It's like you outsmart them. Is that the truth? Gem: I don't know. I mean, my family's pretty smart folks... Reader: But you outsmart them, and I'll tell you why. [She gestures toward a card.] See this male? See this female? That's saying to me—see how they're chained?—that's saying to me: sometimes you have, like, arguments. Gem: Arguments. Yeah. Reader: You can be aggressive. Gem: Yeah, I can get into arguments. Reader: It's not like punching or kicking or screaming. Nothing like that. Maybe it's like a lot of yelling. Gem: Yeah, I... I can yell too much sometimes. Reader: Yeah, that's what this here is saying. [Unintelligible. There are drums in the background. It's something like, "It's an issue that involves your concerns."] Emotionally you know how to hold it together. You... you're starting to get a grip. Gem: I'm starting to get a grip on things. Reader: Yeah. Does that make sense to you? Gem: Yeah, sure.
This is a fair example of the rainbow ruse: I'm aggressive—she notes that I'm not violent; it wouldn't do to call a paying customer a brute!—but I'm not, because emotionally I know (or am learning) how to hold it together.
Reader: Now, over here, see that woman peeking? Okay, sometimes you take on too much. Gem: I take on too much. Reader: Imagine you're walking down the street carrying a bunch of logs. You take on too many goals at times.
More Barnum. (And a metaphor that doesn't go anywhere.) Everyone I know complains about how busy they are, about how they're always taking on too much. This statement may seem tailor-made to fit me, but just about anyone would think so!
Reader: Okay? But look over here. You've got a nine and a nine, right? Now over here with all the work and all the knowledge you have, you can work at home. Gem: I can work at home? Reader: Yeah, you can work in an office and you can work at home. Okay? Now over here you have the world. Now that's saying to me that you're going to learn a lot of things in your life. You're very intellectual, you're very smart.
Gem: I love to learn. Reader: Yeah. You are very smart. And that's one of the wishes you have from Heaven. Gem: I'm sorry? That's— Reader: That's one of your wishes from Heaven. Gem: That's one of my wishes from Heaven? Reader: Yeah.
Damn. I was hoping that my wish would be for more wishes.
Reader: Right. It's good to have to know, to learn, to grow. You're always gonna grow, you're always gonna learn in your life, because that's who you are—that's what you are. You're a pentacle: a pentacle is a learner, a pentacle is— Gem: A pentacle is a learner... Reader: Yeah. Like movement. There's a lot of movement, okay? Gem: Like from place to place? Reader: Yeah, like going all over, visiting, or whatever, working all over. I don't see you just staying in one spot. Gem: Hm. That makes sense. Reader: Does it? Gem: Yeah. Reader: I don't see that, not now.
I'm confused here. It seems like one moment she's telling me that I'm a vagabond, and the next I'm a homebody. Maybe I was giving her mixed signals.
Reader:Right now, you're very excited, right now you're very happy, right now you want to fly. Gem: Yeah, I do. Reader: Like that's where you're at right now. You're in the right spot. Gem: I'm in the right spot right now? Reader: Right now. Should you decide to pack your suitcase and take off, hey, go for it! Gem: Hm. Maybe I will! Reader: You know what I'm saying? 'Cause... because the energy around you right now is to learn.
Wow, I didn't know that I was in for an energy reading, too! I was just in this for the cartomancy!
Gem: It's to learn? Reader: Yeah, and to grow. You want experience. That's why you have the world, that's why you have this. It's gonna happen. Gem: Great! Reader: But you know, for the next couple months, you are gonna be bored a little. It's like you're tying up loose ends. You know, it's like, "Oh, I gotta do this, I gotta do that, I gotta do this, I gotta do that." If you haven't already started that process. But you're definitely tying up loose ends. So let's look at something else. Gem: Okay. Reader: You wanna look at something else? You're just ready to jump up... Gem: Well, I'm... I'm excited about this! Uh... Reader: Did any of this make sense to you?
Notice how she's constantly looking for course corrections? It actually began to get rather bothersome, having her ask "Is this making any sense to you?" all the time.
Gem: Yeah! Yeah, absolutely. Um... How 'bout... how 'bout work? Reader: [She lays out more cards.] You're going to be negotiating, eh? Gem: Negotiating...? Reader: Like making a contract. Negotiating. Gem: Okay. Reader: [Unintelligible.] Not right now. Gem: Not right now. Okay. Reader: [Unintelligible.] I'd wait until... Let's see, what is today. The twentieth? Gem: Yeah, I think so. Reader: Okay. I would wait until the third or fourth. Gem: April third or fourth. And then I'll be negotiating? Reader: The opportunity's gonna come to you, okay? Gem: Okay. Like, for a job?
Perhaps this is quibbling, but I never claimed to be unemployed, or even interested in another job. I'm quite happy where I work, and I'm not looking to go anywhere else.
Here I'm doing something that some might consider lying. It's certainly intentionally deceptive. But I'm not making any misstatements of fact. Besides, she's the fortune teller: if she's just reading the cards, they're not going to be swayed if I try to nudge her in another direction.
Reader: Yes. Gem: Yeah? Okay. Reader: Show your enthusiasm. Gem: Okay. Reader:But after like the third or the fourth, that's when you'll have your interview... I don't know. I'm just saying... that would be the proper time, 'cause then you'll get what you want. Should you go tomorrow, or on Monday—say you go on Monday, or on Tuesday—'cause the cup is upside down, eh? Gem: Okay... Reader: It's not right side up. You won't get the money you want. Gem: Okay. Reader: You understand? Gem: Yeah. So... so I should hold out? Reader: Yeah... I would go to the interview, but I would be careful.
At least she's not telling a guy who's presumably unemployed to blow off all of his interviews until next month. That's something.
Gem: Be careful. Okay. Reader: 'Cause you are going to negotiate. All right? Interesting, eh? Gem: Yeah! Reader: Let's look at a girlfriend.
She's playing the odds, there, I guess.
Gem: Okay. Reader: [She lays out more cards.] It's saying: "Quit listening to Dad." Gem: "Quit listening to Dad?" He does like to give advice... [Laughs.] Reader: You know yourself, you know your brain, just do what you want. All right? Gem: Okay. Sure. Reader: If you listen to Dad, you're not going to have a good choice... in your life, when it comes to women. [Unintelligible. Could be, "Where he's like, old school."] So how was this? Gem: It was neat! Yeah, you know, like I feel like I've got a direction now. Reader: Yeah, that's the whole thing. Reader: Uh, we don't, like, per se, uh, give... Well, I did say some things that were in the future... [Unintelligible.] So you gotta be very careful. And how I know that, I'll let you know right now, is I follow the moon system, eh? Gem: The moon— Which system is that? Reader: Ah! Well you should learn it! All people should learn it. Right now the moon system, right now, is growing into a full moon, eh? It's growing this way. So that means, uh, like this would be the perfect time to go for a job, this would be the perfect time to buy that
new car or date that new girl.
Sounds like lunacy, to me. ;)
Gem: Okay. Reader: Now the next moon is gonna be going this way, and things are gonna work against you. But you can still work with it. You can still work with it. You know, just like when you're going to a meeting just say something like, um, "I want to decrease that negative power he doesn't think I can't do it." Like that. Like that's how you handle it.
She gave me her card, I thanked her and paid her, and that was that.
Although she gave out several pieces of generic, fortune-cookie-style advice: "It's good to have to know, to learn, to grow." "You know yourself... just do what you want." She also made several claims about my personality (these are staples of cold reading, and are generally used to impress the client with the reader's insight). These aren't predictions, but are instead observations (or simply guesses), and are not of any particular use to me. Her hit rate varied (I've never listened to my father's advice about women, sometimes to my detriment. I do love to learn.) She was no Gregory House, but she didn't do too badly.
She only made a few real predictions, which I've summarised here:
Prediction: I'm going to move from place to place. I'm not going to stay in one spot. Specificity: Very general. Hit/Miss: Who knows? Probably a hit, but there's no time-frame given. We're going to TAM in July, and the missus wants a proper honeymoon, so we will be travelling this year. But that's certainly not a low-probability hit.
Prediction: I'm going to be bored for the next couple of months. Specificity: Specific, but subjective. Hit/Miss: Miss! I'm implementing two new power forecasting systems at work, organising meetings for the Winnipeg Skeptics, preparing a presentation on homeopathy for next week, auditioning for a play, planning a trip with the missus to Vegas for TAM, and trying to finish all of the DLC for Fallout 3 before Super Mario Galaxy 2 comes out!
Prediction: I'll have a job interview after the third or fourth of April. Specificity: Specific on the event, but vague on the time-frame. Hit/Miss: Miss! (Although she didn't give an expiry date for this prediction, so if I ever go to another interview in my life this will be a hit.) Originally the prediction was pretty vague, but I nudged her in the direction of a job interview, and she then confirmed that this was what she was talking about.
It's worth noting that during the time-frame that she gave for my interview (after the third or the fourth of April), the moon was waning (the full moon having occurred on the thirtieth of March), which directly contradicts her advice about getting a new job when it is "growing into a full moon" (waxing). To be fair, I think that it's all balderdash, but I figured that I ought to point that out.
So that's it for the psychic fair! I bought some lovely tarot cards as a souvenir, and we were on our way.
What can I say? I'm an unabashed packrat, and I love kitsch.
In case you missed part one, you can find it here.
On the lower floor of the church was housed a rag-tag assembly of quacks and pseudoscientists: herbalists, "certified nutritional consultants", naturopaths, and "lightworkers". We all found it highly entertaining.
Why is it that quacks and cranks tend to cluster? Why do you find chiropractors prescribing homeopathic remedies? Why do people who claim to be telepathic always end up contacting either aliens or ghosts? Is it some sort of safety in numbers? Do they feel kinship with others who think that the real world is just a little too real?
I really don't know.
Just a few reminders about alternative medicine and certification, before we delve further:
Anyone can claim just about any sort of degree; there are all sorts of diploma mills out there. For example, I have Doctor of Science degrees in both Homeopathy and Intelligent Design from Thunderwood College. Of course, this is not an accredited post-secondary institution. That's something to keep in mind.
Even if someone does have a degree from a respected and accredited post-secondary institution, this is no reason to forgo skepticism of his or her claims. To do otherwise would be an argument from authority.
The fact that a given discipline is government-regulated does not mean that it should be accepted as scientifically sound. Many factors are involved in the decision to regulate a discipline, and science is seldom one of them.
Whenever you hear the word "traditional" or "ancient" attached to any discipline, additional skepticism is warranted. This is a blatant argument from antiquity, and is often used in place of actual evidence for efficacy. As Tim Minchin said, "I don't believe just 'cause ideas are tenacious it means that they're worthy."
The same goes for testimonials! The plural of "anecdote", as the saying goes, is not "evidence". There are so many cognitive biases at work in our minds (all of us!) that personal experience cannot be labeled "evidence". I try not to take even my own personal experiences too seriously.
Now that we have that out of the way... Parasites!
Wow, that certainly is an angry looking parasite! But not to worry, Brenda has a solution for you: diet! Apparently we're not eating "naturally" enough. If you don't recognise that fallacy by now, there's really not much that I can say.
Speaking of eating natural, did you know that aspartame will kill you? Brian Dunning did a fun Skeptoid episode on this one. Don't get me wrong, aspartame is awful; the aftertaste is just horrific. I coined a neologism for non-sugar sweeteners (I don't say "artificial" sweeteners because steviaalso tastes terrible, in my opinion): "aspartaste". This term has become quite popular around my office.
But back to aspartame. Apparently this noxious substance breaks down into formaldehyde when digested. Ridiculous? Careful! Let's not get reflexively dismissive! The missus pointed out that this claim is, in fact, correct. And irrelevant. Formaldehyde is produced in small quantities during protein metabolism, and aspartame is a protein.
Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring compound, present in most living organisms as an intermediate in the production of some essential chemicals (e.g. some amino acids, lipids) and a natural biological breakdown product of amino acids.
Formaldehyde is considered safe, as it is an essential intermediate in the synthesis of DNA and amino acids. Humans have approximately 2.5 μg/mL of formaldehyde in their blood.
That's not to say that you should go out and drink formaldehyde solution! That would be stupid. It is safe in small quantities, and the amount produced during protein metabolism is minuscule.
I don't have a lot to say here—with the exception of this: "Don't take medical advice from people who don't have the requisite training to dispense that advice."
In many places, naturopaths are classified as "doctors" (Maine, for example, and some parts of Canada), and can even prescribe certain medications (notably in BC, and soon in Ontario). For the purposes of licensure, naturopaths are required to obtain a certain level of education. I will quote from the website of the Naturopathic Medicine Council of Canada:
The education of naturopathic doctors (NDs) follows a path similar to that of medical doctors (MDs). Applicants enter naturopathic medical school after receiving a baccalaureate degree (usually pre-med) from a four-year college. Students complete two years of post-graduate basic science coursework then have two to three years of didactic and clinical training, including time spent in supervised patient care.
Unforunately, naturopaths are quacks. I have never encountered a naturopath, either in person or online, who was not a dedicated ideologue. (But please don't take that blatant argument from personal experience as evidence!) Although they are subject to examination and evaluation as students, they are trained in a seemingly endless variety of discredited, anti-scientific modalities:
Clinical Science Examinations cover diagnosis using physical examination and lab testing, emergency and medical procedures, as well as naturopathic treatment modalities (botanical medicine, homeopathy, clinical nutrition, physical medicine, counseling & health psychology).
...
NDs learn how to use herbs, clinical nutrition, physical medicine (e.g., hydrotherapy, soft tissue massage, osseous manipulation, etc.), homeopathy, and mind-body medicine. [Emphasis mine.]
Wow! We've discussed homeopathy before. Hydrotherapy is tough, because it is not very well defined and can serve as a label for just about any therapy, scientific or no, involving water. Certain beneficial exercise routines can be classified as hydrotherapeutic, but so can the phony water-cures that have been peddled for centuries (of which Charles Darwin was an unfortunate devotee). And mind-body medicine? That seems to carry the unfortunate (and unfounded) implication that the mind is in some way separate from the body. I've touched on this tangentially before:
Problems such as how the spirit communicates with the brain, what functions it performs that the brain cannot account for alone, why the spirit seems to be impaired in so many ways by brain injury, and the like, are joined by questions such as: ... How does an immaterial spirit interact with or affect the material world? (If it can affect the material world, why does an embodied spirit control its host via the brain? Why not control its appendages directly?)
For a lovely and concise dissection of dualism's various shortcomings, look here.
But I have digressed long enough.
Now we come to the Soma Board. This "food energiser" is, according to the pamplet, based upon "pyramid technology" (sans the pyramids, from what I can tell). Using a special blend of herbs and spices (wait, where have I heard that before?), the Soma Board is apparently able to increase the nutritional value of food, eliminate harmful bacteria, and even remove pesticide from your produce. I proposed buying one and placing some ground beef on it for several weeks, to see if its magical anti-microbial action would prevent decay, but my wife didn't want to shell out $30 for science. Or maybe it was the smell.
I don't even have enough space on my counter for appliances that actually do something.
Customers are instructed not to wash the Soma Board. I'd imagine you're not supposed to submerge it in water because the manufacturers didn't want to spend any extra money on waterproofing the thing, and the herbs inside would soak, expand, and eventually grow mould. Nutrient-rich mould, to be sure.
As an aside, Hanna Kroeger's invention purports to use "ether technology". Presumably this refers to the class of organic compounds, but the link is tenuous at best. It could also refer to technology derived from the various aether theories, technology related to the quintessence, or the anti-gravity technology described by Rho Sigma (presumably a pseudonym) in the 1977 (1996?) book Ether-Technology: A Rational Approach to Gravity Control:
Since an understanding of related UFO observations seems essential in any investigation of new energies and gravity-technologies, one chapter in the forthcoming second book of this study series will present an overview of the observed propulsion aspects of UFO's and the macabre history of the official handling of the problem which will give the reader an appreciation of the calibre of the people involved and the thoughts which have gone into the investigation of the UFO enigma and related energy problems generally.
Tune in next time for a play-by-play of my very own psychic reading!
