The Arizona Skeptic A Journal Promoting Critical Thinking Volume 5, Issue 6 May/June 1992
The Arizona Skeptic
A Journal Promoting Critical Thinking
Volume 5, Issue 6 May/June 1992
An Observation of the Famous Marfa Lights
By James Long
On Sunday of Memorial Day weekend, 1990, Jeff and I (both college
graduates with engineering degrees) went to the city of Marfa,
Texas to see the well known Marfa Lights. Several reputable news
broadcasts, including the "Texas Eight Reporter" (a state-wide TV
show) are supposed to have mentioned the Lights, but I can't vouch
for this.
The Marfa Lights have been reported since the 1880s.
Apparently, the majority of the sightings have been along Highway
90, a two lane road leading east from the city. The lights are
unique among unexplained phenomena, in that they appear regularly
and can be seen almost any night. According to the descriptions
of numerous observers, the lights vary in color, are spherical,
are characterized by rapid and erratic movements, and range from
the size of a baseball to a basketball. The light is constant,
rather than pulsating. Many people claim to have seen the lights
up close, and others even claim to have been chased by them.
Numerous scientific hypotheses have been proposed to explain
the Marfa Lights, but none fit the data well enough to have gained
general acceptance. Most explanations, however, are
nonscientific, and range from extraterrestrial visitors to Apache
spirits.
When we arrived in Marfa, the friendly clerk of a rather
shabby motor lodge in the city supplied us with directions to the
"viewing area". This turned out to be a parking lot on the south
side of the road, roughly ten miles east of the city. The Texas
Highway Department has installed some fifty feet of parking area
and a large permanent highway marker, indicating the viewing site
and denoting it as a historic landmark.
The country-side there is an extremely flat plain, estimated
at the time to be about 20 miles across (see diagram, p. 2).
Rather abruptly, a ring of mountains (probably about two to three
hundred feet high) rise around the edge of the plain. The only
vegetation on the plain is scrub brush and small cacti, no more
than a couple of feet tall. Although visibility across the plain
was unblocked and excellent, there was the major disadvantage of
completely losing any sense of distance. Therefore, most
distances given here are estimates.
Jeff and I arrived at the viewing site about one hour before
sunset. At that time, there were no cars present, except for
mine. We had brought along some dinner, and we cooked it, while
waiting for darkness. Well before sunset, at least fifteen cars
pulled up and parked. A few people brought chairs, and nearly
everyone had binoculars. One middle-aged lady parked immediately
beside my car, and shortly afterwards joined us in conversation.
The lady said that she had been at the viewing site the night
before, as well, and gave us a few pointers on what to watch for.
She pointed out where a red antenna tower light would be seen (not
visible at all in the daylight), and said that the Lights appeared
near the tower, and could be seen dimly moving clockwise along the
mountain. She also said that some were visible far to the north-
west.
About a half hour after sunset, the tower light became
visible in the darkness. A few people began questioning aloud if
"that's one of the Lights," but were quickly assured that it was
not.
However, within just a few minutes (ten at the most), a
bright white (not red like the tower) point of light appeared at
the base of the mountains near the tower, and could obviously be
seen to move clockwise along the mountains. After about ten
seconds, (and already about one third of the way along the
mountains) the light disappeared. In less than a minute, another
light appeared and repeated the motions of the first.
This turned out to be just the beginning. From then until
midnight there was a nearly constant stream of Lights. There were
two major patterns visible to the eye. The first pattern was to
appear near the southern edge of the mountains (near the tower),
and move about halfway to the road and vanish. The second pattern
was to appear about two/thirds of the way to the road (or closer),
and to stay motionless. With both patterns, however, there was
still a wide range of variation. The moving Lights traveled at
different speeds (although movement was always easily visible to
the eye), whereas the stationary Lights tended to blink on and off
at regular intervals, before disappearing.
The Lights themselves appeared about equal in brightness to
the tower light (or perhaps somewhat brighter). They never
appeared to be anything other than mere points of light. They
appeared quite similar to distant car headlights, but were always
single to the naked eye. Car headlights eventually were ruled out
as a cause, since reports have occurred for over a century. In
addition, the map provided to us showed no indication of a road on
the near side of the mountain.
The lady beside us provided a great deal of entertainment.
She possessed a rather large set of binoculars and kept up a
running commentary of the "antics" of the Lights. Comments such
as, "That one there is now rounding the bush!", and "It's coming
straight at us!" kept us amused for a great deal of the night.
With our binoculars, we still could not distinguish any details at
that distance.
Jeff and I had been attending the Texas astronomy party, so I
had my eight-inch diameter Celestron telescope with me. For over
an hour, I was too fascinated by the Lights to even remember the
telescope, but eventually I brought it out of the car and set it
up. With this telescope, the Lights were resolvable into obvious
fuzzy round balls, apparently several feet in diameter.
The telescope verified several observations, and provided
several more discoveries. The most significant observation was
that the lights truly were all the way to the mountains. The view
through the telescope allowed
^ North ====================XXX=================
Highway
/ \ %% Viewing stand.
| %% /
| C %% /
h %%% /
i %% / Estimated to be about
n M %% / twenty miles, maybe less.
a t %% /
t n %%% /
i s %%%
%%% R - Radio antenna light.
%%%%
%%%%
%%
each viewer to verify that the lights were passing behind rocks
and cliffs _on_ the mountain side. Indeed, much, but by no means
most, of the blinking observed was due to a Light passing behind a
rock and being eclipsed by it. The light shed from the Marfa
Light was more than enough to illuminate the rock wall behind the
light. Rocks to the front were obvious from their silhouettes.
A fascinating discovery from the telescope was that several
of the balls were doublets. Often, a single light would appear,
and about fifteen to thirty seconds later, a second, identical
light appeared right beside the first. Indistinguishable with the
naked eye, these balls were obvious pairs through the telescope.
These balls would then begin varying in brightness, one going dim
while the other brightened, and then the first brightening while
the second dimmed. After eight to ten cycles, the balls would
usually split up, and separate into two naked eye pairs. This
easily ruled out car headlights.
One item I found rather disturbing was that whenever another
car arrived (people kept arriving for several hours into the
night), the watchers already present acted like tour guides for
the occult. The newcomers were quickly treated to a lecture by
people that had received the same lecture themselves no more than
twenty minutes earlier. To my small dismay, Jeff and I fell quite
naturally into the "pro" mode. Having been at the viewing site
since before dark, we made a point of describing all we had seen
that night. We never, thankfully, went so far as the lady next to
us, who eagerly attributed conscious thought to the movements.
About midnight, the lights tapered off and came to a halt.
In all, there had been lights nearly constantly visible for about
four hours. Rarely was there _not_ a light visible, and a good
deal of the time, three, four or sometimes five lights were seen
at once.
On the ride back to the campsite, we tried to check the
distance to the mountains. However, after driving about eight
miles, our road turned off to the north. We estimated that we had
come less than half way to the mountains.
In short, watching the Lights was fascinating. All of the
suggested natural causes were quickly ruled out from their
appearances. However, I eventually decided that I really didn't
care what caused them. They were pretty to watch, and provided me
with my most interesting vacation in years.
_James Long is a member of the Georgia Skeptics._Reprinted by
permission from _The Georgia Skeptic_, May/June 1991. Copyright
(c) 1991 by the Georgia Skeptics.
The Marfa Lights
By Hal Finney
I spent the summer of 1976 living with my parents in Midland,
Texas. I heard about the Marfa lights from co-workers, and
decided to drive down to see them. I only went once and just was
there for a few hours, so this isn't a comprehensive observation
by any means.
My observations were not at all in accord with those of James
Long of the Georgia Skeptics. Now, I may not have been at exactly
the same viewing location. I was on the state highway east of
Marfa, as was Long. And the view was the same, looking south
across a basically flat plain to a range of low mountains many
miles away. But I may have been at a different spot on the
highway. I just picked a turnoff area on my own, without having
received specific directions about any particular place. At that
time the lights were mostly a local phenomenon and hadn't received
as much publicity as they have now.
The lights I observed differed in two ways from what Long
saw. First, they were stationary; and second, they were exactly
on the horizon. Each light was white, like a headlight seen from
many miles away. But they didn't move. A light would appear, be
visible for a minute or two, and then fade away over several
seconds. A few minutes later another light would appear at a
different spot. Sometimes there might be two or three lights
visible at once.
By the horizon, I mean the visual line between the mountains
and the sky. That is where all of the lights appeared. There was
no way to judge the distance to the lights but it was natural to
assume that they came from at or beyond the mountains. They did
not appear at the base of the mountains and certainly didn't
appear on the plain between the mountains and the road, as the
lights Long saw did.
My feeling at the time was that this was an effect of
atmospheric refraction, perhaps caused by a layer of warmer or
cooler air near the ground. I felt that this was a kind of
mirage, in which we were seeing a distant source of light that was
being refracted and focused as it passed grazingly over the
mountains.
Because of the fact that the lights lasted a minute or two,
and because they are reported to have appeared for over a hundred
years, my feeling was that I was seeing focused starlight. I had
also been told that the lights would not appear if it was
overcast. Due to the earth's rotation, stars would be continually
rising, and at different times it seemed possible that different
stars would be in position to be made visible by an atmospheric
effect. Perhaps the topography of the mountains was such that
some kind of lensing could occur. Rising stars would then move
through the focus points of the many different possible lensing
positions along the mountains.
Whether this explanation is correct or not, I am puzzled by
the differences between what James Long saw and what I saw. Last
year, the TV show "Unsolved Mysteries" did a report on the Marfa
lights, and I felt that their observations matched my own quite
well. Their lights did not appear to move, and they appeared on
the horizon line of the mountains. Maybe what Long saw is a
completely different phenomenon.
_Hal Finney (ghsvax!hal@UUNET.UU.NET) is a regular contributor to
the SKEPTIC electronic discussion group on BITNET. This article
is a revised version of a message sent to that group on October
20, 1991._
Letters
_The following letter is printed in its entirety in fulfillment of
an offer I made to John Bryant to print his complete response to
my review of his book. Since much of it is not entirely to the
point, in the future I will edit such replies both to conserve
space and to remove redundancies and irrelevancies. --Editor._
Editor:
Re your review of my book _Bryant's Law and Other Broadsides_ in
the September/October _Arizona Skeptic_, let me just say that in
charitably sending a free copy of my book to someone who
represented himself as an impoverished philosophy grad student, if
I had only known that I was going to end up getting reamed in that
same individual's newsletter, then I just possibly might not have
sent it.
As to my qualifications, which you seek to belittle in your
review, if someone has published articles in the scholarly
journals of several other countries besides his own, is listed in
_Who's Who in the World_, and has received the praise of two Nobel
prizewinners for articles in the book under review (facts which
you either carefully obscure or fail to mention), then the claim
of being an internationally-recognized philosopher is not
altogether without basis. Nor, of course, do you bother to
mention that my work has received praise from several CSICOP
fellows (Edwin Krupp, William Jarvis, Robert Sheaffer, Paul Kurtz,
James Oberg, and others). But then this is typical of your
attempt to blacken my work by saying everything negative you can
think of, with barely a semblance of balance. In fact, your
review is a microcosm of the very thing I was criticizing in my
article on the _Skeptical Inquirer_, namely, the bias, selective
reporting, and overweening arrogance of the True Believers of the
Scientific Faith. The reason you are so negative about my article
is the very reason that Robert Anton Wilson was so positive (he's
been advertising it free in his newsletter for the last two
years): You want to defend scientific orthodoxy to the last comma
and period, and he (and I) want to debunk it where debunking is
due. (Note: This is not to say I necessarily endorse all of
Wilson's views of scholarship--I don't.) My point is, I am _more_
skeptical than you, for I am skeptical of orthodox as well as
"fringe" science.
Let me now deal with several other of your criticisms.
First, you say that my claim that _The Skeptical Inquirer_ is
guilty of gross and shameful ignorance by dismissing
astrologically-based stock market advisory services is vitiated
because I fail "to give sufficient data to support this claim."
Good God, man! I gave the address of the tracking services which
had verified the track records of two astrologically-based
advisories. What more do you want--a note from the Pope?
To respond to a second point of criticism, I mention in my
_Bryant's Law_ article on _SI_ the fact that CSICOP fellow Paul
Edwards edited the _Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ in which appears
an article highly supportive of psi. Now as you point out, it may
very well be that some major experiments cited in that article
have been debunked, but that is simply not relevant. The point is
that there is _a lot of support for psi among informed people._
That's it! That's the point! And the fact that you missed the
point merely illustrates my point about the psychology of you so-
called skeptics--you _don't want to see the point_--you're not
responding correctly to the relevant information that other people
are putting out.
A third point of your criticism was that I praised Whitley
Strieber's book _Communion_ as a clear effort to investigate alien
encounters in a scientific and rational way: Your response was
that MUFON dismisses Strieber, ergo Strieber must be wrong and
that I must be unsophisticated. (You offer essentially the same
criticism of my endorsement of the TV feature "UFO Coverup?") As
to Strieber, I was making a judgment on what I would call the tone
of the book--it was written in such a way as to make me believe
that Strieber was trying to find out, in the best way that he
could, just what the hell was going on--unlike you, who seems to
assume he already knows what is going on without bothering to
investigate. Perhaps there are defects in Strieber's book--I
don't know MUFON's criticisms--but I do know that there is a lot
of backbiting in the world of ufology, so the conflict may be more
political than substantial. But in any event, I doubt that any of
the MUFON criticism would change my view, precisely because the
view was about the tone rather than any technical ufological
matters. As to "UFO Coverup?", my response would be largely the
same. Incidentally, I do not claim expertise in ufology; I am
writing from the standpoint of a philosopher who is criticizing
the methodology of so-called skeptics such as yourself; and
nothing you have said in the way of your criticisms has done the
least to refute my very negative view: To the contrary, it has
reinforced it. As for UFOs specifically, my position is basically
that I find the positive evidence to be strong, and the criticism
to be weak, tho in some specific cases (e.g., MJ-12) the criticism
has been successful. My major criticism of the critics is that,
with all the genuine "unexplained" cases which have now
accumulatefd, backed by the testimony of credible "solid citizen"
witnesses, it seems clear to me that the critics are simply
sticking their heads in the sand, rather than acknowledging--not
that there are extraterrestrials or some such--but rather that
something very unusual is going on, of which the ET hypothesis is
a good explanation, tho certainly not the only one. The
deficiency of the critics has been particularly pointed up by the
recent Belgian sightings, which include not only hundreds of
testimonials, but radar imaging, fighter scramblings, and front-
page acknowledgment by major newspapers such as the _Wall Street
Journal_, which is not exactly a tabloid. And while the critics
constantly seek to dismiss UFO claims as the produce of a
"psychological need to believe" in space brothers or whatever
(undoubtedly true in some cases, but unlikely in such a volume of
"solid citizens"), they will never in a million years recognize
their own equal and opposite "need to disbelieve." There are none
so blind as those who will not see.
Speaking of belief and disbelief, there are some interesting
historical parallels to the skeptics' attitudes. For example,
historian Carroll Quigley, in his monumental _Tragedy and Hope_,
describes how Stalin, having been warned several times by very
credible sources that Hitler was about to attack him--he was even
given the exact date and time--nevertheless was totally unprepared
for Hitler's attack. Similarly, as has been made plain by
revisionist historians and recent testimonials by involved
persons, Franklin Roosevelt knew of the impending Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor, and yet did nothing to prepare. In Quigley's
opinion, both cases represented a refusal to believe, even in the
face of clear and convincing evidence. In a few years I believe
we will be analyzng the "skeptical" phenomenon in the same way,
tho in a sense Thomas Kuhn already analyzed it this way many years
ago. (Ref: Wm Broad, _Betrayers of the Truth_.)
I note your statement that my reference to Michel Gauquelin's
_Birthtimes_ as containing a criticism of _SI_ was probably an
account of the Mars effect, which you term "a genuine case of
skeptical failure." I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I can
assure you that any person serious about the role of _SI_ should
read Gauquelin's book, for it will give an excellent account not
merely of "skeptical failure," but of the intellectual dishonesty
of many _SI_ folks, and particularly its _primum mobile_, Paul
Kurtz. It is certainly gratifying to see the article on the Mars
effect in the most recent _SI_, but it has come, I think, not
primarily because of interest in scientific truth, but only
because the _SI_ hierarchy had its back against the wall.
One criticism which I found particularly galling was your
statement that I write in a "grating, pedantic tone." While I
have had many criticisms, no one has ever had anything but praise
for my writing style, even tho the subjects I tackle are often
pedantic in substance. In fact, if there is any pedantry in my
work, it is usually a joke; and thus if you construed anything as
pedantry, then that just means that you didn't get the joke. But
then what can one expect from a wet-behind-the-ears graduate
student? In fact, your gratuitous smear suggests to me that you
have a lot to learn from your good buddy and CSICOPer Robert
Sheaffer, author of _Resentment Against Achievement_; for your
review of my book sounds like a case study of what he was talking
about. Bob certainly found things to criticize about my books,
but he also had some pretty favorable things to say, too. But
then trying to be fair would interfere with your so-called
skeptical agenda, wouldn't it?
Having now criticized you, let me acknowledge a valid
criticism of your own. You noted that I said in my bio in
_Bryant's Law_ that I had written the seminal work in relative
modal logic, and yet you can find no references to my work, thus
implying my statement is false. You are right--it is false (tho
not intentionally so) because the implication is that others have
used my work as a take-off point for their own, and while that
_might_ be true, I do not know it to be true. So why did I make
this false statement? Probably because of the natural human
tendency to exaggerate the truth when it is favorable. (And since
I am human, I am therefore not immune to human frailties.) It is
not, however, a "gross" exaggeration--"pioneering" or
"revolutionary" might have been closer to the truth, particularly
since my piece was a major article published in a major journal
("The Logic of Relative Modality and the Paradoxes of Deontic
Logic," _Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic_, Jan. 1980), and is
in fact a major--and I think revolutionary--contribution (in terms
of content, at least) to both logical and ethical theory. (I
might add that it was part of a doctoral thesis, an earlier form
of which was not accepted by my committee: By your statement that
I have "only" a B.A. in math, you falsely imply that I did not do
graduate work in philosophy, a fact you should have remembered
from having read my bio in Bryant's Law, the very place where you
got the information about my "seminal work.") I would also like
to add that, in my just-published book _Systems Theory_, I develop
a theory of relative existence (see chapter 7: "Gdel's Theorem,
the Paradoxes and the Theory of Relative Existence") which is in
some sense complementary to the theory of relative modal logic
developed in my aforementioned paper. What with all this
relativity swirling around me, I am now waiting for someone to dub
me the Einstein of logic, ethics and ontology. (Oops, there goes
that damned ego again. But since we now know it was really
Einstein's _wife_...)
On the matter of the seminality of my work, I think it might
help your readers to understand that articles in professional
philosophy journals are totally different from articles in
professional science journals: As a recent article in _Science_
noted, most articles in the sciences (around 80%, I believe) _do_
get cited within two years or so of their publication, while most
philosophy articles (about 90%) _do not_ get cited. So if you are
a philosopher, even publication of a major article in a major
journal does not mean that your work will come to anyone's
attention.
Now to return to my misstatement, the psychology of my
mistake is both interesting and revealing to me: In some sense I
knew that it was false, and yet I couldn't quite see that it was.
Why does the mind behave this way? I don't know. But I do
appreciate your pointing it out to me, even if your review--in my
opinion--was otherwise extremely unfair and misleading. As a
searcher for truth, it would be completely contradictory to my
principles to ask others to confess unpleasant truths if I myself
am unwilling to.
Incidentally, my book _Systems Theory and Scientific
Philosophy: An Application of the Cybernetics of W. Ross Ashby to
the Problems of Personal and Social Philosophy, the Philosophy of
Mind, and the Problems of Artificial Intelligence_ is just out
from the University Press of America, in case any of your readers
want to get a better view of my philosophical and critical
capacities which you so energetically attempted to smear in your
article. Copies are obtainable either from me or UPA at $14.75 +
$2 shipping; however, I'll be happy to autograph any copies
purchased thru me free of charge, as well as to offer a money-back
guarantee (I don't think UPA does). A free catalog of my books is
available on request (Box 66683, St. Petersburg Beach, FL 33736-
6683). And, as a way of disputing your criticisms, I'll also be
happy to send anyone a free copy of my article on SI upon receipt
of a SASE.
John Bryant
St. Petersburg Beach, Florida
Jim Lippard replies:
_I stand behind my review of John Bryant's book,_ Bryant's Law and
Other Broadsides _(AS, September/October 1991, pp. 5-7). My
review was directed primarily at the chapter of that book entitled
"A Skeptical View of_ The Skeptical Inquirer_," as my review makes
clear. I must confess that I had not read all of the book when I
wrote my review, and so was unaware that Mr. Bryant had pursued
graduate studies in philosophy. (In any case, I never stated nor
intended to imply that he hadn't--I simply remarked that his only
degree was a B.A. in mathematics.) Contrary to Bryant, I did not
learn of his logic article from his bio in his book, but from his
promotional book catalog.
Bryant makes much of praise he has received about his work
from Nobel prizewinners Milton Friedman and Kenneth Arrow, from
CSICOP Fellows, and from other eminent persons. He touts this
praise in his promotional literature and in his books themselves.
There are three important questions to be raised about this
praise: (1) Just what did these people read? That is, what
exactly is it that they are praising? In the case of Milton
Friedman, he comments favorably only on the article "Bryant's
Law," which is a fairly humorous piece about a sociological "law"
Bryant claims to have discovered, that "Thoughts expand to fill
all available consciousness." Bryant probably did not send
Friedman other chapters from the book in question, such as the
chapter on adult-child sex or the chapter on "digital defecation"
as a solution to constipation. (2) What exactly is the content of
their praise? Most of the quoted praise consists of short
sentences like "Thanks for sending me the articles from your book,
which I enjoyed reading" (Noam Chomsky) or "Your ideas are
certainly provocative" (Kenneth Arrow) or "Many thanks for sending
me a copy of your fascinating Bryant's Law piece which is
certainly both amusing but, more important, substantively relevant
and pointed" (Milton Friedman). These do not appear to be
unqualified endorsements of the genius of Bryant's work. (3) Did
these people consent to their statements being used for
promotional purposes, or did they believe they were simply making
private comments? Of the two people I have asked (Robert Sheaffer
and William Jarvis), neither consented to have Bryant use their
comments. Sheaffer was familiar with much of Bryant's work (and
largely agrees with my criticisms of Bryant's Law), but Jarvis was
aware only of Bryant's 1987 booklet, the modestly-titled_ The Most
Powerful Idea Ever Discovered_, about which Bryant quotes him as
saying "I have gone through your book and agree with most of what
you have said." (An aside: although I have not read this
booklet, from what I have read I gather that in it Bryant argues
for the rationality of at least some forms of altruistic behavior.
In one of the pieces in_ Bryant's Law_, he asserts that altruism
has not had a firm philosophical basis until the publication of
his booklet, but I think Robert Axelrod's 1984 book,_ The
Evolution of Cooperation_, and numerous other pre-1987 works give
lie to this assertion. Robert Sheaffer has pointed out to Bryant
that the central thesis in his booklet was previously presented by
Nietzsche and Emerson.) Most of the praise for Bryant from
eminent persons appears to consist of politely worded comments
from people who did not intend to be making public recommendations
of his work.
Bryant obviously thinks very highly of himself, but goes to
absurd lengths to convince others to do so. On his letterhead,
the left side lists his accomplishments down almost the entire
length of the page. These "accomplishments" include his journal
articles, his many self-published books and booklets, his
biographical listings in various "Who's Who" books, his membership
in Mensa, his B.A. in mathematics, and his "Golden Poet Award"
from the World of Poetry (of which some two thousand are awarded
every year; see Henry Alford, "Bad Poets Society," _Spy_, January
1990, pp. 102-103).
Regarding my specific criticisms of his book, Bryant has
little of substance to say. He defends his failure to provide
data supporting his claim about the efficacy of astrology in
predicting the stock market by pointing out that he gives an
address from which such information may be obtained. If Bryant is
going to make the claim, he should do the homework to properly
support it, not me.
In regard to the status of the existence of psi, Bryant now
claims that his point is merely that "there is a lot of support
for psi among informed people," nothing more. But in his article,
he is concerned to rebut the claim that "psi is false/unproven
according to 'mainstream' or 'establishment' science." As I
pointed out in my review, his only cited evidence against this
claim is a philosophical (not scientific) work that is over two
decades out of date and which is based in large part on work which
has been discredited.
On the subject of UFOs, Bryant defends the "tone" of_
Communion _and the TV show "UFO Coverup?", while my criticisms
were mainly of their content. Apparently Bryant reads the_
Skeptical Inquirer _and is familiar with Philip Klass's debunking
of the MJ-12 documents, but, as I pointed out in my review, he
appears to be largely ignorant of other critiques such as Klass's
book on UFO abductions. (I also recommend that he read Robert
Sheaffer's_ The UFO Verdict_.) I must point out that I found the
tone of "UFO Coverup?" to be sensational rather than sober. I do
not disagree with Bryant's claim that there are "genuine
'unexplained' cases," but one would expect such a residue of
unexplained cases even when there is no anomalistic phenomenon to
be explained, due simply to the foibles of human perception and
lack of other evidence. Bryant should read Elizabeth Loftus's
book,_ Eyewitness Testimony _(reviewed in_ AS_, January/February
1989, pp. 6-7). Bryant's reference to the Belgian UFO sightings
is not to the point. They are certainly worth looking into and
should not be dismissed out of hand, but the point of my criticism
of Bryant was that the specific evidence he chose to criticize
the_ Skeptical Inquirer _over was inadequate to the task.
Bryant accuses "many_ SI _folks" of "intellectual dishonesty"
regarding the Mars effect controversy. This accusation is grossly
unfair. Many of the events of this controversy took place before
CSICOP was even formed, very few _"SI _folks" were involved, and
of those who were involved fewer did anything worthy of criticism.
Those CSICOP members who were directly involved with the testing
of the "Mars effect" acknowledged their mistakes in "The Abell-
Kurtz-Zelen 'Mars Effect' Experiments: A Reappraisal" in the
Spring 1983_ SI._ I should point out that while many CSICOP
supporters feel that CSICOP did little or nothing wrong, I
disagree--the articles by Patrick Curry and Richard Kammann
published in the_ Zetetic Scholar _(#'s 9, 10, and 11) document
misuse/misrepresentation of statistics in both the_ Humanist_
Zelen test and the CSICOP-sponsored U.S. champions test. On the
other hand, Dennis Rawlins' misadventures are inaccurately
minimized, I think, in the_ Zetetic Scholar_. I believe it is a
mistake to rely solely on Michel Gauquelin, Dennis Rawlins, Paul
Kurtz, or Philip Klass as one's source of information on the
controversy. The_ Zetetic Scholar _articles are probably
essential for a complete understanding; reading all of the_ SI
_articles and letters (by Kurtz et al., Gauquelin, and Rawlins),
Rawlins' _Fate _article ("sTARBABY"), and Klass' response
("Crybaby," available with SASE from me) gives a decent overview
(though note that Klass fails to address many of Rawlins' specific
complaints). Bryant, however, appears content with Gauquelin's
account and Robert Anton Wilson's (hopelessly confused) account
alone.
In his final criticism of my review, Bryant finds it
"galling" that I describe his writing as having a "grating,
pedantic tone." Here again, I must stand behind my remarks.
Bryant has an irritating habit of repeatedly telling the reader
how intelligent he is. For example, in the "Publisher's Preface"
to_ Bryant's Law _(published by Bryant's own Socratic Press), it
is stated that "Mr. Bryant is an essayist of the first rank, as
well as a poet of greatest emotive power and technical skill; and
in this book are collected some of his finest pieces intended for
a general readership." One of his chapter titles asserts that he
deserves a Nobel prize in economics, another on how to be
successful claims that he has "been quite successful not only in a
financial sense, but also in marriage, in achieving personal
recognition, and in fulfilling [his] lifetime goals," and of his
poetry (some of which is in the book) he states that it is "truly
good, if not actually great" and "achieves its exalted status
because ... each poem puts forth a significant thought ... is
comprehensible ... and ... is technically perfect," despite
containing lines such as "The People's Republic of China/Is
somewhat like a humongous vagina." His book catalog describes his
book of quotations (his own) as "The work of a Montaigne, an H.L.
Mencken, a Philip Wylie, and a Lenny Bruce, all rolled into one--
and smoked." He has compared himself with Shakespeare and
Einstein. Contrary to Bryant, I am not the only person who has
criticized this tendency in his writings; Robert Sheaffer has done
likewise.
Milton Rothman, in the Winter 1992_ SI_, describes two 19th
century skeptics. One of them, John Fiske, is quoted in Rothman's
article as having written that "One of the most frequent traits of
your crank is his megalomania, or self-magnification. ... he
cannor see wherein he is inferior to Descartes or Newton. ... His
mood is belligerent; since people will not take him at his own
valuation, he is apt to regard society as engaged in a conspiracy
to ignore and belittle him." This description appears to fit
Bryant fairly well.
It is true that there is good to be found with the bad in
Bryant's book (my comments may already have given some readers
incentive to purchase the book, though perhaps for reasons other
than awe at its intellectual and literary genius); I did not mean
to imply otherwise. My criticism in my original review was
directed at the critique of the_ Skeptical Inquirer_, which fails
utterly to provide anything substantial or even original. Of the
book as a whole, I confess that it is entertaining and amusing,
and in some places even intellectually stimulating. I do not,
however, expect that Bryant will go down in history as one of the
great minds of our time.
P.S. I _am_ an impoverished graduate student. Bryant
voluntarily sent me a copy of his book when I had requested only a
copy of his article about the_ Skeptical Inquirer.
Editorial Note Regarding the "Mars Effect":
_Readers of the_ Skeptical Inquirer _will have noted Suitbert
Ertel's article, "Update on the 'Mars Effect,'" in the Winter 1992
issue. The publication of this article, which is supportive of
Michel Gauquelin's pro-"cosmobiology" position, is another piece
of evidence (in addition to the above-mentioned article from the
Spring 1983_ SI _on the "Mars effect") that CSICOP is interested
in a fair assessment of astrology. The French skeptics group,
CFEPP, has been at work on an attempted replication of the "Mars
effect" and Suitbert Ertel and Arno Mller have done their own
analysis of the CFEPP data. A report on this from Prof. Ertel may
appear in a future issue of_ AS.
Book Review
_The Mind Game_ by Norman Spinrad
1985, Bantam, 342 pp.
Reviewed by Jim Lippard
On a recent trip to Los Angeles, my girlfriend and I stopped by
the Dianetics Testing Center on Hollywood Boulevard for a "free
personality test" from the Church of Scientology. After spending
about twenty minutes answering "yes," "no," and "don't know" to
oddly worded questions about whether one enjoys inflicting pain on
animals or frequently laughs at things no one else finds funny, we
were both told that we had serious personality defects which
Dianetics could correct. The brash, chain-smoking pregnant woman
who did our post-test interviews was emphatic about that. We
declined to spend any money, however, and left the Center to
continue our walk down the star-studded sidewalks, where we
observed a sign advertising the "L. Ron Hubbard Life Exhibition"
on another Scientology building on the other side of the street.
(Later on during our vacation, we noticed the Scientology
Celebrity Center, which is presumably where such Church notables
as John Travolta, Tom Cruise, and Kirstie Alley get their auditing
done.)
When I discussed our day's events with the friend I was
visiting, he was reminded of a book he had recently read. He took
it from his bookshelf for me, and I read it over the next couple
of days.
The book was Norman Spinrad's _The Mind Game_. It is the
story of Jack Weller, director of a grade-B Saturday morning
television show called _Monkey Business_ (starring a chimpanzee)
and his wife Annie, an aspiring actress. At the invitation of a
friend they attend a social gathering at the Celebrity Center of a
movement called Transformationalism. Jack hopes to schmooze and
meet people he can use as stepping stones to an improved career,
but Annie becomes more interested in Transformationalism and its
founder, former science fiction writer John B. Steinhardt. At
first Jack tolerates his wife's interest in Transformationalism
and pays for her courses. But as she begins devoting more and
more of her time to it, he becomes annoyed and pressures her to
end her involvement with the group. Instead, the group issues
Annie a "life directive" to either leave the movement or her
husband, and she chooses the latter.
Jack discovers that if he wants to see his wife again, he
must successfully complete the Transformationalism education
process and achieve "fully eptified consciousness." Or, from his
perspective, he must convince the Transformationalists that he has
been completely converted to their way of thinking without
actually becoming brainwashed in the process. To this end, he
enlists the aid of a deprogrammer (or is he a reprogrammer?) named
Garry Bailor.
Jack undergoes "block auditing," a process of diagnosis which
creates a "psychomap" of the psychological blocks which prevent
him from being Transformed; "meditative deconditioning," a process
which eliminates these blocks; and a "life analysis" by Gomez, a
secretive and wily "Monitor," a member of an elite class of
Transformationalist overseers. Gomez knows that Jack is trying to
fake the impression of conversion, but engages in tactics designed
to make sure that in the process, Jack is genuinely changed. (The
twists and turns of the psychological drama are somewhat
reminiscent of _The Prisoner_ TV series--Jack learns to manipulate
lower level Transformationalists, who fear that he is a Monitor.)
In the end, Jack's character does seem to be transformed, but not
exactly in the way that Transformationalism intended.
Spinrad's Transformationalism is clearly patterned after
Scientology. Early in the book, Jack explicitly draws the
comparison:
He had heard of Transformationalism, dimly. It was one of
those consciousness-raising cults, like Arica, EST, or
Scientology, of which he had a low and jaundiced opinion. (p. 5)
Even descriptions of Transformationalism buildings are
similar to Scientology's Hollywood centers:
The Los Angeles Transformation Center was a small converted
hotel in Hollywood, just south of Sunset Boulevard and just west
of Cahuenga, not too far from several studios. A fading tan
stucco building eight stories high with a dirty red-tiled roof; a
brand of cheap hotel common to the area. (p. 38)
Spinrad's book offers a convincing description of social and
psychological pressures that can lead people to conform to an
unusual belief system. In the end, much is left unresolved,
including whether there is anything really beneficial to
Transformationalism or not. (For the most part, it seems clear
that Spinrad's opinion of Scientology/Transformationalism is that
expressed by Jack on p. 5. But there is also no question that
Jack benefits from his exposure to the cult.) The book is an
enjoyable and suspenseful journey into the world of
Transformationalism, and could possibly also work as a vaccine
against getting caught up in a group like Scientology.
Upcoming Meetings
The Phoenix Skeptics will meet at the Jerry's Restaurant on
Rural/Scottsdale Road between McKellips and the river bottom, with
lunch at 12:30 on the first Saturday of each month except where it
conflicts with a holiday.
Articles of Note
George P. Hansen, "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview," _The
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ 86(January
1992):19-63. A rather critical article about the nature and
influence of CSICOP and local skeptical groups, featuring a
quotation from Phoenix Skeptics Fellow Hans Sebald. Skeptics
should make themselves aware of these criticisms.
Philip J. Hilts, "The Science Mob," _The New Republic_ 206(May 18,
1992):24-31. A report on fraud in science, centering on the David
Baltimore case, in which Nobel prizewinner Baltimore refused to
investigated allegations of faked laboratory notebooks of Dr.
Thereza Imanishi-Kari, one of his researchers.
John H. McMasters, "The Flight of the Bumblebee and Related Myths
of Entomological Engineering," _American Scientist_ 77(1989):164-
169. The last word on the myth that scientists have shown that
bumblebees can't fly.
Ron McRae, "Beyond Gonzo," _Spy_ (June 1992):50-56. A former
researcher for Jack Anderson and the author of the book _Mind
Wars_ admits making up stories about Pentagon psychics, Libyan hit
squads, and a Jimmy Carter-ordered invasion of Iran.
_The Arizona Skeptic_ is the official publication of the Phoenix
Skeptics and the Tucson Skeptical Society (TUSKS). The Phoenix
Skeptics is a non-profit scientific and educational organization
with the following goals: 1. 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
scientific information about the paranormal; and 3. to promote
critical thinking and the scientific method. The contents of _The
Arizona Skeptic_ are copyright (c) 1992 by the Phoenix Skeptics
unless otherwise noted. Material in this publication with Phoenix
Skeptics copyright may be reprinted provided that _The Arizona
Skeptic_ and the author are provided copies of the publication in
which their work is reprinted. Address all correspondence to the
Phoenix Skeptics, P.O. Box 62792, Phoenix, AZ 85082-2792.
Submissions for publication in _The Arizona Skeptic_ may be sent
to Jim Lippard, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85721 or electronically to LIPPARD@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU.
All manuscripts become the property of the Phoenix Skeptics, which
retains the right to edit them. Subscription rate is $12.50 per
year.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank