In May and September, I took part in a series of television shows that dealt with several pseudoscientific and supernatural subjects: miracles, predictions, faith healing, sects, haunted houses, apocalypses, UFOs, and subliminal perception. Here are some links to watch these shows:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUb6xK57VAM
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JueXlcmrIjA
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6LbTrpOlX0
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jaz3N-GaJKY
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns9X6lHCtJA
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIyDyAp-gtg

These shows had a huge impact on the audience and garnered other media for us. After these episodes aired, the number of fans of our newly launched Facebook page, “Pasan Cosas Raras” (“Weird Things Happen”), increased from 300 to more than 1300. Available at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pasan-Cosas-Raras/215145385185602, the page keeps our fans informed about pseudoscience, charlatans, and the activities of CFI–Argentina.

On July 20, we organized Thinking Friends Day, where attendants enjoyed talking about skepticism and pseudoscience, taking part in “Ouija board sessions,” and watching demonstrations of “spoon bending” that caught the attention of the many skeptics in attendance. It was a very amusing meeting.

CFI–Argentina members and friends during Thinking Friends Day, July 20, 2011.

September 9–11, the Third National Congress on Atheism in Argentina was held in Mar del Plata. I had the honor of representing CFI–Argentina during this event and I also had the chance to say some words about our main goal of combating pseudoscience: the battle is going to be carried on in the media. So we must train people, especially young people, about how to best meet that goal.

Alejandro J. Borgo and Fernando Lozada, chairman of Atheists of Mar del Plata Association, at the CFI–Argentina stand at the Third National Congress on Atheism in Argentina.

After the Third National Congress on Atheism, CFI–Argentina organized a lecture by philosopher and CSI Fellow Mario Bunge, titled “Pseudoscience and Pseudophilosophy.” On September 15, more than 100 attendants had the chance to ask Bunge questions after the lecture. Many audience members asked questions that Mario Bunge answered with his usual spontaneous style. For example, to the question “What is your main challenge in life?” he answered, “To live!” Bunge answered questions on democracy, politics, religion, psychology, philosophy, and other issues.

Alejandro J. Borgo, Mario Bunge, and journalist Alejandro Agostinelli at the Scientific Society of Argentina, Buenos Aires, September 15, 2011.

Alejandro Agostinelli, Mario Bunge, and Alejandro J. Borgo during the lecture “Pseudoscience and Pseudophilosophy.”

During November 2011, another event organized by CFI–Argentina with two more lectures was held at the Scientific Society of Argentina. Círculo Escéptico Argentino (Argentinian Skeptical Circle) and ArgAtea (an atheist national organization in Argentina) cosponsored the event, “Charlatanism and Science.” I had the honor of giving the first talk titled “Astrology, Parapsychology and Alternative Medicine: Plain Charlatanism.” The second lecture was given by Mariana Bentosela, who discussed myths about the communication between dogs and humans.

Alejandro J. Borgo during his lecture “Astrology, Parasychology and Alternative Medicine: Plain Charlatanism.”

“Charlatanism and Science,” a series of lectures organized by CFI–Argentina, El Círculo Escéptico Argentino, and ArgAtea, sponsored by the Scientific Society of Argentina.

Finally, on December 4 and 5, I had the honor of attending the First International Symposium on Critical Thinking, organized by the Rationalist Association of Paraguay (APRA). I represented CFI–Argentina with the presentation “Magical Thinking, Common Sense, and Critical Thinking: From Superstition to Reason.” There were so many interesting presentations, among them the lecture held by Alberto de la Torre, physicist and researcher at the University of Mar del Plata, who talked about how physics is evolving to explain that the universe can exist without a “creator.” Alejandro Agostinelli carried on another presentation about Argentina’s skeptical movement. Agostinelli is a cofounding member of the first skeptical group in Argentina, Argentine Center for Investigation and Refutation of Pseudoscience (CAIRP). On behalf of CFI–Argentina, I want to express my gratitude to Jorge Alfonso Ramírez, cofounder of APRA, and the rest of the staff.

Alejandro J. Borgo, Alberto de la Torre, and Alejandro Agostinelli in front of the Universidad Autónoma of Asunción, where the First International Symposium on Critical Thinking, Asunción, Paraguay, was held.

Our next step is to publish an online magazine about pseudoscience and the supernatural titled Pasan Cosas Raras (Weird Things Happen). We hope it will be online in April 2012.

We will continue with our associated members campaign as well.

El movimiento escéptico español vive de espaldas a la sociedad y parece no ser consciente de ello. No me refiero a que no ejerza una actitud vigilante hacia la difusión de supercherías. Al contrario. Gracias a Internet y a la intensa actividad de unos pocos blogueros -no nos engañemos, los activos son cuatro-, la denuncia de la charlatanería nunca ha sido tan eficaz como en la actualidad. El principal problema no es ése, sino que, a mi juicio, no se hace prácticamente nada por sacar el pensamiento crítico a la calle, por ir más allá de la firma de manifiestos que siempre suscribimos los mismos. Escribimos para escépticos, montamos charlas de escépticos para escépticos, organizamos protestas para escépticos… Sí, la palabra clave es endogamia.

Llevo en el escepticismo activo casi 30 años y mi modo de pensar ha evolucionado algo en ese tiempo. No sé si mucho o poco -ni si en la buena dirección-; pero sí lo suficiente como para darme cuenta de que hay algunas cosas que hacemos mal, muy mal. ¿Cómo he llegado a esa conclusión? Sin querer. Cuando, por ejemplo, he comprobado que hay una revista escéptica a la que llevo suscrito desde su nacimiento -y lo estaré hasta el final- que ya ni abro porque habla preferentemente de lo buenos que somos y de las muchas cosas que hacemos. Me aburre. Con alguna excepción, me resulta tan apasionante como una hoja parroquial o un boletín interno de ésos que tienen ciertas compañías para fomentar el espíritu de empresa. Si a mí me ocurre eso, ¿puede interesar lo más mínimo a alguien no declaradamente escéptico? Lo dudo.

Pensamiento crítico 2.0

A medidos de los años 80, soñaba con que contáramos en Hispanoamérica con nuestro The Skeptical Inquirer, que es más que una publicación interna y cuya calidad de contenidos resulta incuestionable. Años después, me puse a ello con El Escéptico, pero abandoné la idea en cuanto comprobé, con pesar, que mi visión profesional de lo que tenía que ser esa revista era incompatible con el enfoque amateur de mis colegas, y que no había visos de cambio. No me refiero sólo a intentar compensar de algún modo a los autores -extremo que me planteaba para cuando hubiera unos mínimos ingresos-, sino también a respetar los plazos de publicación, corregir los textos a conciencia, controlar la calidad del producto de principio a fin… No fue posible, y dejé el cargo.

Ya como simple colaborador de la revista, cumplía los plazos de entrega de originales escrupulosamente, pero el número correspondiente llegaba a mi buzón muchos meses después, haciendo que mis textos perdieran toda actualidad. Me acabé hartando de que mis artículos se publicaran con tanta demora en la revista que hasta poco antes había dirigido seguramente con más errores que aciertos. Así que me desvinculé totalmente del proyecto sin tener un sitio alternativo donde publicar. Y en esto aparecieron los blogs. Abrí Magonia en junio de 2003 y, desde entonces, no me ha dado nada más que satisfacciones. No dependo de nadie para publicar y llego a mucha más gente con el blog de lo que nunca iba a llegar con la revista. Mi mayor error en Magonia ha sido el mismo que critico en estas líneas: en sus inicios, me centré demasiado en escribir sobre el proceder del movimiento escéptico, algo que sólo nos interesa a los de dentro. No sólo caí en la endogamia, sino que, además, coseché enemigos por decir públicamente lo que pensaba. Lo primero me importa; lo segundo no.

Los blogs son lo mejor que le ha pasado al movimiento escéptico español en treinta años. Le han dado una visibilidad que no habría logrado de otro modo. Junto con las redes sociales, han sido la puerta de entrada en el pensamiento crítico para mucha gente y el caldo de cultivo de actividades públicas como los Enigmas y Birras, los Escépticos en el Pub, los Escépticos en el Bar y otras similares. Estos encuentros consisten en reuniones en establecimientos hosteleros con charlas y tertulias en torno a un asunto presentado por un experto. Juntar en Madrid a ochenta personas y en Bilbao a una treintena una vez al mes para hablar de pensamiento crítico está bien; pero, cuando son siempre de los nuestros, tiene tanta utilidad social como sacar una revista que no llega más que a los convencidos. Son actividades para la cohesión del colectivo escéptico y, por eso, son necesarias, pero no sirven para más.

Encerrados en el armario

Apoyo activamente los Enigmas y Birras de Bilbao como público cuando puedo y como ponente cuando me lo solicitan. A la cita, casi siempre acudimos los mismos. Y, por lo que me han comentado, en otras ciudades pasa lo mismo con los Escépticos en el Pub, los Escépticos en el Bar y similares. Espero que estas iniciativas se perpetúen y empiecen a celebrarse en todas las ciudades donde haya un pequeño grupo de escépticos. Pero tenemos que ser conscientes de que se trata de actos dirigidos a los nuestros, tal como apuntaba en Twitter el otro día Silvia Alba, organizadora de las tertulias leonesas. Aquéllos a quienes tenemos que seducir no saben de estos encuentros y, por tanto, no recibirán nuestro mensaje. ¿Es porque hemos diseñado estos actos para que sean así o porque no sabemos darles la publicidad debida para que se abran a la gente de la calle?

No estamos ante un problema, seguramente, exclusivo de los escépticos españoles. Hace años, durante un congreso en Bruselas, le comentaba a Barry Karr, director ejecutivo del Comité para la Investigación Escéptica (CSI), que podía haberse aprovechado la oportunidad para organizar un acto abierto al público con alguno de los muy atractivos ponentes que participaban en el encuentro. Me refiero a gente como James Alcock, Barry Beyerstein y Christopher French, entre otros. No se había hecho, y no sé si ha hecho después. Poco más tarde, con motivo del nacimiento del Círculo Escéptico, tuve la oportunidad de empezar a organizar charlas y debates públicos en Bilbao, en colaboración con el Ayuntamiento, la Universidad del País Vasco y El Correo, el periódico en el que trabajo. ¿Y saben qué ha pasado? Que, desde entonces, hemos celebrado cinco ediciones del Día de Darwin con más de 300 asistentes a cada conferencia, así como sesiones sobre otros temas con un número de personas muy superior al del más exitoso encuentro de escépticos en un bar de toda España. Y, lo que es más importante, la mayor parte del público no es de los nuestros.

El ritmo de actos públicos de ese tipo en Bilbao ha descendido en los últimos dos años porque me he visto involucrado en otros proyectos; pero voy a retomar la iniciativa dentro de poco con el mismo objetivo con el que he programado encuentros sobre platillos volantes, la explosión de Tunguska y otros supuestos enigmas, el de atraer a la sala a los curiosos, no a los míos. El de seguir la estela de la serie de televisión Escépticos, concebida por escépticos, realizada por escépticos, pero dirigida al público en general. No es difícil organizar actos que atraigan a la gente sin insultar a su inteligencia: basta con un poco de dinero y una sala de conferencias. Entonces, ¿por qué no lo hacemos? ¿Por qué no salimos de una vez del armario? Yo también era escéptico en 2006, pero he comprobado que, pensando un poco y buscando buenos aliados, salir al mundo exterior no es tan difícil.

Regrettably, in most of the African republics in the Sahara region—where the majority of citizens live below the poverty line, with an ever-widening gap between the rich and poor, and with governments that are not concerned with the welfare of the people because of corruptions, impunities, and dictatorships—superstitious ideas often turn into something so lethal that if the population is not sensitized against such beliefs there are bound to be increasing human rights violations in the coming years and beyond.

First, HIV/AIDS is one of the nightmares in the region. It is estimated that 22.5 million people live with the disease; of these, 2.3 million are children. During 2009, an estimated 1.3 million people died from AIDS. This situation led to many children orphaned at a young age. As a result teenagers are left with the task of looking after families; most girls resort to prostitution and a majority of young men engage in crimes just to fend for the family.

Unluckily, despite the effort of science to let HIV-positive individuals lead normal lives by providing anti-retroviral drugs, which delays the virus from turning into AIDS, religious bigots and traditional witch doctors have been using this epidemic to exploit superstitious beliefs, thwarting this positive effort to help the human race.

Recently, the situation of Loliondo stunned many people. Loliondo is a village situated in the Nyorongoro district of Arusha in northern Tanzania. In Kenya, everywhere you went, you could not fail to see posters and signs of this place advertised. This village became famous when word spread throughout sub-Saharan African countries that retired Lutheran pastor Ambelike Mwasapile had found a miracle cure that many believed could cure incurable diseases like HIV/AIDS, cancer, ulcers, and many more. Ambelike, who is widely known as Babu wa Loliondo, used a tree from the Apocynacea family called Carissa edulis to make his famous herb, which was administered in a cup.

Suddenly, it became a shock when patients were taken out of bed in hospitals and rushed to Loliondo. Drinking the herb invoked the superstitious nature of many HIV/AIDS victims and they believed they had been healed; hence almost all abandoned taking anti-retroviral drugs. However, this fakery did not last when victims who had abandoned taking the anti-retroviral drugs started dying and a large number deteriorated in health.

Despite such kinds of failure, many religious institutions in Africa have copied this fakery and continued to organize miracle healing of HIV/AIDS. Sadly, after such healing crusades most individuals are told to throw away anti-retroviral drugs. As much as there is a struggle to help and sustain people living with the virus, irrationality advanced by religious dogmas and traditional societies has continued to usher people into deathbeds even when they could live longer lives.

Many people who have been liberated from irrational beliefs in Africa have wondered whether our great grandparents believed knowledge was expensive and decided to plant these irrational, superstitious ideas into the minds of younger generations, causing unwanted human crises up to this century. The situation in Africa, caused by irrational beliefs, is so disturbing that if it is not tackled by rationalists, freethinkers, skeptics, and others who have been liberated from the dogmas that thwart knowledge, many human crises will be massive in the upcoming years.

That is the reason why, at CFI–Kenya, we have held so dearly to the anti-superstition campaign. This year we managed to organize four major community-based workshops where we expressed concerns about how irrational beliefs were becoming a thwart to the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We demonstrated this by giving examples of the Loliondo saga, now widely known because of the crisis it brought, which was publicized in various media houses. For example, we printed a piece from the Star, which covered the story well (http://www.the-star.co.ke/national/national/30533-aids-patients-reject-arvs-die-after-loliondo-visit), and also one from Allafrica.com (http://allafrica.com/stories/201103280148.html and http://allafrica.com/stories/201105241304.html). We printed many copies and distributed them during these workshops.

We organized debates about the issue on the campuses where we have established movements. The University of Nairobi Academic and Freethinking club organized a debate sponsored by CFI–Kenya on 22 October, 2011, with the title, “Does religion kill HIV/AIDS Victims in the name of God?” This debate had a controversial title and the attendance was overwhelming. Nevertheless, the message was clear and many, even the religious who attended, saw the need to change perceptions. This approach was the best towards extending our mission. The Moi Freethinkers at Moi University also organized two workshops and closed with their annual meeting.

In the month of November, the humanist movements in East Africa realized that if they don’t double their efforts and give much of their time to the empowerment of the various populations, then irrationality would soon threaten to consume the human population because of widespread superstition.

As a result, from the 25th to 28th of November 2011, East African humanist leaders gathered in Kampala, Uganda, to discuss the way forward and how humanist organizations could work together to spread the ideals of reason and science to combat widespread irrationality. Here, leaders from Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania drafted a two-year work plan (2012–2013) that would make sure their objectives are met within this framework. This included organizing joint meetings, mobilization, workshops, and conferences within the countries of East Africa.

East African Humanists’ Meeting, Kampala, Uganda: 25 November 2011

This plan also included going into schools and institutions of higher learning where we could launch debating clubs and sponsor publications. In Kenya, the Center for Inquiry–Kenya was given the task of coordinating these activities; hence I was appointed the country coordinator for these events. Jackson Ezekiel, who is the chairperson of Tanzania Humanist Movement, was chosen to coordinate Tanzania, and in Uganda, Betty Nassaka, who is the head of International Humanist and Ethical Youth Organization, will act as the chair of this process. Also in the meeting, a resource mobilization plan was drafted outlining how the involved groups would solicit for resources to make sure that this mission is effective within the two-year plan.

To add, I also managed to meet students from Dar-es-salam University in Tanzania and Makerere University in Uganda who were interested in our On Campus program. Already they are in the process of starting On Campus movements and I have been invited to give a talk to a mass of students in February 2012 at Dar-es-Salam University.

I believe that with this initiative taken by the humanist body in East Africa, a lot of impact is going to be felt and we shall be steps ahead in the fight against irrationality in the two-year plan. Again, this is going to give CFI–Kenya an advantage in spreading the ideals of the Center for Inquiry beyond borders. We hope for the best in the year 2012 and beyond.

From second-to-left: George Ongere; Robert Bwambale, director of Kasese Humanist Movement and Kasese Humanist School; Jackson Ezekiel, chairman of the Tanzanian Humanist Movement; and Esther Nakate of the Ugandan Humanist Effort to Save Women.

George Ongere with Betty Nassaka, Secretary General of International Humanist and Ethical Youth Organization (IHEYO), in Kampala, Uganda, 27 November 2011.

Deo Sessitoleko, East African Representative of International Humanist and Ethical Union, presenting at the East Africa Humanist meeting.

Bob Churchill of the British Humanist Association presenting a point.

George Ongere leading the meeting in drafting an activity plan.

I was wondering if the hosts would actually take a skeptical look at the paranormal, so I checked out their website and was happy to find an article titled 5 Historic - and Spooky - Hoaxes. The five hoaxes in question are The Blair Witch Project (yes, that was debunked. The same day that Ghost Dad was debunked), The Amityville Horror (ditto), Ghostwatch (a BBC show that was debunked literally in the credits of the show), War of the Worlds (ditto), and THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS. Did you guys know that that had been debunked? Chief investigator: my fourth grade social studies teacher.

Good job, team. Good debunkings. It should now be clear that this team isn't afraid to go after the tough cases.

But really, I like the idea of the show—in each episode the hosts try to recreate "paranormal" videos in an attempt to explain them. So I decided to go ahead and watch the latest episode, which is called the “Mexico City Cave Witch.” That is a superb title and it filled me with hope.

Here's the promo for the episode, for those who aren't in the United States or don't want to waste their brain cells watching an entire episode.

The show opens with the team hanging out, showing each other the spooky videos they found on YouTube this week. The FoFPF team includes Ben, a former FBI agent (no explanation for why he left the FBI, but we can probably extrapolate from the fact that he is now on a show talking about how spooky witches are); Jael, an investigative reporter; Bill, the "lead scientist" with absolutely no scientific qualifications; Austin, a personal trainer with "a degree in biology"; Lanisha, a photographer; and Devin, "tech specialist."

Austin breathlessly shows the cave witch video, which I have turned into an animated gif for your convenience:

Professor Bill provides the scientific description of what he has just seen: "To me it looked like she's just floating there, and then it took off."

One host suggests that maybe someone just stood on top of the cave and pulled an object up, but Austin counters with the ironclad fact that the video maker claims he has nothing to gain from hoaxing this video . . . besides appearing on television, of course. People eat rat intestines for the chance to be on television, but Austin doesn't think someone would spend ten minutes making a "witch" video? No matter—if they act like it might be real, they get a free trip to Mexico. Admit it: you, too, would exchange your very dignity for a vacation in Mexico.

But first, they need to investigate the Case of the Exploding Bar Ashtray. There's security cam footage that shows an ashtray sitting on a bar, and then it explodes. Oh, also, everyone pretends to see some kind of ghostly orb that is nearly invisible on my computer screen, but never mind that, because the ashtray explosion is actually a pretty neat puzzle. My hopes are high.

The team heads to the bar, where they test a few hypotheses, just like in real science. One idea is that something fell on the ashtray, so they drop a "very small screw" approximately 2.5 feet into a glass ashtray to see if it will explode. They count down to make everything more dramatic.

"3-2-1 GO DEVIN!"

Nothing happens of course, so next they drop a ball bearing.

"3-2-1 RELEASE THE BALL!"

The ball bearing broke the ashtray, but they act as though the breakage is substantially different from the original video (it isn't), plus they point out that there's no visible falling object in the original video.

At this point I had to wonder if any of them had ever worked in a restaurant, or if they would talk with someone who works regularly with glass. If they had, I feel like maybe it would have occurred to them sooner that glass explodes more often than one might think. Tempered glass with a small defect could break at any time, but particularly with quick temperature changes that could be caused by, say, an ashtray that comes straight out of an industrial dishwasher and onto a counter directly above an ice box. This, of course, would be difficult to recreate with a single "experiment" because it's a rare event that requires a flawed glass.

They do come tantalizingly close. They talk about temperature changes, and they have a very high-tech animation showing what happens to the molecules in glass that undergoes thermal shock. They suggest that maybe the ashtray was very cold for some reason and someone put a lit cigarette in it, which they test by placing a hot coal in an icy ashtray. Nothing happens, so they take a blowtorch directly to the ashtray. It explodes! They astutely point out that there is no blow torch visible in the footage, so they deem the possibility of extreme temperature change "unrealistic." Remember that line in five minutes when they're talking about how maybe ghosts did it.

Next they try a controlled explosion, and of course the ashtray explodes. But then they realize that ghosts are the more likely explanation so they go looking for "cold spots." They use walkie talkies, despite being in the same bar, because without walkie talkies you can't say things like "NEGATIVE" without looking just plain silly. They find a warm spot along the bar where an electric cord is. They do recall that they took a blow torch to that bar hours ago but declare that it is impossible that it would still be several degrees warmer.

"Maybe this is a communication attempt," they guess. They think it's the previous owner of the bar, who shot himself. No one asks the important question: Did he hate smokers?

Suddenly, a glass falls in the darkened bar, confirming the fact that this is definitely a ghost with little respect for expensive glassware.

As a final nail in the coffin, Professor Bill finds electronic voice phenomena (EVP), which is just garbled white noise and background sounds that cause people to hear any message they'd like, such as Satanic messages in Queen songs.

Anyway, yes, the group agrees that "ghost" is the most likely explanation. I was disappointed—not just because they settled for a supernatural explanation, but because they didn't even bother to get an opera singer in to sing a note at the exact frequency of the glass. "3-2-1 RESONATE!"

Next up: Witch cave. Let's go to Mexico!

So, this video is pretty obviously not a witch. In fact, it is so obviously not a witch that I was initially astounded that these people could actually keep a straight face while pretending as though there's a possibility this is a video of an honest-to-goodness witch. But then I thought, "Wait a minute, Rebecca. You're an adult of average intelligence. Maybe it's not so obvious to other people."

That's why I decided to poll some children to find out what they think of it. Each of the kids' parents showed them the above animated gif, explained that a man says it's a witch but he may or may not be telling the truth, and asked them what they thought it was. Here are the responses:

"It could be, I dunno, a bird flying off carrying a black cloth?"
Joe, age 10

Joe's mom Lorna says: I told Joe about the man saying it was a witch, but who might or might not be a liar, and he climbed right behind me on my office chair to view the gif, which is a signal that he was *expecting* it to be a witch or something scary, but when I asked him afterwards if he thought it was a witch, he gave a very emphatic and scornful "no".

“That’s not a witch! Looks like someone doing their washing! … Looks like a bit of cloth being caught by the wind. Witches don’t exist.”
Scarlett, age 10

“Looks like something leaping, like a cat? You can see its tail.”

"So, you don’t think it’s a witch?"

“No, everyone knows witches aren’t real.”
Lucas, age 7

"It looks like a bin bag."
Natasha, age 10

"I think I know what that is. I think it's an animal that's either going off looking like it's flying or it's a kind of bird with a long tail. Or it could be someone just playing a trick on him and like, just lifting up some black clothes. It's not a very good job with the camera either."
Izzie, age 8

So there you have it—from this sample we can conclude that the majority of children aged seven to ten understand that witches don't exist and that even if they did exist, this is not a video of one. However! I bet if you offered those children the opportunity to go to Mexico to be sure, they'd … well actually they probably wouldn't do it, because most children have yet to learn the joys of spending long days on sandy beaches drinking margaritas.

Anyway, our intrepid team of adults decide to start their investigation with the hypothesis advanced by Joe (age 10), by dragging an owl out to the cave in the middle of the day to see if the witch could have been a bird. The poor nocturnal creature is clearly not amused, but this is science.

"3-2-1 RELEASE OWL!"

The lack of any kind of flapping wing in the original video shoots this hypothesis down. Next theory: parkour. It is obviously not parkour, any more than it is planking or coning. Parkour does not involve a floppy, limp body wobbling several feet into the air. They are now really stretching my patience by pretending to be morons in order to get a few more hours in Mexico. Again, maybe I would do the same. It looks nice there. Anyway, physical therapist and "stunt expert" Austin gets to show off his skills.

"3-2-1 MAKE THE MOVE!"

They figure out that it's probably not parkour, so at last they make a dummy, dressed all in black, and tie it to a string. Just like the original video maker obviously did.

"3-2-1 PULL THE DUMMY!"

Kudos to the editing team who valiantly tried to make this part suspenseful. The team was pulling a string with a dummy attached, but the music suggested they were firing their last bullets at an advancing horde of zombies.

Everyone is surprised that the video of their dummy looked exactly like the original. Final conclusion: hoax. Final cost: hotel and airfare to Mexico for three hosts, cameraperson, audio tech, and producer, plus one-day owl rental.

All in all, I can't say this is the worst paranormal show on television. The hosts act like morons, but I think it's pretty clear that most of them (I'm really not sure about Bill) are just going through the motions to be on television and get free trips to Mexico. This is pretty much just the world we live in now, and we're all complicit … especially me, because I watched this show and then wrote a really long article about it.

Final rating: 2 out of 5 broken ashtrays for FoFPF. 1 out of 5 floppy witches for society. 5 out of 5 angry owls for the kids in my survey group, who were so great that I'm thinking of using them as a regular resource.

Related Articles

For further reading about Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files, please see CSI's earlier article by Karen Stollznow.

In early December 2011, “Operation Nutcracker” was born.

Meryl Dorey, the president of the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN), was booked for a talk on December 29, 2011, at the Woodford Folk Festival—an annual festival located between the Brisbane Valley and Queensland’s Sunshine Coast in the North-East of the country.

Don’t be fooled by the name of the group: The Australian Vaccination Network is an anti-vaccination lobby group, registered in New South Wales, dedicated to promoting the view that community health can be promoted without the use of vaccines. Upon hearing of Dorey’s appearance, the Stop the Anti-Vaccination Network (Stop the AVN)—a loose affiliation of concerned citizens and skeptical activists—moved rapidly to protest this appearance; through Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and email-writing campaigns, they rallied for her presentation to be cancelled for the good of public health.

By the December 13, an article appeared in MamaMia, a pop-culture opinion site, questioning Dorey’s appearance at the festival. The article called for some accountability and responsibility, but the overall response by the organizer Bill Hauritz was unapologetic. The media picked up the story, with Australian Medical Association of Queensland’s President Kidd and Queensland’s Health Minister Geoff Wilson both expressing their disapproval—the latter even calling the AVN a “fringe group.”

Then, at nearly the twelfth hour, an interesting compromise emerged. The talk had been changed to a “forum,” with Dorey joined by Andreas Suhrbier, head of the immunovirology laboratory at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and moderated by John Parker, a veteran of Doctors without Borders.

Despite the concessions, the Stop the AVN was determined to make a public statement at the festival about Dorey’s appearance. Thirty-four donors contributed to a tow-banner on a plane, which would appear for half an hour on either side of the vaccination forum’s scheduled run time. The banner simply read: VACCINATION SAVES LIVES.

The media release, written by Queenslander Chrys Stevenson, was forwarded to concerned parties and flyers were handed out at the event itself. The release captured the media’s attention and was considered a win by the Stop the AVN for its innovative activism.

I spoke to four members of the Stop the AVN for the Token Skeptic podcast on the evening of the event itself.

*****

Kylie Sturgess:  So what inspired a plane?

Robin Hilliard:  It really was just an idea that struck me when I was sitting there watching what was happening on Twitter. My actual action, although I’ve been much heralded for it, was really just to say, “I wonder what it would cost to hire a plane?” and to look up skywriting in Google. I fired off an email saying, “Hey, what would it cost to put this kind of message over Woodford on this date?”

They got back to me the next day and I direct-messaged Jason [Brown], and just said, “People are interested in this.” That apparently was my ticket of entry into the Illuminati.

Kylie Sturgess:  That’s all it takes?

Daniel Raffaele:  Oh God, don’t mention the Illuminati!

Kylie Sturgess:  Nobody suspects the Illuminati!

Robin Hilliard:  Can I go on to my lizard sun bath now?

Jason Brown:  But it was just the kind of money that if we clubbed together, and we cared enough, we could do. It was also exactly one percent of the AVN’s revenue for 2010, which was quite amazing.

Robin Hilliard:  That’s what I love. Instantly, the moment we thought of a plane, we knew what the reactions would be: “Oh, Meryl will say something about chemtrails. Or that Big Pharma sponsored it”—but that’s so the opposite of what actually happened.

We got the quote for the plane and it was $2,800. You can look up “skywriting” in the phone book or do the same with a Google search. I was really stunned by how fantastic the response was when I suggested it; we had students who were putting in $15 because they just wanted to be a part of the plan.

We had, I think in the end, thirty-four people, with individuals chipping in amounts from $15 up to a few hundred bucks to pay for it. The amazing thing was at the end of collecting all that money from people, and putting it all together, we were less than one percent of the AVN’s declared audited annual income for last year.

The funny thing was, Meryl was actually the first person to report online about the plane over the festival. She said, “How can I possibly afford that kind of advertising? I couldn’t even afford this advertising.” I said, “Of course you could, Meryl. This is less than one percent of what you get every year from all your income.”

Dave the Happy Singer:  If you think that we’re indulgent by buying a plane to fly “Vaccination Saves Lives” above Woodford, just remember Meryl Dorey could do it a hundred times over.

Robin Hilliard:  This is something we can all do. There’s no hurt in throwing out a big idea. I particularly thank [founding Australian Skeptic] Dick Smith for his stunts back in the ’70s and ’80s when I was a kid, he used to do all of these sorts of things. And I just thought, “Let’s just find out. Throw out a big idea and see if we can do it. If we can do it, let’s go and do it.”

Kylie Sturgess:  It’s such a classic thing to have a banner up in the sky. I was so surprised when I saw the promo email that went around saying, “OK, everyone be prepared,” and there was a little airplane logo at the bottom of the email—I had no idea there was going to be a real plane! There were also people in the audience on the day handing out fliers. How did the audience respond from what you’ve heard?

Daniel Raffaele:  I actually found out that the plane had arrived from Meryl Dorey because we were all timed to release the news at 1:45 PM Queensland time—we were all going to start blogging and tweeting en masse. Then we were all sitting around for those first couple of minutes, saying “Has the plane got there? Has the plane got there? Has the plane got there?!”

Jason Brown:  We were freaking out big time!

Daniel Raffaele:  Yes! Then I see this post from Meryl Dorey saying, “You won’t believe this … but there’s a plane flying overhead with ‘Vaccines Saves Lives’ on it…” That was when I knew. But the response from the public has been pretty positive. I was on Twitter the whole afternoon, and seeing people going, “There’s a plane overhead with a banner!” We were getting extra followers on Twitter for Stop the AVN.

Dave the Happy Singer:  I suppose the other thing we should mention is that Meryl Dorey had her nose put out of joint, because as a result of our campaigning, Meryl was no longer giving her solo talk, which was titled, “Autism Emergency: One in Thirty-Eight.” That was scrapped; she was no longer giving her unchallenged solo speech. It was replaced with a forum where there were a couple of experts, chaired by a real doctor and just Meryl on the fringes. It was still too much for us to be happy. She had no business being there in the first place.

Daniel Raffaele:  That’s precisely the point of the campaign: she’s harping on about freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is fine, but it doesn’t mean that you get to sit up on stage with a microphone.

Dave the Happy Singer:  Yeah. You don’t have a right to speak at Woodford with your freedom of speech. If not, I would be up there speaking about my future marriage to Keira Knightley, but that invitation has not come through again…

Kylie Sturgess:  I would fly a plane in protest about that quite frankly, Dave, I’m sorry.

Dave The Happy Singer:  So would the world, Kylie, I think!

Kylie Sturgess:  There’s only so much we can stomach! How did the crowd respond to the protest overall?

Dave the Happy Singer:  From what I’ve heard it was about a 50/50 split. But that’s not really that surprising given that the Sunshine Coast isn’t really that much of a drive from Meryl Dorey’s heartland. She would have had people following her up there. The Sunshine Coast in Queensland does have a bit of a “rainbow region”/New Age leaning. Not as bad as the Northern Rivers in New South Wales, but still pretty intense. So it’s not surprising that there was a split. But the split I guess was more in our favor than we would have thought.

Robin Hilliard:  I think the split that was reported during the talk … was 50/50. But then [Stop AVN member] Phil Kent was handing out flyers there, with a little spitfire cap and a “Vaccination Saves Lives” T-shirt! He was saying that he got a very positive response as he was handing flyers out. So I don’t know if that just meant he was talking to fifty percent of the room, or if it meant that people who had been undecided were talking to him as well.

Dave the Happy Singer:  It’s entirely possible that people had gone into that undecided, genuinely seeking information, and got to see Meryl Dorey completely shot down.

Jason Brown:  Suddenly from the social media monitoring we were doing at the time, we knew it was all ours. There’s hardly an anti‑vaccination voice on the Woodford Twitter hashtag or on the “Stop the AVN” hashtag. Everybody seemed to be excited; people we didn’t know, people unrelated to “Stop the AVN,” were interested to see that there was a plane out there challenging Dorey, and that Phil was there handing out fliers. There were people posting on Facebook that heckled Dorey, and the audience had cheered them.

These weren’t people we’d know. These weren’t people that we put up there. But general members of the public are getting the message that these anti‑vaccination views are full of crap, and I think that’s positive. With all the sad news that’s been happening with the vaccine preventable diseases, there is good news there. I think the message is getting through.

Daniel Raffaele:  I think we do it better than anyone in the world really. We’ve really taken the AVN to task. But we’d love to be proved wrong.

Jason Brown:  Absolutely!

Dave the Happy Singer:  Yeah, come on America! I think the other interesting thing is that we’ve come under fire with “Stop the AVN.” We are by definition quite a negative campaign because we’re focused on the AVN. But this has been an entirely positive action. The message is, “Vaccination Saves Lives.”

As Meryl would have it, we’re trying to put the other side. We’re trying to help people get a free and informed choice. But a free and informed choice depends on that word informed. If you’re badly informed then you’re going to make bad choices. But I’m quite happy that we’re doing a positive campaign with a positive message. We could have put up a banner saying, “Meryl Dorey is full of ...” But that wouldn’t have won us any friends.

Kylie Sturgess:  What could people do to help or what do you suggest they emulate? For example, I know that over in the U.S. it’s just been announced that apparently there’s going to be more advertising in Time Square in New York, by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). Is there any advice that you have for other activists out there?

Dave the Happy Singer:  I think that the best thing that Australians can do is to go to the Stop the AVN Facebook group and join up with us. Basically take it from there. We do things like this from time to time. But this is, I think, with the possible exception of the Western Australian advertising blitz for her talks earlier in 2011, the biggest thing that we’ve done. It’s certainly the biggest thing that we’ve done on any single day.

I think the best thing that you can do is join us on Facebook and basically take it from there. As for what’s happening in America—perhaps they’ll be inspired by just how easy it is to rally the troops, or maybe we make it look easy?

The official Stop the AVN site is at http://www.stopavn.com.

When I had set up the appointment by phone, I had asked all of the claimants if they were able to detect magical objects if it were hidden under a cup. All of them said yes, so I gave them a very brief overview of the experiment. Of the four claimants, two backed down: the sorcerer from Mt. Merapi and the witch doctor from Surabaya.

One of the claimants from Surabaya happened to be in Jakarta recently. He had a job interview the day before and was willing to meet me at my office the following day, the 26th of November. This claimant, whom I’ll call DD, was recommended by one of my coworkers. DD arrived at my office with his cousin at around noon, about an hour late for the appointment. After the introduction I began the preliminary interview. DD is only twenty-four years old, is single, and has a diploma in mechanical engineering from a respectable university in Surabaya. He is currently working in a construction company as a project engineer in Surabaya. He claims he has a sixth sense and has had it since he was around six years old. He can sense when there are ghosts, djinns, or other spirits around him when other people can’t see them. He is also a healer and specializes in sprained limbs and broken bones. He heals people by massaging them and praying at the same time. People are healed not because of him but because of the prayer and the power of Allah through his massages. I observed during the preliminary interview that DD was calm and even-headed when I asked him about his background. When I started to ask about his abilities, he started showing signs of nervousness by brushing his left hand through his hair numerous times.

Claimant 1, Exhibit A

Claimant 1, Exhibit B

I had asked him to bring a magical object with him for the experiment. He showed me his ring. I photographed the ordinary-looking ring next to a Rp 200 coin (Claimant 1, Exhibit A & B). The ring became magical because he always wears it when he prays. It says it always protects him from harm. He claimed that during a fight the ring helped him defeat his opponent with just a few punches. I asked him if he can feel the aura of the ring with his hands and he said yes. I then asked him if he could feel the aura of the ring if I put a coffee cup on top of it and he also said yes. Finally, I asked him if he can detect the ring if I hid it under one of ten coffee cups and he also said yes, albeit with same hesitance. I then asked him if he is willing to perform the experiment and he also said yes, but with a lot of hesitance this time. I then explained the double-blind experiment to him and also stated that I have to record the experiment with a video camera. When I asked him how many times he can correctly pick the right cup out of ten tries, he finally balked and said that his powers aren’t that strong yet—that he was only an apprentice and would probably fail the test. I encouraged him to take the test just for fun without the video camera and he finally agreed.

By coincidence, my coworker who recommended DD was also at work that day, so I had asked him to be my assistant. After I explained the protocol to him, we started the double-blind experiment. The procedure is exactly the same as the one with the sorcerer in the article “A Mug of a Different Color”, but this time I used a meeting room for the experiment, a hallway for my coworker to hide behind, and another hallway to the toilet. DD was with me the whole time and we never saw my coworker during the course of the experiment.

I am happy to report that even though my assistant and the claimant are old friends, the double-blind experiment still worked. Out of five tries, DD missed all of them! He then quit after the fifth try. Once again he said that he is still an apprentice and told me that he has a friend in Surabaya who is much more powerful than he is. He would try to arrange for him to meet me when I got to Surabaya the following week. I then thanked him for coming and for having the courage to do the experiment. I would be contacting him again when I arrived in Surabaya.

On the 29th of November, I took the first flight to Surabaya to meet with the second claimant, who I will call FKL. Another coworker had recommended him to me. We had scheduled the meeting at my hotel room at 1:00 PM and he arrived quite promptly. FKL came with his nephew, who works as a reporter for a local Surabaya newspaper, along with him. FKL looked the part of an Indonesian sorcerer. He wore a black shirt and pants, longish curly hair, and a mustache and beard. We all sat down on the floor of my hotel room. My hotel room was a bit dark because the drapes were closed and there were only two lights on.

After the usual pleasantries, I asked him about himself. His day job is as a construction worker. Like DD, he felt he has had magical powers since he was a small child. He used to do black magic when he was in his teens but then finally realized the error of his ways and then turned to white magic. He realized that all the powers he has are given by Allah and has since used his powers for goodness. Besides healing people with prayers, he also persuades other people who use black magic to return to the right path.

He said he could prove to me the power of his magic. When his son was in elementary school, he had shown signs of dyslexia. FKL then meditated for a few hours to seek guidance from Allah. He then suddenly saw a vision of a black circle, which he took as a sign from Allah on how to heal his son. He then drew a black circle on a piece of paper and then asked his son to stare at it while he meditated nearby. His son says that he saw the circle disappear and reappearing over and over again. After that incident, his child’s academic record seemed to improve.

He told this story while drawing a round, black circle on a piece of paper. He then placed the paper upright against a chair and asked me to stare at it while he meditated nearby. The black circle seemed to disappear, of course, so I decided to give him some insight on how the rods and cones of the retina work in a dark room. He looked deflated after my explanation, but, to his credit, he didn’t become defensive about it and actually seem to accept my scientific explanation for this phenomenon.

Claimant 2, Exhibit A

Claimant 2, Exhibit B

I then asked him about the magical object that I asked him to bring. He pulled out a gold and diamond ring that once belonged to his grandfather (Claimant 2 Exhibit A & B). As with DD, I asked him if he could detect the aura of the ring if placed under a coffee cup and whether he could select which cup the ring is under if there are ten cups in front of him. Like DD, he balked at the protocol of the experiment. His excuse was that his powers are from Allah and he should not show off or else Allah would take the powers away from him. Also as with DD’s experiment, I encouraged FKL to take the test just for fun without the video camera and he finally agreed.

The ten cups were on the desk beside the bed. I asked FKL’s nephew to be the hider. After arranging the cups by random, hiding the ring, then rearranging the cups again, he then went into the bathroom and closed the door. Meanwhile, FKL and I were in the hallway facing the other way. After I hear the door to the bathroom close, FKL and I then went to the cups. He hovered his hand above each of the cups before finally picking one of them. I am pleased to say that out of six tries he only got one right. He quit after the sixth try. He restated his initial excuse that his powers are not for showing off but only to help other people. I still thanked him for his participation in the experiment and I also asked him if he can find other people like him who are willing to be tested. Since this is the third time I have tested sorcerers with white magic, I asked him to find someone with black magic for me to test. He doubted he could find one that is willing to do the experiment but he was willing to try.

After they left, I called DD and asked him if his friend was able meet me at my hotel. DD was apologetic but his friend happened to be out of town that week. DD has promised to arrange the meeting the next time I go to Surabaya.

Well, that’s how the experiments went. I realize that the two experiments above couldn’t be considered valid because:

• The claimant and the hider knew each other.
• The rooms where the experiments were held were less than ideal.
• There were no video recordings of the experiment.

However, even with those extremely less-than-perfect conditions for an experiment, the double-blind experiment still works and both claimants badly flunked their tests.

Each month I’ll bring you a new example of sciencey-ness that falls short of giving us credible knowledge yet fools at least some of the public into thinking that it is the real deal. For this initial go, I wanted to share my realizations about science talk and the people who utilize it like a toupee of credibility to hide the lack of substance underneath. Once you’ve spotted their ways, it’s hard to ignore.

Science.

It is a bit hard to define what that is. Meanings change through time. If you are one who values science as the most reliable way to understand the world, you likely have a much stronger definition of the term than someone who values it less. Science is all these things: a process, a way of looking at a topic, a community, an infrastructure, a career, a set of results, an authority, and more. We can use the word in many ways. That means it can be abused in many ways as well.

Daniel Patrick Thurs’s aptly named book Science Talk is an interesting walk through how we have historically talked about science. He takes us through the terms and rhetoric that the public and purveyors of sciences used through the development of the scientific age and demonstrates how meanings are constructed based on the needs we have at any time.

Popular ideas about science have evolved significantly since the word came to be. At first, it just meant a body of reliable and systematized knowledge. That really general way of referring to “a science” was in use until the early 1800s. When “scientist” became an actual profession—where certain training was expected, amateurs were pushed out, and a unique jargon was developed—boundaries formed (and were actively built) around science.

Constructed boundaries enhanced the reputation of science as a distinctive (perhaps “honored”) way of knowing about the world and excluded that which wasn’t science (conveniently judged by the scientists themselves).

The new and improved version of “science” now encompassed all the activities which, collectively, serve the aim of explaining the natural world and how it works.

As the scientific community organized into an “establishment,” an ethos [group of practices] developed. Certain standards of practice were expected of a “scientist,” foremost of which was the entrance to the club through higher education.

Scientific discoveries contributed to human societies in (mostly) positive ways; therefore, the prestige of being “scientific” grew. “Scientific” was associated with being “more true” and more reliable. The biggest drawback of this prestige—which was derived from the rigor and professionalism of science—was that the scientific community itself and the capacity to understand how science really worked receded from the grasp of the non-science public. Being a scientist was special because not everyone could do it. Being scientific was a high standard. Science was hard.

Use of the scientific method

Science progresses on a path quite different from what the public sees. Regular surveys about the public understanding of science tell us that the non-scientist doesn’t comprehend well the importance of critical concepts like controlled trials, peer review, skeptical criticism, and the holding of ideas as provisional. It’s not a surprise that the public doesn’t get how science works; they aren’t exposed to it. People form their ideas about science from the input they DO get—mostly from basic education and popular culture.

In order to do science and be scientific, we are told, you must follow the scientific method.

Once upon a time, though, “scientific method” was not part of the common vernacular. When it began to be used, in the mid-19th century, it was synonymous with “thorough” and “careful.”

Perhaps your first introduction to science may have been in elementary school, when you were taught the “scientific method” presented as a step-by-step prescription to investigate nature that went something like this: observe and gather facts; derive the question you need answered about those facts; propose an explanation for the facts that answers that question; test that explanation.

Sounds easy enough for anyone to do! But, it’s an oversimplification for today’s complicated world. There really is no foolproof, formulaic method that one can apply to all subject areas. Even diligently using the above process, one can go off the rails immediately and end up with nonsense.

Right off the mark, we are all noticeably poor observers—we assume many “facts” that have not actually been confirmed. Many trip up constructing the proper question in order to get a precise, meaningful answer. People regularly make utterly untestable hypotheses (e.g., invoke supernatural causes) then bias the evidence collection process to support a favored explanation, run bogus tests to confirm it, package their conclusions in an enticing way, and then sell it to others. Indeed, this happens all the time, often under the label of “science.”

Ghost science: no substance at all

Instead of playing by the established rules, fields of study with premises that have been rejected by mainstream science attempt an end run around the scientific process. Working backwards from conclusions to evidence so they can support their pet ideas, they co-opt the symbols and processes of science. Dressing up and acting all sciencey-like is a tactic used by intelligent design advocates/creationists, cryptozoologists, ghost hunters, and UFOlogists, among others. It’s a handy gimmick—one that is frequently effective with the public as laypersons may not notice the missing rigor. That it works so often is a reflection of how shallowly the public understands science.

For example, let’s examine the popular paranormal-based hobby of ghost hunting/paranormal investigation.

About half of all paranormal research groups prominently boast that they use a/the “scientific method.” (Whether they use the definite or indefinite article, you will see, does not matter at all.) They frequently present themselves this way to clients, public audiences, and the media.

Curious as to what they meant by that, I contacted a number of paranormal research groups that specifically said they used a “scientific method” or “science” in their methodology. I picked several that really spread the scienceyness on thick. “Science” was in their name or appeared to be of great importance to them. If they promoted science so strongly, were they, in fact, scientists? Did they have a well-thought-out protocol? Since science is a community activity and you are expected to put your findings out there for others to critique, I expected they would be confident in sharing their work with others and defending their conclusions.

Not so much.

The replies I received, though few, spanned a curious range from haughty self-confidence to realistic admissions of failure.

When asked if any of their group members had experience in scientific research outside the paranormal group, a few said “No” outright but several hyped their personal background, equating their ghost investigation activities, computer science experience, or electronics expertise with “scientific training.” That’s not only odd but disingenuous, stretching even the most generic idea of “scientific.”

What did they mean by a scientific method? As I anticipated from the emphasis on gadgetry on their websites, they defined their methods in terms of objectivity, such as data collection through use of equipment. But, nearly universally, their idea of being scientific was simply to be methodical and systematic. For one group their idea of doing science was only “in depth research and investigation,” harkening back to the original and nonspecific idea of science as the organized study of anything. Nonetheless, many who claim to be objective use various subjective means of investigation: intuitives (psychics), dowsing, pendulums, and even Ouija boards.

One particular group with the word “sciences” in its name offers classes to the community on how to investigate using a scientific method. My respondent replied to the question “What about your methods is scientific?” with the elementary definition: identify problem, form hypothesis, test, and conclude. She also added that they were “creating a model of examined evidence or data then trying out different hypothesis.” That sounds sufficiently perspicacious and purposeful, but according to the investigation results from their fancy-worded website they weren’t producing anything testable or vaguely coherent enough to be called a “model.” Their “facts” were more appropriately labeled “opinions,” “feelings,” or “stories.” Their conclusions were unsupported and biased by their obvious belief in paranormal explanations.

Finally, I queried the host of a local radio show called Paranormal Science (You can’t get much more sciencey than that!) who proved to be both the most vague and the most direct at the same time. The group leader said, “I think what we are referring to is ‘as scientific as possible with the means we have.’” Contrasting this to the use of metaphysical means of investigation (i.e., psychics or occult means), they wish to document “hard” evidence, yet admit they are never in a position to fully control the environment.

I would guess that this is the first time anyone has asked them questions about science as they outright concede, “We by no means are using THE Scientific methods [sic]. Just various “as-scientific” methods or ways of trying to document activity.”

I was puzzled. Calling themselves “scientific” where there was no admittedly no science going on was dodgy, to say the least. When I had asked if they had science training, I got a resounding “Yes!” but no details. When they started talking about quantum physics and “energy,” I figured out they knew enough high-falutin’ sciencey talk to be dangerous to the public, who are often too easily impressed by a cheap tuxedo, so to speak.

I saw them as science poseurs who were playing up a manufactured sense of self-importance. They wanted to “take an intelligent look at all this stuff, or at least a common sense approach. LOL!.”

In a P.S. to my reply, the Paranormal Science show host blew the game by conceding, “The ‘science’ in Paranormal Science just refers to the ‘workings’ behind various topics we will be covering. It has nothing to do with actual science. Just a catch phrase. LOL!”

LOLs indeed…

I observed two things about these sciencey-sounding groups. First, they had little to no idea what modern science is or how to do it. Instead, they were operating on their perceived, old-fashioned idea of what sounded sufficiently sciencey and impressive to them. Second, they were co-opting the memes of science to appear serious and careful. They were perfectly comfortable playing scientists to their clients, the media, and the public, who assumed they were conscientious. But when someone who knew a little more about standards of real science knocked on the door to question them, they shifted their ground. Their methods were not scientific; their work was not science at all.

Calling out counterfeit science talk

I reached Daniel Thurs, the author of Science Talk, via email to ask why he thought these researchers who claim to use science immediately backpedaled from the strong version of the term when I questioned them on it.

The “scientific method,” he said, “seems to be one of the most portable parts of science.”

It works because it’s vague and it sounds prescriptive. Anyone can use it. When one tries to pin down exactly what aspects of science they are practicing and how they achieve each step in a scientific method, the smoky vagueness has to be cleared up. Are they possibly using the term “scientific method” to suppress debate? “Look! We use the scientific method so we obtain reliable results and are superior to that group who is just out to have fun.” If that’s a purpose, the usefulness is diminished by my questioning, which sent them scrambling to places where they were obviously uncomfortable (thus causing random outbursts of acronymical laughter).

But it’s not funny. These researchers claiming to use the scientific method failed to understand that science is powerful in our society precisely because it is hard and not everyone can do it. Instead, they adopted the gimmick of sprinkling “scientific method” and other sciencey-sounding words around because others relate to that and associate that with being more correct or genuine.

It is difficult to talk concisely about the practice of faking science, even though it is so prevalent. The words available to me were just not adequate to express what I was trying to say. I went through books and essays about “stuff” done outside of scientific orthodoxy. It was labeled as pseudoscience. Alternatively, one could be said to be conjuring science [Toumey 1996], constructing a scientific façade, imitating science, etc. The methods and ideas were described as “sciencey” or “scientif-ish.” No one term floated to the top as a succinct way to convey the meaning that claimants were mimicking science, especially when the perpetrators of the ruse may be sincere but misinformed.

One day, while working on the idea of “sham inquiry” as a description of what ghost hunters really do (work backwards from conclusion to evidence), I came across the word “scientifical.” I don’t remember how. Perhaps it popped into my head because it was the word that sounded just as silly as these weekend investigators looked to an actual scientist. It was not widely used although it existed in the Urban Dictionary:

“A term used to describe a situation when someone has mixed up or mispronounced words. It is so used because it is such a word itself. It is normally used to point out the persons [sic] blunder.”

And also,

“A way to make yourself sound intelligent when you have no idea what you are talking about.”

These definitions certainly resonated with me in terms of what I found when looking at amateur paranormal investigation groups. So I used it. Being scientifical means hijacking the authority of science to sound credible and believable by misappropriating the terms, methods, and imagery.

Acting scientifical reflects a desire to be included within the scientific realm as opposed to excluded and ridiculed. This semblance is convincing to the non-science public where real-life experience can be valued more highly than academic credentials.

Everyone wants science on their side. If you can’t get that to legitimately happen, it’s not too difficult to bluff by manufacturing a facsimile. You fool some of the people a lot of the time. Those who play at this also fool themselves. They fail at obtaining useful, reliable knowledge about the natural world. Still, they are certain of their ways—using their scientifical methods, telling the public how serious and important their work is, and succeeding at converting some nonbelievers that there is something to it. That’s dangerous and should be challenged.

References

Carey, S.S. 2004. A Beginner’s Guide to Scientific Method (3rd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Thurs, D. P. 2007. Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Toumey, C. P. 1996. Conjuring Science: Scientific Symbols and Cultural Meanings in American Life. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Located in Downtown San Jose, California, this incredible Gothic Victorian mansion is an oddity, surrounded by freeways, fast food outlets, and the high rises of Silicon Valley. In the bygone days, when Santa Clara County was known for its orchards, the eccentric Winchester Rifle heiress, Sarah Winchester, designed and built this legendary house. This is another of the “Most Haunted Houses in America,” but this isn’t so much a paranormal story as one about a woman whose life was reputedly ruled and ruined by belief in the paranormal.

Sarah Lockwood Pardee was born in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1839. In 1862, during the height of the American Civil War, Sarah married William Winchester, the sole child of Oliver Winchester, owner of the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. The couple only had one child, Annie, who died in infancy of tuberculosis. Oliver died in 1880 and was quickly followed by William, who died in 1881. Her husband, like her child, died of tuberculosis and Sarah became a major benefactor to pulmonary research, donating $2 million during her lifetime to this cause. As the last Winchester, Sarah became an independently wealthy woman. Her husband bequeathed to her fifty percent of the Winchester Company and the substantial income of $1,000 per day, tax free as it was then.

Sarah slipped into a deep depression following the deaths of her family members. But do the facts end here? Sarah, now alone and vulnerable, was reputedly convinced her family members were victims of a curse. Allegedly, she travelled to Boston to consult with psychic medium Adam Coons (also reported as “Coombs”), who confirmed the wealthy widow’s fears that the Winchester family was cursed. He explained that the spirits of those people and animals who had died at the hands of a Winchester rifle, “the gun that won the West,” were avenging their deaths by claiming the lives of her husband, child, and father-in-law. Sarah was next.

Coons had a peculiar solution. The only way Sarah could appease the spirits was to build them a house in which they could live. Others claim she was told to build a house to confuse the spirits. He advised that his client move west and build this home. As long as the house was being built, the spirits would not harm Sarah. Utterly convinced by Coons and desperate to remove this “curse,” Sarah relocated to San Jose and purchased an eight-room farmhouse. Coons’s cruel counsel commenced Sarah’s mission to create a house that became a constant thirty-eight-year work in progress leading to an astonishing labyrinthian mansion. On what was once a hundred-sixty-acre estate, the contemporary building boasts some staggering statistics: one-hundred-sixty rooms and four stories (in its prime the house had seven stories), with six kitchens, forty bedrooms, nineteen chimneys, forty staircases, forty-seven fireplaces, fifty-two skylights, nine-hundred-fifty doors, three elevators, two ballrooms, and ten thousand windows!

It’s said that Sarah had builders working twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, over the four decades of construction. In total, the mansion was remodelled over six hundred times at a cost of five and a half million dollars. However, there were only ever two sets of formal blueprints, for the elevators and the boiler. All other plans were sketched onto scraps of paper, napkins, or even tablecloths and were destroyed upon implementation. The construction began in 1884 and ended on the day of Sarah’s death on the fifth of September, 1922. Apparently, Sarah’s goal was to never complete the remodelling, lest the spirits exact their revenge upon the last living Winchester.

I attended the complete Estate Tour of the house, including a guided tour of the mansion and the estate grounds. Sadly, none of the original furnishings adorn what must have once been an opulently decorated home. Upon Sarah’s death, her sole relative, niece Frances Marriot, auctioned off most of the furnishings. The tour guide informed us that it took eight weeks to remove all of the furniture from the premises, at six truckloads per day! Only twenty-four of the rooms are now furnished sparsely with donations, all genuine period furniture but not the original household décor. Aside from the fireplaces, elevators, a chandelier, an organ, and some original marble and tiling, all that remains now is the house.

One of the first rooms we visited was the “Séance Room,” built deep inside the house. The room has three exits but only one entrance. One door leads to a sink while another door opens to a ten-foot drop to the kitchen! According to our guide, this is where Sarah held nightly séances between the hours of midnight and 2 AM. At midnight the bells in the bell tower would ring to summon the spirits to the séance. When the séance was completed, the bells would toll to signal that it was time for the spirits to depart. Conflicting stories state that Sarah’s construction efforts were guided by the spirit of her husband, while the guide asserted that Sarah’s séances were an attempt to contact the spirits of those killed by Winchester rifles, to seek their advice and instructions on how the following day’s construction should proceed. Of course, this runs contrary to the claim that she wanted to conceal her plans from the spirits.

If we believe the stories, when Sarah began her quest to placate the “spirits,” her life became inextricably bound to the paranormal, with superstition and fear influencing every part of her life. Sarah Winchester was, by all accounts, an educated woman of her time. She had attended school, was fluent in four languages, and was an accomplished musician. So why did she succumb to the occult? Why did she believe Coons’s superstitious theory and illogical solution, and to such an obsessive extent? It appears that Sarah suffered a powerful combination of grief, a natural predisposition to depression, and considerable guilt at her family’s bloodthirsty trade and subsequent affluence. Apparently, Sarah often referred to her family’s wealth as “blood money” derived from misfortune. Furthermore, this was still the zenith of Spiritualism. Perhaps these factors led to Sarah’s superstitions, her substantial wealth allowing for the indulgence of her eccentricity.

The Winchester mansion has many peculiar and redundant features. This is a house that could have been the brainchild of M.C. Escher. The house itself looks like an elaborate, colourful Victorian mansion, albeit with many add-ons; turrets, cupolas, and cornices. We started the tour in the stagecoach entrance and as we entered the house itself, we were directed to peer around a corner at a stairwell. This infamous stairwell leads straight to the ceiling!

This house is as eccentric as its owner and designer. The legend asserts that Sarah built the maze-like mansion to confuse and disorient any lurking spirits. However, the design truly succeeded in confusing her staff given the large and complicated nature of the premises coupled with the fact that Sarah didn’t ever want anyone to know her exact whereabouts—servants were summoned to a wing rather than a room. The house is a web of corridors, stairwells, and rooms within rooms within rooms. There are many doors high enough to only accommodate Sarah’s diminutive four-foot-ten-inch frame. There is a tiny, superfluous balcony. One room has a window built into the floor. Countless closets, doors, and windows open out onto blank walls. A “door to nowhere” opens outward to an eight-foot drop! A blind chimney stops short of the ceiling. There are numerous trapdoors and double-back hallways. There are security bars on internal windows. There is a “Room of Fires,” a sauna-like room with seven sources of heat, built to “ease Mrs. Winchester’s arthritis.” Most rooms have strange, awkwardly shaped alcoves of varying height and depth that aren’t large enough to house anything at all.

All of the bathrooms have glass doors and spy holes, while the kitchen was designed so that Sarah could overhear the gossip of her staff. Apparently, if anyone ever proposed building plans, or discussed her plans or her, they were fired on the spot. For their loyalty and silence, her staff was paid $3 per day, triple the standard rate of the time. Throughout the house, curious, winding stairwells climb only a few feet and are raised only two inches high. While the tour guide initially explained this as another architectural attempt to “confuse the spirits,” the alternate theory was far more skeptical and realistic: that Sarah designed these “easy riser” stairwells with her chronic arthritis in mind.

During the 1906 earthquake, in the early hours of the morning, Sarah became trapped in a room in the front section of the house. The walls shifted and the door became jammed shut. She had been in the habit of sleeping in a different room each night, purportedly to “confuse” the spirits as to her whereabouts. Again, this only confused her staff when they couldn’t find her. Eventually, after a full hour of searching, she was located. The marks still exist on the door where a crowbar was employed to wedge it open.

The earthquake damage to the house was extensive. The entire top three floors collapsed into the garden and were never rebuilt. We were told that the incident convinced Sarah that the “spirits” were displeased with the progression of her handiwork as it appeared that she was nearing completion of the home. She promptly sealed off the front section of the house, thirty rooms in total, and they were never again used during her lifetime. Supposedly this was to ensure that the house was perpetually “under construction.” To this day they remain as they were, partially remodelled and with broken plaster and damaged walls as evidence of the quake. This episode also persuaded Sarah to select a permanent bedroom (with easy access to her séance room) and it was here that she died in her sleep at the age of eighty-three.

Today, the Winchester Mystery House is regarded as the safest house in California as far as earthquakes are concerned, as the mansion is built on floating foundations. This is a feature implemented by Sarah’s builders and not of her own design. Sarah’s builders were ahead of their time for environmental design—an upstairs green house was designed to conserve water. This feature was also built into her kitchens and bathrooms. The house has many modern conveniences that were seldom found at the time of its construction, including steam and forced-air heating, indoor toilets and plumbing, button controlled gas lights, a hot water shower, and the three elevators, one model of which is unique to the house. Sarah had yet another strange feature built into her home. A Victorian superstition of the time dictated that one column in every home must be installed upside down for good luck. As usual, Sarah took this notion to the extreme. She reversed the tradition and had every column placed upside down, bar one!

Despite her many guest rooms, parlors, and ballrooms, obviously named for convention, Sarah never had any guests, aside from one famous gentleman who never made it past the front door. One day, U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt made an unannounced visit to the Winchester home. A particular rifle had been named after him, a limited-edition commemorative weapon. When Roosevelt appeared on the doorstep of the home, the staff member who greeted him, obviously unaccustomed to visitors, reprimanded the startled president for daring to try to enter through the front door. Obviously mistaken for a disruptive job applicant, Roosevelt was advised, “You’ll enter the house through the back entrance, like the rest of the servants!” Roosevelt was so highly offended that he left the grounds and never returned. In a more likely but less dramatic account, Roosevelt had requested a visit with Sarah but he was flatly refused. Another account claims that Harry Houdini once made an impromptu visit to the house. Houdini was graciously welcomed and even attended a midnight séance. However, the tour guide confirmed that this event took place in 1924, two years after Sarah’s death.

If we believe the stories, Sarah must have led a lonely and tortured life. Despite her painfully arthritic hands, she would often play the ballroom organ with great energy, “for the spirit guests.” Every night, the lady of the house would sit down to a lavish dinner alone—or so it would seem. The elaborately decorated table was always set for thirteen: Sarah, and her twelve spirit guests. Sarah was no Friggatriskaidekaphobe; she had an obsession with the number thirteen that was reflected throughout the house. This is a reoccurring theme, from the thirteen windows in most rooms to the thirteen steps for each stairwell and the thirteen drains in every sink. In the séance room, there are thirteen clothes hooks for the thirteen coats she supposedly used in her nightly ceremonies. Sarah was a preferred customer of the Tiffany Company in New York and the house still contains many fine examples of leadlight windows. The most prized example contains hundreds of crystals and cost $15,000. She was once invited to design her own leadlight window and created a piece that is a swirl of colours and stars (thirteen stars, of course).

One of the last rooms we visited was the ballroom, an elegant room that cost $9,000 to build. A door in the centre of the room was locked at all times during Sarah’s lifetime and only she had the key. Upon her death, her staff eagerly seized the keys and unlocked the door. Inside, they found a vault. Inside, they found another vault, and yet another within that. After unlocking a total of five vaults, they came to the treasure: not money or jewellery, as they had expected, but a lock of her husband’s hair, a lock of her daughter’s hair, and their obituaries. If Sarah was truly superstitious, perhaps she so carefully stored these precious keepsakes to hide them from those who would use them against her in a spell or a curse.

San Jose wasn’t always known as Silicon Valley. The region was previously known as the “Valley of the Heart’s Delight” as it was renowned for the Winchester orchards and local farms. The 160-acre Winchester estate was mostly farmland where plums, apricots, almonds, and walnuts were grown, dried, and sold at markets under Sarah Winchester’s own packing label. Only a few trees still exist on the grounds. The estate also contains a Firearms museum. But the Winchester Company didn’t only produce guns; they made silverware, flashlights, fishing tackle, roller skates, and electric irons. They were also the country’s largest producer of hardware, including farm and garden tools.

But are there any ghost stories surrounding the Winchester Mystery House? It must be noted that the tours are marketed as historical rather than ghost tours. I questioned the guide and while she didn’t have any personal experiences, she had heard stories from visitors. As always, these are stock ghost stories: footsteps down the halls, cold spots, orbs captured in photographs, the sound of doorknobs turning and doors banging, and sightings of Sarah. Various books and websites repeat these same stories about the mansion, including other tales of phantom organ playing, disembodied voices and screams, strange lights, strange smells, and even sightings of ectoplasm! Of course, various psychics have toured the house and capitalized on its reputation, including Sylvia Browne, who confirmed the “curse” and reported she witnessed the spirits of Sarah and fallen soldiers from the Civil War. Most surprising of all, there aren’t any reports of phantom hammering and construction. These people just don’t know how to invent a plausible ghost story! It seems that the stories come from the visitors, not the staff.

We should be skeptical about the stories surrounding the Winchester Mystery House. There are no primary documents attesting to the stories; in fact, they are all anecdotal and usually conflicting. Sarah was extremely reclusive and didn’t leave behind any diaries or letters revealing her beliefs. Books about the house and owner all provide second-hand information; one popular book was written by the grandson of a former gardener. The stories have likely been embellished over time. After all, Sarah was the subject of much gossip and rumour during her lifetime and beyond.

Did Sarah really visit a psychic? Even if she did, what took place during the sitting? Did she receive other advice that influenced her actions? She probably wasn’t instructed to move west; she had relatives in California and thus a reason to move. But what motivated her to build the house? Was she profoundly superstitious, or was this all-consuming project a hobby for the eccentric Sarah—a distraction from her loneliness and sorrow? The woman behind the Winchester Mystery House really is a mystery.

But the house’s strange design features are artifacts of previous renovations and designed for special needs. The winding double-back steps were designed with a pragmatic purpose—Sarah’s mobility. The barred windows in internal rooms were once external and the bars served a valid security purpose. The chimney that stops short of the ceiling is located where a roof once stood. The windows in floors were once skylights in roofs, and the doors that open onto walls are simply examples of rooms added on to other rooms.

It is said that when Sarah died the news of her demise spread quickly throughout the estate. Her servants and builders immediately laid down their tools; half-hammered nails can be found throughout the mansion, the work halted mid-task. However, the existing house and six acres of the estate necessitate constant maintenance: there are gardens to care for, rooms to paint, and constant cleaning and repairs. In a way, Sarah’s project continues to this day.

An Interview with Andy Lewis of Quackometer

Kylie Sturgess:  Who is Stanislaw Burzynski?

Andy Lewis:  Well, that’s a very good question. As far as I can understand, he’s a doctor based in Texas who a number of years ago came up with an idea that certain sorts of chemicals were missing from cancer patients, and if you could inject those chemicals back into the cancer patient then you might cure all sorts of cancers. He found these chemicals in the patients’ urine, so he started off extracting these compounds. If this had worked, it would have been fantastic. This was an idea.

The problem was this was thirty years ago. Since then no real evidence has emerged that I have seen which shows this is anything but an idea.

Kylie:  In fact, the Burzynski Clinic is in the United States? So it’s not even an English thing, all the attempts to silence criticism.

Andy:  Absolutely. Most people in England, a vast majority of them, never heard of this chap. But ten days ago in a Sunday paper an article was published that highlighted this clinic. It was a heartbreaking story, really, about a young girl with a brain cancer that was just highly inoperable. And her parents were trying to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to send her over to Texas for what might be the last months of her life, which sounded tragic. And when you look into this clinic, it looked like this was not in her best interest, I would say.

Kylie:  So how did the Observer get ahold of this story in the first place? There are plenty of people who, at a very desperate time in their lives, are trying to find a cure for cancer. How did this group step in?

Andy:  I understand that the little girl was the niece of an editor at the paper. So it was his story, really. You understand the problem here. It probably never went through a science desk or a health desk or anything like that at the paper. So it never really was checked. It was a feature article. This happens a lot in papers, where health claims sort of slip by the normal editorial process. But this time it was quite an important, serious one: people were being lured into this idea that our National Health Service is not offering this lifesaving treatment and these parents are having to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds through charitable concerts and so on to send her to the United States, which is the only place willing to treat this poor girl.

It played into a lot of these myths, I think, that the U.K. press like, about how our National Health Service is failing people and how the United States is so great with its free market approach and so on. It really is a collection of myths. And unfortunately because of that, I fear other people will be sucked down that route.

Kylie:  In order to be accepted into the trial, according to the article, the family needed £200,000—it’s an incredibly compelling story, isn’t it?

Andy:  Yeah. I think the sheer expense of it added to the allure, really. Who would charge that much for treatment that didn’t work? It’s even more disturbing because Burzynski is not allowed to offer this treatment on its own. He’s only allowed to treat people within a trial. So what he seems to be doing is setting dozens of trials—and he’s been doing this for decades now—and then asking the patients to pay money to join the trial. Even if this was a working treatment, I’d find it ethically very problematic. Because obviously you’re asking parents of terminally ill children to essentially mortgage their homes and raise huge amounts of money for one last chance for their child’s life.

This doesn’t happen elsewhere in medicine, really. This seems to be a pretty unique case, where the doctor is charging people to join trials. That raises lots of red flags all over and I think that’s a question that this clinic really needs to respond to.

Kylie:  The thing that really got me about your article, which is on Quackometer.net (“The False Hope of the Burzynski Clinic”), is the part where you mention that this isn’t the first time this has happened.

Andy:  I think lots of people were going back through the archives and so on and searching the internet for it. This seems to be cropping up fairly regularly, where young children have cancers and are obviously in a very poorly state and the parents are raising money. This is the sort of heartwarming story that tends to crop up in local papers quite regularly, but I think this is one of the first times it’s appeared in a national newspaper. So this would be a fairly common occurrence in how this clinic appears to operate: by asking patients to rely on the goodwill of friends, family, and other people to stump up huge amounts of money for this treatment, which appears... well, there’s no good evidence that I’ve seen that it’s effective.

Kylie:  There’s even a film that’s been produced by the Burzynski Clinic in order to promote its claims?

Andy:  This is where it gets really disturbing: Burzynski appears to be up against the Texas Medical Board, next April I believe, where he’s been charged with various things—using off‑label medications inappropriately and engaging in practices that might not be in the best interests of his patients. It’s online now, the sort of [questions] he’s got to answer to this committee. But it looks like there’s a chance that he could lose his license. If he is doing things that aren’t above‑board I think it would be a very good thing indeed.

You mentioned this film. This film is supposedly being made by an independent filmmaker. It’s ninety minutes long, showing what a wonderful doctor Burzynski is. It’s essentially a conspiracy‑theory film about how the medical profession is trying to stop this wonderful new cure from being given to poorly children. It doesn’t hold up to much scrutiny, really. He has a number of case histories in there that are not conclusive at all by the look of things. And the rest of the film is just a conspiracy theory. It may be that this clinic is whipping up support. He seems to get a lot of very, very emotional support from people who believe he’s doing wonderful things, particularly in the alternative medicine world, where the story plays into their worldview very nicely: that there is such a thing as the “cancer industry” that keeps people sick and pumps them full of poisons and makes huge amounts of money from dying people. It seems to me the exact opposite is true here.

Kylie:  Why attack bloggers? How come you have suddenly appeared on their radar as someone worthy of getting threatening letters?

Andy:  Well, I mean, I think one of the most amazing things about today is that bloggers can automatically appear quite high up in Google searches and so on. People have readerships and they talk to each other and reference each other. So people can easily find out if there are dissenting voices out there these days. That’s quite difficult for all businesses, really, legitimate ones as well as illegitimate ones. How do you manage PR around that? And obviously there are firms out there and people out there who specialize in trying to shut people up if they don’t like what you’re saying. And obviously you can be quite aggressive about that if you want to, particularly in the United Kingdom, which has some libel laws that are quite friendly to such approaches.

So I think it’s an easy route, really; rather than address the concerns raised by lots of people about this clinic, it’s much easier to try and make them disappear. It looks like for a number of months now a chap called Marc Stephens has been writing to bloggers worldwide and threatening all sorts of horrible things against them unless they remove their posts. Some people have; other people haven’t. And I think it just hit the perfect storm in the past week or two by threatening one too many people.

Kylie:  Looking at your site, it appeared to have started with you, in fact. There’s a blog post called “The Burzynski Clinic Threatens My Family.” What’s the experience been like?

Andy:  Oh, good grief!

Kylie:  Sorry, but it has to be asked! It looks like it must have been dreadful.

Andy:  It was within a week of my little baby girl being born as well. To be honest, it’s the second most important thing that’s happened to me this week. But it’s still quite amazing, and a large number of people have been talking about this on Twitter and writing posts. One of the most amazing things was that I think on Friday evening I got a frantic phone call from my web host saying, “What on Earth is going on with the servers?” I’m going to give them a plug now: Positive Internet. They’re wonderful. They wanted to make sure that their servers were Stephen Fry–proof! They wanted to make sure if Stephen Fry tweeted about it they could cope. So they spent an hour or two hardening up the servers and making sure everything was cached properly, which was exciting and fun.

And sure enough, Stephen Fry tweeted on Sunday, I believe, about all of this. And suddenly there were 100,000 hits on the server. And it stayed up, which was fantastic. From a technical point of view it’s been quite interesting. From an emotional point of view, my wife doesn’t know what’s been going on this week. And I didn’t want to worry her with trivialities like this, really. So, we keep our voices down while we are talking, OK?

Kylie:  Well, one good thing is that the Internet is certainly shouting loudly about it. It is starting to become what is known as the “Streisand effect,” isn’t it?

Andy:  Yes. I’m not quite sure. I think Barbra Streisand—I hope I’m right here, because I don’t want to libel her—a number of years ago tried to suppress someone saying something bad about her. I don’t know the details at all.

Kylie:  I think it was photographs of her house. She didn’t want them out in the public eye. Someone said, “Well, it’s a house. Deal with it.”

Andy:  Right. She was perfectly right to try and do that. The problem with the Internet is that things can get out of hand very quickly. This happened a few years ago when the Society of Homeopaths tried a very similar thing. They threatened me with all sorts of things for saying that their Code of Ethics was worth nothing, because they didn’t stop their members from trying to treat HIV and AIDS, which was likely to kill them. They didn’t like that. So they tried to threaten me there. Within a few days, my post had been replicated to about 100 sites.

So, far from shutting up criticism, the effect is that a lot more people tend to see it, which is what happened here. My original post, the one you mentioned, I think over the day had about 4,000 or 5,000 readers. Since they tried to threaten me, we have had well over 100,000 readers now. So, in general, I think it’s not a good idea to threaten people. It’s always best to try and talk to them first.

Kylie:  Speaking of threats, it has become even more nefarious now. They started to threaten a seventeen‑year‑old blogger, Rhys Morgan, as well?

Andy:  Yeah, Rhys Morgan. I knew about Morgan. Part of the reason I wrote about it was I knew that Morgan was being threatened. This was taken quite seriously to begin with. Morgan is seventeen. He became quite famous a year or so ago because he suffers from Crohn’s disease. He was looking on various websites, partaking in forums and so on that were saying people with Crohn’s disease ought to take something called Miracle Mineral Supplement, I believe it was called, which is basically bleach. It has been a worldwide thing.

He said this is nonsense. He was attacked by other people with Crohn’s for trying to stop what might be a really good treatment. People who believe in these things really tend to get quite emotional about them, don’t they?

Morgan said, “No. This is nonsense.” He was hounded off the forum. So he tried to do something about it. I think he wrote to Trading Standards. He wrote to the Welsh government as well, and various other people. He got on the BBC. Eventually I think a lot of websites were taken down that were selling [the product].

For his efforts, James Randi gave Morgan an award as Skeptical Activist of the Year or something like that, which is fantastic for having been sixteen years old [at the time]. So he’s got a bit of form. He decided to make a bit of a hobby of this, trying to expose things.

So he wrote about Burzynski six weeks ago now. He then got this horrible letter. What was even more amazing was this Marc Stephens chap, who wrote a very legalistic sounding letter. He also [mailed] a picture of Morgan’s house to him, saying basically, “We know where you live,” which is quite incredible.

What Stephens didn’t know is that he was talking to a schoolboy! Morgan has got a lot of good friends, people like Simon Singh, who was threatened by the chiropractors a few years ago. Singh gave him some very good advice.

So Morgan wrote to Stephens, saying, “I received your email. But I’ve just got to finish school for the day and then I’ll get back to you.” This must have been quite a shock to Stephens. I’m not sure Stephens has that much insight, because he continued to threaten him anyway, threatened to tell his school and all sorts of things.

That’s bad now, because I can generate so much publicity. But someone threatening a seventeen‑year‑old boy is going to get in the newspapers without a shadow of a doubt. So that was a very, very bad tactical mistake on Marc Stephens’s part.

Kylie: Who exactly is Marc Stephens? What part does he have to play in all of this?

Andy:  He wrote to me claiming to represent the Burzynski Clinic and so on. The letter looked like a lawyer’s letter, though it didn’t explicitly say that. But a bit of searching quickly [revealed] that he doesn’t seem to be registered. Also, there is someone called Marc Stephens with the same spelling, M‑A‑R‑C, who works for the Burzynski Patients Forum, or something like this, as a PR person. So it looks like he is associated with this doctor, working in marketing and PR. Quite what the relationship [entails] is still a little bit up in the air. But we know emails have been [exchanged] between the Burzynski Clinic and Stephens. So we know that, well, it appears that the Burzynski Clinic was aware of what Stephens was doing. Whether they sanctioned it or not, I don’t know.

So the Burzynski Clinic [officials have] some questions to answer, really. Did they tell Marc Stephens to do this? Were they condoning? Were they happy with him doing it? What is their relationship with him exactly? Do they want to stand by what he said or did they want to disassociate themselves? I’m quite happy for them to just disassociate themselves from his threats. But that still means the Burzynski Clinic has a huge number of questions that need answering about how they it is treating its customers.

Kylie:   Obviously Simon Singh is stepping in to help.

Andy:  Yes. Well, do our libel laws help? No, they don’t. The laws are that people can be stupid here. Still, if the Burzynski Clinic decided to be really stupid, it could cause a lot of problems for an awful lot of people. So, people are speaking out with some risk, shall we say, that things could get pretty nasty. There is no automatic protection for voicing our concerns. What Simon Singh found, as other people have done, like Ben Goldacre and other people who have been defending malicious suits, is that even if you win it can cost you in time and money.

This is exactly why these people make these threats. They know that once they have made a threat it’s a no‑win situation for you. Something needs to change. Hopefully, in the Queen’s speech this year, the government will commit to making a more robust set of libel laws.

Of course, it has got to be seen from both points of view. We have got to protect people from the newspapers, as well, printing malicious things. So there is a balance to be found here. There is not an easy path through here, but there are a number of obvious improvements that could be made that I think would improve the situation to no end.

So let’s hope the government doesn’t flinch on this one—doesn’t bend to the power of vested interests that want to preserve their right to issue threats—and makes Britain, once again, a place where free speech is valued and protected.

Kylie:  So, what is going to happen next? Obviously the network of bloggers is uniting together in order to raise awareness. Do you think that the media should be stepping up, as well?

Andy:  Well, absolutely. I understand that some things are going to start being published now. It has reached a critical mass. So I understand that tomorrow there will be newspaper articles on this. I don’t know the specifics yet. What I would really like is the original newspaper, the Observer, to tackle this.

They really shouldn’t be trying to ignore this. So we will wait and see. I think worldwide, we are starting to see newspapers in Texas printing things, which is great. It’s the home of the Burzynski Clinic. The British Medical Journal, I understand, is going to be writing something. So this has gone beyond a few people at home at their desks writing blogs now. It’s going to be raising awareness of these issues.

I think entertainers are involved in raising money as well; it would be good for them to start engaging in conversation. I understand why they’re raising money for this poor little girl; I would too. I think now that they have committed to do it, of course that is a very difficult decision to turn back from. But there is a discussion to be had about how this money is spent. I know for the parents it’s going to be impossible, I would imagine, to turn their backs on the hope that this person has raised for them. I can’t imagine what it must be like. I don’t expect them to take part.

But I think there are many things here that need addressing whether you are a celebrity endorsing cancer treatments, whether you are newspaper writing about them, whether you are the clinic itself offering them, whether you are a charity that claims to help cancer patients—but really what you are doing is funneling them towards quacks. I know there are quite a few charities that do that.

There are lots of issues here that I think, hopefully, are going to be discussed and raised. That will help prevent people making terrible decisions in the future.

Kylie:  Where can people go to find out more and keep up to date with the events that are going on?

Andy:  Well, come to my blog, Quackometer.net. There are a number of good websites around. If you search for Josephine Jones’s blog, she is collating a list of sites that are writing about this. It’s getting up near 100 now, I believe.

Go to Rhys Morgan’s website, obviously. I think Googling “Burzynski Clinic” now will ensure you find lots and lots of discussions going on, which is something that I’m sure the Burzynski Clinic is not too happy about!

Kylie:  No! Thank you very much for talking to me, Andy Lewis.

Andy:  Thank you very much indeed.

True to Andy Lewis’ words, on Tuesday, the 29th of November, the Guardian newspaper reported on Rhys Morgan’s posting of the entire correspondence from Marc Stephens on his blog. The Burzynski Clinic has revealed that Stephens was only a web marketing contractor and that “no one approved [Stephens] sending pictures of Morgan’s house to him.” At time of writing, more and more bloggers are continuing to question claims by the Burzynski Clinic.

The shameless tourist to San Francisco buys and even wears the “Psycho Ward” or “Alcatraz Triathlon” T-shirts, boasting that they “escaped Alcatraz.” Through suicide, murder, emancipation, or freedom, did anyone somehow not escape from Alcatraz? Forty-three years after the last prisoners were relocated to other institutions, has anyone—or anything—remained?

Robert Stroud

Yet another claimant to the title of America’s “most haunted” place, Alcatraz certainly reigns as one of the world’s most notorious jails. During its nearly three decades of operation, Alcatraz was the Hollywood of prisons with an infamous cast of high-profile villains, starring tax cheat gang lord Al “Scarface” Capone; murderer Robert Stroud, the “Birdman of Alcatraz”; gang member Alvin “Creepy” Karpis; bank robber and kidnapper George “Machine Gun” Kelly; and Floyd Hamilton, Bonnie and Clyde’s moll and one of the prison’s escape artists.

Now, as an abandoned prison with a colorful history, Alcatraz has become not only the subject of numerous movies but also of numerous myths. Gross inaccuracies and melodramatic accounts are reproduced in books, movies, documentaries, and online. Enshrouded in fog, and in mystery, what is fact and what is fiction about Alcatraz?

An island in the San Francisco Bay, “The Rock” lies less than two miles from the mainland. Isolated, rocky, and whipped by salt-laden cold winds, lore claims that the indigenous people avoided the area and considered it evil and cursed. In contrast, the island probably began its career as a fishing and hunting ground for the Ohlone and Miwok Native American people. While the island is sparse in vegetation, it is a haven for birds. For this reason, when Spanish explorer Juan Manuel de Ayala sailed into the area in 1775, he bestowed the island with its full name, which translates to “Island of the Pelicans.” (Today, there are no pelicans, but the island is home to hawks, ravens, geese, finches, hummingbirds, and seagulls). For the next seventy-five years, the island was noted on maps but otherwise deserted.

This solitude ended when California was annexed by the United States during the Mexican–American war of 1846–1848. However, following the war, the area was bought by the United States as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Northern California was now in the midst of the Gold Rush, and the Bay Area’s population exploded from a sleepy settlement of 300 to a city of over 20,000 people. This spurred the development of Alcatraz as a fortress, all in good time for the Civil War that broke out in 1861 when the city and port became targets for the Confederates. Over time, and with advances in military technology, the island’s defenses became obsolete, and in 1907 the army formally decommissioned Alcatraz as a fortification. So, what do you do with a retired fort on a remote island, complete with a guardhouse, barracks, and other disused infrastructure?

Before Alcatraz became a civilian prison, it was a military prison. During the Civil War era, soldiers were imprisoned for crimes of desertion, theft, assault, rape, and murder. The jail once housed the entire crew of a Confederate ship. The island was further enlisted as a prison for indigenous people captured during the various Indian wars of the mid to late nineteenth century and for military convicts during the 1898 Spanish–American War. Conscientious objectors were jailed during World War I. Undergoing hard labor, such as breaking rocks and performing construction work, these early prisoners built the prison to house themselves. This haphazard history came to an end after the Great Depression. The island was transferred from the War Department to the Department of Justice. This began a new chapter in the chronicle of the island.

From 1934 until 1963, Alcatraz served as a civilian prison. This was the end of the road in the federal penitentiary system for America’s most hardened criminals. The Institution Rules and Regulations stated: “You are entitled to food, clothing, shelter and medical attention. Anything else that you get is a privilege.”

While it is true that this was a maximum security prison for “incorrigible” prisoners, it’s a myth that it was a cruel and brutal Papillon-like jail. Various sources, and especially the Internet, are replete with dramatic depictions of torture, deprivation, and disease. Inaccurate stories have flourished, claiming that the inmates suffered appalling conditions and inhumane treatment: Their cells were overcrowded. They slept on the floor. They lived without heating, light, windows, or water. They ate bread and water. Others were starved altogether. They were denied healthcare in the face of constant sickness. They were routinely harassed, beaten, and forced into hard labor. Speaking was forbidden, and showers were weekly events only. Due to these conditions, these inaccurate stories claim, the prison was known as “Hellcatraz.”

Alcatraz was no holiday resort—after all, this was a prison—but the rumors are greatly exaggerated. This was a place of discipline and rehabilitation; it wasn’t a barbaric dungeon. In contrast, the inmate’s 5’ × 9’ cells were private, unlike the shared cells of other institutions. These cells were sparsely furnished, but each contained a bed, access to running water, a toilet, shelves, and lighting. Although the cell house is naturally cold, in the past it had central heating, and its windows allow in light and sun. Alcatraz was not overcrowded; the prison was comparatively small, and the 336 cells were never filled to capacity. The prison fare was surprisingly good, with high-quality food and even a menu allowing for choice. This practice was reputedly to avert the riots that were commonly started in other prisons because of poor prison food. Rather than denying medical care to the inmates, the prison had its own hospital. In the event that a condition was serious, inmates were sent to the mainland for specialized care; this was the case for Al Capone, who was relocated from the island following his diagnosis of syphilis.

In the early years, Alcatraz did have a silence policy, although it was not a rigorous rule and was later relaxed even further. Typically, the inmates had good relations with the wardens, who knew each man by name. Prisoners were more at risk from other prisoners, and brawls were common. Work was neither demanding nor enforced; rather, it was considered a privilege that offered inmates relief from the monotony of their sentences. Inmates could work in the kitchen, the laundry, the garden, or the library. Except for in the kitchen, where contraband moonshine was made furtively, the work was paid, albeit meagerly. All in all, rather than being poor, the conditions were comparatively good. In fact, former inmate Willie Radkay considered his time at Alcatraz to be “better than at any other penitentiary.”¹

According to records, 1,545 prisoners “did time” within Alcatraz’s walls. The prisoners were all male because females weren’t deemed to be “incorrigible” until 1969. The average stay was eight to ten years, although “Creepy” Karpis served twenty-five years in total, the longest stretch on the Island. These prisoners were long-term trouble makers. No man was directly sent to Alcatraz, and only two were ever paroled from there. Many had continued their life of crime behind bars and were therefore deemed violent and uncontrollable.

Some prisoners had indulged in corruption while previously incarcerated at minimum security jails. At Leavenworth in Kansas Robert Stroud had murdered a warden, yet over time he enjoyed astonishing privileges; he was allowed to breed and study birds and to maintain a lab inside two additional cells. Stroud also enjoyed frequent contact with other fanciers and even used his laboratory equipment to distill alcohol. Al Capone virtually had the wardens working for him during his time at Eastern State Penitentiary in Pennsylvania, enjoying a flood of visitors and a comparatively opulent cell. (His friends and family kept residence in a nearby hotel.) Initially, Capone had repeatedly attempted to also gain special privileges in Alcatraz, such as more flashy facilities and more regular visits, which were only allowed monthly. All of his bribery attempts were unsuccessful, prompting the true Godfather’s resigned remark, “It looks like Alcatraz has me licked.”²

The cell house is the apex of the island. There are four cellblocks in total, each separated by hallways, known in prison jargon as Broadway, Times Square, Park Avenue, and Michigan Avenue. The “Sunset Strip,” the walkway in front of D Block, was the “Segregation” or “Treatment” unit. Author Mike Marinacci claims that “Rule infractions meant confinement in the ‘Hole,’ one of four tiny, lightless cells furnished only with straw mattresses; there naked, starving inmates were regularly beaten. Some men went insane or died after months-long stays in the Hole.”³

The only factual statement there is that D Block was indeed known to the inmates as “The Hole.” Rather than being “tiny,” these cells are larger than the regular cells. There are thirty-six segregation cells, and six (not four) solitary confinement cells. The latter cells were lightless, although all cells contained beds. Prisoners in the Hole were not deprived of food or clothing, nor were they beaten. So, you may ask, what was the punishment? Being sent to the D Block meant a loss of privileges—the opportunity to work, exercise, and socialize. Stroud occupied a segregation cell for six years of his stay on the island (and then he spent eleven years in a hospital cell). Some inmates were probably insane to begin with, but none went insane or died simply from being housed in D Block.

So, just how many deaths were there on Alcatraz? There were no executions on the Island, although there were five suicides and eight murders. Most of these murders took place during what is known as the 1946 Battle of Alcatraz, conspired by six inmates. This was the most violent and deadly escape attempt, a three day uprising that ended in the deaths of three inmates and two guards, while fourteen guards and one inmate were left injured. The Marine Corps was eventually called in to end the clash with a bombardment of gunfire, mortar, and teargas. Curiously, Stroud even played a part in attempting to end the hostilities and protect his fellow inmates from the conflict that ensued. Of the three conspirers who survived the uprising, two were then executed at the nearby San Quentin Jail. The final nineteen-year-old surviving inmate had an additional life sentence tacked on to sentence.

Alcatraz was the Titanic of prisons; it was an inescapable prison from which prisoners escaped. In the days of the military prison, escapes were common and usually successful. With the advent of the civilian jail with its high warden to prisoner ratio, improved security features, and deliberately planted rumors of “man-eating sharks,” escape attempts were far less common. The main deterrents and obstacles were the cold water, the strong currents, and the long distance to the shore. The civilian penitentiary never recorded any attempts as “successful.” For some quick statistics, thirty-seven men were involved in fourteen separate attempts; twenty-three were recaptured, seven were shot and killed, two drowned, and five were declared missing and are presumed to have drowned in the icy Bay waters.

Decoy head from Frank Morris's cell

The real mystery of Alcatraz is the escape attempt popularized by the movie Escape from Alcatraz. Frank Morris and the Anglin brothers, Clarence and John, devised an elaborate escape attempt in 1962 with decoy bodies, fake walls, and homemade drills. (Allen West helped with the planning, but he was unable to escape his cell when the time came.) The men were never found, and no one has ever claimed their identities. Did they drown? Subsequent tests by the US Army Corp of Engineers and the team from the television show MythBusters have demonstrated that escape from Alcatraz, and even survival, would have indeed been possible.⁴

Following this incident, the prison came under scrutiny for the deteriorating condition of the facilities and their increasing maintenance and operating costs. (Although prisoner numbers were small, 300 civilians lived on the island at any given time.) Budget cuts had resulted in diminished security measures, and restoration was estimated to cost five million dollars. In 1963, after twenty-nine years of operation, Alcatraz was closed by US Attorney General Robert Kennedy. The remaining prisoners were transferred to other jails, and Alcatraz was left to the care of a lone custodian.

After a period of theme park proposals and Native American occupation, Alcatraz Island is now administered by the US National Park Service and is visited by over one million people each year. There are ferry services operated daily from Fisherman’s Wharf, and these are combined with both guided and audio tours of the island. The island is listed as a National Historic Landmark; not because it was a prison but because the 1857 guardhouse is a heritage building.

With Alcatraz’s mythical pedigree, stories of the unnatural have naturally followed. Staff and visitors report a wide array of paranormal phenomena on the island. But with a little commonsense and logic, many Alcatraz stories debunk themselves. For example, tales of the metallic sound of “jingling cell keys” that echo through the chambers neglect to reveal that the cell doors were lockless and operated by levers. The Hole is another target for ghost stories; one site states: “In the Hole, especially cells 12 and 14 house the most intense feelings of panic. The moment you walk in, you can feel it almost choking you with fear, hate and palpable tension.”⁵ This wasn’t the reaction that I had, nor did the tens of visitors streaming through these cells at the same time seem to have it. There are also many accounts of “cold spots” in the cell house, but anyone who has ever been there at night knows that the entire island is one big cold spot!

Cell 14D was apparently the scene of a puzzling murder. It is rumored that during the days of the military prison an inmate was locked into this cell, whereupon he began screaming that something with glowing red eyes was locked in with him. According to legend, the terrified prisoner screamed uncontrollably for hours, until an eerie silence befell the cell. Strangely, the wardens never checked in on him until morning, when he was discovered dead. An autopsy revealed strangulation marks around the victim’s neck, but this was no suicide. In a paranormal postscript, the murdered prisoner still appeared in the line-up for the next morning’s call before disappearing into thin air.⁶ No prison records of this incident exist, but the following fact is recorded: No autopsies were ever performed in the prison morgue. The morgue is a fertile ground for stories of the resurrection of murdered prisoners and vengeful ghosts.

Then there are the haunted sounds of Alcatraz; visitors and staff claim to hear inexplicable crying, disembodied voices, laughing, and bloodcurdling screams. The audio guide refers to sounds traveling in from the mainland, especially the revelers at New Year’s Eve. Moreover, there are the sounds made by thousands of daily visitors to Alcatraz, the audio tours and tour guides, and a continuously screening documentary; any or all of these could be one of these “baffling” sounds. There is also the story of the strains of Al Capone’s banjo playing, haunting the cell believed to once have been his. However, it is not known precisely which cell was Capone’s, and this story conflicts with the silence theory—and the prison rules. It is true that Capone played banjo in the prison band, but he was not allowed to do so in the cell house.

Another source claims that Alcatraz is “a portal to another dimension” that is “filled with the energy of those who came to the Rock and seemingly never left.”⁷ There are stories of phantom footsteps (other visitors?), gun and cannon shots (the documentary shown during the tour?), the clanging and echoes of cell doors being slammed shut (the live demonstrations?), malodorous smells (the Bay?), a sense of being watched and the sight of Civil War soldiers (overactive imaginations?). Alcatraz has attracted Sylvia Brown and a host of other psychic mediums who have held séances onsite and reported lost souls and lingering spirits.

Why is the history of Alcatraz distorted and sensationalized? The National Park Service visitor guide proposes an answer: “For security purposes, visits to the island were restricted; this apparent secrecy and the remoteness of the prison may have fueled these rumors.” The true history of Alcatraz is further obscured by its fictional portrayals in movies, stylistic stories in books, and fabrications of urban lore online.

Alcatraz doesn’t need the myths to present a tragic tale. This is a true story of crimes and punishment, of segregation and dehumanization. During the tour I listened to the sobering interviews of former prisoners. They repeatedly speak of the real, psychological punishment of Alcatraz. Some of these men were never socialized properly; they had lived in the prison system for so long that relationships, careers, and the everyday activities that we take for granted were alien to them. Staring out through the barred windows, the inmates had majestic views of the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, the headlands, and the beaches; constant reminders of the life they couldn’t have.

References

1. Alcatraz History. www.alcatrazhistory.com Accessed October 6, 2011.

2. Johnston, James. 1949. Alcatraz Island Prison: And the Men who Live There. C. Scribner’s Sons.

3. Marinacci, M. 1988. Mysterious California: Strange Places and Eerie Phenomena in the Golden State. Panpipes Press, p.38.

4. Wikipedia. MythBusters (2003 season). Escape from Alcatraz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282003­_season%29#Episode_8_.E2.80.93_.22­Escape_From_Alcatraz.2C_Duck_­Quack.2C_Stud_Finder.22 Accessed 11/18/2011

5. Haunted Dog House. www.haunteddoghouse.com Accessed March 10, 2006.

6. Ibid.

7. Legends of America. www.legendsofamerica.com Accessed November 18, 2011.