Towards the end of 1988 'The Skeptical Inquirer' received a letter from a theoretical biologist in England who claims to be 'one of those rare beings - a scientist who is also psychic'. The writer said he was studying fellow psychics but doesn't spend time and effort in taking precautions against cheating. He studies these psychics 'in situ', or 'when they are not even aware that they are being watched'.
The psychic psientist also told SI that psychics are like magicians: 'They do not play tricks on one another'. Although I don't know about the tricks that psychics might play on each other, I do know for a fact that magicians are always showing each other tricks. Perhaps the difference is that magicians admit that they are doing so.
At the end of a letter in which he announced his intention to bring about the voluntary dissolution of the CSICOP our theorist showed the limitations of his psychic ability. He asked to be sent a sample of 'The Skeptical Inquirer'. It's a pity that his psychic ability couldn't tell him all he needed to know about SI, or at least that sample copies are never sent out on demand.
The appearance of a hypnotist on television this Easter weekend reminded me of the following report in the August 1989 edition of 'CSICOP's Legal Briefs'. It may answer some of your questions about stage hypnosis. Martin St. James is one of the best known international stage hypnotists. He has lived and performed in the UK, USA and Australia. In May of 1989 he was charged in Melbourne with performing hypnotism without a licence. Although St. James approached CSICOP for help, they declined, for reasons they don't explain in 'Legal Briefs' and which I find hard to imagine.
In court, St. James said that there was no such thing as hypnotism and that he was a "mind magician"; he was directing people's imagination on stage and they were playing a part in a fantasy. He said that he gave the illusion of control and that the volunteers on stage would know everything they were doing.
Although Prof. Graham Burrows, President elect of the International Society of Hypnosis gave evidence for the prosecution by telling the court that hypnotism is "an altered state of consciousness brought about by indirect or direct suggestion", the magistrate, Linda Dessau dismissed the case. She said she did not propose to waste any more court time with the case. A very wise decision I am sure. If only we could be confident that other magistrates and judges would be so wise when dealing with unproven claims of the paranormal.
Once it was only in America that they published outrageous and hilarious predictions. Now the idea has caught on in this country. Here are some of Mystic Meg's predictions from the January 1st 1989 edition of the 'News of the World's' colour supplement.
January: Bradford chemist invents calorie-free chocolate. Topless model uncovers big treasury secrets.
February: Pop king believed to be dead makes dramatic return.
March: Sudden change in American leadership.
April: Proof that the yetis (sic) do exist. Close-up on TV reveals link between chat-show host and crime lord.
May: Real E.T. proves life on other planets.
June: Prince in secret love link with violinist. Woman has 8 babies.
July: Top racing driver involved in bank raid. TV camera snaps sex frolic in House of Lords.
August: Sex change for a heavyweight wrestler.
September: Quiz show hostess snared in spy scandal. Cow gives birth to filly.
October: New party leader at Westminster.
November: Pack of pumas found in Devon. London vet discovers an aids cure.
December: Man gives birth to implanted baby in Australia. Mafia spring drugs baron from British jail.
These prophecies show that some astrologers have a sense of humour. (We're not supposed to take these seriously, are we?) So too has the man from Batley who has placed a £7.00 bet at 100,000 to 1 that a Yeti will walk out of a crashed UFO.
I see that author Ian Wilson is still convinced that the Shroud of Turin contained the body of Christ (Sunday Times 8-4-90). He insists that there is a large margin of error in the carbon dating tests which show the Shroud was made between 1260 and 1390. In addition he cannot see how a 14th-century artist could have produced such an artefact. There is little doubt that Wilson has seen Joe Nickell's book 'Inquest on the Shroud of Turin' in which Nickell describes how such an image could have been produced by a technique known to have been used in the thirteenth century. Adding to this the fact that there is no evidence that the Shroud existed before about 1355 and it was first described in 1389 as 'cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it' I cannot understand how anyone can still be so stubborn in their belief. Wilson is not alone though. There are others who still want to believe, including a woman at the British Museum's 'Fake?' exhibition where a full size transparency is on display described as a 'remarkable image'. On being told by a companion that carbon dating had shown the Shroud to be a fake, she expressed her doubts about the test results. Amazingly though, even the British Museum are somewhat uncommitted in their book 'Fake?' which has been published in conjunction with the exhibition. Following their description of the carbon dating tests and results they say: 'However, until it can be properly established how this striking image came into being, the mystery remains incompletely resolved'. If that's the case, why have it on show in a fake exhibition?