Arizona Skeptic - Vol 5 No 6 - 1992

Magazine Overview

Title: The Arizona Skeptic
Issue: Volume 5, Issue 6
Date: May/June 1992
Publisher: Phoenix Skeptics
Focus: Promoting Critical Thinking and Scientific Method

This issue of The Arizona Skeptic delves into the enigmatic Marfa Lights with two contrasting firsthand accounts, alongside a robust debate on skepticism, philosophy, and scientific methodology.

An Observation of the Famous Marfa Lights by James Long

James Long recounts his 1990 visit to Marfa, Texas, with a college friend, Jeff, to witness the famed Marfa Lights. He notes that the lights have been reported since the 1880s and are unique for their regularity and visibility. Observers describe them as spherical, varying in color, exhibiting rapid and erratic movements, and ranging in size from a baseball to a basketball, with a constant, non-pulsating light. Despite numerous proposed scientific hypotheses, none have gained widespread acceptance, with many explanations ranging from extraterrestrial visitors to Apache spirits.

Long and Jeff visited the designated viewing area, a parking lot on the south side of Highway 90, about ten miles east of Marfa. The area is a flat plain surrounded by low mountains. They arrived before sunset and observed a significant number of other vehicles and people arriving with binoculars and chairs. A local woman shared her previous night's observations, pointing out a tower light and indicating where the Marfa Lights typically appeared.

Around sunset, the tower light became visible, and shortly after, a bright white point of light appeared near the mountains, moving clockwise before disappearing. Another light soon followed, repeating the pattern. Over the next four hours, a near-constant stream of lights was observed. Long identified two main patterns: lights appearing near the southern edge of the mountains and moving partway to the road before vanishing, and stationary lights that blinked at regular intervals. The moving lights varied in speed, while the stationary ones were more predictable.

Through binoculars, the lights appeared similar to distant car headlights but were always single points. The authors note that car headlights were ruled out due to the long history of sightings and the lack of roads in the area. Using an eight-inch Celestron telescope, Long was able to resolve the lights into "obvious fuzzy round balls, apparently several feet in diameter." The telescope also confirmed that the lights were indeed at the mountain range, and that some blinking was due to lights passing behind rocks. The telescope also revealed that some lights were "doublets," appearing as two distinct lights side-by-side, which then varied in brightness before splitting up, further ruling out car headlights.

Long describes the experience as fascinating, with all suggested natural causes quickly ruled out based on their appearance. He concludes that the Marfa Lights were pretty to watch and provided him with a memorable vacation.

The Marfa Lights by Hal Finney

Hal Finney offers a contrasting account of his experience with the Marfa Lights in the summer of 1976, when he lived in Midland, Texas. He visited the viewing area on the state highway east of Marfa, but notes that he may not have been at the exact same location as Long, as he picked a turnoff area without specific directions. At that time, the lights were a more local phenomenon with less publicity.

Finney's observations differed significantly from Long's. He found the lights to be stationary, not moving erratically. They appeared exactly on the horizon, described as white like headlights seen from a distance. The lights did not move; they would appear, be visible for a minute or two, and then fade away over several seconds. Occasionally, two or three lights would be visible at once.

Finney defines "by the horizon" as the visual line between the mountains and the sky. He could not judge the distance but assumed the lights came from at or beyond the mountains, not at their base or on the plain between the mountains and the road, as Long reported.

Finney's feeling was that the phenomenon was an effect of atmospheric refraction, possibly caused by a layer of warm or cool air near the ground, creating a mirage. He suggests that they were seeing a distant light source being refracted and focused as it passed over the mountains.

He notes that the lights lasted a minute or two and had appeared for over a hundred years. His feeling was that he was seeing focused starlight, and that the lights would not appear if it was overcast. He speculated that the topography of the mountains might create a lensing effect, making rising stars visible through these focus points.

Finney expresses puzzlement over the differences between his and Long's observations, noting that a TV report on "Unsolved Mysteries" matched his own observations more closely, with lights not appearing to move and being seen on the horizon.

Letters: John Bryant Responds to Jim Lippard's Review

This section features a lengthy letter from John Bryant to the editor, responding to Jim Lippard's review of Bryant's book, "Bryant's Law and Other Broadsides." Bryant expresses his displeasure with Lippard's review, which he characterizes as an unfair and misleading attack on his work and qualifications.

Bryant defends his credentials as an internationally-recognized philosopher, citing publications in international journals, listings in "Who's Who in the World," and praise from Nobel prizewinners and CSICOP fellows. He accuses Lippard of attempting to blacken his work through bias, selective reporting, and arrogance, mirroring what Bryant criticizes in "The Skeptical Inquirer" (SI).

He addresses specific criticisms from Lippard's review:

• Astrology and Stock Market Services: Bryant defends his claim that SI is ignorant for dismissing astrologically-based stock market advisory services, stating he provided addresses of tracking services. He argues that the point is the existence of support for such services among informed people.
• Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Psi: Bryant acknowledges that experiments cited in an article supportive of psi may have been debunked, but maintains that the existence of support for psi among informed people is the relevant point, illustrating his critique of skeptics' psychology.
• Whitley Strieber's "Communion": Bryant explains his praise for Strieber's book was based on its "tone" and rational investigation of alien encounters, not necessarily technical accuracy. He suggests that criticisms from organizations like MUFON might be due to political conflicts within ufology rather than substantive issues.

Bryant also defends his writing style against Lippard's description of it as "grating, pedantic," suggesting Lippard missed the humor or joke. He implies Lippard's criticism is a personal attack, similar to what Robert Sheaffer described in "Resentment Against Achievement."

He clarifies a misstatement in his bio regarding his work in relative modal logic, explaining that while he did not know if others had used his work, the statement was an exaggeration of favorable truth, stemming from a natural human tendency. He highlights his major article in the "Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic" and his book "Systems Theory" as contributions to logic, ethics, and ontology.

Bryant concludes by offering to send anyone a free copy of his article on SI upon receipt of a SASE, and promotes his book "Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy."

Jim Lippard Replies

Jim Lippard responds to John Bryant's letter, standing by his review of Bryant's book, "Bryant's Law and Other Broadsides." Lippard clarifies that his review focused primarily on the chapter "A Skeptical View of The Skeptical Inquirer." He admits he had not read the entire book when writing the review and was unaware of Bryant's graduate studies in philosophy, though he notes he never implied Bryant lacked them, only that his highest degree was a B.A. in mathematics.

Lippard questions the significance of the praise Bryant receives from eminent persons, arguing that the praise is often generic and may not represent unqualified endorsements. He raises concerns about whether these individuals consented to their statements being used for promotional purposes, citing instances where individuals did not consent.

He addresses Bryant's defense regarding the "Mars effect" controversy, stating that Bryant's defense of providing an address for information is insufficient. Lippard reiterates that Bryant's point about "psi" is merely that there is support among informed people, but Bryant's article aims to rebut the claim that "psi is false/unproven according to 'mainstream' or 'establishment' science."

Lippard defends his criticism of Bryant's writing style as "grating, pedantic," citing Bryant's habit of repeatedly asserting his own intelligence and comparing himself to historical figures like Descartes, Newton, Montaigne, Mencken, Shakespeare, and Einstein. He suggests this tendency aligns with descriptions of megalomania and self-magnification.

Lippard acknowledges that there is some good content in Bryant's book but maintains that his criticism was directed at the critique of The Skeptical Inquirer, which he found lacking in substance. He concludes that while Bryant's book is entertaining, he does not expect Bryant to be remembered as a great mind.

Editorial Note Regarding the "Mars Effect"

This note addresses the publication of an article by Suitbert Ertel in The Skeptical Inquirer supporting Michel Gauquelin's "cosmobiology" position on the "Mars effect." It suggests that CSICOP is interested in a fair assessment of astrology and mentions attempted replications of the "Mars effect" by the French skeptics group CFEPP and analysis by Suitbert Ertel and Arno Müller.

Book Review: The Mind Game by Norman Spinrad

Reviewed by Jim Lippard

Jim Lippard reviews Norman Spinrad's novel "The Mind Game." The story follows Jack Weller, whose wife Annie becomes involved in a movement called Transformationalism, patterned after Scientology. Jack attempts to infiltrate the movement to bring his wife back, undergoing psychological processes designed to transform him.

Lippard notes that Spinrad's depiction of Transformationalism, with its "block auditing," "meditative deconditioning," and "life analysis," is similar to Scientology's practices and facilities. He highlights the book's exploration of social and psychological pressures that lead to conformity within belief systems.

While the book leaves much unresolved regarding the benefits of Transformationalism, Lippard finds it an enjoyable and suspenseful journey that could serve as a "vaccine" against cults like Scientology.

Upcoming Meetings

Announces the Phoenix Skeptics meeting schedule at Jerry's Restaurant.

Articles of Note

Lists several articles of interest to readers:

• George P. Hansen, "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview," in The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, critically examining CSICOP and skeptical groups.
• Philip J. Hilts, "The Science Mob," in The New Republic, reporting on scientific fraud, specifically the David Baltimore case.
• John H. McMasters, "The Flight of the Bumblebee and Related Myths of Entomological Engineering," in American Scientist, debunking the myth that scientists have shown bumblebees cannot fly.
• Ron McRae, "Beyond Gonzo," in Spy, admitting to fabricating stories about Pentagon psychics and other sensational topics.

Publication Information

Provides details about The Arizona Skeptic, its publisher (Phoenix Skeptics and Tucson Skeptical Society), its goals (testing paranormal claims, acting as a clearinghouse, promoting critical thinking), copyright information, submission guidelines, and subscription rates.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Arizona Skeptic consistently promotes a skeptical and critical approach to claims of the paranormal, fringe sciences, and pseudoscientific theories. The magazine emphasizes the importance of scientific methodology, logic, and evidence-based reasoning. The editorial stance is to subject extraordinary claims to rigorous scrutiny, while also acknowledging the complexities and potential biases within both mainstream science and skeptical communities. The debate between Bryant and Lippard highlights the internal discussions and differing perspectives within the skeptical movement itself, particularly concerning the definition of skepticism and the methodology of critique. The Marfa Lights articles showcase the magazine's interest in unexplained phenomena but also its commitment to exploring rational explanations and contrasting eyewitness accounts.