AI Magazine Summary

Tampa Bay Skeptics Report - vol 12 no 4 - INCOMPLETE

Summary & Cover Tampa Bay Skeptics Report

Ever wanted to host your own late-night paranormal radio show?

Across the Airwaves · Narrative Sim · Windows · $2.95

You’re on the air. Callers bring Mothman, Fresno Nightcrawlers, UFO sightings, reptilian autopsies, and whispers about AATIP and Project Blue Book. Every reply shapes how the night goes.

UFO & UAP Cryptids Paranormal Government Secrets Classified Files High Strangeness Strange Creatures
The night is long. The lines are open →

20,263

issue summaries

Free. Always.

Support the Archive

Building and maintaining this collection is something I genuinely enjoy. If you’ve found it useful and want to say thanks, a small contribution keeps me motivated to keep expanding it. Thank you for your kindness 💚

Donate with PayPal

AI-Generated Summary

Overview

Title: Tampa Bay Skeptics REPORT ONLINE Issue: Vol. 12 - No. 4 Date: Spring 2000 Publisher: Tampa Bay Skeptics (A Special Interest Group of cfi TAMPA BAY CENTER FOR INQUIRY) Country: USA Language: English

Magazine Overview

Title: Tampa Bay Skeptics REPORT ONLINE
Issue: Vol. 12 - No. 4
Date: Spring 2000
Publisher: Tampa Bay Skeptics (A Special Interest Group of cfi TAMPA BAY CENTER FOR INQUIRY)
Country: USA
Language: English

This issue features an article detailing a retest of the Tampa Bay Skeptics' '$1,000 Challenge' involving a dowser named James D. Moore Jr.

Instant Replay: Dowser Fails TBS "$1,000 Challenge" Retest

This article, written by Gary P. Posner, recounts a second attempt by James D. Moore Jr. to demonstrate his dowsing abilities. The test took place on December 18 in the auditorium of the Tampa/Hillsborough Library, with approximately 20 members of the Tampa Bay Skeptics (TBS) and two of Moore's associates present. Moore used his Y-shaped plastic 'Crazy Rod' for the test.

Unlike a previous test in September, Moore preferred that the boxes not be set up in advance. Instead, he brought his apparatus, and the boxes were prepared immediately before the retest. Twenty-three lead boxes were arranged on the floor. Moore himself placed a layer of sand in each box. He and his two associates then left the room while TBS members prepared the contents. The objects to be hidden were 10 one-ounce gold coins and 13 aluminum wafers. The selection of which boxes would contain gold versus aluminum was determined by a random drawing of slips of paper marked 'G' or 'A'. Moore was not informed of the exact quantities, only that there was 'a good mix.'

A TBS member then placed an aluminum wafer in the designated boxes, followed by another TBS member pouring sand over them. Subsequently, a third TBS member placed a gold coin in the remaining boxes, and the 'sand' person covered those as well. The entire process was videotaped to assure Moore that the protocol was followed precisely as instructed. Moore and his associates were then allowed back into the room.

Moore spent significantly more time 'divining' each box than he had in September, re-divining them one or two more times. During his final pass, he changed three selections from 'aluminum' to 'gold.' He expressed confidence that he had gotten all but one box correct. Based on this, TBS agreed to award Moore $500 if he succeeded in getting all but that one box correct.

When it came time to reveal the results, Moore was asked to 'fish out' the object in each box. As in the September test, the very first box, which Moore's rod had indicated contained gold, was found to contain an aluminum wafer. This marked Moore's second failure in the challenge.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Tampa Bay Skeptics, through this report, clearly demonstrate a skeptical stance towards paranormal claims, specifically dowsing in this instance. The article meticulously details the experimental setup and results, highlighting the failure of the claimant to meet the challenge's criteria. The emphasis on controlled testing, random selection, and verification (videotaping) underscores the organization's commitment to empirical evidence and scientific methodology in evaluating extraordinary claims. The repeated failure of Moore in similar challenges reinforces the magazine's implicit stance that such abilities lack credible scientific support.