Zetetic Scholar - No 09

Magazine Overview

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: No. 9
Volume: 3
Date: March 1982
Publisher: Marcello Truzzi
Country: USA
Language: English

Editorial Stance and Content

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, the official journal of the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR), marks a shift to an irregular publication schedule. Editor Marcello Truzzi explains that this change is due to the nature of the dialogues the journal aims to foster. Subscriptions will now consist of two issues, regardless of the publication date, and issues will be numbered sequentially.

The central focus of this issue is the controversy surrounding the "Mars Effect" experiments and the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Truzzi, a founder of CSICOP, expresses his philosophical differences with the organization's leadership, particularly its perceived shift from impartial inquiry to advocacy. He argues that CSICOP's public image as a "Guardian of Rationalism" and "Defender of True Science" has led it to adopt an adversarial stance, viewing proponents of paranormal claims as "pseudoscience" rather than as fellow scientists. Truzzi believes this approach, which he likens to a "new kind of Inquisition," hinders genuine scientific inquiry. He contrasts this with his vision for CSAR, which aims to bring together researchers from all sides to foster constructive skepticism and advance scientific understanding.

Articles and Features

Articles

• "Patterns of Belief in Religious, Psychic and Other Paranormal Phenomena" by Jeff Sobal and Charles F. Emmons: This article examines public belief in unexplained phenomena, drawing on data from a 1978 Gallup survey of 1553 adults in the United States. The study stratified the sample geographically and by city size. It explores the concept of belief in paranormal phenomena and presents results on the prevalence of belief in various topics, including life after death, angels, devils, ESP, precognition, astrology, deja vu, clairvoyance, the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, ghosts, and witches. The authors note a high level of belief in religious phenomena and ESP, with lower levels for other categories. They also discuss the importance of social and social-psychological factors in understanding these beliefs.

• "Mystery Men from Holland, II: The Strange Case of Gerard Croiset" by Piet Hein Hoebens: This is the second part of a report on Gerard Croiset, a Dutch psychic known for his dowsing abilities and involvement in locating missing persons. The article likely delves deeper into specific cases or aspects of Croiset's work.

• "Defining 'UFO'" by Michael Martin: This article likely addresses the challenges and nuances involved in defining what constitutes a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object), perhaps exploring different interpretations and criteria used in the field.

• "Reflections on the Role of Hyperosmia in ESP: Some Personal Observations" by Michael Harrison: This essay explores the potential connection between hyperosmia (an enhanced sense of smell) and extrasensory perception (ESP), offering personal observations and insights.

New ZS Dialogue: "Research on the Mars Effect"

This section features a discussion on the "Mars Effect," a controversial claim linking astrological influences to the success of athletes. It includes:

• An introduction by M. Truzzi.
• An article by Patrick Curry on "Research on the Mars Effect."
• Critical commentaries by Michel Gauquelin, Hans J. Eysenck, H. Krips, I.J. Good, Piet Hein Hoebens, Luc de Marre, and J. Dommange.
• A reply from Patrick Curry to his commentators.
• A reply from Gauquelin to his commentators.

Continuing ZS Dialogues

• Comments on J. Richard Greenwell re UFOs: This section includes comments from Richard de Mille, George O. Abell, and J. Allen Hynek regarding UFOs, likely continuing a previous discussion initiated by J. Richard Greenwell.

Regular ZS Features

• Editorial: An editorial by Marcello Truzzi, likely expanding on the themes presented in "Some Reflections on the CSICOP/Mars-Effect Controversy."
• Letters: Correspondence from Malcolm Dean and Ivan W. Kelly.
• Random Bibliography on the Occult and the Paranormal: A curated list of relevant literature.
• Book Reviews: Reviews of John Hasted's "Metal Benders" by Harry Collins and "Books Briefly Noted" by M. Truzzi.
• Errata: Corrections to previous issues.
• On CSAR: Information about the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research.
• About the Contributors to This Issue: Biographical information on the authors and editors.
• Anomaly Newsfront: A section likely covering recent developments or news in the field of anomalies.

Center for Scientific Anomalies Research (CSAR)

The issue provides details about CSAR's goals, which include advancing interdisciplinary study of anomalies, acting as a clearinghouse, publishing research, promoting information dissemination, creating a network of experts, sponsoring events, and fostering communication between critics and proponents. It also lists Senior Consultants and Resource Consultants for CSAR. The primary focus of CSAR is on the study and evaluation of anomalous observations rather than esoteric theories, emphasizing a scientific orientation and the burden of proof on the claimant. CSAR seeks to promote open and fair-minded inquiry, recognizing that anomalies can drive scientific progress.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of paranormal claims, the methodology of scientific investigation, and the role of organizations like CSICOP and CSAR in this field. Editor Marcello Truzzi's personal reflections highlight a concern for maintaining scientific rigor and impartiality, advocating for a balanced approach that embraces inquiry over advocacy. The issue champions constructive skepticism and the advancement of research as the primary goals of science, rather than the defense of established paradigms or the discrediting of unconventional claims.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue #3 and dated 1982, delves into the sociology of paranormal beliefs. It presents a detailed analysis of how individuals believe in various unexplained phenomena and how these beliefs correlate with demographic factors.

Analysis of Paranormal Beliefs

The core of the issue is a study that examined twelve different unexplained phenomena. The homogeneity of belief was noted, with a tendency for believers in one phenomenon to believe in others, though not to a degree that suggests universal believers or nonbelievers. A factor analysis was conducted to identify underlying dimensions of these beliefs.

Three Dimensions of Belief

The factor analysis revealed three primary dimensions:

1. Religious Dimension: This factor has high loadings for beliefs in angels, devils, and life after death. These are considered part of the dominant religious beliefs reinforced by the religious system.
2. Psychic Dimension: This dimension encompasses beliefs in extrasensory perception (ESP), precognition, deja vu, clairvoyance, and astrology. These are described as psychic types of phenomena, relating to unexplored aspects of the self and mind.
3. Other Beings Dimension: This factor includes beliefs in phenomena like the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, ghosts, and witches. These are characterized as nonreligious beings or beasts not recognized by scientific or religious institutions, appealing to a sense of unexplored places and undiscovered life forms.

Some phenomena, like witches and astrology, were found to load highly on more than one factor, indicating an ambiguous role in classification.

Demographic Correlates of Belief

The study further explored how demographic attributes relate to these belief dimensions:

• Sex: Females are more likely to believe in religious phenomena (angels, life after death) and psychic phenomena (ESP, astrology). Males show slightly more belief in 'other beings' but not significantly.
• Race: Due to a smaller sample size of Black individuals, significant differences were limited. Blacks believed significantly less in precognition and deja vu but more in astrology.
• Age: Age is not a significant determinant for religious beliefs, suggesting their reinforcement by institutions. However, younger people tend to be stronger believers in psychic and 'other beings' phenomena, with belief declining with age, possibly due to a greater openness to alternative world views and fad beliefs in youth.
• Education: There are significant educational differences. Quasi-religious beliefs (angels, devils) show an inverse relationship with education, while belief in life after death is not significantly related. Psychic beliefs (ESP, precognition, deja vu, clairvoyance) are directly related to education, though there's a 'tailing-off' for college graduates, indicating skepticism in higher educational groups. Belief in 'other beings' also shows a positive relationship with education, again with a 'tailing-off' for college graduates.
• Marital Status: Belief in religious factors is significant for angels, with higher belief among married and widowed individuals. Belief in 'other beings' is consistently low for widowed and married people but high for singles. Psychic factors are generally low for widows and married people, and high for singles and divorced individuals.

Discussion and Implications

The discussion highlights that paranormal beliefs are not a monolithic category but are tied to cultural myths and paradigms. They can be interpreted as attempts to deal with uncertainty, attain rational mastery of the environment, and address existential questions. The findings have implications for parapsychological research, suggesting that understanding belief patterns can help researchers account for subject performance in tests of psychic power.

The issue concludes by emphasizing that belief in unexplained phenomena deserves more attention due to its potential influence on people's lives and world interpretations, calling for further research into the origins and intensity of these beliefs.

References

A comprehensive list of references is provided, citing works from various academic journals and publications related to sociology, psychology, and paranormal studies, including authors like W.S. Bainbridge, P.L. Berger, E. Durkheim, C.F. Emmons, J. Sobal, R.C. Fox, A.M. Greeley, P.A. Hartman, E.F. Heenan, B. Malinowski, J. Palmer, W.I. Thomas, D.S. Thomas, E.A. Tiryakian, M. Truzzi, and R. Wuthnow.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the systematic investigation and categorization of paranormal beliefs. The editorial stance appears to be one of academic inquiry, seeking to understand the psychological and sociological underpinnings of these beliefs rather than validating or dismissing them outright. The journal aims to provide a platform for research into the occult and paranormal from a scientific and sociological perspective.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as Volume 1982, Issue 8, is a special CSAR project report titled "MYSTERY MEN FROM HOLLAND, II: The Strange Case of Gerard Croiset." The article, authored by Piet Hein Hoebens, critically examines the claims and cases associated with the Dutch clairvoyant Gerard Croiset. The publication date is inferred as 1982, with the original language being English.

The Strange Case of Gerard Croiset

Piet Hein Hoebens begins by contrasting Gerard Croiset with another Dutch clairvoyant, Peter Hurkos, noting that Croiset was taken more seriously in his native country, even by skeptics. Hoebens states his personal belief that Croiset likely possessed no more than five senses, influenced by his own "metaphysical predilection" against psi. He urges readers to suspend belief in Croiset's paranormal powers, suggesting that even seemingly strong evidence is not above suspicion. Hoebens points out that while Croiset was vouched for by the prominent parapsychologist Dr. W.H.C. Tenhaeff, Tenhaeff's work has been shown to be flawed. The author anticipates that the Croiset phenomenon will eventually be explained by erroneous reporting, personal validation, coincidence, and fraud, though he refrains from drawing premature conclusions. He highlights that George Zorab, who had previously pointed out shortcomings in psychical research evidence, still considered Croiset a genuine sensitive. Hoebens states his intention to critically examine supposedly respectable accounts of Croiset's feats published in English, restricting his analysis to presenting reasons for caution.

Myths Surrounding Croiset's Police Involvement

Hoebens clarifies that Croiset was not the psychic stand-by of the Dutch police, contrary to popular mythology abroad. While incidental cooperation occurred, Dutch police were traditionally skeptical. Reports published abroad often present a misleading impression, particularly in sensationalist newspapers like the National Enquirer. Hoebens refutes an article by Roy Stemman, co-editor of the defunct magazine Alpha, which claimed Croiset, Tenhaeff, and the Utrecht chief of police formed a "regular team." Stemman's article, accompanied by a photograph of Dr. Tenhaeff and a uniformed individual identified as the Utrecht chief of police, suggested they worked together on missing persons cases. Hoebens states this is untrue, and that successive Utrecht chiefs of police were notoriously skeptical. He cites the former chief of police, Mr. Th. van Roosmalen, as having authored a significant debunking of Croiset. An official spokesman for the Utrecht police in 1980 stated that Croiset's attempts to locate missing persons or solve crimes in his hometown had never been successful.

Stemman's article concluded that Croiset's files at Utrecht University would continue to intrigue scientists. Hoebens expresses doubt, stating that the whereabouts of Dr. Tenhaeff's celebrated files are a mystery, even to Tenhaeff's successor. He suggests that these documents may have been hidden to avoid embarrassment.

Tenhaeff and Pollack

Hoebens identifies Professor Doctor Wilhelm Heinrich Carl Tenhaeff as the key figure in Croiset's rise to international fame. Tenhaeff held the first chair of parapsychology at a major Western university and was highly regarded. Hoebens notes that Tenhaeff's work has been published in English, making it accessible, unlike some of his other publications. The article critically examines two prize cases from Jack Harrison Pollack's book, "Croiset the Clairvoyant," which was written under Tenhaeff's supervision and endorsed by him. The author also analyzes two important cases reported by Tenhaeff himself in English.

Case Study: The Utrecht Child Disappearance

Hoebens analyzes a case from Pollack's book (pp. 108-109) concerning the disappearance of a seven-year-old child in Utrecht on February 21. Croiset was telephoned by the child's schoolteacher, Miss H.M., and provided details about the child's location, stating he had drowned near Gort de Bilt. The body was found on March 5 by a skipper wearing a cap with a colored band, precisely where Croiset indicated. Hoebens notes this is the only reported case of Croiset supposedly solving a police case in Utrecht. However, his investigations in 1981 revealed missing information from Pollack's account. Tenhaeff's report in the Dutch "Tijdschrift voor Parapsychologie" mentions that Miss H.M. knew Croiset well and had called him twice before the February 24 phone call. On February 22, Croiset had told her there was "no reason to worry." By Friday night, Mrs. Croiset indicated her husband was "less optimistic" and had the "impression that the boy was no longer alive." Tenhaeff's account of subsequent conversations confirmed Pollack's.

Hoebens finds the story odd: if Croiset knew the boy's location on February 24, why was the discovery not made until March 5? He questions why no one searched the indicated location for ten days and notes that neither Pollack nor Tenhaeff mention any attempt to relay this information to the police. The Vice Superintendent of the Utrecht police stated in 1981 that their files did not go back to 1951. A retired police officer, Mr. Wielinga, who was on duty in Utrecht in 1951, distinctly remembered the incident but not any useful information from Croiset or any other psychic, and he doubted the story.

Newspaper files revealed that the victim, Appie Verbeek, lived near Fort de Bilt. The boy was last seen walking in a nearby street. The area includes the Biltse Grift canal. Hoebens argues that if a child disappears, remains are usually found nearby. He states the body was found in the Biltse Grift, not by Fort de Bilt, and the description of the location was imprecise, lacking details like "bridge" and "graveyard." He also notes that the skipper's cap band is common and not a strong indicator. Hoebens summarizes that Croiset, when consulted by someone he knew well, initially said the child was alive, changed his mind when the boy didn't surface, and later mentioned a landmark near where the child lived. The body was found ten days later at a different location. Hoebens concludes it is unclear how this case can be presented as successful psychic detection, especially since Tenhaeff approved Pollack's manuscript.

Case Study: A German Child Disappears

Hoebens then analyzes a case from Pollack (pp. 113-115) involving the disappearance of five-year-old Bernard Schlegel from Buxtehude, Germany, in late 1957. The police initially considered kidnapping or murder, with a general belief that the child had not drowned. Dr. Hans Bender suggested consulting Croiset. Journalist Heinz Metzger of the Hamburger Abendblatt met with Croiset in Holland. Croiset claimed to have no prior knowledge but immediately described a kiosk, a striped awning with a tear, and stated the child had drowned and his body was about 400 meters behind a factory. Metzger informed Croiset that the "Oste river" had been dragged without success. Croiset described the body's location relative to the factory.

About three weeks later, the body was found in the "Oste river" near the factory, corresponding to Croiset's sketch. Pollack concluded this was another remarkable case where Croiset's paranormal pictures led to discovery. The German police's faith in Croiset increased when they checked his impressions, particularly the image of the striped awning.

Hoebens, however, collected information in 1981 that suggests Pollack's report is misleading. He notes that Dr. Bender stated he only heard of the case afterwards, and the Landeskriminalpolizei indicated that only Herr Metzger was a witness to the consultation, and they could not confirm the accuracy or method of Croiset's statements. Heinz Metzger himself stated he told Croiset all he knew about the case, including possibilities and surmises, suggesting the information may not have been telepathic. The lack of a tape recording of the conversation is noted. Hoebens suggests that Croiset might have been informed of the case prior to Metzger's visit, as the boy had been missing since Christmas and numerous articles had appeared in the German press.

Hoebens disputes Pollack's claim about the "general belief that the child had not drowned," citing reports that the police assumed the child had fallen into the river. He also notes that Metzger's report mentioned the body was found in the "Oste river." Hoebens had a conversation with Herr Metzger in 1981, who expressed skepticism about Croiset's powers and explained "hits" as post-factum interpretations of ambiguous readings. Metzger stated that finding matches between Croiset's vague statements and actual locations was easy. The striped awning detail is analyzed: Croiset mentioned a shop, but the awning belonged to a nearby pub. The awning had tears on both sides, not just the right. The shop played no role in the drama. The most significant error in Pollack's account is the claim that the body was found "near the factory Croiset had described." Metzger stated this was "Absolutely untrue." The body was found in the "Umfluter" branch of the river Este, two and a half kilometers from the factory, not the "Gestaute Arm" where Croiset and the police had focused their search. Hoebens summarizes that Croiset confirmed what was already assumed and his only original contribution was a guess that proved wrong.

In Tenhaeff's Own Words

Hoebens refers to Tenhaeff's article "Aid to the Police" published in "Tomorrow," which was based on a paper presented at a 1953 conference. Tenhaeff highlighted that consulting clairvoyants is complex, and their information often advanced parapsychological research rather than police investigation. However, he cited cases where Croiset's contribution was of concrete use. Three cases stood out due to their focus on ESP in solving crimes, their striking nature, and sufficient detail for investigation.

Hoebens notes that one case, the Wierden Hammer Assault, discussed by Hansel, is not dealt with in this article. Hansel's inquiries revealed Croiset's efforts were of no use to the police, and the ESP hypothesis was not supported by facts.

The Coffee Smugglers Case

Hoebens examines another case from Tenhaeff's "Tomorrow" article (pp. 13-14) concerning a coffee smuggling operation in Enschede in 1953. Mr. A. M. Den Hollander, a Customs' official, met with Croiset and showed him a photograph of a man suspected of fraudulent coffee dealings. Croiset, who did not know the man and received no information from Den Hollander, made statements, most of which were correct. Notably, Croiset mentioned details unknown to the police at the time, such as the coffee not disappearing via smugglers' trails but through customs barriers, hidden in a limousine. Den Hollander reportedly confirmed this afterwards.

Hoebens identifies the case as involving Mr. G. Hasperhoven, director of a coffee-roasting factory. The case had received nationwide publicity, and the prime suspect's name had been mentioned in the local press. Croiset, living in Enschede at the time, likely knew of the case due to local gossip about smuggling. Hoebens questions how Croiset could have known this, suggesting it might have been a guess related to the smuggling affair, given Den Hollander's position.

Hoebens notes a discrepancy: a newspaper report on October 27 mentioned the limousine, and another on November 5 reported a reconstruction of the smuggling method, including a photograph of the car and customs barriers. This suggests the information might have been public knowledge before Croiset's consultation.

The Woerden Case

Tenhaeff also recounted Croiset's involvement in a crime that occurred less than a year before his Utrecht lecture. In October 1952, an attempt was made to murder a policeman. The day after the news was published, Croiset informed Tenhaeff of an image of a well-known shop in Utrecht selling stage properties, featuring a suit of ancient armor. Croiset had the "impression" that the guilty man had formerly worn a uniform. Based on these impressions, Croiset suspected the criminal was near the shop. Ten days later, Tenhaeff and Croiset were in the Utrecht law court, where objects belonging to the policeman were on display. The article then quotes Tenhaeff describing Croiset's suspicion that the criminal was somewhere in the vicinity of the shop.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue of Zetetic Scholar revolve around skepticism towards paranormal claims, particularly those involving psychic detectives. The editorial stance is critical and analytical, aiming to debunk sensationalist accounts by examining evidence rigorously. The author emphasizes the importance of verifiable facts, questioning the reliability of witness testimony and the methods employed by parapsychologists. The issue highlights the potential for misinterpretation, fraud, and the influence of prior information in cases attributed to psychic abilities. The overall stance is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and in the case of Gerard Croiset, the evidence presented is found to be wanting.

Title: ZS Dialogue
Issue: #9
Publication Date: 1982
Publisher: Zetetic Scholar
Country of Publication: USA
Original Language: English

Article: RESEARCH ON THE MARS EFFECT (PART I) by Patrick Curry

This section of ZS Dialogue features an in-depth analysis by Patrick Curry, a historian of science, concerning the "Mars Effect" controversy, primarily focusing on the work of psychologists Michel and Francoise Gauquelin and the role of the American Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

Introduction

Curry introduces the "Mars Effect" as a central topic in disputes over the scientific status of astrology, stemming from the Gauquelins' research suggesting a statistically significant link between the position of Mars at birth and professional success in sports. CSICOP conducted two tests: a theoretical calculation test (the Zelen Test) and an attempted replication with American athletes. Both sets of papers were accompanied by analyses from the Gauquelins that reached diametrically opposite conclusions, leaving the reader in doubt. Curry states his intention is to assess the scientific status of CSICOP's work and the Mars Effect itself, relying on published articles, unpublished memoranda, and correspondence. He emphasizes his interest in objective, independently assessable evidence over psychological bias.

Background: Gauquelin

The Gauquelins' research, spanning over twenty years, has been published by their Paris-based laboratory. Their work has led to the disconfirmation of traditional astrological concepts like "houses" and "signs." More controversially, they claim highly significant correlations between planetary positions at birth (Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) and three empirical phenomena: professional success, psychological temperament, and the tendency for children to inherit planetary placements from their parents. Their total sample exceeds 100,000. These planetary correlations are noted as being consistent with traditional astrological theories regarding the "natures of the planets," such as Mars and aggression, and Saturn and introversion.

Comite Para

The first replication attempt was by the Belgian Committee for Scientific Investigation of Alleged Paranormal Phenomena (Comite Para) in 1968, testing the Mars effect. They analyzed a sample of 535 sports champions and found a distribution of Mars positions that mirrored the Gauquelins' findings, agreeing with their results. However, Comite Para declined to cite this as support for Gauquelin, citing unspecified demographic errors in the calculation of theoretical frequencies. They also noted that while sector one had a higher frequency than expected, sectors 9 and 10 were higher than the predicted sector 4, and sector 8 was considerably higher than expectation.

The Zelen Test

This test, proposed by Marvin Zelen, aimed to test Gauquelin's theoretical figure of 17% for non-champions. The procedure involved collecting a new control group of non-champions born near a sample of 303 champions. If this group showed a significant Mars effect of 22%, it would deflate Gauquelin's claim; if it showed 17%, it would confirm his figure. The Gauquelins collected data on 16,756 non-champions. The results showed a difference significant at .03 or .04, indicating the Mars effect appeared only with sports champions, not the general population. However, KZ&A (Kurtz, Zelen, Abel) raised two objections: (1) the overall significance of .04 was due to a single key-sector birth, and (2) a statistical difference in the proportion of key sector births existed for Paris but not for the rest of the sample. KZ&A questioned Gauquelin's strategy of concentrating on "chefs-lieux" (urban centers).

Assessment of the Zelen Test

Curry examines KZ&A's points closely. Regarding the single key-sector criticism, KZ&A justified dropping female sports champions by stating most champions are male and males in key sectors are more likely to be future champions. Curry notes this rationale is questionable and that three of the nine eliminated female champions had Mars in key sectors. Regarding the anomalous Paris sample, Curry points out that KZ&A's conclusion was based on a post hoc separation of data, which broke the sample into unreliable and consistent parts. He cites Eric Tarkington, who demonstrated that the Paris sub-sample was not inconsistent with the rest of the sample and that breaking the sample into further parts did not alter the statistical non-difference. Professor Elizabeth Scott of CSICOP had expressed dismay at this sample splitting, finding it potentially misleading.

Rawlins had previously circulated a memorandum suggesting that Gauquelin had made fair allowance for potential confounding effects, such as Mars being near the sun or peaks in births near sunrise. Rawlins also noted that the Zelen test presumed a "clean sample" from Gauquelin, which CSICOP later questioned. Rawlins communicated these points to Kurtz, Zelen, and Abell prior to publication.

Despite these internal warnings and criticisms, the Zelen test report appeared in The Humanist with its charges uncorrected. Rawlins' subsequent attempts to get corrections or independent refereeing were met with silence or a laudatory letter congratulating CSICOP on confirming a critique that Rawlins had demonstrated to be erroneous. Rawlins was also not renominated to the CSICOP Executive Council. The Skeptical Inquirer published its "Four-Part Report" on the US replication, reiterating the anomalous Paris sample argument and defending the dropping of female champions without discussing the consequences. Curry notes that Rawlins was dismissed from The Skeptical Inquirer's Editorial Board.

Curry concludes that KZ&A ignored internal warnings and that the errors were repeated. He also points out that after the Gauquelins collected a new sample of non-champions, KZ&A questioned Gauquelin's original sample of champions, effectively turning the test into one of champions rather than non-champions. The original formulation aimed to establish whether the "chance" level was 17% or 22%. Curry notes that while the placements of Mars in the sample of 303 champions are not strongly significant, no sample of that size will produce strong significance when testing a difference between 17% and 22%.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The ZS Dialogue issue, through Patrick Curry's article, critically examines the scientific rigor and integrity of parapsychological research, particularly concerning the "Mars Effect." The editorial stance, as presented by Marcello Truzzi, is one of encouraging open debate and public replies to controversial claims, offering space in ZS for such discussions. The article highlights the importance of objective evidence, methodological soundness, and transparency in scientific inquiry, while also acknowledging the potential for bias and personality conflicts to influence scientific discourse. The overall tone is critical of how CSICOP handled the "Mars Effect" research, suggesting a lack of transparency and a tendency to dismiss valid criticisms.

This issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, dated Winter 1979-80, is dedicated to a comprehensive "Four-Part Report on Claimed 'Mars Effect'". The magazine, published by The Skeptical Inquirer in the USA, features a detailed examination of the controversial 'Mars Effect' hypothesis, which posits a correlation between the position of the planet Mars at birth and athletic achievement. The issue delves into the research and counter-research conducted by various scientists, primarily Michel Gauquelin and a group associated with CSICOP, including Paul Kurtz, G.A. Abell, and Dennis Rawlins.

U.S. Test Synopsis/KZ&A and Rawlins

The report begins by outlining the U.S. test of the Mars Effect, as interpreted by Kurtz, Zelen, and Abell (KZ&A), and Dennis Rawlins. KZ&A selected a sample of U.S. sports champions from directories like the Lincoln Library of Sports Champions and Who's Who publications. Their initial sample of 128 champions yielded a Mars effect of 19.5%, which did not significantly differ from the expected 17%. An expanded sample of 197 athletes showed a 12% Mars effect, and a third sample of 83 athletes showed a 7% effect, which was statistically low. Rawlins' analysis of the overall result from 408 athletes indicated a Mars effect of 13.5%, which he concluded was "distinctly (but not significantly) below chance expectation," supporting KZ&A's conclusion that the U.S. sports champions study showed no evidence for the Mars effect.

U.S. Test Synopsis/Gauquelin

In contrast, the Gauquelins argued that the U.S. data strongly displayed the Mars effect. They contended that KZ&A's sample lacked "all-time great" names, violating their long-standing condition for observing the effect. They pointed out that only a small fraction of the Pro-Football Hall of Fame and National Baseball Hall of Fame members were included in KZ&A's sample. The Gauquelins then conducted a post-hoc analysis, suggesting that the Mars effect was more pronounced in certain subsets of the data, particularly when excluding post-1950 champions and when using specific selections of prominent athletes. They also critiqued KZ&A's methodology for the second and third canvasses, deeming them diluted and inconsistent. The Gauquelins presented their own samples of prominent U.S. athletes, which showed higher Mars effect percentages (e.g., 21.6% for a sample of 88, rising to 23.5% after further exclusions), linking the effect to the degree of celebrity and achievement.

Responses from KZ&A, Gauquelin, & Rejoinder by KZ&A (U.S. Test)

KZ&A responded by contesting Gauquelin's claim about sample selection, stating that prior agreement had been reached on the sources of data. They argued that their second and third samples contained a comparable number of All-Stars and All-Pros. They also presented their own alternative selection of 181 "superstars," which yielded a Mars effect of 16.6%, close to chance expectation. KZ&A suggested that Gauquelin's original study of 2,088 European sports champions should be re-examined due to potentially looser criteria. Gauquelin, in reply, reiterated that outstanding athletes show the effect and questioned KZ&A's use of certain directories, proposing that if they had been involved in the selection, they would not have agreed with the chosen sources. He highlighted that their use of the Hammond Atlas omitted certain champions, and when included, resulted in a higher Mars effect. Gauquelin contrasted these figures with KZ&A's overall finding of 13.5%. In their rejoinder, KZ&A maintained that Gauquelin had agreed to the use of specific directories, and they reasserted the comparability of their 181-person sample to Gauquelin's 88-person sample. They also raised an 'anomalous sector' claim and questioned Gauquelin's original European sample for employing inconsistent criteria.

U.S. Test/Assessment

The author of this section expresses relief at moving from listing conflicting claims to analyzing the situation. A key point is the lack of a written protocol agreed upon in advance. While KZ&A claimed prior agreement, Gauquelin denied it. Evidence suggests that Kurtz and his assistants had sole control over the selection process for the U.S. study. The author notes that Dennis Rawlins, who had calculated the statistics, was opposed to CSICOP's involvement without clear rules and impartial judges. Rawlins' advice was reportedly ignored, and his contribution to The Skeptical Inquirer suffered significant deletions. Rawlins was later removed from CSICOP. The author also points out that Rawlins, while a non-believer in the Mars effect, found Gauquelin's "creme-de-la-creme alibi" unfair, as the stipulation of "only the top professionals" was long-standing.

The author acknowledges that both KZ&A and Gauquelin used "post-hoc sample-splitting ploys," making firm conclusions difficult. However, an examination of the relative validity of the samples is attempted. Gauquelin objected to the use of basketball players, as they showed a low Mars effect in his European sample, though he conceded that "top" basketball players should show the effect. KZ&A demonstrated that Mars appeared in unpredicted sectors more often than predicted ones in the U.S. sample. They also noted that in Gauquelin's chosen 88 athletes, Mars appeared more frequently in sectors 7, 8, and 10 than in sector 4. Gauquelin countered that his published patterns always emphasized sectors 7 and 10, along with 1 and 4. Gauquelin also suggested that the relationship between Mars and success might be mediated by "temperament," a factor his research had consistently linked to planetary influences.

New European Replication/Synopsis

This section details Gauquelin's offer to KZ&A and Rawlins to control a new European study, where birth data is easier to obtain. Despite receiving no answer, the Gauquelins proceeded with their own test, collecting data from 432 athletes across 7 countries. This sample showed a Mars effect of 106 (24%), which was statistically significant at .001, with no significant national differences and no Mars effect in a control group of non-famous athletes. KZ&A, in their reply, questioned Gauquelin's selection criteria, noting that he retained only gold medallists for his U.S. post-hoc sample while using gold, silver, or bronze medallists for the European sample. They questioned whether the criteria were established before or after the Mars sectors were calculated. Gauquelin explained that for the French part of the sample, a selection was necessary due to the high number of French sportsmen listed in a particular dictionary. He also indicated that for other countries, no selection was used. He argued that even with the "lesser" athletes included, the overall Mars effect remained significant, driven by the famous athletes.

KZ&A's rejoinder questioned a subset of 31 Olympic gold medallists from the European sample, which showed a low Mars effect (12.9%), calling it "surprisingly low" if Gauquelin's theory were correct. They also stated they had not received all the data for analysis. They raised objections to various members of Gauquelin's original 2,088 sample, claiming they were not internationally famous. KZ&A concluded that either Gauquelin's original European study was invalid due to loose criteria, or the new study was invalid due to being too restrictive.

New European Replication/Assessment and Follow-up

This section addresses minor points raised by KZ&A, such as Gauquelin's difficulties in obtaining German and Spanish birth registries, while neglecting to mention successful data acquisition from other European countries. KZ&A's objection that Gauquelin's requirement of international success was too narrow was dismissed as trivially true for sports like baseball and football, which are primarily American. The author notes that most objections to individuals in the "2,088" sample applied to a different sample (Comité Para's) rather than Gauquelin's collected data.

Correspondence between Kurtz and Gauquelin from 1980-81 is reviewed. Kurtz repeatedly requested lists of excluded athletes and their Mars positions, as well as lists of Olympic champions and notable sports personalities. Gauquelin proposed a collaborative approach where Kurtz would establish the list of athletes from a specific dictionary, and then birth data and Mars positions would be verified and analyzed jointly. Gauquelin expressed willingness to meet with Kurtz to resolve the issues.

Kurtz's replies were largely dismissive of Gauquelin's proposals, reiterating his opposition to selection and questioning the consistency of criteria across different studies. Gauquelin's Oct. 30 letter pointed out that KZ&A's rejoinder incorrectly stated that European Olympic gold medallists did not display the Mars effect, citing a higher effect when combining data. Kurtz's subsequent response reiterated requests for information on "lesser" athletes and questioned the selection criteria. The author comments that the reader of The Skeptical Inquirer might be left with the impression that European gold medallists do not support the Mars effect, which is misleading. The author notes that Kurtz's response to Gauquelin's proposal was "wholly remarkable" and that Kurtz's insistence on avoiding selection seemed to contradict the scientific need for clear criteria.

Gauquelin again repeated his proposal, offering to meet Kurtz. Kurtz's response was to repeat his requests and opposition to selection. Gauquelin's June 1, 1981 letter reviewed the situation, highlighting "several points where the truth was hidden or seriously distorted." The author concludes that the situation is a "Catch-22" and that it is impossible to draw firm conclusions about the Mars effect due to the "unfortunate" way the U.S. test was conducted. The author places responsibility for this "post hoc morass" on Kurtz, Abell, and Zelen, noting that Gauquelin had clearly proposed a collaborative, controlled experiment from the outset, which was largely ignored or misrepresented by KZ&A. KZ&A's prior verification of Gauquelin's original 2,088 sample integrity was also highlighted.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the scientific controversy surrounding the 'Mars Effect', the critical importance of research methodology (especially sample selection and pre-defined protocols), statistical interpretation, and the differing approaches of researchers like Gauquelin and the CSICOP group. The editorial stance, as presented through the articles and the author's commentary, appears to be one of skepticism towards the Mars Effect hypothesis, while also critically examining the methods and conduct of the CSICOP researchers, particularly Kurtz, in their handling of the controversy. There is a strong emphasis on the need for transparency, clear protocols, and objective analysis, with accusations of bias, distortion, and censorship leveled by both sides, though the author seems to lean towards criticizing CSICOP's handling of the research and communication.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, specifically issue #29 from 1982, focuses on "Critical Commentaries" regarding the "Mars Effect" controversy. The primary contributor is Michel Gauquelin, who presents his perspective on the ongoing debate, largely in response to criticisms and investigations by CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), particularly Paul Kurtz.

Commentary by Michel Gauquelin

Gauquelin begins by acknowledging Patrick Curry's analysis as an effort to bring clarity to the Mars Effect controversy. He expresses relief that his letters to Paul Kurtz are quoted, noting the tedious and unrewarding nature of this work. Gauquelin asserts that Curry's appraisal leads to the same "devastating conclusion" regarding CSICOP's handling of the "scientific investigation" of the Mars Effect, finding the exposure of CSICOP's policy "extremely revealing."

Point 1: Our Expectation Curve of Mars is Accurate

Gauquelin reiterates that as early as 1957, in his book "Methodes," he calculated an expectation curve for Mars, demonstrating that 17.1 percent for Mars being in key sectors (rise and culmination) is the correct figure. He notes that this figure was questioned by Jerome and the Belgium Para Comite but believes it is now "beyond any reasonable doubt" that they were correct. He states that this point was the origin of CSICOP's involvement and that Rawlins' memorandum, the Zelen test outcomes, and Abell & Lee's empirical checking all supported the 17.1 percent figure. Even Paul Kurtz, in a letter to CSICOP Fellows and Consultants, acknowledged that the theoretical expectation was close to chance (17.1 percent), a point that had been in dispute with the Belgium Para Comite.

Point 2: The Mars Effect Was Found and Replicated Using Clean Samples

Gauquelin argues that with the expectation curve established, the core of the debate now lies in the correctness of the samples of athletes used. He asserts that if the samples are clean and show the Mars Effect, then the effect is demonstrated. He addresses the questioning of his original sample by Dennis Rawlins and Kurtz-Zelen-Abell, stating that he is not offended by such interrogations as long as they are followed by honest scrutiny. He recalls publishing all his birthdata and sources in his first book in 1955 and later, in 1970, publishing birth and planetary data for 2,088 sports champions. He finds it unacceptable that the objectivity of his sample remains questioned after careful examination.

Gauquelin highlights that Paul Kurtz himself thoroughly verified his sample in 1977, comparing the original entry in directories with published birthdata. Kurtz visited Gauquelin's laboratory, and Gauquelin provided him with original documents. A signed text detailing this meeting was sent to Marvin Zelen and George Abell. Gauquelin points out that Kurtz, in The Humanist (Nov/Dec 1977), stated he "inspected the Gauquelin's archives and was impressed by the meticulous care with which the data had been collected." However, Gauquelin claims Kurtz's later letter (September 21, 1981) completely contradicts this, as Kurtz now questions the basis of the original sample.

Gauquelin then examines the validity of his second sample of champions. He states that he asked Kurtz, Zelen, and Abell to collaborate and control this test in 1978, but received no answer. He ran the test himself, publishing the birthdata and bases in 1979. He sent this report to Kurtz and provided opportunities for verification, including sending the "Dictionnaire des Sports." Despite this, Kurtz-Zelen-Abell accused him, without proof, of removing "423 famous champions" from the dictionary. Gauquelin proposed that Kurtz examine all names in the dictionary himself to see if the Mars Effect still shows up, which it does.

He also mentions the Belgian Para Comite sample, where members agreed in 1967 on a list of sports champions and successfully replicated the Mars Effect. He questions why they waited seven years to publish a report that questioned their own results, suggesting they were not inclined to use an improper sample that might show a repellent Mars Effect. Gauquelin concludes that his samples, the Belgian Para Comite sample, and others are clean and significantly show the Mars Effect.

Point 3: Despite its Many Defects, the US Test Came Out Positive for the Mars Effect

Gauquelin challenges Kurtz-Zelen-Abell's claim that the US test was negative. He raises serious questions about how the US test was run, noting that Kurtz ran the test alone without his agreement on the choice of volumes and was not informed beforehand. He references Rawlins' article "sTarbaby," suggesting Rawlins wanted to control the data and results. Gauquelin points to a sentence in Rawlins' article where he told Kurtz that the keysector score was 22 percent (the predicted Mars Effect hit-rate) after 120 names, and Kurtz "groaned." Gauquelin questions why, after this, the additional data drastically reduced the Mars Effect, showing a "dramatic drop" over three sub-samples. He highlights that the last 82 names showed a hit-rate of only 7 percent, a significant "anti-Mars effect," compared to the 22 percent in the first 120 names. He notes that Kurtz did not answer his letter inquiring about this discrepancy.

Gauquelin also addresses Kurtz's claim of not receiving an answer from eight US states when requesting data, stating that he received a fairly good percentage of positive answers from Texas. He does not claim Kurtz concealed data but finds it unlikely he received no answer. He concludes that the outcomes of the American test tend to vindicate the Mars Effect, noting that the more famous the athletes, the higher the Mars Effect. He points out that Kurtz's first selection sample, which included more outstanding athletes, showed a significantly stronger Mars Effect than the other sub-samples. He states that his analysis comparing these sub-samples was not a post hoc interpretation but followed Kurtz's own method of first taking well-known athletes.

He assumes that the American test favors the Mars Effect, suggesting it would have been clearer like the Belgian Para Comite test if conducted under better scientific conditions.

Point 4: The Mars Effect Should Be Tested Like Any Other Possible "Normal" Phenomena

Gauquelin urges against the tendency among "scientific investigation Committees" to consider one experiment decisive. He argues that it is not scientific to "win" or "lose" based on a single experiment. He experienced this with the Belgian Para Comite, whose members took their positive replication as an offense rather than an intriguing fact. He notes a similar reaction when Kurtz-Zelen-Abell "lost" the Zelen test.

He also expresses concern about rigid ideas regarding the Mars Effect, clarifying that he never claimed the effect on sports champions should always be at 22 percent. He explains that this percentage can vary based on sample selection, sport specialty, group size, and chance. The core hypothesis is that famous athletes are born significantly more often in key sectors than non-champions.

Gauquelin uses the example of the daily rhythm of birth, which shows variations across countries and time, especially with induced birth techniques. He also mentions the seasonal rhythm of birth, noting surprising discrepancies between countries. He cites two English scholars who mistakenly used the English seasonal curve for an American group, finding the American curve showed a maximum in early fall, opposite to the English spring maximum. He questions whether any "rationalist" would dismiss the seasonal effect based on this lack of replication, as they would seek a "rational" explanation.

He suggests that psychological and sociological implications can strongly modify phenomena. He hypothesizes that the Mars Effect among American athletes might be weaker than in French athletes due to sports' greater importance in the USA, leading to more opportunities for gifted individuals. However, he notes that skeptics immediately interpret such hypotheses as attempts to find loopholes when a replication fails, viewing the Mars Effect as an "impossible anomaly."

Addendum

Since writing the article, Gauquelin notes a review-discussion of his "Cosmic Clocks" and "Cosmic Influences" by H. Krips in "Erkenntnis." Krips discusses the Zelen test and criticizes Gauquelin's critics for adopting strategies to save their hypothesis when faced with positive results. Krips concludes that their tactics to avoid positive results are unsuccessful.

Gauquelin also mentions Krip's article as a model of clarity and thoroughness, noting Krip's comment that there is little ground for anxiety that the study of astrology might signal a rise in "irrationalism and obscurantism."

Special Postscript & Update

This section details recent events following the manuscript's submission. CSICOP's journal, "The Skeptical Inquirer" (Winter 1981), published a council statement, statements by Professors Abell and Kurtz, a letter from M. Gauquelin with a reply, and an article by Dennis Rawlins. CSICOP offered a packet of reply materials, including articles like "Crybaby" by Philip J. Klass and "The Status of the Mars Effect" by George Abell, Paul Kurtz, and Marvin Zelen. The author notes that readers should compare these statements with other published documents. Letters from Gauquelin, Kurtz, and Curry are also mentioned, along with articles by Jeremy Cherfas. It is understood that several articles on this controversy are being prepared for international media.

The next issue of "Zetetic Scholar" will include a special outline/synopsis of the controversy with an evaluation, a report on a survey of CSICOP "members" by Prof. R.A. McConnell, and comments by CSICOP members. The author urges those who support CSICOP to participate in the dialogues.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the controversy surrounding the "Mars Effect," particularly the methodology and interpretation of research by Michel Gauquelin and the critical responses from CSICOP, led by Paul Kurtz. Gauquelin consistently defends his research, emphasizing the validity of his samples and the replication of his findings, while accusing CSICOP of flawed methodology, suppression of evidence, and a biased approach to "scientific investigation." The editorial stance, as presented through Gauquelin's commentary and the publication of "Zetetic Scholar," appears to be supportive of exploring phenomena that challenge conventional scientific paradigms, provided they are investigated rigorously, and critical of what is perceived as dogmatic skepticism or unscientific practices within organizations like CSICOP.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as issue number 9, focuses on the "Mars effect" controversy. The main cover headline is "IS THE MARS EFFECT AN ARTIFACT?", accompanied by a quote from Jeff Wayne's musical "The War of the Worlds." The content primarily consists of articles and commentaries discussing the research conducted by Michel and Francoise Gauquelin on the correlation between planetary positions at birth and personality traits, particularly in sports champions.

Research on the Mars Effect

The issue opens with a discussion by Patrick Curry, who endorses the idea that it is "high time" to conduct replication attempts on the findings related to personality and planets. He highlights the Gauquelins' "character-traits methodology" as objective and replicable, emphasizing that subject characteristics, not profession or standing, are key. Curry notes a strong prejudice against "neoastrological" claims among psychologists but points to the work of Hans and Sybil Eysenck as a notable exception, whose comparisons between Eysenck's personality dimensions and planetary temperaments showed promising results, replicated with American subjects. Curry concludes that the demonstration of the Mars effect is already done and difficult to dismiss.

Notes on Gauquelin's Work

Several numbered notes provide further context and defense of the Gauquelins' research:

1. M. & F. Gauquelin (1957): Methodes Pour Etudier la Repartition des Astres dans le Mouvement Diurne: This book, with a foreword by statistician Prof. Jean Porte, was examined for errors in methodology, and none were found. The book was offered to interested members of the Belgian Para Comite and CSICOP.
2. Accuracy of Computations: The computations of Mars frequencies in sectors at birth of athletes were checked by several individuals, including Belgian Comite Para members, Rawlins, Abell, and Lee, and their accuracy was not questioned.
3. Belgian Para Comite Cover-up: Comments from Prof. de Marre in Zetetic Scholar are referenced regarding a "cover-up" by the Belgian Para Comite. It is noted that the Zelen test was based on both the original and the Comite Para samples.
4. European vs. American Samples: The authors argue that their European samples justify their work more than Kurtz's American test, as it is easier to work in Europe and harder to conceal cases. They also mention that US registry offices can be chaotic, making absolute evidence difficult.
5. Kurtz's Document: A photocopy of Kurtz's document on "Selection of samples of American Sports Champions" was sent to interested parties.
6. Hypothesis Consistency: Over twenty years, the hypothesis of the Mars effect has remained consistent, as found in Gauquelin's 1960 book, a 1967 protocol to the Belgian Para Comite, and a 1981 protocol to the French Para Comite. The hypothesis states that the Mars effect is vindicated if a significant excess of Mars in key sectors (rise and culmination) is found. The Belgian Para Comite's replication is deemed obvious, with 22.2% of athletes born in key sectors, exceeding the expected 91.7 and the author's own sample's 21.4%. The authors address claims that the replication is partial, arguing that both key sectors show an excess of Mars frequency and that statistical treatment was not applied as proposed.

Clarification on Basketball Players

Patrick Curry clarifies his objection to the use of basketball players in the American test. He states he never claimed they should be excluded but objected to Kurtz's method of selecting an entire "Who's Who in Basketball" without selection, as basketball showed the lowest Mars effect in his original sample. He suggests this was done without warning and made replication improbable, refuting claims that he agreed to this procedure.

Published Research and Personality

Details of the Gauquelins' research on personality and planets are published in their laboratory's series (Series C and D) and in popular books like "Cosmic Influences on Human Behavior." Two specific papers are cited:

• Gauquelin M., Gauquelin F., Eysenck S. B. G. (1979). "Personality and Position of the Planets at Birth, An Empirical Study." *Brit. J. Soc. and Clin. Psychol.*, 18, 71-75.
• Gauquelin M., Gauquelin F., Eysenck S. B. G. (1981). "Eysenck's personality Analysis and Position of the Planets at Birth: a Replication on American Subjects." *Person, & Ind. Diff.*, 2, 4.

Comments by H.J. Eysenck

H.J. Eysenck comments on a forthcoming book, "Astrology - Science or Superstition?", which includes a chapter on Gauquelin's contribution. Eysenck agrees with Curry that the Gauquelins and Professor Rawlins are the only ones emerging with scientific credit from the debate, and criticizes CSICOP's handling of the affair. He suggests Curry's detailed treatment should end the discussion, providing facts for independent conclusions.

Eysenck also comments on points from a recent survey of "sport and personality." He discusses the use of basketball players in CSICOP's calculations, noting that the finding of a low Mars effect in American basketball players replicates Gauquelin's European experience. He agrees with Gauquelin that the American sample should not have included basketball players, suggesting further research into differences between individual and team sports regarding the Mars effect.

Regarding Gauquelin's statement that "highly successful champions very often possess what we described as the 'Mars temperament,'" Eysenck finds limited evidence for this in his monograph, noting that differences between outstanding and average athletes are more related to stability than extraversion. He suggests further research is needed on the personality of sportsmen.

Comments by H. Krips

H. Krips discusses the "intruder" status of astrology and its challenges to the scientific establishment, referencing Patrick Curry's "alarming tale" and Dennis Rawlins' "Starbaby." He raises questions about the evidence supporting the Gauquelins' theory and its scientific validity, and whether a "scientific mafia" is suppressing the "French connection."

Krips highlights the philosophical aspects of the debate, particularly from the perspective of Imre Lakatos's philosophy of science. He notes that every scientific theory is born in a "sea of anomalies" and that its explanatory power and fertility are key to its acceptance. Krips finds the Gauquelins' theory lacking in a satisfactory mechanism to explain the Mars effect, a deficiency he compares to Darwin's initial lack of a mechanism for evolution. He suggests that more theoretical research, rather than statistical investigations, might be the Gauquelins' best response to critics.

Krips also touches upon Karl Popper's ideas about arbitrariness in science, such as choosing significance levels in statistical testing. He discusses the difficulty of obtaining agreement on what constitutes favorable or unfavorable evidence, concluding that Lakatos's view of science places more importance on explanatory power and fertility than on "evidential fit."

Comments by I.J. Good: "IS THE MARS EFFECT AN ARTIFACT?"

I.J. Good begins by quoting Jeff Wayne and states that while Michel and Francoise Gauquelin do not believe in classical astrology, they may have discovered statistical "cosmic influences" termed "neo-astrology." He notes that firm conclusions are not yet possible due to time constraints in reviewing the literature.

Good presents the basic observation of Gauquelin: out of 2088 European sports champions, 452 were born when Mars was in Gauquelin's sectors 1 or 4. This sample includes 535 Belgian sportsmen from a skeptical committee. Under a "null hypothesis" of no Mars effect, the expected number of successes would be 17.17% of 2088, or 358.5. The Belgian Committee questioned the 17.17% figure, suggesting it might vary by area and time. Marvin Zelen proposed a control sample of ordinary people born at the same time and place as champions. This resulted in 16756 people, but only 303 corresponded to the original champions. A 2x2 contingency table showed 66 champs with Mars in effect vs. 237 non-effect, and 2745 non-champs vs. 14011 non-effect. The tail-area probability for this table is .007, which is considered small but not very impressive for astrological matters. The sample of 303 champions is too small for a decisive result.

Good notes that 17.17% of 16756 is 2877, which is 132 more than the observed 2745. The probability of a deviation as large as 132 is 1/280, suggesting the Belgian Committee was right about the unreliability of 17.17%. However, if the overall percentage of ordinary people showing the Mars effect is less than 17.17%, Gauquelin's original observation of 452 successes among 2088 champions becomes more striking.

Bayesian Analysis and "Dwindling"

Good applies a Bayesian argument to the Mars effect. He calculates the Bayes factor in favor of the alternative hypothesis (H₁) over the null hypothesis (H₀) that p = .1717. The Bayes factor is approximately 250,000 from the observation of 452 successes in 2088 trials. He then considers factors that could "dwindle" this probability, such as the number of attributes considered (e.g., professions, personality, religion, physical features), suggesting a factor of 100. He also adds a factor of 5 for the requirement that athletes be "outstanding" and a factor of 8 for the choice of Mars, resulting in a potential reduction of the odds by a factor of 60. He notes that the selection of sectors 1 and 4 was based on Gauquelin's prior reasons.

Good discusses "de-astrologization" as a way to enhance prior odds, suggesting that if there's a slight tendency for sports champions to be born at certain hours, this could be a biological effect related to time of day rather than planets themselves. He acknowledges that his arguments have a subjective element, which he believes is inevitable in statistics, contrasting this with Curry's view on subjectivism.

Provisional Conclusions

Good presents provisional conclusions: the Mars effect may be real but could be partially explained by diurnal birth times and less accurate reporting by fathers of non-champions. If even a third of the bulge is explained away, the remaining effect might not be startling enough to merit attention from those who dismiss ancient Greek religion. The two samples of ordinary people showed Mars effect percentages significantly lower than 17.17%. If the overall percentage is much lower, the evidence for the Mars effect would increase, but the unreliability of 17.17% undermines all evidence except for the inconclusive Zelen test.

References

The issue includes references to works by Krips, Lakatos, Popper, Curry, Kurz, Zelen, Abell, Rawlins, and M. & F. Gauquelin.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring theme is the scientific investigation and debate surrounding the "Mars effect," a purported statistical correlation between planetary positions at birth and personality. The issue presents research by the Gauquelins, critical analyses, and commentaries from various scientific perspectives. There is a clear tension between those who see the Mars effect as a genuine phenomenon worthy of study (like the Gauquelins and their supporters) and those who are skeptical, questioning the methodology, statistical interpretations, and the lack of a plausible mechanism (like CSICOP and some commentators). The editorial stance appears to be one of presenting the ongoing scientific debate, allowing different viewpoints to be aired, and encouraging further research, particularly into theoretical mechanisms rather than solely statistical investigations.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, dated 1982, focuses heavily on the "Mars Effect" controversy, a complex debate surrounding the alleged correlation between the position of the planet Mars at the time of birth and certain human characteristics, particularly athletic prowess. The issue presents a collection of articles, commentaries, and responses from various researchers and commentators, offering a multi-faceted perspective on the scientific, methodological, and philosophical aspects of the controversy.

The Mars Effect Controversy

The central theme revolves around the research of Michel Gauquelin, who claimed to have found statistically significant correlations between planetary positions (specifically Mars) and the birth times of individuals in specific professions, such as athletes. The issue delves into the attempts to verify or refute these claims, highlighting the challenges in establishing definitive proof and the differing interpretations of the data.

Piet Hein Hoebens' Commentary

Piet Hein Hoebens provides a critical commentary on the handling of the Mars Effect controversy, particularly by CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). He addresses two crucial questions: whether the affair affected CSICOP's credibility and whether a "Mars Effect" truly exists. Hoebens notes the tendency of both sides to exaggerate the issue and expresses dissatisfaction with CSICOP's approach, suggesting that their involvement might have been influenced by a pre-existing bias against paranormal claims. He believes that while an occult explanation is unlikely, the Gauquelins may have discovered a legitimate anomaly that warrants further investigation.

Luc de Marre's Comments

Luc de Marre, who was involved with the Belgian "Para Committee," shares his experiences regarding the "Mars Effect" test. He states that there was no dispute about the test material or case selection, with a list of 535 champions agreed upon. However, the committee, composed of astronomers and mathematicians, was skeptical and suspected manipulation of Gauquelin's calculations. Upon re-calculating, the committee confirmed Gauquelin's results, establishing the same anomalies. Despite this confirmation, the committee did not accept the existence of a Mars Effect, which de Marre attributes to their scientific and philosophical biases. He recounts his moral compulsion to resign from the Para Committee due to this experience, likening the situation to a "distortion of truth to save... the interests of anti-astrology."

J. Dommanget's Statement (Belgian Committee "PARA")

J. Dommanget, president of the Belgian Committee "PARA," presents the committee's official stance. He acknowledges that after years of research, the committee expressed its views in 1976, stating that while Gauquelin's calculations for birth classes were correct and a new sample of 535 athletes showed a similar frequency distribution, the committee contested the validity of Gauquelin's formulas for theoretical frequencies. They argued that these formulas did not correctly account for theoretical probability or the evolution of diurnal curves over time. Consequently, the committee concluded that the Mars Effect had not been demonstrated, attributing the significant results to Gauquelin's "erroneous" method. The committee proposed that parties engaged in Mars Effect research should either recognize the validity of their analysis or demonstrate where it is erroneous.

Michel Gauquelin's Comments on the Belgian Committee "PARA"

Michel Gauquelin responds critically to the statement by the Belgian Committee "PARA." He accuses Dr. Dommanget and his committee of intentionally "forgetting" work that supported his findings and of misrepresenting the situation. Gauquelin asserts that Dommanget knows his own expected frequencies would align with Gauquelin's, and that the committee's counter-experiments, which took seven years, tended to confirm his hypothesis. He points out the "oversight" in the committee's report, which failed to mention these counter-experiments, and criticizes them for ignoring analyses by Dennis Rawlins and George Abell. Gauquelin highlights that both Rawlins and Abell, using different methods, found his theoretical curve to be substantially correct. He also criticizes the committee for ignoring the Zelen test, which he believes would have vindicated his expected frequencies.

Patrick Curry's Replies to Commentators

Patrick Curry addresses comments on his earlier article, "Research on the Mars Effect." He identifies two central issues: scientific impropriety and the scientific status of the Mars Effect. Curry discusses Prof. Good's paper, expressing misgivings about his neo-Bayesian approach and its potential for bias. Curry emphasizes that the correlation between Mars and certain traits is not without a theoretical basis, referencing Mars as the god of war and the empirical correlations with sports champions and high extraversion.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the nature of scientific evidence, the potential for bias in scientific investigation (particularly concerning the paranormal), the reliability of statistical analysis, and the philosophical underpinnings of skepticism. The editorial stance, as reflected in the selection of articles and commentaries, appears to be one of critical inquiry, encouraging rigorous examination of claims while acknowledging the possibility of genuine anomalies that challenge established scientific paradigms. The debate highlights the tension between adherence to conventional scientific methods and the openness to investigate phenomena that lie outside current understanding.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, Volume 1982, Issue 3, published in 1982, focuses on critical analyses of controversial topics in the realm of the paranormal, specifically the "Mars Effect" and the definition of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs). The magazine features articles by Michael Martin and others, engaging with scientific methodology, skepticism, and the challenges of establishing objective criteria for phenomena that defy conventional explanation.

The "Mars Effect" Debate

The issue begins with a critique of attempts to "de-astrologize" the results of studies related to the "Mars Effect," a phenomenon suggesting a correlation between planetary positions at birth and personality traits. The author expresses skepticism towards explanations that attempt to dismiss the findings as mere artifacts or statistical looseness, citing the work of Gauquelin, Rawlins, and the Comite Para. A significant portion of the text is dedicated to dissecting a statement by Dr. Dommanget of the Belgian Comite Para, which the author argues is misleading and contradicted by other analyses, including the Comite's own research. The author expresses concern about the trustworthiness of such committees in conducting investigations.

Further commentary addresses the lack of response from prominent figures within CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal), including Prof. Kurtz, Abell, and Zelen, to the author's paper. The author interprets this silence as an admission that the committee has no counterarguments, leaving the author's conclusions unrefuted. The issue also references D. Rawlins' article "STARBABY" in Fate magazine, endorsing its charges, and notes the absence of a public reply from the involved parties, except for a response by P. Klass of CSICOP. The central charge of a "cover-up" is discussed, encompassing heavy editing, delays, distortion of test outcomes, secret sampling, and censorship.

The article also touches upon the Comite Francais pur l'Etude des Phenomenes Paranormaux (CFEPP) and its apparent reluctance to engage in an independent replication of the Mars effect, expressing concerns about their foot-dragging and potential avoidance of past errors.

A new journal, "Correlation: Journal of Research into Astrology," is announced, with the author declaring an interest as a Consulting Editor.

Defining "UFO"

Michael Martin's article, "Defining 'UFO'," addresses the significant lack of a clear and problem-free definition for Unidentified Flying Objects. The author critiques existing definitions, starting with the one provided in the Condon Report. This definition is found to be too broad, failing to distinguish between cases that are easily identified and those that remain truly unidentified after expert investigation. It is also deemed not scientifically fruitful.

The article then examines J. Allen Hynek's attempts to define UFOs, as presented in "The UFO Experience." Hynek's approach is criticized for offering multiple definitions, some of which are seen as defining a "UFO report" or "UFO experience" rather than the object itself. Specific issues raised include the qualifications placed on the reporter, which might inadvertently exclude legitimate cases, and the definition's failure to ensure the object was airborne or capable of flight. Hynek's second definition is also scrutinized for its use of terms like "conventional" and "common sense identification," which the author finds restrictive and potentially problematic.

Martin proposes that a more robust definition requires considering what "unidentified" means, who fails to make an identification, and the terms in which identification is attempted. He argues that identification is relative to a classification scheme and the available evidence. A key point is that an object is unidentified relative to a specific body of evidence, a group of scientific investigators, and a classification scheme. Therefore, nothing is a UFO in an absolute sense; it is always relative.

The article concludes that the classification scheme used is crucial. While the Condon Report and Hynek's first definition err by focusing on the initial reporter's lack of identification, the author stresses the need for identification to be based on competent scientific investigation. The proposed definition for a UFO is: "X is an unidentified flying object relative to all available evidence E, classification scheme S and competent scientific investigators I if and only if in the light of all evidence E available to investigators I it is reasonable for I to assume X is a flying object and that it is not reasonable to assume that X can be classified in terms of scheme S."

Finally, the article discusses the classification schemes that UFO investigators might implicitly use, suggesting categories such as material, mode of travel, origin, and purpose. The author implies that a scientific approach, rather than common sense, is necessary for a proper understanding and definition of UFO phenomena.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

This issue of Zetetic Scholar consistently adopts a skeptical yet rigorous approach to claims of the paranormal. The editorial stance appears to favor scientific methodology, critical analysis, and a demand for clear, testable definitions and evidence. There is a strong emphasis on exposing what the authors perceive as flawed reasoning, methodological weaknesses, and potential biases within organizations investigating paranormal phenomena. The articles challenge the status quo of both proponents and skeptics, advocating for a more objective and evidence-based approach to understanding phenomena like the "Mars Effect" and UFOs. The underlying theme is the importance of scientific integrity and the potential for social and ideological factors to influence scientific inquiry.

Title: Zetetic Scholar
Issue: #9
Publication Date: 1982
Document Type: Magazine Issue

Malcolm Dean's Response to Reviews of 'The Astrology Game'

This section features a detailed response from Malcolm Dean to reviews of his book, 'The Astrology Game,' by Ivan W. Kelly and Don H. Saklofske, which appeared in The Skeptical Inquirer and Zetetic Scholar. Dean begins by citing positive comments from David A. Rodger, a Vancouver astronomer, and the Library Journal, contrasting them with the negative reviews. He suggests that the reviewers' prejudices influenced their opinions. Dean explains that 'The Astrology Game' was structured as two separate works: one presenting the research of Drs. Michel and Francoise Gauquelin and their conflict with CSICOP, and another providing a bibliography of Gauquelin's publications. He criticizes Kelly and Saklofske for failing to address the substance of his book, particularly the Gauquelins' research and the alleged cover-up of the Zelen Test results. Dean asserts that Kelly and Saklofske's reviews are influenced by their adherence to the 'CSICOP creed' and their efforts to deny their failure to disprove the Mars Effect. He characterizes reviews in The Skeptical Inquirer and Zetetic Scholar as having a 'deadening tone' that discourages engagement with paranormal issues.

Dean addresses Saklofske's comment about the book's unclear stance on astrology, explaining that his role was that of an 'astrology critic' rather than an advocate. He emphasizes that a key theme of the book is the role of 'consensus realities and paradigms' in shaping conclusions. Dean also defends his use of arguments from various sides of the astrological debate. He discusses the defense of Ianna and Culver's data on Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, pointing out their use of astronomical references rather than astrological ones in their analysis.

Dean concludes by reflecting on the attempted assassination of Reagan, suggesting it underlined his point about the circularity of arguments for and against astrology. He reiterates his belief that a new astrology is emerging, which will be resisted by traditional astrologers and establishment skeptics alike.

Ivan W. Kelly's Reply to Malcolm Dean

Ivan W. Kelly responds to Malcolm Dean's rebuttal, stating that Dean's reply fails to address the main criticisms of his book. Kelly reiterates the four substantive criticisms made in his and Saklofske's reviews: (1) 'The Astrology Game' contains misleading information, citing the low number of positive astrological studies compared to Dean's claims. (2) The book demonstrates a limited understanding of scientific method, with Dean describing flawed techniques as 'promising.' (3) The book is structured around fallacious reasoning, and Dean's attempt to justify this as exposing readers to arguments is seen as an excuse for poor scholarship. (4) Critics of astrology are denigrated in Dean's book, using epithets that undermine his invitation for readers to draw their own conclusions.

Kelly argues that Dean's prejudice against CSICOP leads him to dismiss negative reviews as a 'CSICOP creed.' He contends that the book offers nothing new to those familiar with the field and provides a poor introduction for others, omitting negative evidence and presenting flawed studies as valid. Kelly highlights the ambiguity in Dean's work regarding which astrology he supports, referencing a statement in Dean's book about the existence of planetary influences.

Kelly further critiques Dean's reliance on the Gauquelins' claims, noting that their studies were largely conducted by themselves and that it is unclear why their findings should be called 'astrology.' He questions Dean's conceptual relativism, particularly his 'Belief Principle,' which suggests that truth is relative to a consensus view. Kelly presents a logical proof demonstrating that this principle is self-contradictory.

Dialogues on UFOs

This section features a series of dialogues and comments on UFO theories.

Richard de Mille Comments on J. Richard Greenwell's Reply to George O. Abell

Richard de Mille comments on J. Richard Greenwell's reply to George O. Abell regarding 'Theories...of UFOs.' De Mille addresses Greenwell's criticism of Carl Sagan's perceived inconsistency in admitting the improbability of multiple human evolution while expecting to find intelligence in the universe. De Mille argues that Sagan's position is consistent, as he imagines intelligent beings, not necessarily human beings, on distant planets. De Mille also discusses Greenwell's view that attributing directed purposefulness to organic evolution is a religious act, suggesting that vague directed purposefulness is no less respectable than a 'vacuous, circular natural selection.' He concludes that there is currently no viable scientific explanation for evolution.

George O. Abell Responds to J. Richard Greenwell

George O. Abell responds to J. Richard Greenwell's previous article. Abell clarifies that he did not imply there are necessarily many other civilizations in the Galaxy. His point was that even with a million other civilizations capable of interstellar travel, it would be unlikely to have been visited often. Abell admits that his previous 'tongue-in-cheek' ideas were meant to poke fun at what he considered foolish UFO hypotheses listed by Greenwell. He acknowledges that Greenwell did not profess belief in the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) and largely agreed with Abell's response, except for the remark that scientists should 'know better' than to doubt the idea. Both acknowledge a potential misreading of each other's remarks and apologize for any misjudgment or offense.

Reply by J. Allen Hynek to J. Richard Greenwell's Response

J. Allen Hynek replies to J. Richard Greenwell's response concerning Hynek's comments on Greenwell's UFO paper. Hynek respects Greenwell's reluctance to assign probabilities to UFO phenomena but states that he feels he is within scientific procedure as long as he does not assign probabilities of 1.0 or 0.0. Hynek bases his judgment on the 'human perceptual system,' which he argues is operative in all areas of life, including witness testimony and adventure stories. He sees no compelling reason to reject UFO accounts from responsible and sane individuals. Hynek notes that the 'perceptual system' does not apply in the same way to radar returns, photographs, or physical effects reported as direct consequences of UFO encounters (Close Encounters of the Second Kind). He concludes that his assessment of probabilities may change with a better understanding of the world and universe.

Newsfront

This section provides brief announcements about new organizations and journals:

• The new Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) has been formed for the study of anomalous phenomena. Its first general meeting is scheduled for June 3-5, 1982, at the University of Maryland, and its journal is slated for publication in early 1983.
• The International Society for Cryptozoology (ISC) has had its formative meeting and is inviting membership applications. J. Richard Greenwell is the Secretary and Treasurer.
• A new journal on parapsychology in the USSR and China, 'Psi-Research,' has issued its first number, edited by Larissa Vilenskaya.
• The newly formed Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP) publishes a journal called 'Common Ground.'

Viewpoints Essay: Reflections on the Role of Hyperosmia in ESP

Michael Harrison presents a viewpoints essay reflecting on the role of hyperosmia (an enhanced sense of smell) in extrasensory perception (ESP). Harrison begins by discussing the traditional five physical senses, noting the close connection between taste and smell and suggesting that smell might be considered a sense in its own right, despite being less studied than others. He posits that all five senses are variants of touch.

Harrison then addresses hallucinations, noting that while 'seeing what we know to be absent' is generally understood, significant visions are often dismissed as mere hallucinations. He acknowledges that the 'fearful delirium of malaria and other delirium-inducing fever' has provided doubters of ESP with 'rational' ammunition to attribute experiences to bodily imbalance. Harrison states that discussing ESP experiences, which are restricted to 'sensitives,' is difficult. He shares that he has had only six paranormal experiences shared with another person. Four involved a voice calling a name, and two involved a shared experience of a tremendous explosion that woke him and his wife but had no external corroboration. He questions whether such experiences are merely 'telepathically shared' hallucinations.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The Zetetic Scholar consistently engages with topics at the intersection of science, skepticism, and the paranormal. The issue demonstrates a commitment to rigorous debate, presenting multiple viewpoints on controversial subjects like astrology and UFOs. The editorial stance appears to favor critical inquiry and scientific methodology, while also acknowledging the existence of unexplained phenomena and the limitations of current scientific understanding. The publication actively hosts discussions and critiques of research and theories within these fields, encouraging readers to critically evaluate evidence and arguments. The inclusion of 'Newsfront' suggests an effort to keep readers informed about developments in related scientific and pseudoscientific communities.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, number 9 from 1982, delves into various aspects of the paranormal, with a strong focus on subjective sensory experiences and their potential objective significance. The issue includes personal accounts, case studies of hauntings and apparitions, and a book review.

SMELLING MORE THAN RATS

The author begins by discussing his six shared experiences, including seeing a 'female-shaped brown cloud,' and then transitions to his lifelong experience of hyperosmia. He defines hyperosmia as 'smelling that which isn't there' and acknowledges the difficulty in describing purely personal, subjective experiences to others. He states that while he may not convince unbelievers, he hopes to interest those open to the paranormal.

A SCENT OF LILAC

This section details the author's first significant hyperosmic experience, which occurred in the dawn of an autumn day in October 1930. While living in a mediaeval house in Colchester (anciently Camulodunum), he was awakened at 3:15 AM by a sensation of choking. Upon opening the window, he was enveloped by a 'chokingly thick cloud' of scent, which he recognized as the famous Lilac perfume by Floris. He knew only one female friend who used this scent exclusively. Upon telephoning her that morning, she expressed surprise, having just returned to London at precisely 3:15 AM, a fact she couldn't explain. The author notes that Colchester is situated on an active seismic fault, and he muses on a potential connection between this 'message-delivering' hyperosmia and seismic activity.

ODURRS, PLEASANT AND OTHERWISE

The author elaborates on his hyperosmia, stating that his range of odours is narrower than one might expect, and he mostly smells pleasant scents, often expensive ones. He recounts an instance where he smelled what he identified as 'old wet black dog' emanating from the hot and cold taps in his flat in Hove. He wrote to the local newspaper about it, but his ironic style prevented publication. He later connected this smell to passages in Colin Wilson's 'Mysteries,' which discuss the paranormal manifestations of black dogs, often associated with witchcraft and sometimes as harbingers of death. He also notes that black dogs were associated with Diana, the witch goddess.

INTERPRETING HYPEROSMIC INFORMATION

This section explores the author's attempts to interpret 'precognitions' and 'messages' conveyed through hyperosmia and other means. He presents three examples:

1. Stenodyne/Tachydyne: He hears the word 'stenodyne' and, drawing on his advertising background, deduces that 'stenos' means 'narrow,' not 'speedy.' He invents 'Tachydyne' as a more appropriate trade name for 'speedy effort.' He later finds a bill from 'Tachwood Limited,' a London restaurant, linking his thought process to a real entity.
2. Texas Gulf Coast Fears Thallium "Time Bomb": An American reader sends him newspaper clippings. While sorting letters, he picks up a cutting about a 'thallium time bomb' and notes the investigator's name, 'Ron Tisdell,' which is very similar to his Senior Trustee, 'Mr. Tisdall.'
3. Evelyn Waugh Novel: Thinking of Evelyn Waugh, he tries to recall a novel title and the hero's name. He initially thinks of 'Guy Cruikshanks' and a King 'Richard Crookshank.' He later discovers that Waugh's hero was not named Crookshank, nor was there a King by that name. However, he later reads in 'Popular Archaeology' that the iron greaves found in the tomb of Philip II of Macedon indicated a malformation of one leg, suggesting a 'Philip Crookshank.' He questions the significance of these 'mistakes' and how they 'matched themselves up.'

The author concludes that while these instances are interesting, they don't inherently provide significance. He notes that even when he can identify scents associated with his wife, he cannot extract a 'message.' He likens the vagueness of such communications to the Delphic Oracle, suggesting that one must first learn the code.

He mentions that he has learned that a falling picture betokens a death and, through Colin Wilson, the connection between black dogs and imminent death. He questions how to interpret other hyperosmic odours and the purpose of these symbolic methods of conveying information.

WHEN "SUBJECTIVE" BECOMES "OBJECTIVE"

This section distinguishes between 'personal hyperosmia' (subjective) and 'group odour-detection' (potentially objective). The author argues that when a large group perceives a distinctive odour simultaneously, it suggests an objective odour source. This phenomenon is often associated with poltergeist activity. He references Colin Wilson's book 'Poltergeist! A Study in Destructive Haunting' for detailed accounts.

VIOLETS...AND "THE STINK OF CABBAGES"

This subsection details several cases of poltergeist activity involving odours:

• The John Bell Case (1817, Tennessee, USA): This case involved a farmer, his wife, and nine children, with poltergeist activity attributed to their twelve-year-old daughter, Elizabeth 'Betsy' Bell. Uniquely, the 'Witch' entity complained of an unpleasant odour from a Negro slave-girl named Anky. The case is noted for its repertoire of poltergeist tricks, including 'invisible animals' and assaults.
• Mrs. Fielding's Case (Thornton Heath, London): This case involved multiple witnesses, including Dr. Nandor Fodor and reporters, who smelled contrasting odours: 'a spray of violet perfume' accompanied by falling violets, and an 'unpleasant "zoo odour."' Mrs. Fielding was considered the 'focus' of this complex case, which also featured 'apports' like Roman lamps, pottery, white mice, a bird, and an elephant's tooth.

"THE BLACK MONK OF PONTEFRACT"

This section details the haunting in Pontefract, Yorkshire, attributed to a Cluniac monk hanged in the reign of Henry VIII. The haunting, which began in August 1966, involved numerous witnesses, including the Prichard family, the local vicar, and reporters. The phenomena included a 'delightful scent - a perfume like some heavily scented flower,' which was later described as a 'new and interesting ability' of 'interpenetration of matter' when Aunt Maude arrived. The poltergeist's drumming was heard by coal-miners, and it caused a grandfather's clock to hurtle down the stairs.

Another case involved Mrs. Harper in Enfield, North London, starting August 30, 1977, which featured 'appalling stinks - like rotting cabbages.' This haunting was investigated by Mr. Maurice Grosse, who also investigated the 'Croydon Poltergeist's' case in 1980, which involved a 'disgusting smell' and freezing cold. The author questions if Grosse's 'subjective' hyperosmia might have influenced his findings.

The author concludes this section by posing whether these phenomena, affecting one or several persons, are actually related, noting that olfactory nerves are involved in each. He stresses the need for more study and the importance of recording every fact, no matter how trivial, as relevance is not yet known. He also notes the potential significance of the name 'Janet' in relation to witchcraft in both the Harper and Grosse cases.

BOOK REVIEWS

The Metal Benders by John Hasted (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1981).

Reviewed by Harry Collins.

This review discusses John Hasted's book on paranormal metal bending. The reviewer assumes no strong opinion on the possibility of paranormal phenomena. The book is structured with verses, an 'apologia,' chapters on the author's involvement, world reaction, philosophical questions, fourteen chapters on metal bending experiments and results, six chapters on other paranormal phenomena (poltergeists, levitation, teleportation), and two chapters on physics and the 'many universes' interpretation of quantum theory.

The core of Hasted's work lies in his experimental method, which focuses on detecting very small strains in metal using sensitive strain gauges, rather than gross visible deformations. The idea is that these small psychic effects may be more reproducible. Hasted is presented as having had considerable success with this method, offering a portfolio of experimental results. The reviewer suggests that Hasted's experimental design may be adopted by paraphysicists working on paranormal metal bending, providing them with encouragement and enabling experimental work in the absence of 'star' subjects.

However, the reviewer expresses certainty that Hasted's work is unlikely to convince anyone outside this specialized field. This is attributed to the context of the book, which includes philosophical speculations and chapters on poltergeists, levitation, and teleportation, described as a 'disaster.' The reviewer cites Hasted's description of disturbing experiences in his house following a visit by Uri Geller, including phenomena occurring on December 23rd, involving preparations for Christmas and a turkey.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue are the nature of subjective paranormal experiences, particularly hyperosmia, and their potential connection to objective events or omens. The issue explores the challenges of interpreting and communicating these experiences, the role of entities in hauntings, and the scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena. The editorial stance appears to be one of open inquiry into the paranormal, acknowledging the difficulties in proof and acceptance while presenting various accounts and research for consideration. There is a clear interest in the intersection of personal experience, folklore (like black dogs and witchcraft), and scientific investigation, as exemplified by the review of Hasted's work.

This issue of Zetetic Scholar, identified as #8 and published in 1982, focuses heavily on its "BOOKS BRIEFLY NOTED" section, offering concise reviews and critical annotations of numerous books related to paranormal phenomena, pseudoscience, and the sociology of science. The publication's ISSN is 0740-8413, and it appears to be based in the USA.

Featured Incident: The 'Livertation' Case

The issue details a peculiar incident, referred to as "Livertation in London," where a turkey liver allegedly teleported from a sealed plastic bag on a table to the table's surface. The account is presented as a personal anecdote from an individual who witnessed the event. The witness describes the turkey being collected in the evening, and later, while preparing it, a brown object appeared on the table. Upon inspection, it was identified as a turkey liver, distinct from the one that should have been with the giblets in a sealed bag. The witness notes the absence of any sound or smear of blood, and that the plastic bag was not vacuum-tight but had no holes. The author of the article critically examines the presentation of such findings, suggesting that mixing personal anecdotes with more sober reporting, as seen in some of Hasted's work, can undermine credibility. The author contrasts this with the expected impersonal and distanced style of scientific publishing.

Book Reviews: A Broad Spectrum of Topics

The "BOOKS BRIEFLY NOTED" section is extensive, covering a wide array of subjects relevant to the Zetetic Scholar's readership. The reviews are often critical, providing summaries, evaluations, and recommendations. Some notable books reviewed include:

• Science and the Paranormal: Probing the Existence of the Supernatural (eds. George O. Abell & Barry Singer): Described as an important but uneven anthology that mixes occultism with protoscience and pseudoscience, yet contains many excellent papers and is recommended for critics of the paranormal.
• Parapsychology: Science or Magic? A Psychological Perspective (James E. Alcock): Considered a significant critical work on parapsychology, though it may neglect some literature and fail to fully recognize cognitive errors in critics.
• The Great Airship Mystery: A UFO of the 1890s (Daniel Cohen): A well-researched survey of the 1890s UFO flap, recommended for its sympathetic skepticism.
• The Evil Eye: A Folklore Casebook (ed. Alan Dundes): An excellent anthology on the folklore of the evil eye, highly recommended.
• Miracles (ed. Martin Ebon): A collection of articles discussing alleged miracles, with particular interest in non-Christian claims.
• Science; Good, Bad, and Bogus (Martin Gardner): A collection of essays by Gardner, praised for his erudition and brilliance as a popularizer of science, though noted for his strong advocacy against outlandish claims and a sometimes pseudo-critical stance.
• The Exorcism of Anneliese Michel (Felicitas D. Goodman): An anthropological examination of a well-publicized 1976 German exorcism case.
• Alien Intelligence (Stuart Holroyd): A look at various alien intelligence claims, described as not strictly scientific but entertaining.
• The Paranormal, Part I & II (Michael A. Persinger): These works are noted for their behavioristic analysis of verbal behavior about psi experiences and discussions of possible physical explanations for paranormal phenomena.
• Miracles: A Parascientific Inquiry into Wondrous Phenomena (D. Scott Rogo): A book that accepts paranormal explanations while rejecting the purely supernatural, noted for its depth but criticized for a lack of harsher criticism of sources.
• Twins: An Uncanny Relationship? (Peter Watson): A survey of research on separated twins, discussing possible paranormal connections but concluding against them.
• Dansk UFO-Litteratur 1971-1979: En Bibliografi (Willy Wegner): An international bibliography on UFOs with extensive references.
• 1981-1982 International Guide to Psi Periodicals and Organizations (ed. Elizabeth Werner): A guide to psi periodicals and organizations, noted as useful despite some omissions.

Methodological Critiques and Scientific Standards

The issue implicitly and explicitly discusses the standards of scientific publishing and credibility. The critique of Hasted's work highlights the importance of a distanced, third-person, passive, and impersonal style in scientific reporting. The author argues that mixing personal anecdotes with objective reporting can compromise the perceived rigor of findings. The reviews themselves often evaluate books based on their scientific approach, skepticism, and the evidence presented, distinguishing between scientific inquiry, parascientific investigation, and pseudoscience.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the critical examination of paranormal claims, the boundaries between science and pseudoscience, and the methodology of psychical research. The editorial stance, as reflected in the selection and tone of the reviews, favors a skeptical yet open-minded approach, encouraging rigorous investigation and clear presentation of evidence. The publication aims to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of current literature in the field, enabling them to form their own informed opinions.