textfiles-politics/pythonCode/personTestingOutput/crybaby.xml

<xml><p>I notice the now-ancient <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> "<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> Effect" affair continues to
crop up, perennially, with considerable time-honoured but still-fuzzy
rhetoric about an alleged <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> "cover up", including copious
laudatory mentions of <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>'s ALSO-ancient <ent type='PERSON'>jeremiad</ent>
"sTARBABY", which appeared in "Fate" magazine. Essentially all
treatments of the affair since then have been loose (and even MORE
careless) descendants of the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> article, often committing gross
distortions, such as confusing the test of European athletes with the
later one based on U.S. data. </p>

<p>The ONLY proper rejoinder I've ever seen to <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was a reply piece
by <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> Fellow P. J. <ent type='ORG'>Klass</ent>, which "Fate" refused to publish, and
which far too few have seen, over the years since. <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Sheaffer</ent>
and I have now scanned in the text, and are attempting to distribute
it more widely. The full text may be downloaded or File REQuested,
but not FTP'd from my BBS as CRYBABY.ZIP (as <ent type='PERSON'>Robert</ent> mentions in his
comments, which follow), and I'll be mailing it to other skeptics'
groups on diskette, as well as uploading it to CompuServe. </p>

<p>-- <ent type='PERSON'>Rick Moen</ent>
Vice-Chair, <ent type='ORG'>Bay Area Skeptics</ent>
Sysop, <ent type='ORG'>The Skeptic</ent>'s Board BBS, <ent type='GPE'>San Francisco</ent>
(also reachable at 76711.243@CompuServe.com) </p>

<p> "CRYBABY" </p>

<p> by Philip J. <ent type='ORG'>Klass</ent> </p>

<p>Philip J. <ent type='ORG'>Klass</ent> is a member of <ent type='ORG'>the Executive Council</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent>
for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>). </p>

<p> [Note: This article, written in 1981, was submitted for
publication to <ent type='ORG'>FATE Magazine</ent>, in reply to <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>'
accusations against <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> in his Oct., 1981 <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> article
"sTARBABY". <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> adamantly refused to publish this article.
Meanwhile, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was given the opportunity to make a
rambling, six-page statement in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER
(Winter, 1981-82, p.58), which was published exactly as
received, presenting his accusations of a "coverup." This
was in addition to the 5 1/2 page article he earlier had on
the "<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> Effect" in the Winter, 1979-80 issue (p.26). To
this day, supporters of the paranormal still charge <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>
with perpetrating a "coverup" on this matter. Only a
relatively few people ever saw Klass's "CRYBABY", the long
and detailed answer to <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' "sTARBABY" charges. Now that
you have the opportunity to read Klass's rebuttal, you can
make up your own mind. </p>

<p> Klass's original text has been reproduced below, exactly as
typed, with the author's permission. <ent type='ORG'>Spelling</ent> and
punctuation have not been changed. Text that was underlined
in the original appears in capital letters.
- <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Sheaffer</ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Bay Area Skeptics</ent>, 1991.
This article is brought to you courtesy of the Bay
Area Skeptics' BBS, 415-648-8944, from which it is
available for downloading, although not via FTP.] </p>

<p> "They call themselves the <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. In fact, they are a
group of would-be-debunkers who bungled their major
investigation, falsified the results , covered up their errors
and gave the boot to a colleague who threatened to tell the
truth." Thus began a 32-Page article in the October 1981 issue of
<ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> magazine, which a a press release headlined: "SCIENTIST
BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON PARANORMAL COVERUP." </p>

<p> Since <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> was formed in the spring of 1976, it has been a
thorn in the side of those who promote belief in "psychic
phenomena," in astrology, <ent type='EVENT'>UFOs</ent>, and similar subjects and it has
been criticized sharply by <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> whose articles generally cater to
those who are eager to believe. However, this <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> article was
written by skeptic <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, who was one of the original
Fellows in <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> and for nearly four years had been a member of
its <ent type='ORG'>Executive Council</ent>. This would seem to give credence to
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges -- except to those of us with first-hand
experience in trying to work with him and who are familiar with
his modus-operandi. </p>

<p> Because <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> proposed my election to CSICOP's Executive
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> I cannot be charged with animosity toward him, except
what he later engendered by his actions. And in a recent letter
to me, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> volunteered that I "was less involved than any
other active <ent type='ORG'>Councillor</ent>" in the alleged misdeeds. </p>

<p> The <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> article, entitled "sTARBABY" prompted my own
investigation into <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges. But unlike <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>, who
relies heavily on his recollection of conversations several years
earlier, I chose to use hard evidence - published articles,
memoranda and letters, some of which <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> cites in his
article. When I requested copies of these letters and memoranda
from the several principals involved, all of them responded
promptly and fully except for one -- <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, who had
accused the others of "cover-up" and "censorship." RAWLINS
REFUSED MY REPEATED REQUESTS TO SUPPLY HARD DATA THAT MIGHT
CONFIRM HIS CHARGES, AND WHICH ALSO COULD DENY THEM! </p>

<p> The results of my investigation, based on hard data,
prompted me to conclude that the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> article should have been
entitled "CRYBABY," and that an appropriate subtitle would have
been: "A wounded ego is the root of much evil." </p>

<p> If the editors of <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> had spent only a few hours reading
published articles cited in the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> article they could not in
good conscience have accused <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> of "cover-up" or of having
"falsified the results." Instead, <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> chose to ignore the
traditional journalistic practice of investigating both sides of
a controversial issue and publishing both sides, as those accused
by <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> had done. </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges result from two tests intended to assess
whether the position of the planet <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> at the time of a person's
birth has a significant influence on whether he/she becomes a
"sports champion." This "<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect" hypothesis was first
proposed by France's <ent type='PERSON'>Michel</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>, who directs the laboratory
for <ent type='ORG'>the Study</ent> of Relations between Cosmic and Psychophysiological
Rhythms, based on a study of European champions. </p>

<p> The first of the two tests was performed by <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>
himself, with results that generally were supportive of the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>
effect hypothesis by eliminating a possible objection that first
had been raised by others, i,e, not <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>. The only way in which
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>, or persons affiliated with it, could be guilty of
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges would be if they had refused to publish
Gauquelin's results or had intentionally altered the data in his
report. <ent type='ORG'>NEITHER</ent> OCCURRED. Nor did <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> accuse <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> or its
members of trying to "cover-up" his results or altering the data
of this first test whose calculations he himself performed,
although there were some differences of interpretation of the
implication of these results. </p>

<p> HOWEVER, GAUQUELIN DID PUBLICLY ACCUSE RAWLINS OF <ent type='ORG'>DISTORTION</ent>
AND MISREPRESENTATION, with implied criticism of <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> because
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> then was a member of its <ent type='ORG'>Executive Council</ent>. There would
be other occasions when <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> would be criticized because of
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' intemperate statements and actions. </p>

<p> This criticism was published by <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> in the Winter l978
issue of its publication, THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (p. 80). In it
<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> wrote: "How, in spite of all this data could one
distort and misrepresent the effect in question and sow doubts on
the subject? <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, a member of <ent type='ORG'>CSICP</ent> ... has done just
this in a polemic which appeared in the Fall-Winter 1977 issue of
that (CSICOP's) journal." In "sTARBABY," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> tries to shift
the blame for his transgressions to <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>. </p>

<p> According to "sTARBABY," <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> Chairman Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Paul Kurtz</ent>
was the principal architect of the alleged cover-up. Yet in
reality it was <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>, then editor of THE HUMANIST magazine
(published by <ent type='ORG'>the American Humanist Assn</ent>.) who printed the
lengthy paper by <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> describing the seemingly favorable-for-him results of the first test in the Nov/Dec,l977 issue (p.
30). What kind of doubletalk is this when <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> and <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> charge
that Kurtz's decision to publish test results favorable to an
"adversary" represents a "cover-up"? <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> might better have
waited until "l984" to resort to such "double-speak" accusations. </p>

<p> Because the issues are complex and because two different
publications and organizations were involved, it is useful to
recount briefly the events that led to the first <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect
test, which is at the root of the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>/<ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> charges, and the
second tests performed using data for outstanding U.S. athletes.
Based on calculations performed by <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> himself, the U.S.
champions test showed a very UNFAVORABLE result for the claimed
<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect, which <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> confirms in "sTARBABY." And these
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>-computed results were published, without change, by
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>. </p>

<p> The Sept/Oct. l975 issue of THE HUMANIST carried an article
by L.E. <ent type='PERSON'>Jerome</ent> that was critical of astrology in general and of
the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect in particular. When <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> sought an
opportunity for rebuttal, <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> provided it in the Jan./Feb. 1976
issue of THE HUMANIST, which also carried several other articles
on astrology. Because Gauquelin's article claimed that the
<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect had been confirmed by <ent type='ORG'><ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent></ent> for the
Scientific Investigation of Alleged Paranormal Phenomena (created
some 25 years earlier), that group also was invited by <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> to
submit an article for publication. <ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Comite Para</ent>, as it is
called, confirmed Gauquelin's calculations. But it questioned his
statistical assumption "that the frequency distribution of the
hours of birth during the day (the nych-themeral curve) is a
constant distribution...", i.e. that there is an equal
probability of a person being born during any hour of the day. </p>

<p> This seemed important because the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect hypothesis
holds that persons born during an approximately two-hour period
just after <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> has "risen" or during a comparable period after
<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> is at upper culmination (zenith), are more likely to become
sports champions than persons born during other hours of the day.
If there is an equal probability of a person being born in any
one of the 24 hours, then 4/24, or l6.7%,of the general
population should be born when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> is in one of these two "key
sectors." (Because of combined orbital motions of <ent type='LOC'>Earth</ent> and <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>,
the percentage of the day in which <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> is in two key sectors is
approximately l7%. But <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> reported that 22% European
champions in his data base had been born when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> was in the two
key sectors, significantly higher than the l7% "benchmark." </p>

<p> Because of the issue raised by Comite' Para, <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>
consulted statistics professor <ent type='PERSON'>Marvin Zelen</ent> who in turn proposed a
control test that could resolve the statistical issue raised by
Comite' Para. This <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> proposed test, also published in the
same (Jan./Feb. 1976) issue of THE HUMANIST, suggested that
<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> should gather birth data for "non-champions" who had
been born in the same local areas and within three days of a
RANDOMLY SELECTED sub-sample of Gauquelin's "champions" who
seemed to show the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect. </p>

<p> If only 17% of these NON-champions were born when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> was
in the two key sectors, this would void the issue raised by
<ent type='ORG'>Comite Para</ent>. But if roughly 22% of the NON-champions also were
born when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> was in the two key sectors, this would undercut
the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect hypothesis. Zelen's article concluded that the
proposed test offered "an objective way for unambiguous
corroboration or dis-confirmation." In retrospect it would have
been more precise had he added: "...of the issue raised by
<ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Comite Para</ent>." If Gauquelin's sample of "champions" data
was "biased," as <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> first suspected, this could not possibly
be detected by the <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>-proposed test. </p>

<p> The same issue of The Humanist carried another article, by
astronomy professor <ent type='PERSON'>George</ent> O. <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>, which was very skeptical of
astrology in general. But unlike <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> who dismissed the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>
effect out-of-hand and "didn't believe that it merited serious
investigation yet" (<ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent>: p. 74), <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> wrote that if Gauquelin's
findings were correct, they were "extremely interesting." </p>

<p> However, <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> included the following note of caution: "If
all of Gauquelin's work is re-checked, and his results hold up,
then it is necessary to repeat the experiment with a new sample,
say in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent> States. If that sample should give the same
result, then further verification is in order, until it is
absolutely certain that the effects are real and reproducible.
That is the way science works; reproducibility of results is
necessary before fundamental new laws can be inferred." This sage
advice clearly indicated the limits of what conclusions could be
drawn, and could not be drawn, from the results of the upcoming
<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> test, and even from a complete re-check of Gauquelin's
original data on European champions, which was not attempted. It
should be stressed that at the time this first (<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>) test was
proposed, <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> did not yet exist. Several months later, when it
was formed (initially under the auspices of the American Humanist
Assn.), <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> became its co-chairman and later its chairman.
<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> were named Fellows, but not to CSICOP's Executive
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>. In l980, <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> was elected to replace <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> on the
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>. </p>

<p> The results of this first (<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>) test were published in the
Nov./Dec., l977 issue of THE HUMANIST, where the issue first was
raised, although by this time <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> had its own publication.
<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> and his wife <ent type='PERSON'>Francoise</ent> were given nearly six large-size
magazine pages to present their findings without censorship.
<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> reported having difficulties in obtaining data for non-champions born within several days of champions in small towns,
so he said that non-champions birth data had been obtained only
from the large cities in <ent type='GPE'>France</ent> and <ent type='GPE'>Belgium</ent>, The <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>s
reported that these data showed that only l7% of the non-champions had been born when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> was in the two sectors which
seemed to resolve the issue earlier raised by Belgium's Comite
Para in favor of the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect. </p>

<p> The same issue of THE HUMANIST carried an article jointly
authored by <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>, and <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>, that began: "Is there a
'<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> Effect'? The preceding article by <ent type='PERSON'>Michel</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Francoise</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> discusses the experiment proposed by <ent type='PERSON'>Marvin Zelen</ent> and
its subsequent outcome. Their conclusions come out in favor of
the existence of a '<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect' related to sports champions. It
is the purpose of this article to discuss the analysis of the
data and to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the
evidence in favor of the '<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect.'" </p>

<p> The <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> article raised some questions about
the results. For example, that "the '<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect' only appears in
<ent type='GPE'>Paris</ent>, not in <ent type='GPE'>Belgium</ent> or in the rest of <ent type='GPE'>France</ent>." The article
concluded: "lf one had a high prior 'belief' that there is a <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>
effect, then the <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> data would serve confirm this prior
belief. In the other hand, if the prior belief in the existence
of a <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect was low, then this data may raise the posterior
belief, but not enough to accept the existence of the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>
effect." </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> charges that publication of this article, following
the uncensored <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> paper,"commited <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> to a cover-up."
(<ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent>: p.76) Yet is characteristic of scientific controversy for
one party to question or challenge another's interpretation of
the data. And <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> would do so following the second test
without being accused of a "cover-up" in "sTARBABY." </p>

<p> In the same issue of THE HUMANIST, in a brief introduction
written by <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>, the first "linkage" with <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> occurred. <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>
wrote: "Thus, members of <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> involved in this inquiry believe
that the claim that there is a statistical relationship between
the position of <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> at the time of birth of individuals and the
incidence of sports champions among them has not been established
.. to further the cause of scientific inquiry, the committee has
agreed (with <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>) to make an independent test of the
alleged <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect by a study of sports champions in <ent type='GPE'>the United</ent>
States." </p>

<p> In "sTARBABY," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> charges that the U. S, champions test
was a "diversion." Clearly the <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>s themselves did not view
it in this light, judging from the concluding statement in their
article which said: "Let us hope that these positive results may
induce other scientists to study whether this effect, discovered
with the European data, appears also with the U.S. data." </p>

<p> On March 28, 1978, SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE
FIRST TEST WERE PUBLISHED, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> sent <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> a copy of a three-page memorandum he had prepared a year earlier (March 29, 1977).
It contained a very technical analysis of the issue raised by
<ent type='ORG'>Comite Para</ent>, which prompted <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> to conclude that the 22%
figure reported for European champions was not the result of a
disproportionate share of births of the general population during
the early morning hours when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> often was in one of the two key
sectors. In this analysis, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> concluded that <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> had
"made fair allowance for the effect." </p>

<p> But <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> had not written this three-page memo until
several month AFTER the <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> test had been proposed in THE
HUMANIST. Shortly after preparing the analysis, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> had sent
a copy to Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Marcello Truzzi</ent>, then editor of CSICOP's
publication. <ent type='PERSON'>Truzzi</ent> had decided not to publish it but sent a copy
to <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>. IF the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> analysis of 1977 took account of all
possible demographic factors -- and there is some disagreement on
this question -- it was much too technical to be understood by
persons without expertise in statistics and celestial mechanics. </p>

<p> When <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> finally got around to sending this analysis to
<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> on March 28, 1978, his letter of that date did NOT
criticize <ent type='PERSON'>Truzzi</ent> or <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> for not having published it earlier.
Rather, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> admitted, "I should not have kept my (Mar. 19,
1977) memo..private after all." He did suggest that perhaps it
might now be published in THE HUMANIST. But by this time <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> no
longer was its editor. More important, the results of the first
(<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>) test already had been published several months earlier. </p>

<p>If, as <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> would later charge in "sTARBABY," the
<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> article published several months earlier in THE
HUMANIST amounted to a "cover-up," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> did not make such an
accusation to <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> when he wrote him April 6, 1978. Instead,
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> wrote; "I think our best bets now are 1. The main
European investigation might seek to discover how the Eur. samp
(of <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>) was (hypothetically) fudged -- check orig. records
microscopically for some sort of <ent type='ORG'>Soal</ent> trick. 2. Proceed with the
U.S, test, where we know we have a clean (unbiased) sample." </p>

<p> This April 6, 1978, letter clearly shows that while <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
suspected that <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> had manipulated his European champions
data ("<ent type='ORG'>Soal</ent> trick") he found no evidence of wrong-doing by
<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>. On April 26, 1978, in another letter to <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>,
following his visit with <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>San Diego</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> wrote that
he "was certain" that Gauquelin's original data "was biased, but
not sure how." <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> concluded this letter on a cordial note:
"Now, wasn't it great visiting sunny, funny, <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> -- and
getting to see a real live nut religion launch itself in San
Diego? ... hope you'll get back this way soon again." </p>

<p> It was at about this time that <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> came under fire for
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' actions in another matter. In the summer of 1977,
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> had been invited to be panelists in a symposium
on astrology to be held March 18, 1978 at <ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of
Toronto at which <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>, among others, would participate. The
invitation came from Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Howard Eisenberg</ent> on the stationary of
<ent type='ORG'>the University</ent>'s School of Continuing Studies. Both <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> and
<ent type='PERSON'>Abel</ent> had accepted. Then, in late September, 1977, <ent type='PERSON'>Eisenberg</ent>
withdrew the invitations on the grounds that "the response from
potential speakers...has yielded an incredible acceptance rate of
100%. This places us in the embarassing position of not being
able to sponsor all of you," i.e. pay travel expenses and allow
formal presentations. </p>

<p> On Feb. 6, 1978, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> wrote to the president of the
University of Toronto, protesting what he said were "a number of
oddities" associated with the symposium, including an imbalance
between the number of astrology supporters and skeptics. The
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> letter charged that "this conference looks to be a pretty
phoney confrontation, which will therefore give the irrational
pseudo-science of astrology an evidentially-unmerited 'academic'
boost in public credibility..." <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> sent a copy of his letter
to another university official. </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' suspicion of a loaded panel may have been
justified. But the letter of protest was written on <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>
stationery and signed "<ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, <ent type='ORG'>Executive Council</ent>,
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>." Another regretable action was a <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> telephone call
late at night to a university astronomy professor, <ent type='PERSON'>Robert</ent>
<ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>, which gave the impression that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was speaking in
behalf of <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>. In fact, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> had taken these actions
without consulting other <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members and without official
approval to use CSICOP's name. In early April 1978, a copy of the
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> letter had reached <ent type='PERSON'>Truzzi</ent>, who also had been invited and
dis-invited to participate in the conference. The <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> letter
claimed that <ent type='PERSON'>Truzzi</ent> had co-authored "an astrology-supporting
paper...and so rates as a strange sort of skeptic." <ent type='PERSON'>Truzzi</ent> sent
<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> a copy of this <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> letter with a note that said: "Since
<ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent>' letter is on <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> stationery, would appear he is
writing on behalf of the <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent>, I trust that will not happen
again." </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' actions were reported in the Canadian magazine
SCIENCE FORUM July/August 1978, in an article written by Lydia
Dotto. The article, entitled "Science Confronts 'Pseudo-Science'", began; "It was after midnight on a Saturday night when
University of Toronto astronomer <ent type='PERSON'>Bob Garrison</ent> was awakened by a
phone call. The caller identified himself as a member of the
<ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal, and according to <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>, he spent the best part of
the next hour urging the U of T scientist not to participate in
the conference on astrology...<ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, a <ent type='GPE'>California</ent>
astronomer and science writer and a member of the <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent>,
acknowledged in an interview that he made the call, but denied he
was trying to talk <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent> out of attending the
conference...this and other incidents surrounding the conference
have become something of a cause celebre, particularly since the
event was cancelled shortly before it was to have taken place in
mid-March. Predictably, ACCUSATIONS BEGAN TO FLY THAT SCIENTIFIC
OPPONENTS OF <ent type='ORG'>ASTROLOGY</ent> WERE ENGAGED IN A CAMPAIGN TO SUPPRESS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH." (Emphasis added.) </p>

<p> Indeed they did, much to CSICOP's embarassment. Britain's
<ent type='ORG'>New Scientist</ent> magazine, in its June 29, 1978, issue, quoted the
Canadian magazine in an article that began: "Earlier this year an
astronomer at <ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of Toronto, Dr. <ent type='PERSON'>Bob Garrison</ent>, was
awakened by a phone call from a member of <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. The caller
allegedly spent most of the next hour trying to dissuade <ent type='PERSON'>Garrison</ent>
from taking part in a conference on astrology." </p>

<p> This <ent type='ORG'>New Scientist</ent> account was picked up by <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> magazine,
which in turn attributed the action to <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> rather than to one
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> member. <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> commented: "If you have difficulty
understanding their (<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>) motives, remember that here is a
dedicated group of witch-hunters seeking to burn nonbelievers at
the stake." (How ironic that <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> now is promoting the views of
the same person whose intemperate earlier actions had provoked
FATE's harsh criticism.) The same criticism of <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>, because of
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' actions surfaced again in a feature article in THE
<ent type='GPE'>WASHINGTON</ent> POST (Aug. 26, 1979). The article, syndicated and
published elsewhere, was written by <ent type='PERSON'>Ted Rockwell</ent> who was
identified as a member of <ent type='ORG'>the Parapsychological</ent> Association. </p>

<p> When I learned of the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> incident, I was shocked as
were others on the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>. But all of us hoped that <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>
members had learned an important lesson from the incident and
that it would have a maturing effect on <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>. Yet before
another year had passed <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> would once again demonstrate his
inability to distinguish between official <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> actions and
those of its individual members. </p>

<p> Originally it was expected that the required calculations of
<ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>' position at the time of birth of U.S. champions (for the
second test) would be performed by Prof. <ent type='PERSON'>Owen</ent> Gingerich of
<ent type='ORG'>Harvard University</ent>. But during the summer of 1978 the <ent type='ORG'>Harvard</ent>
astronomer was on an extended leave so <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> asked <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> to
perform the celestial mechanics computations. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> did so and
found in sharp contrast to Gauquelin's findings that 22% of the
European champions were born when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> was in the two key
sectors, and compared to the "chance" benchmark figure of 17%,
only 13.5% of the U.S. champions were born when <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> was in the
two key sectors. Thus, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' calculations showed that if <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>
had any effect on champions, it was a pronounced NEGATIVE effect
for U.S. athletes. </p>

<p> On Sept, 18, 1978, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> prepared a four-page report
describing the procedures he had used in his calculations and a
summary of the results. But <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> could not resist including
some denigrating charges against <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>. For example:
"<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> was well known in his teens for his casting of
horoscopes (a practice he has since disowned)..." The comments
were both gratuitous and inappropriate. </p>

<p> Relations between <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> had been strained
since <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> published a long, rambling <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> attack
(Fall/Winter 1977) in which he accused <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> of "misgraphing
the results of the <ent type='NORP'>Belgian</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Comite Para</ent> check on his <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent>-athletes
link..." <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> had responded with the charge that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> had
distorted and misrepresented the facts in a letter which then was
scheduled to be published shortly in the Winter 1978 issue of THE
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. The same issue also would carry a sharp
rejoinder from <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>. </p>

<p> Thus it is hardly surprising that <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> decided that it
would be best if the upcoming summary report on the results of
the U.S. champions test should be written by <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> and
himself -- especially since the three of them had jointly
authored the earlier article and <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> had proposed the U.S.
test. If <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> instead had suggested that the U.S. champions test
report be jointly authored with <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> instead of <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>,
"sTARBABY" might never have been published. This is evident from
numerous <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> complaints in "sTARBABY." For example, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
complains that the day after <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> received his Sept. 18, 1978,
report (with the ad hominem attack on <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>) "<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> wrote
<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> to suggest <ent type='ORG'>KZA</ent> (<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>) confer and prepare
the test report for publication (<ent type='ORG'>EXCLUDING</ent> ME)." (Emphasis
added.) (P.79.) </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> also complains that <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> asked <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> "to
verify the work," i.e. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' calculations. (P.80.) Because of
the importance of test, it was good scientific protocol to ask
other specialists to at least spot-check <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' computations.
Then <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> reveals he was angered because "<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> asked
countless questions about my academic training." (P. 8O.)
Inasmuch as <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> lists his academic training as being in
physics rather than astronomy, Abell's questions seem justified. </p>

<p> Further evidence of <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' wounded ego is his complaint
that "not only was <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> being invited to the press conference
(at the upcoming <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>, D.C.), he was to be the
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> spokesman on astrology in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>." (P.81) <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> said
he "strongly protested the high-handedness of the choice of <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>
as the speaker at the annual meeting...I emphasized that <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>
had plenty of astronomers associated with it (<ent type='PERSON'>Carl Sagan</ent>, Bart
Bok, <ent type='PERSON'>Edwin Krupp</ent> and others), all of them nearer <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> than
<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> who lived all the way across the country, in the Los
Angeles area." (In fact, <ent type='ORG'>Krupp</ent> also lived in Southern <ent type='GPE'>California</ent>,
Bok lived <ent type='GPE'>Arizona</ent>, and <ent type='PERSON'>Sagan</ent> then was working in <ent type='GPE'>California</ent> on
his "Cosmos" television series.) </p>

<p> In "sTARBABY," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> claims that <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> had been invited to
speak because "<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> was trying to suppress my dissenting report
(of Sept. 18, 1978) and (by not paying my travel fare) to keep me
from the December <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting while inviting to <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> as
a prominent <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> authority the very person whose appointed task
I HAD MYSELF PERFORMED" (his italics, p. 81). In reality, there
was no question that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' Sept, 18, 1978, report, describing
his analytical procedures, needed to be published. The only
question was whether it should include the ad hominem attack on
<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent>. </p>

<p> It was not until approximately one year AFTER the results of
the <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> test were published in THE HUMANIST that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> first
charged the use of "bait-and-switch" tactics--what he calls
"BS"--had been employed. This allegation was contained in his
letter of Nov. 2, 1978, to <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>, with a copy to <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>. BUT
RAWLINS STILL DID NOT CHARGE THAT THIS AMOUNTED TO A "COVER-UP,"
OR THAT <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> WAS INVOLVED. Quite the opposite. A few weeks
later when the Winter 1978 issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER was
published, there was a <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> response which said: "It SHOULD BE
CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> AS A BODY NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO
WITH THE HUMANIST ZELEN TEST 'CHALLENGE'...PUBLISHED BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE WAS FOUNDED"(Emphasis added.) </p>

<p> Like most members of CSICOP's <ent type='ORG'>Executive Council</ent> who had not
been involved either in the first (<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>) test or the subsequent
U.S. champions test, and who were not sufficiently expert in
celestial mechanics, statistics or astrology to take a prior
interest, my first exposure to the controversy came during the
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> in early December, 1978, when
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> unleashed a rambling <ent type='ORG'>harrangue</ent>. Understandably I was
confused by <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charge that <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> somehow was involved in a
<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> test-results cover-up that had occurred more than a year
before which contradicted his just-published statement in THE
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER stating that the original <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> test was NOT a
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>-sponsored effort. </p>

<p> Despite my efforts to understand <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' allegations, it
was not clear to me (and to many other <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members) just what
it was that he now was claiming had been"covered-up." After three
years of working with <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> I was well aware of his proclivity
for making harsh, exaggerated charges. Most often these were
directed against supporters of the para-normal, but sometimes
also against <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members who disagreed with his proposals for
intemperate actions against "the believers." For example, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
had charged that <ent type='PERSON'>Truzzi</ent> was involved with the "Church of Satan." </p>

<p>Beyond having difficulty in understanding the specifics of
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges, I failed to grasp what he thought should be
done to correct the alleged problem. Because the hour was getting
late and <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members had to leave to catch flights back home,
I suggested to <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> that he write a memorandum that clearly
and concisely set forth the basic issues and that he recommend
appropriate corrective action. In this way <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members could
better comprehend the matter and consider corrective action if
such were justified. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> cites this in "sTARBABY" and claims
he was the only party who had put the issues in writing. BUT HE
DID NOT SEND COPIES OF SUCH MEMORANDA TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. ONE
LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS IS THAT PREVIOUSLY HE DID NOT
BELIEVE THE MATTER INVOLVED <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> OR REQUIRED COUNCIL MEMBERS'
ATTENTION. </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was the last one to leave my apartment (where we had
been meeting that night) and he continued his earlier <ent type='ORG'>harrangue</ent>
but without clarifying the issues. Later, he called me from the
airport to continue the discussion. Again I asked that he clarify
the issues for me and other <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members by preparing a
memorandum. I assured <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> that since I had not been involved
in either of the two tests and since he had recommended my
election to <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>, he could expect me to be at least neutral if
not sympathetic. </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> never responded to my request. About six weeks later
(Jan. 17, 1979), he did circulate a five-page memo to <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>
Fellows and <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members. It was a "baby sTARBABY" which cited
a number of <ent type='ORG'>ALLEGED</ent> mistakes that had been made by OTHERS
involved in the tests and in CSICOP's operations. I replied on
Jan. 31 saying that his memo was "for me an unintelligible
jumble." I added: "without meaning to give offense to a friend, I
once again urge you -- as I did at our meeting here -- to outline
the problem...then outline your recommendations. And please do
not assume, as you have done, that all of us follow the G-affair
as closely as you have done." My letter concluded: "Skip the
invective...outline the problem clearly, concisely, and offer
your recommendations." </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> never responded to this request. Today, following my
recent investigation, I know why. There was no cover-up, except
in <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' troubled mind, fed by the fires of a wounded ego and,
perhaps, by embarassment over his unauthorized intervention in
<ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of Toronto symposium. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was unable to
recommend specific corrective action because nothing could have
saved his wounded ego unless it were possible to turn back the
clock and to have invited <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> to be the <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> speaker on
astrology in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> and to replace <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> in writing the
report on the results of the U.S. champions test. </p>

<p> Readers of "sTARBABY" might easily conclude that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
believes that <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>, in the Nov/Dec. 1977 issue of
THE HUMANIST, should have conceded "<ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> has won" and
cancelled plans for the U.S. champions test. Yet had they done
so, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> would have been outraged because such a concession
would imply that the <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> test had proved the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect beyond
all doubt and this was not true. Had <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>/<ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> even
contemplated such a concession, I am certain that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> would
have urged that they be ousted from <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>. </p>

<p> "sTARBABY" reveals that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> imagines many things that
simply are not true, such as his charge that I was involved in a
plot to suppress his discussions of the <ent type='PERSON'>Gauquelin</ent> test at the
1978 <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting. His article implies that <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meetings
are characterized by attempts to suppress dissenting views. In
reality one usually hears almost as many different viewpoints as
there are <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members present. And <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> is the most
<ent type='ORG'>unconstraining</ent> group chairman I have ever known in the many
organizations of which I have been a member. </p>

<p> Even on easily ascertainable matters, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> chooses to
rely on his vivid imagination or recollections rather than take
time to check the facts. For example, in "sTARBABY," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
claims that he was an "associate editor" of THE SKEPTICAL
INQUIRER, as well as being a member of its editorial board --
which he was [not]. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> makes that claim in seven different
places in his article. One would expect that a person who
imagines himself to be an associate editor of a publication over
a period of several years would at least once look at that
publication's <ent type='PERSON'>masthead</ent>, where its editorial staff is listed. Had
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> done so he would not have made this spurious claim. </p>

<p> This is not an error of great consequence. But when I
pointed it out to him, his response was revealing, especially
because he accuses others of being unwilling to admit to error
and of resorting to "cover-up." <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' letter of Sept. 21,
1981, explained that at a <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting HELD FOUR YEARS EARLIER
he remembers that "<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> called all Ed. Board members 'Associate
Editors'...I adopted to save syllables." <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> tries to justify
his misstatement of fact on the grounds that he was able to save
approximately 42 characters in his 75000-character-long article! </p>

<p> In "sTARBABY," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> claims that the full-day meeting of
the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> was held at <ent type='ORG'>the National Press Club</ent>
because this was "the temple of CSICOP's faith." (P. 86.) Had
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> asked me, I would have informed him that I had selected
<ent type='ORG'>the National Press Club</ent> because it was the lowest-cost facility
in downtown <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> that I could find. But <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> decided he
knew the answer without bothering to investigate. This is neither
good science nor good journalism. </p>

<p> In the previously cited <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> memorandum of Jan. 17, 1979,
following the <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent> meeting, he wrote that he planned to
reduce his involvement with <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>. He added that there was no
reason to "hide" CSICOP's problems "from the public. So I may
inform a neutral, responsible, unsensational member of the press
re the foregoing." In reality <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> already had taken such
steps at the December <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting whose press seminar was
attended by an experienced journalist with a known empathy for
some paranormal claims. During the early afternoon <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> and
this journalist left the meeting together and returned together
several hours later. But this journalist never published anything
on the matter, possibly because he has as much difficulty in
understanding <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges as did <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members. </p>

<p> According to "sTARBABY," in mid-1979, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> received a
letter from <ent type='PERSON'>Jerome</ent> Clark of <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> magazine, expressing an interest
in learning more about <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' complaints against <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>.
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> claims that shortly afterward "I told the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> I'd be
open with <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent>." I question the truthfulness of his statement
because <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> did not bother to attend the next <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting
in December, 1979, nor have I been able to locate any <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
letter or memorandum to substantiate this claim. </p>

<p> "sTARBABY" claims that "as the <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent>-story realization set
in, <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> reacted like <ent type='ORG'>the White House</ent> when it learned that
<ent type='PERSON'>John Dean</ent> had sat down with the prosecution (during the <ent type='EVENT'>Watergate</ent>
scandal). (P.91) This claim I know to be false. The prospect of a
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> article in <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> was never discussed at the 1979 or 1980
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meetings, nor by memorandum during the two intervening
years. Otherwise <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> would have prepared a response which it
could have released immediately following publication of
"sTARBABY," preventing <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> from boasting that failure of
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> to respond quickly to his many charges indicated an
inability to do so. </p>

<p> Returning, chronologically, to the fall of 1979, <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> was
preparing to publish the results of the U.S. champions test in
the Winter 1979-80 issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
demanded the right to revise and expand his original Sept, 18,
1978, paper, and was given that opportunity. Furthermore,
according to "sTARBABY," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> informed <ent type='PERSON'>Ken Frazier</ent>, editor of
THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, "that if there were any alterations not
cleared with me, I wanted a note printed with the paper stating
that deletions had occurred over the author's protest and that
the missing portions could be obtained directly from me." (P.
92.) </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> (who had been recommended for the position by
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> himself), acting on the recommendation of Prof. Ray
Hyman, a <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> member who reviewed the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> paper and the
others, and on Frazier's own long editorial experience, decided
to delete the sentence referring to Gauquelin's earlier interest
in traditional astrology. <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> also opted to delete another
sentence that read: "In this connection I must also say that,
given the self <ent type='ORG'>piekill</ent> upshot (sic) of their European
(nonchampions) adventure plus their failure to perform
independently the U.S. study's technical foundations (sector
position, expectation curve), I find it amusing that <ent type='ORG'>ZKA</ent> (<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent>,
<ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>, <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent>) are the main commentators on this test in THE
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER." Once again <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' wounded-ego had
manifested itself. </p>

<p> On Nov, 6, 1979, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> sent a memo to other members of the
Editorial Board complaining that his article "has been neatly
censored here and there, so I have asked to add a statement
saying so and suggesting that readers who wish to consult the
original version may do so by contacting me. This sentence has
itself been bowdlerized (so that it reads as if no tampering
occurred)." <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> had proposed an alternative sentence, which
was published at the end of the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> paper, that read:
"Further commentary on the issues raised in this paper and in
these notes is available from the author." <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' address also
was published. </p>

<p> This is the basis for <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' harsh charges of "censorship"
against <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent>, the man whom he had so highly recommended for the
position. If <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' complaint were justified, every working
journalist could make the same accusations regularly against
those who edit his/her copy to assure clarity and good taste and
to avoid libel. In response to <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges, <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> wrote to
members of the Editorial Board explaining what had transpired.
<ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> noted, "<ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> seems to believe his position as a member
of the Editorial Board gives his writings special status exempt
from normal editorial judgment. None of the rest of you has ever
suggested this," i.e. demanded privileged treatment. So because
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was not given privileged treatment, he charges
"censorship." </p>

<p> In the same Nov. 6, 1979, letter charging censorship,
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> complained that he alone among <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members had not
been reimbursed for his travel expenses of $230 to the previous
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting in <ent type='GPE'>Washington</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> said that he would need
$400.00 for travel to attend the upcoming <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting in New
York and added "I won't do that unless all 63O dollars are here
beforehand." <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent> promptly sent <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> a check for $350 as a
travel advance and assured him he would be reimbursed for
previous travel expense as soon as he submitted an expense
account--which <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> had never done (In "sTARBABY," <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
characterizes this as a "ridiculous excuse" for failure to
reimburse him earlier.) <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> cashed the $350 check but did not
attend the <ent type='ORG'>New York</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> meeting, nor did he inform the
<ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> that he would not attend. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> never refunded the $120
difference between $230 he claimed was due him and the $350 he
received. Yet <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> professes to have been shocked and
surprised when the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> voted unanimously not to reelect
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> at its <ent type='ORG'>New York</ent> meeting. (Since <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> seems so easily
shocked and surprised, I suspect he was equally surprised at the
resignation of <ent type='PERSON'>Richard</ent> M. <ent type='PERSON'>Nixon</ent>.) </p>

<p> Two months later, <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> wrote to <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> saying he wished
to resign from the Editorial Board. But he insisted that the
resignation should not take effect until his statement
complaining about not being reelected "in absentia" was
published. This <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> statement claimed that he had not been
reelected solely because he had criticized "CSICOP's conduct
during ITS FOUR YEAR INVOLVEMENT in testing Gauquelin's neo-astrology..." (Emphasis added.) </p>

<p> Had <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> opted to publish this grossly inaccurate
statement, which he did not, readers might well have wondered if
there were really two different <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, recalling barely
a year earlier when a <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> letter had been published which
said: "It should be clearly understood that <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> as a body
never had anything to do with the Humanist <ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> test
'challenge'..." When <ent type='PERSON'>Frazier</ent> accepted <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' resignation, this
prompted <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> to complain that he had been removed from the
Editorial Board without "cause or written notice." Later,
following a mail ballot of <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members, <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> dropped
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> from its list of Fellows. (The vote against <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was
6:1.) </p>

<p> The foregoing highlights the key issues and actions that
prompted <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> to charge that <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> "bungled their
major investigation, falsified the results, covered up their
errors and gave the boot to a colleague who threatened to tell
the truth." (After my investigation, a re-reading of "sTARBABY"
gives me the feeling that I am reading a <ent type='ORG'>Pravda</ent> account
explaining that the <ent type='NORP'>Soviets</ent> moved into <ent type='GPE'>Afghanistan</ent> to help the
<ent type='NORP'>Afghans</ent> prevent an invasion by the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency.) </p>

<p> Were it possible to turn back the clock, undoubtedly <ent type='PERSON'>Kurtz</ent>,
<ent type='PERSON'>Zelen</ent> and <ent type='PERSON'>Abell</ent> would try to be more precise in defining test
objectives and protocol and would do so in writing. And more time
would be spent in more carefully phrasing articles dealing with
such tests. But all <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members and Fellows have other
full-time professions that seriously constrain time available for
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> efforts. </p>

<p>Were it possible to turn back the clock, the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> should have
insisted in the spring of 1978 that <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> issue a public
statement that he had erred in using CSICOP's name in support of
his personal actions connected with <ent type='ORG'>the University</ent> of Toronto's
planned astrology symposium. Failure to do this has resulted in
an unjustified blot on CSICOP's modus-operandi. Also at that time
the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> should have developed a policy statement, as it
recently did, that more clearly delineates activities that
members perform officially in behalf of <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> and those carried
out as private individuals. </p>

<p> When a small group of persons met in <ent type='GPE'>Buffalo</ent> in May, 1976,
to create <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>, their motivation was a concern over the growing
public acceptance of claims of the paranormal. <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> was created
to provide a counter-balance to those who espouse a variety of
claims, ranging from <ent type='EVENT'>UFOs</ent> to astrology, from the "Bermuda
Triangle" to psychic phenomena. With the benefit of experience,
it was apparent that there was an extreme spectrum of viewpoints
on the <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent>. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> was at the "hit-'em-hard" extreme, while
<ent type='PERSON'>Truzzi</ent> was at the opposite pole and resigned after a couple
years, partially as a result of behind-the scenes plotting by
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> which he admits in "sTARBABY." Now <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> has departed
and, in my view, <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> is much the better for it. </p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> never has tried to destroy those organizations that
promote belief in paranormal causes. But individuals in these
organization have tried to discredit <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent>, even going so far in
one instance as to circulate a forged letter. </p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> magazine made wide distribution of the <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
"sTARBABY" article in reprint form, together with its press
release. Prof. R.A. McConnell, University of Pittsburgh, founding
President of <ent type='ORG'>the Parapsychological</ent> Association, also distributed
copies to <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> Fellows and <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> members, among others. In
his accompanying letter, McConnell said he believed the "<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>
report is certainly true in broad outline and probably true in
every detail...He has created a document of importance for the
history and philosophy of science." McConnell quoted an "unnamed
scientist" as claiming that "<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> has uncovered the biggest
scandal in the history of rationalism." McConnell characterized
<ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> as "an intellectually dishonest enterprise." </p>

<p> <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> and McConnell have demonstrated the intrinsic flaw in
the basic approach of those who promote claims of the paranormal
-- THEIR EAGERNESS TO ACCEPT CLAIMS OF EXTRAORDINARY <ent type='EVENT'>EVENTS</ent>
WITHOUT RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION. Neither <ent type='ORG'>FATE</ent> nor McConnell
contacted <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> officials to check out <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges. This
demonstrates why <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> is so sorely needed. </p>

<p> The late President <ent type='PERSON'>Harry Truman</ent> phrased it well: "If you
can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> is "in the
kitchen" by choice and intends to remain there despite the heat.
The response of CSICOP's <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> and its Fellows to recent events
shows that the <ent type='ORG'>Committee</ent> is not an easy victim of heat-prostration. </p>

<p> If the <ent type='LOC'>Mars</ent> effect, or any other paranormal hypothesis,
should ever be demonstrated using rigorous scientific procedures,
there simply is no way in which the small group of individuals
involved in <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> could ever hope to suppress such evidence. Nor
have I found any <ent type='ORG'>CSICOP</ent> <ent type='ORG'>Council</ent> member or Fellow who is so
foolish as to try. </p>

<p> (end) </p>

<p> [In the years following "sTARBABY", <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> has continued to
receive publicity by making sensational charges of
scientific coverup and fraud. In 1988 he made national
headlines by renewing an earlier charge he had made before
CSICOP's founding, this time supposedly supported by a new-found document: that Admiral <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> never actually reached
the <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Pole</ent> during his famous expedition in 1909, but
instead fabricated his navigational records to make it
appear as if he had. A <ent type='ORG'>New York</ent> Times article of October 13,
1988 carries the headline: "Peary's Notes Said to Imply He
Fell Short of <ent type='LOC'>Pole</ent>." It begins: "New evidence based on
navigational notes by <ent type='PERSON'>Robert</ent> E. <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> indicates that the
<ent type='LOC'>Arctic</ent> explorer fell short of his goal and deliberately
faked his claim in 1909 that he was the first person to
reach the <ent type='PERSON'>North</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Pole</ent>, according to an analysis by a
<ent type='GPE'>Baltimore</ent> astronomer and historian ... <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, an
independent scholar who trained as an astronomer and who has
a long-standing interest in Peary's expedition, said
yesterday that his analysis of the navigational notes,
mainly sextant readings of the sun to establish geographic
position, indicated that <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> knew that he had come no
closer than 121 miles from the <ent type='LOC'>Pole</ent>." Officials of the
National Geographic Society promised to examine <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>'
data, but added "We believe Mr. <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> has been too quick
to cry fake." </p>

<p> After a three-month investigation of <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' charges, a
press conference was sponsored by <ent type='ORG'>The Navigation</ent> Foundation
at which they dismissed his "sensational claims". As
reported in a <ent type='GPE'>Baltimore</ent> <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent> story syndicated Feb. 2, 1989,
"Since October [Natl. Geographic] Society President <ent type='PERSON'>Gilbert</ent>
M. <ent type='ORG'>Grosvenor</ent> and others had quietly endured <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent>' public
calls for debate and unconditional surrender on the <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent>
issue." <ent type='ORG'>The Society</ent> was willing to take seriously an
analysis by the <ent type='NORP'>British</ent> explorer <ent type='PERSON'>Wally Herbert</ent>, based on
other evidence, that a navigation error may have caused
<ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> to miss the pole by about 45 miles. "Suggesting that
<ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> might not have reached the <ent type='LOC'>Pole</ent> is one thing," said
<ent type='ORG'>Grosvenor</ent>. "Declaring <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> a fraud is quite another."
<ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> held his own "informal press conference" afterwards,
reports The <ent type='LOC'>Sun</ent>, in which <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> "admitted he had confused
time readings for chronometer checks with altitudes of the
sun and had mistaken serial numbers on the chronometers for
navigational observations." <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent> conceded, "My
interpretation has some problems, and I acknowledge that.
It's fair to say that, if I'm saying <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> was a fraud, I
think I have not yet met the burden of proof." </p>

<p> Finally, in December, 1989, a 230-page report commissioned
by <ent type='ORG'>the National Geographic Society</ent> was released, concluding
that <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> actually did reach the <ent type='LOC'>Pole</ent>. As reported in a
story on p.1 of the <ent type='ORG'>New York</ent> Times, Dec. 12, 1989, a new
analysis of Peary's records by professional navigators
concluded that Peary's final camp was not more than five
miles from the <ent type='LOC'>Pole</ent>. "The report said, there was no evidence
of fraud and deception in the explorer's records. But one
critic, <ent type='PERSON'><ent type='PERSON'>Dennis</ent> <ent type='PERSON'>Rawlins</ent></ent>, a <ent type='GPE'>Baltimore</ent> astronomer and
historian, said he remained convinced, despite the new
study, that Admiral <ent type='PERSON'>Peary</ent> did not reach his goal and had
faked his claim." </p>

<p> <ent type='PERSON'>Robert Sheaffer</ent>, Nov., 1991]
--
<ent type='PERSON'>Rick Moen</ent> - via <ent type='ORG'>RBBS</ent>-NET node 8:914/201
INTERNET: moen@f207.n914.z8.<ent type='ORG'>RBBS</ent>-NET.ORG


<ent type='PERSON'>Robert Sheaffer</ent>, Nov., 1991]
--
<ent type='PERSON'>Rick Moen</ent> - via <ent type='ORG'>RBBS</ent>-</p></xml>