|
CANCER CURE, BUMBLING BROWNE, AND DIPPY DOWSING.
 When
my friend, magician Doug Henning died earlier this year, the
Transcendental Meditation movement tried to explain away his
passing, since he'd been convinced that TM had cured his liver
cancer. Now I've heard from an angry TM follower who rejects
the mystical aspects of the movement, and considers the relaxation
techniques to be pretty well the whole value of it. He and his
wife attended Doug's funeral.
. . . I was completely outraged when at his memorial a TM
movement bigwig named "Dr." Nader had the temerity
to get up and say something to the effect of, "At the time
of Doug's death there was no trace of cancer in his body but
it was his time to go so he died anyway."
As with most of the other movements of this
sort, the TM folks will resort to any means necessary to shore
up their shaky position. They will simply never admit that they
are living in a house of straw. You'll see shades of that sort
of "logic" and "spin-doctoring" in the DKL
discussion, up ahead.
...............................................................
Amber Wilde, a 4-months-pregnant University
of Wisconsin-Green Bay student, 19 years of age, disappeared
September 23, 1998. Her car was found a week later parked near
a Green Bay sports bar. Last July, in response to impressions
offered the family by a "nationally known psychic,"
the police took trained dogs and digging equipment to a site
and spent a day digging up the area. Nothing was found. Police
referred to the tip as "plausible," despite the fact
that they had previously used a psychic in another case, with
exactly the same negative result. But you won't see this item
featured in the resumé of Sylvia Browne, about whom we
receive many inquiries every week.
This Browne bumble reminds me that eleven
years ago, here in Florida, a group of six high school students
headed away from a school dance in their van late one night,
and were never heard of again. The police were contacted by
psychics, who said the kids had run away, and located a few of
them -- or so they claimed -- working as mechanics and waitresses
in small Western towns. Then, last year, a rusted wreck was
dredged up from a canal a few miles away from the school. Inside
were a number of opened beer bottles. And six skeletons.
...............................................................
Last week's puzzle was rather different.
You were asked to go to a web page report made by some folks
who are selling a dowsing rod, the "DKL Lifeguard,"
to federal and municipal agencies, and who claim that it can
detect living persons at great distances and through any sort
of shielding. Your task was to figure out how this report had
been "enhanced" to look better. We got some 20 responses
that were pretty close, but no one actually penetrated the full
depth of the scam. Here are the facts.
 First
of all, the "Government Laboratory Testing" referred
to by DKL, was done by the renowned Sandia Labs in New Mexico,
who DKL refers to only as "a government facility."
Perhaps the reason that the DKL description you worked on did
not mention the Sandia name is because the lab has a much different
version of the March, 1998, tests they did on the dowsing rod.
Look in at www.sandia.gov/search.html and enter "DKL"
in the Search box. There you'll see just how poorly represented
those tests are by DKL.
Note that the DKL folks write: "The data,
when evaluated by two different independent scientific agencies
clearly showed that LifeGuard . . . was able to detect the presence
of a living person in a general direction 72% of the time."
The "two different independent scientific agencies"
are not named, either, nor are any details of their evaluation
given. The bottom line seems to be that their dowsing rod was
correct 72% of the time. Nothing is said to define their term
"in a general direction," but in view of what you're
about to be told, that's a minor detail.
The only way to make sense of their statement,
"A statistical analysis showed that the operator's chance
of making a correct detection was over 90%," is to assume
it refers to the fact that the probability of getting six out
of twenty five by chance is 90%. I'll skip that. Read on.
Their first claim about the tests, in which
a human subject was concealed in one of five large plastic crates,
referring to what Sandia calls Test A, is that "The operator
detected the human target 25 out of 25 times for 100%."
Remarkably, most of those of you who offered an analysis of
this report rather ignored that startling statement. Only two
things are wrong about the statement. One, it was ten trials,
not twenty-five. Either DKL simply quoted the wrong number in
ignorance, or they hyperbolized it for effect. Two, yes, the
operator -- a fully-trained, fully experienced, top executive
of DKL, chosen by them to demonstrate their dowsing rod -- did
obtain 100% results. But it was impossible not to do so, since
that was the "baseline" series I had suggested to Sandia,
and that was "open," which is to say that everyone
present -- including the operator with the rod -- knew where
the target was in each of the 10 trials!
Let me explain why I always include a baseline
series in any set of tests. We know from past experience that
those being tested will offer any number of excuses for failure,
and applying the baseline provision closes that escape hatch.
They will want to claim that the target was not "strong"
enough, the weather was wrong, there was too much moisture, the
operator was inexperienced or untrained, or for some other imaginative
reason, the test failed. But if the operator first goes through
a baseline series, and gets 100% as they always do, because they
know the answer -- those excuses cannot be used.
DKL then describes on their web page the actual
double-blind tests, which are outlined on the Sandia pages as
"Test B." Their first whopper here says, "The
operator was able to detect the target 18 out of 25 times, or
72% of the time." Not true. Just not true! Look at the
table published by DKL, and you'll see that they count as a "hit"
any guess that is either right -- or next to the right one, on
either side! DKL was right 6 times out of 25, or 24% of the
time! That's what one would expect by tossing dice, or reading
Chinese fortune cookies! Also, the dashes in columns 1, 3, 4,
and 5 indicate misses!
Read that again. It's incredible, but true.
To correct the DKL report:
"When human target was in Position 2,
operator detected 100%." Fact: no, 50%
"When human target was in Position 3, operator detected
71%." Fact: no, 40%
"When human target was in Position 4, operator detected
75%." Fact: no, zero %
"When human target was in Position 5, operator detected
75%." Fact: no, 25%
And please note that there's no listing by
DKL of results for Position #1. The target was in there twice.
But DKL puts that under the category of "out of detection
pattern" (indicated by a dash) as were another five of their
guesses that you and I would call "total misses," but
which they choose to merely omit. Inventive, but not honest.
In summary, the DKL dowsing rod, handled by
a very competent, experienced, trained, trusted, executive of
the DKL corporation, scored 100% in "open" tests where
the target was known to everyone, but when the data was blinded
he got exactly in the range of what chance -- simple guessing
-- would call for: 6 in 25! And the DKL people published a spurious
account and analysis of the data developed by this very responsible,
careful, experienced, federal agency. Why? I leave that for
you to decide.
What does Sandia Labs have to say about all
this? Their 14-page report ends with a definitive statement:
"This device cannot perform any better than random chance."
The lab came to that conclusion after a very carefully-designed
series of tests.
During the Sandia tests, every possible advantage
was given to the DKL operator. For example, the Operator's Manual
for the device said that "Most operators can get maximum
range in open air past 20 meters (66 feet) using a walk-by .
. ." In fact, DKL claims that it works at distances of
up to 500 meters (1640 feet) through any known material, locating
a human target "in three to five seconds"! Sandia
placed the target only 15 meters (50 feet) away, well within
the lesser operating range claimed by DKL. Plenty of separation
between the 5 positions was arranged, 30 degrees apart, so they
were separated by more than six times the minimum angular distance
required by DKL. Under these circumstances, the device certainly
should have been able to perform accurately and dependably.
The actual formal test, what the Sandia report
designates as Test B, was a simple matter of having the target
-- a person -- inside one of the randomly chosen five crates,
but without anyone but the target person himself knowing where
he was. The DKL operator was required to simply designate, using
the device, which was the correct crate. He was allowed to use
as much time as he wanted. He obtained six correct results in
25 guesses. Ideally, five out of 25 would be expected, and six
or seven are well within expectation.
But how could DKL claim that they obtained
18 correct out of 25? Well, after the test results were revealed
at the end of the day, the representatives from DKL declared
that a guess on either side of the correct crate should also
count as a hit -- that's what they mean in their report by "in
the general direction" -- and that's how they claim the
18 out of 25 (72%) result that they reported. However, as Sandia
correctly pointed out, since DKL stated in writing that their
device had an accuracy of ±5 degrees, and the distance
between adjacent crates was more than 30 degrees, this "out"
could not be allowed. But DKL used it, anyway. They were working
with a self-applied leeway of twelve times their own claim!
In any case, given completely random chance
and considering the layout pattern, the probability of being
correct even with the "improved" DKL way of looking
at things, is still 92% of getting what they claimed! No matter
how you look at it, DKL failed Test B spectacularly.
(There was also a third set of tests, Test
C, done by Sandia on that occasion, but DKL chose not to mention
that one at all. Perhaps we can guess why. This test, too,
was a total dud. Where chance expectation was 7.2, the operator
obtained just 6 hits.)
You should also know that the DKL operator
took an average of 3 minutes for each of the Test A guesses,
when he knew the answers, but in Test B, he took 11 minutes for
each one. What happened to the "three to five seconds"
they claimed in their advertising?
When the final results of this test were announced
by Sandia, as we might expect, DKL was well prepared with reasons
for the failure. During Test A, they had given no indication
that conditions were anything but ideal, but during B, they said,
"static charge," "residual signals," and
the "sharp edges of the crates" were "distorting
the field." However, as Sandia reminded them, their published
literature clearly states that there are "no known countermeasures"
that can defeat their device, and that it "penetrates all
forms of camouflaging." The target subject could have been
surrounded by steel girders, and still been located, according
to the DKL claims. Then, in a parting shot, the DKL people declared
that during the test, the "field had spread," whatever
that might mean, though this problem had not been evident during
Test A.
Even more astonishing is what DKL claims about
the principle on which this thing is supposed to work. They
say that it picks up the electromagnetic field of a beating human
heart. No, I'm not kidding. Basic facts: the heart operates
on a built-in timing system that triggers it independently of
the rest of the body, and that consists of a very minute pulse
that is so overwhelmed by the other EM fields in which we are
immersed, that the claimed detection is just ludicrous. I need
hardly add that any sort of shielding would defeat a detection
system, even if it did work. Apparently best-selling author
Tom Clancy didn't see the absurdity of the notion, since he featured
it in one of his novels, "Rainbow Six," as if it worked.
As often happens with these quack devices,
there is something useless but attractive in there for "flash"
effect to catch the eye of the potential customer. DKL achieved
this by building in a simple laser pointer for a "line of
bearing," and they have it "GPS (Global Positioning
Satellite) compatible" as well. That model is listed for
$13,995.
The DKL people grossly misrepresented the
results of the Sandia tests. No amount of waffling and shuffling
will get around that. Casting down the JREF gauntlet, this week
I sent the following letter to Howard Sidwell, Chief Executive
Manager of DKL, this being a hard copy of the e-mail message
I'd sent to the DKL web site earlier in the day:
Mr. Sidman:
I am James Randi, president of the James Randi Educational
Foundation, Florida, USA. We are prepared to pay DKL the million-dollar
prize offered by this Foundation, following a simple demonstration
that your device actually works. TIME Magazine has agreed to
cover such a test, and a major TV network will feature the test
on a forthcoming TV special, if and when it takes place, or as
a definitive report following the test. Should the test be successful,
you will immediately receive the prize money in the form of negotiable
bonds. The terms of our offer can be found at: www.Randi.org.
Please let us know of your interest in proving your claim,
winning the million dollars, and obtaining international validation
and recognition for your company and your product. The challenge
is simple: if the DKL device works you will receive a million
dollars. It would take less than a day of your time, and we
are prepared to travel to your location or any location named
by you, to witness any test -- which would be supervised by verified,
qualified, independent, authorities approved by you, and would
use an operator selected and trained by you, and a target of
your choice, at any time, day, and location of your choice.
Should there be other requirements for a definitive test,
please notify us and we will of course accede to whatever is
required for a proper test. Should you require further information,
you may call, fax, or e-mail us at the addresses shown on this
letterhead.
This is a genuine, serious, offer to pay DKL one million
dollars and fully validate the claims made by your company, following
a simple test of your product. We await your response with interest.
Signed, James Randi
This was not the first time I sent such a
letter to Mr. Sidwell. The first went out to him, with essentially
the same offer, in March of 1998, and was followed periodically
by others repeating the challenge. No response has ever been
received, nor do I expect that this letter will evoke any reaction.
The DKL people simply don't want to be tested, yet they are
selling a device that does not work, and in many cases we are
paying the bill. DKL sells to fire departments, drug & law-enforcement
agencies, border patrol units, search-and-rescue teams, as well
as security and military personnel, according to their literature.
They appear at major conferences and conventions world-wide,
peddling their toy to anyone who will buy it -- often with your
tax money.
Yet, strangely enough, they will not accept
the JREF offer to give them a million dollars. Why? At the
top of every new web page, to keep you informed each week, I
will insert the latest response from DKL.
...............................................................
You can anticipate a full report here soon
of a TV program that was recently aired in Korea. Featured prominently
on the show was Uri Geller (remember him?) and some quite delicious
facts developed during the program that you will find most interesting.
But that's for later . . .
...............................................................
The "hit" counter just went in on
the home page last week, and we're already at over 4,000 hits!
That's almost 600 a day, which is very encouraging.
But don't expect to get through to the "StarLight"
page in reference to the Polk County fiasco outlined last week.
As we "go to press," Sue Miller Hurst has closed access
to her page. But strangely enough, we have the codes to get
through . . .
...............................................................
Martin Gardner suggested this minor but interesting
puzzle to me:
Put simply, what is the area of the smaller
square? Do it without drawing, without calculating. Just look
at it. A delightful solution. It should take you about 30 seconds.
Start ---- NOW! (Responses directly to 76702.3507@CompuServe.com).
View the Commentary archive.
|
