Psychic Powerball

Tonight's Powerball $80 million jackpot hasn't generated as much media interest as last month's $90 million Lotto jackpot. Accordingly, there's less nonsense about psychic, astrological or numerological predictions for tonight's bonanza.

But I found one from A Current Affair:

Meet psychic Danae Thorp, owner of Melbourne’s The Spellbox shop, which is enjoying an upswing in sales in the lead-up to the massive Lotto jackpots of the past couple of months.

Losing money on the lottery ticket isn't enough for some people. They find ways to probably lose even more.

She admits that when it comes to games of chance, people make their own luck.

Well, at least that's kind of true - you can't win Powerball if you don't play Powerball.

But she says there are some fun ways people can invite good fortune into their lives for the big lotto draw.

Buy the winning ticket?

Danae's tips:

• Get some green candles.
• Light them inside a square box inside a larger triangle.
• Danae says this will invite manifestation of the earth powers.
• Herbs could also be burnt – try cloves and cinnamon. Also smear a little patchouli oil on your ticket.

Other magical tips for lottery wins:

• Fill out a lottery ticket at home.
• Light one green candle for each of the numbers in order to fill the ticket during the spell.
• Sit in front of the candles and watch each one, trying to see a number in its flame.
• Fill out the lottery ticket according to the number you saw in each candle.
• Snuff out the candles and leave them as they are for three days.
• On the fourth day play your ticket.
• If this fails, play the ticket on the third day next time.
• Repeat this procedure, going back and forth if need be.

These are supposed to be "fun" ways of playing the lottery? If you think burning candles and dreaming up numbers is "fun", well you really need to get out more.

In reality, where you fill out your ticket (or even if you buy a SlikPic) won't make a damn of difference to your chances. The odds of winning Australian Powerball are around 1:55,000,00 per game and they remain as such whether you spend money on candles or patchouli oil, cloves and cinnamon. The only guaranteed winners from this system are candle makers. Paying someone to tell you differently will not increase your odds and why a pseudo-news program would advise differently is anyone's guess.

Now for some genuine tips, from me, to improve your chances of winning:

1. Buy a ticket. (This is essential)
2. Play as many games as you can afford.
   

That's about it really. The more you spend on tickets, the better your chances of winning. Nothing mystical about it. No candles, no boxes, no spices or oils and no sacrificing children, no numerology or astrology or ghosts or anything. Just buy a ticket and you'll either win something or you won't and there's nothing you can do to change that.

Tips recommending spreading odds and evens or favouring numbers that have come up before or numbers that "are due to come up" are nonsense. Every number has the same chance of being drawn and every individual game of "five plus one" numbers has a one in 55 million chance of winning. That's just the way it is.

To be a little bit fair to Channel Nine, that same page contains some rational advice and information on playing Lotto-type games. Scroll down the page, past the psychic advice, to:

Here's those quick tips for making sure that your lottery jackpot is the life changing sum you are looking for:

It's too late now but here's my recommendation, courtesy of random.org:

• 13-24-31-36-42 / 14
• 1-8-28-30-36 / 36
• 6-12-25-35-40 / 8
• 14-15-17-27-34 / 22
• 3-14-27-36-39 / 5

UPDATE:
Well it's over and I didn't win. Anyone want some green candles, slightly used? They have a vague cinnamon smell about them.

Dancing with the Stars: Controversy!

According to Today Tonight, there was controversy around Channel Seven's Dancing with the Stars.



Again.

No, really, there was.

Seriously.

The science of homeopathy & nutritionism

Okay, you've probably seen this already since it's on Podblack and that other blog, err, Pharyngula, but I have to post it just in case I have a reader who doesn't visit those astronomically popular blogs.



Apparently, it's Dara Ó Briain. I've never heard of him before but he's got an opinion or two about the public understanding of science and he needs to be heard far and wide.

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop." [ Dara Ó Briain.]

Holy Jupiter!

An amateur astronomer from the small village of Murrumbateman, north of Canberra, has made a rare discovery that has NASA scientists excited.

Computer programmer Anthony Wesley captured images showing a massive comet or asteroid had collided with the planet Jupiter.

Mr Wesley made the discovery in the early hours of yesterday morning using a telescope in his backyard.

He says he immediately realised its significance.

Read the report on ABC online - and at SMH - and keep an eye on Phil Plait's blog for more.

And this major astronomical event occurred in the Year of Astronomy on the 40th anniversary of the first Moon landing and on the anniversary of the month that Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter.

From the SMH article...

Glenn Orton, the NASA scientist who confirmed Wesley's discovery, said: "We are extremely lucky to be seeing Jupiter at exactly the right time, the right hour, the right side of Jupiter to witness the event. We couldn't have planned it better."

Don't tell me there's not some supreme magical forces at work here!

Because I already don't think there is - but I'm suspecting lots of people will make a connection. Astrologers will be in for a busy few weeks.

Oh, and if you're a Capricorn, well, let's just say be careful over the next few days. Okay? Unless your birth number is seven, that is. Or three.

Vaccination dangers

" [Meryl] Dorey, 51, has dedicated herself full-time to the Bangalow-based lobby group since it began in 1994. “We are labelled as the antivaccination group but that’s simply not true,’’ she had entreated when I contacted her for this story. “We don’t believe we have the right to tell people whether or not to vaccinate, but neither does the government.’’

However, it only takes a few minutes of listening to Dorey’s presentation to realise she is no fence-sitter. She claims vaccines “contain toxic ingredients”; “have never been scientifically tested”; “do not provide guaranteed immunity from infectious disease’’. She tells the audience of cases reported to the AVN of babies who cried for five days straight after vaccination and then died. An AVN book handed out at the seminar contains chilling anecdotes from parents whose children died or were left with mysterious illnesses following routine inoculations. (Dorey agreed to try to put Qweekend in touch with some of them for this story but nothing eventuated.) "

That excerpt comes from an article written by Amanda Watt and published in the Brisbane Courier Mail Weekend Magazine, detailing the "lies and half-truths perpetuated by the anti-vax lobby in Australia".

There is a pdf link to the article at The Skeptics' Book of Pooh-Pooh.

Karen Stollznow tells it like it is

If you thought farting the national anthem was a pretty interesting skill, then you need to get out more. Try farting messages of damnation.

If you thought that making a handkerchief disappear into an empty hand was the sign of an amazing magician - you need to get out more. Try making a bed sheet disappear up your ar - err, rectum.

Ever blown out all the candles on your birthday cake? Pfft, try farting out your mother-in-law's candles with your own anal spectre.

Yes, Dr Karen Stollznow brings us the incredible tale of ghosts who go looking for homes in all the wrong places - and what an entertainingly ridiculous tale it is. I'm not even going to copy any of it here because it would spoil it. You just have to read it for yourself.

Suffice it to say that from now on, when that tell-tale rumble and subsequent aroma cause my wife to raise her eyebrows at me, I'm just going to say "sorry, not my fault, ghost."

---

AN EVENING WITH EZIO DE ANGELIS

In other news, Aussie Bad Psychics has a detailed analysis of an evening with "one of Australia's best psychic mediums", Ezio De Angelis. This story, also written by Dr Karen Stollznow, is equally ridiculous but isn't half as entertaining and borders on the depressing but should be read by anyone interested in "psychic" performers.

De Angelis was a contestant on Australia's "psychic talent show", The One. Indeed, he was one of three finalists on a show which showed to anyone paying attention that "psychic powers" are of no real use whatsoever, except of course for the performers who sell these "gifts".

Since competing, it seems De Angelis has spent his time touring RSL halls demonstrating his super human powers to the desperate and vulnerable. Dr Karen, who seems to spend her life "taking one for the team", went along to one of his shows and gives her account the evening - and she wasn't impressed with either his powers or his manner, it would seem.

I attended Communicating with Spirit, a performance by Ezio, unaided by editing, to observe and analyze the techniques (and tricks) he uses during his routine. This is a commentary of selected readings from his act.

Ezio appeared on stage and introduced himself. “Welcome to Communicating with Spirit. I’m Ezio de Angelis. People call me ‘easy-o’, but it’s pronounced ‘ets-ee-o’.” Friends remarked later that Easy-o sounds like a good name for a cleaning product.

There were two people on stage, even if we only saw one. There was Ezio and Marcus, his spirit guide, and conduit to “the other side”. “I’m like John Edward. I connect to spirit guides and am the link between the spirit realms. This is a three-way connection. I am the platform, then there is the spirit realm, and the audience.” We were about to have a three-way with Ezio.

When he says he's "like John Edward", I think we can all agree, though we might doubt the bit about connecting with spirit guides - for either of them.

Those of you who have watched similar performers, like Edward, or even read transcripts, will be well familiar with how it usually goes - and De Angelis doesn't surprise. From the Doc's report, it's apparently the same old schtick - random names, generic statements of love and happiness and demands to check your heritage if something seems unfamiliar. No Lotto numbers, no directions on where to find the key to the safe, no one you actually knew giving you undeniably accurate statements about private matters - nothing, in fact, that couldn't be reached through pure guess work, random chance and a willingly credulous audience.

“Who is Adam, please?” he began, to the audience’s silence. So he tried to encourage (rebuke) us. “C’mon everyone, a fast game is a good game!” A ‘good game’ for a medium is so fast moving that in the confusing bombardment of names, illnesses, objects and words, no one will notice the large margin of error.

“Who is Adam, please?” This ‘ask a question with an answer’ format was like a game of Jeopardy. The medium asks the active and specific “Who is Adam?” rather than making the passive and non-specific observation “I see an Adam”. This presupposes the person existed, suggests accuracy, and personifies the supposed ‘spirit’; unless there are no replies. Then, the failure is ignored, and the medium progresses with another name.

“Who is Tony, please?” Selecting another common name, and among a room of over 200 people, the medium finally finds a subject.

“My Uncle,” replies a middle-aged man nearby. But uh-oh; there’s no tense marker in the phrase to reveal if Uncle Tony is living or dead.

“Is Tony in the living world, or the spirit world?” Ezio asks; but shouldn’t he (or Marcus) know the answer to this question?
“He’s deceased.”

Questions, questions, questions. Why don't spirit guides ever know even the most basic things - like if the person is dead yet? And why don't believers notice this oddity?

Strangely, however, the spirit guides sometimes seem to know more than the person being targetted by the performer...

“Who is Mary, please?”

“I don’t know a Mary,” the subject replied adamantly.

The medium deferred blame for his miss to the subject. “Don’t get psychic amnesia,” Ezio reproached. “You’ve just forgotten the names of relatives and friends. Take it away with you, ask your family. You’ll see I’m right.” He’s right in that they will invent connections later on, or be long gone before they realize he’s wrong!

It's never verified there and then that the spirit guide is right and it can never be wrong because that would just mean the person hasn't looked far enough or asked enough relatives. You can never prove a random name didn't ever exist somewhere in your past. Just ask Uncle Bart - and if you don't have an Uncle Bart, then you need to ask some questions about why you were never told about him - probably a dark family secret that died along with Aunt Gert. You don't have an Aunt Gert? Think again.

The "I'm right and you're wrong" defence used above is so popular with "psychic" performers, it's has two variant entries in the "Psychic Bingo" card:

• WRITE THIS DOWN
• YES YOU DO!

In the final episode of "The One", after trampling over the scene of a missing UK backpacker for the benefit of a gullible audience, De Angelis was asked his justification for "psychic detective" work. He replied that "if it brings closure, it's a good thing". No closure was delivered in that (or apparently any) psychic detective event.

Reading through Doc Karen's transcript, I find myself wondering if people found closure that night from statements like...

“He’s with your Grandfather. He says ‘G’day!’”

“Has Peter passed over?”

“Who is Greg, please?” Pause. “I see a Greg, or a Chris, or Craig; and a Richard, or Robert.”

“Well, you have lots of spirits around you. You have lots of help and support. Keep close to the people who are close to you,”

“The baby’s alright. Does this make sense to you?” She shook her head, but he dismissed her denial.“This will fit elsewhere for you. Think about it.”

“Do you have heart problems?” - “No,” she said nervously. - Ezio turned his miss into a ominous warning. “Well, take that on board,” he worried her.

“Anne sends her regards,”

“Did Mum get very ill before she passed?” - “She’s still alive!” the lady cried out in wide-eyed shock. - “No wonder I can’t see her then!” Ezio quipped to laughter before he moved on quickly.

And that's just a small fraction of the scintillatingly "accurate" advice and information exchanged that night. I'm struggling to see how this kind of performance, even if it results from a genuine psychic gift, could ever bring closure - or anything but a healthy dose of cynicism. But it got worse, as Doc Karen continues...

“Who is Dennis? Do you remember Dennis?” If she didn’t know, he’d positioned her as not ‘remembering’.
“No,” she answered.
“You say ‘no’. He says ‘yes’. I trust them more than you.” He was quite the bully.

It would be funny if it wasn't so damned serious - some people believe this nonsense and will be tormented by their lack of knowledge of something that simply isn't real - but oh, it gets worse...

“Any suicides in the room?” Sadly, there were two at one table alone. Ezio scurried over there. “I see a rope.”

And I'll have to leave it there before I say what I really think - so, I'll let Rove finish for me (see Ezio in fine form at 1:30)

[Full Story]

What is accommodationism?

Accommodationism (a word the Firefox spellchecker doesn't think exists) keeps turning up in various blogs, but what is it? Here's my very simple introduction to a word we're likely to see a lot of in the near future.

Let's start with a dictionary definition from Merriam Webster:

"one who adapts to or compromises with an opposing view ; especially : a black who adapts to the ideals or attitudes of whites"

The first part of that definition, which I've bolded, most-closely matches the defintion we're interested in here and I suspect the secodary reference will, in time, refer to "especially the acceptance of religious views in science".

In most science and skeptical discussions, accommodationism refers to the notion that science should try to accommodate moderate religious views rather than oppose or reject them. Naturally, this doesn't rub too well with atheistic scientists like Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers who see no reason to make room for religion, any religion, in scientific endeavours.

Accommodationists, like Chris Mooney and John Wilkins who are also atheists, put forward a view that open rejection of religious viewpoints harms science by keeping it at arms length from people who, despite holding religious beliefs, could otherwise contribute. There also seems to be some concern that support (financial, that is) for science, in a largely religious world, would dry up if religious views are not accommodated.

There has recently been a public debate of the issue on each of the four blogs noted above. If you have plenty of time to spare, you could beef up on a whole variety of opinions by reading the comments of hosts and vistors in Wilkins' pro-accommodationist article and/or Myers' anti-accommodationist response.

Although I haven't seen the word applied outside of the science-religion debate, I think it could equally be applied to the medicine-CAM debate. We see it all over the place - homeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors and other "alternative therapists" seek to be treated as if they were evidence-based, regardless of whether scientific evidence exists and you don't need to look far to see that they are, in one way or another, being accommodated. Whether it's the use of the title "Doctor", university courses or listing on government and private health insurance registers, we see non-conventional therapy being treated almost as if it had the same scientific standing as conventional, evidence-based medicine.

Similarly, the idea that police should listen to so-called "psychics", "clairvoyants" or "mediums", is an accommodationist idea. Fundamentally, accommodationist arguments are predicated on the suggestion of "different ways of knowing" and, at their heart, they are anti-scientific. Beyond that, accommodationists seem to be trying to just not upset anyone - it's like they're saying "why can't we all just get along?"

accommodationism, to me, looks elitist and, worse, patronising

I'd think that, eventually, that difficult bridge would have to be burned. Scientific progress continues to dismiss theistic ideas about the universe we inhabit. There's little reason to assume that dismissal will cease any time soon. For how long are scientists supposed to accommodate unscientific viewpoints? Is it even possible, really?

Myers is perhaps one of the most outspoken, perhaps vitriolic, atheist, anti-accommodationist scientists, yet even he is not arguing that scientists cannot hold strange beliefs. In a response to John Wilkins' list of things scientists should be doing in respect of religion, Myers wrote...

I have not heard a single atheist insist that anyone must give up their religion. I can imagine a majority voluntarily giving it up, but my imagination fails at the idea of going up to some believer and ordering them to stop believing. How do we do that? So, sorry, Wilkins — it's another complaint about something no one is proposing.

I'd hate to assume Myers'opinion, and get it wrong, but I think he'd argue that having your beliefs is one thing, trying to insert them into your science is another - and that's where anti-accommodationism stems from. It's not about the total destruction of religion (which is not to say some atheists wouldn't wish for that), it's about keeping science and religion separate.

Interestingly, Wilkins appears to almost, but not quite, agree with this position...

All that notwithstanding, I fully concur with those who think that a science-defending institution or professional association, should make no assertions that science is compatible with religion either. That is, as I said in point 1, for the religious to sort out. Coincidentally, many religious bodies have done exactly that.

If these religions have decided that compatability with science means separation from it, then it's difficult to see where accommodationism would serve any purpose. But if they have only conceded some ground, based on the fact that science has taken it anyway, but still want their particular god, or gods, (I assume all religions, no matter how bizarre, would have to be accommodated) to fill the remaining gaps, then they haven't really accepted compatability and accommodating their views would be counter-productive - in my layman's view.

For what it's worth, and I'm not nearly in the league of the people mentioned anywhere above so it's probably not worth much at all, accommodationism, to me, looks elitist and, worse, patronising. It's telling that it's scientists who are being asked, by other scientists, to make room for those with unscientific views. It also smacks of tokenism - letting a bit of religion in just to keep the voters or financiers happy. The cartoon that leads this article sums this up.

From a political point of view, it might have some credence but from a scientific point of view, accommodationism looks like a lead weight around the neck of progress. Financing and popularity contests aside, science doesn't need to accommodate religion (or CAM or metaphysics) any more than it needs to accommodate flat-earthism, ufology, astrology, numerology or my cousin's views on the quasi-psychic properties of breakfast cereals.

I'm sure my "cousin" could still do good science, if she were that way inclined, and I'm sure most scientists wouldn't care that she held strange views about breakfast cereals. But if she writes papers or books or presents lectures about her science and has a tendency to mention clairvoyant WeetBix whilst doing so as if this viewpoint were also based in science, then I don't think anyone should demand her habit be accommodated.

I think there is also a Trojan Horse risk in accommodationism. How far is it from "we'll let you include your beliefs in your science" to "we'll let you teach your beliefs in the science classroom"?


RELATED ARTICLES:

What is a skeptic?
Fear-based faith

Numerology: Michael Jackson number FIVE!!! D'OH

Okay, scrub yesterday's article about Michael Jackson and the significance of the number 7. CNN assures us now that the number FIVE is the one to be watching. This is hardly a surprise to me since I'd already said as much in a comment at JREF.

Clearly 5 is the number we should be investigating.

But enough about my amazing abilities, let's get back to CNN...

Psychics see magic in Michael Jackson's life

Wow! That's pretty amazing. They should apply for Randi's million with a skill like that. I bet they see women in Hugh Hefner's life - psychically of course.

And what exhilarating, nay mind-blowing, information does the CNN numerologist have for us?

Jackson's talent was discovered when he was 5 years old, he came to fame as a member of the Jackson 5 and he planned a series of 50 concert dates in London, England, as part of a comeback tour before he died on June 25 at the age of 50.

For McCants, a noted numerologist and author, those facts are very telling: "Five is the number for drama, and it was in his life his whole life."

Holy crap this just gets dumber by the day. He also enjoyed almost-unprecedented fame and glory and success - what numbers do they equate with? Seven? Oh hang on, it's all explained for us...

McCants -- who has appeared on nationally syndicated television and radio shows and is known as the "Numbers Lady" -- said that by taking Jackson's birth date (August 29, 1958, or 8/29/1958) she could chart his personality.

Hell, you could chart Jackson's personality by looking at his shoe size, his IQ or by checking my bank balance. Or you could just read his biography and repeat the most glaringly obvious aspects of his life.

His was "six life path," she said, meaning he was magnetic and drew people to him. That, coupled with the fact that he was born on a two day made him irresistible, she said.

"If you are born on a two day and are a six life path then America and the world seem to fall in love with you," McCants said.

So he was a six and that makes two significant and he had drama because of all those fives and seven's important too. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Actually, no thanks. Against my better judgement, I looked up "six life path" and found this (with my bolding)...

You possess great compassion and seek to be of service to others. You have concern for the weak and the downtrodden. You are a healer and a helper to others. You are capable of giving comfort to those in need and will frequently offer a shoulder for others to cry on. Your task in life is to develop the tools necessary to be truly helpful to others, rather than to simply be a sympathetic ear. You must find the balance between help and interference. In the same way, you must learn the delicate art of the counselor who knows when to leave the struggle to others and when to avoid taking away the necessary experiences and lessons of life. You are naturally balanced. Therefore, you are well equipped to support and ground others in times of trial.

When there's a death to trawl over you really need to consult a psychic

Okay, ignoring the generic, feel-good Forer-style statements for a moment, does any of that really sound anything like the Michael Jackson the world knew? There is more but it gets no better though, as with any of these types of paranormal descriptions, some things will seem appropriate such as...

You are blessed with musical talent, as well as in the visual and performing arts.

You'd call that a hit for Jackson - but the description continues...

However, your creativity may well be suppressed due to your willingness to sacrifice, or your inability to fully appreciate your talents.

Oops. That doesn't seem so right any more. But Forer and Barnum knew better than to leave things so clear cut - and so do those who claim to possess super-human powers of perception. If you check the link, they too cover their... bases... and include an appropriately contrary possibility...

This is not to say that you cannot excel in these areas; on the contrary, you have the talent, and with effort you can make a success in a number of artistic fields.

It's just ridiculous, seriously. "You're talented but that might not be enough, or it might be and and you might not get to use your talent, or you might." It's like a Saturday morning horoscope - it applies to damned near anyone you can think of.

Want to work out your own life path number? Of course you do. Go here - BUT before you read your own life path description, randomly choose two or three others and read those first.

But let's not let the numerologist have all the glory here. When there's a death to trawl over you really need to consult a psychic if you want useful information...

Psychic Eddie Conner said Jackson couldn't help but attract such attention, even if it resulted in a life of isolation.

"He's an old soul with an enormous amount of creative artistic energy that pours to him and from him," said Conner, who works as a "soul intuitive" in Los Angeles, California, and whose clients include celebrities he declines to name. "Whenever he's doing his magic he's untouchable, and I think that's the reason everybody gravitates toward him."

And despite all of Jackson's troubles, Conner said he believes the star will have an opportunity at success and fame again.

Unlike other souls that stay in the nonphysical realm anywhere from 70 to 150 years, he said, he believes the singer's soul will return quickly -- within the next 20 years -- because Jackson was such a perfectionist that he will want to "pick up where he left off."

And he knows all this because - oh who am I kidding? It's a barrel of unverifiable nonsense. It's like crap on a stick - but without the stick.

But psychic consultant Jack Rourke is far more sensible...

Rourke said he fully expects people to come forward claiming to have communicated with Jackson, but that any credible professional psychic or medium will not attempt to connect with Jackson for at least six months to a year and will only do so at the behest of a family member or an intimate friend of the singer.

This will apparently come as surprising advice to James van Praagh and Sylvia Browne, both of whom are reported to have made contact with Jackson within days of his death.

Blech! Is there any uglier industry than purveyors of the paranormal?

Numerology: Michael Jackson, number 7

It had to happen. The numerologists at online celebrity gossip rag TMZ have managed to find some weird coincidences that revolve around Michael Jackson and the number seven. And of course, as with all such numerological fantasies, this one comes complete with omissions, fallacies and just plain bad numerology (is there any other kind though really?)

The following list is supposed to be mind blowing but seriously, if you find anything remotely fascinating about it then your mind might be beyond detonation...

• Michael Jackson signed his will on 7/7/02.
• Michael Jackson's memorial was on 7/7/09 ... exactly 7 years after the will was signed.
• Michael Jackson's two biggest hits -- "Black & White" and "Billie Jean" -- were each #1 for 7 weeks.
• Michael Jackson's three biggest albums -- "Thriller," "Bad" and "Dangerous" -- each produced 7 top 40 hits.
• Michael Jackson was the 7th of 9 children.
• Michael Jackson was born in 1958 ... 19 + 58 = 77
• Michael Jackson died on the 25th ... 2 + 5 = 7
• Michael Jackson has 7 letters in his first and last name.

So, the will was dated 7th July, 2002.
That's 7 + 7 + 2 +2 = 18
1+8 = 9
So there's no number seven in that pattern.

His memorial was on 7/7/09.
That's 7 + 7 + 9 = 23
2 + 3 = 5
Again, it doesn't resolve to seven.

We're told Jackson's two biggest hits charted at number one for seven weeks. Now, it might be true or it might not (I can't be bothered checking because the whole thing is ridiculous) but why did they only choose the top two hits? Why not the top three, or four - or SEVEN?

His THREE biggest albums produced 7 top 40 hits. This just gets sillier. Now they decide to take the three "best" albums, not just two like they did with number one hits. Why not two albums, why not four? Because that wouldn't add up to seven silly.

Jackson was the seventh of nine children. Okay. He was also the third last.

He was born in 1958 but there's something weird going on with the numerology here. Why add 19 to 58 instead of adding 1 + 9 + 5 + 8? And why stop at 77 and not add those numbers together? The answer, of course, is that neither of these options leaves you with the number seven.

He was actually born on August 29, 1958
8 + 2 + 9 + 1 + 9 + 5 + 8 = 42
4 + 2 = 6
No number seven there.

He got 13 Grammies and 13 number ones

He died on the 25th. What, no month or year? (25/6/2009)
2 + 5 + 6 + 2 + 9 = 24
2 + 4 = 6
No seven again.

He has seven letters in his first and last name. He has six in his middle name, Joseph, though:
7 + 6 + 7 = 20
2 + 0 = 2
Failed again.

What else do we know?
(stats from wikipedia)

• He performed with the Jackson FIVE
• He was 50 when he died
  
• "King of Pop" has 9 letters
• "Moonwalk" has 8 letters
• He got 13 Grammies and 13 number ones
• He debuted in 1968: that adds up to 24 > 6
• "Thriller" has 8 letters
• "Martin Bashir" has 6 letters in each name

Numerology is an amazing tool. You can make it say anything you want it to and there's no need for consistency or accuracy or rationality or anything. You can even build an entire conspiracy around it. Just choose the number you want to be significant, then look for number patterns that will somehow relate to it, either directly or after some arbitrary arithmetic operation (ignoring any bits that muck your arithmetic up) and you're on your way to a career fleecing the gullible or selling "mind blowing" stories to a credulous media.

(First seen on JREF)

Michael Jackson's Ghost - of course

Okay, so it took a little longer than expected but there's this weird shadow kind of thing and, of course, it must be Michael Jackson's ghost haunting Neverland because that's the only logical explanation for weird shadow kind of things. There's a video and everything - go on, you just know you want to see this... (UPDATE:There's a Youtube here. I think it looks more like Elvis).

Meanwhile, Queensland has a new psychic, because there aren't enough already...

In a simple blue dress with her hair tied neatly off her face, Helen does not represent a stereotypical new-age fortune teller, although her calm demeanour and deep blue eyes suggests she possesses a "knowing".

In fact, an awful lot of self-professed psychics, clairvoyants and mediums don't fit the stereotype - to the extent that one wonders if the stereotype is no longer stereotypical. Maybe "ordinary" is the new stereotype.

As for "possessing a knowing" - what the hell does that even mean? The credulity in this article left me checking to see if it was dated April 1. It's not. The reporter apparently just assumed the entire story must be true and felt no need to cast a gram of doubt on Australia's newest superhuman entrepreneur.

Helen is neither a ghost whisperer nor a clairvoyant, but has had strange and chillingly accurate premonitions for most of her life. She says she has only recently been able to accept her ability to communicate with the dead.

So she's not a ghost whisperer but she does talk to ghosts. Maybe they kept telling her to speak up or something, I don't know.

Oh, and she's apparently been having premonitions for years - but she isn't clairvoyant. I assume she must be one of those new "intuitives" Karen Stollznow was telling us about recently.

The first significant experience of mediumship came when Helen was just 20 and dreamed about her aunt on the night she died.

Dreams are a pretty certain sign that you're a medium. Normal people don't dream, apparently.

"It was September 1, 2008.

Oh, so when the reporter writes "The first significant experience of mediumship came when Helen was just 20...", she really meant it began "less than a year ago".

I will never forget the morning," she said. The sensations she felt over her own body as she was lying in bed were the same as those experienced by her aunt in her final moment, she said.

I doubt that very much since, unlike her aunt, she's still alive - and I have my doubts, despite the premise of the article, that her dead aunt has explained her "last moment" in excruciating detail.

"It completely threw me. It's not something normal. It's not something that happens in every day life.

No? Actually, I think an awful lot of people have experiences like this - they just don't set up shop in response.

It's not something that you can really come and talk to people about, well I didn't think at the time. "I later went and told the messages (my aunt) had given me to two of her children and I said that had asked me to tell them that she loved them. "And they had gone to bed the night before thinking, 'If only mum could tell us one last time that she loved us'.

Wow! Amazing! Not only did they miss their mum but she loved them. That is an astonishing story right there. I mean, really, the rest of the article is just fluff by comparison. What normal human would possibly begin to imagine some sort of emotional bond between parent and child? It takes a special sort of "gift" to do that I'm sure. It's almost like a super power really.

So that pretty much seals it. She's the real deal for sure. I'm convinced. Can someone tell Randi about this so he can draw the cheque and declare the Million Dollar Challenge won? Thanks.

The caption to the picture is just brilliant...

Psychic Helen Thomas has learned to come to grips with an ability to communicate with the dead.

That's a euphemism, I suspect, for "has learned that there's money to be made from appearing to communicate with the dead". According to her website (yes, she's come that far in less than a year) she already charges $80 an hour for a personal sitting. I can get my car serviced for less than that - but then, my mechanic isn't a superhero.

On the website, she advises (albeit in third person) that you should prepare yourself for a reading...

It’s a good idea to think through what questions you have prior to arriving for the session and bring them with you. It’s also best to come with an open mind. By being completely open to the experience you will get the most out of it.

Just some generic advice from me though:

• Don't ask for next week's Lotto numbers
• Don't ask what you had for breakfast on Monday
• Don't ask where Grandma hid the key to the safe

Oh, and you should note that in the paranormal dictionary, "be open minded" actually means "be willing to believe anything and everything without expecting any of it to ever be backed up with evidence." In the superhuman psychic industry, believing generally comes before seeing.

And if you had any doubts about just how poorly researched the Brisbane Times article is, consider again that the reporter writes that the subject is not clairvoyant; then go to the website (the link is at the end of the article) and you'll find: "Helen receives these messages through clairvoyance, clairaudience and clairsentience...". So we have a non-clairvoyant who uses clairvoyance. Enough said.

Perth police: "Psychics cause misery"

An update on the recent revelation that Perth detectives sought the "assistance" of self-professed "psychic", Debbie Malone.

The Sunday Times headline reads:

Police won't rule out using psychics in murder inquiries

"Using psychics" could suggest, I feel, that the WA Police Force does actually give some credence to the idea that some humans have superhero-like powers that enable them to tap into some strange, ambiguous, ill-defined, untestable "energy" and offer unique insights into difficult criminal cases.

The opening paragraph could reinforce this impression of a credulous law enforcement agency happily employing crystal-ball gazers, tea leaf readers, palm readers, phrenologists and "genuine" mentalists in the hope of finding missing pieces to incredibly complex, real-life jigsaws:

WA Police chiefs have refused to issue a blanket ban on officers listening to psychics and using their information.

The Sunday Times feeds the more-credulous reader a little extra comfort with "Malone, one of Australia's most prominent psychics and spirit mediums, ..." Not a gram of skepticism there. Not an alleged psychic and not even "psychic" in quotes, as I prefer it. According to the Sunday times reporter, it seems Malone IS a psychic/medium - and one of the most prominent at that. It is left for the police spokesman to clarify what this means, at least in terms of detective work.

The various statements from the force, included in the remainder of the article, are somewhat less ambiguous that the headline and subheading and would suggest that the police force, as a body, have very little time for people who claim these special superhuman powers. Here's a collection of comments:

This is despite the police force's communications director describing mediums as "hocus-pocus'' and stating "no reputable policing agencies use psychics''.

In an email sent to The Sunday Times on Monday and circulated in the police force and media, he described the story as "patently untrue" and accused the newspaper of misleading its readers. (It turns out it was true, but the fact this email was circulated suggests that even WA Police were amazed to find that some of their members think psychics might serve some useful purpose in detective work.)

"Psychics have no credibility or scientific basis upon which to make their claims," Mr Stanbury said .

"No reputable policing agencies use psychics or employ psychics, clairvoyants or other varieties of such people. Their claims of assisting police in solving major crimes are never substantiated.

What psychics actually do is cause further misery to families and other victims of crime.''

To summarise the police position on "psychics", we have:

• hocus pocus
• reputable police don't use them
• no credibility
• no scientific basis
• claims never substantiated
• cause misery

Credulous supporters like to claim that the police don't like to admit to using "psychics" but why would this be? When DNA testing came along, police adopted it and don't keep it a secret. They added it to a range of other tools they readily access in the hope of solving crimes. They even admit to interviewing criminals and we know they do undercover work. If "psychics", "remote viewers", astrologers or tea leaf readers, for that matter, had ever proved useful, why would the police be coy about admitting that they routinely employ them? In fact, why aren't these people on the payroll, sharing offices with old-fashioned detectives who lack their super-human skills? DNA analysts get paid for the assistance they provide - because they prove useful.

There is no doubt that this has been an embarrassing episode for WA Police and it's disappointing that they haven't taken the opportunity to make their position absolutely unambiguous. As it stands, it is mildly possible to look at this story and still consider that the force do routinely use "psychics" but are embarrassed to admit it. I'd hope that's not the case, and I'm pretty certain it's not the case for the reasons given above. But the fact is that two detectives were apparently unaware of their employer's position on the matter so no one could argue that position is clear.

As for the Sunday Times, their position, in my opinion, seems to lie on the credulous side of the discussion. Hopefully, The West will follow this up again with a more-reality-based discussion.

Oh, and as for that headline, I'd be dismayed if police ever did "rule out" using information from "psychics". They should surely continue to take any and all information and deal with it as they would any other information - even if it comes from criminals, charlatans, used-care salespeople, drug addicts, bloggers, journalists, children, spouses, relatives or eye-witnesses. Why would anyone expect "psychics" to be treated differently when it seems likely they are no different to anyone else except for a strange belief in their own superhero-ness?

What really matters is if the information proves useful and, when it comes solely from those supposed "super powers", it just never seems to prove useful, in which case I imagine it gets filed with all the other incidental information police receive in such cases.

MORE:

You can read a short review of Debbie Malone's book here. When the reviewer, Diana Carroll, writes that Malone's input seems to be "valued" by investigators, I assume her tongue is firmly in her cheek (what else would she expect the author to claim - that she's absolutely useless?). My suspicion seems confirmed when Carroll suggests Malone should have employed a "ghost writer". Good one.


Articles and images on this blog are nothing more than satirical commentary based on the honest opinion of the author. No one should use this blog as the sole basis for forming an opinion on the subjects discussed but readers are welcome to consider these opinions in light of similar or contrary information available elsewhere. I advise skepticism regarding my own commentary just as I advise it with regards to the subjects discussed here. If I can get you to take nothing at face value, I've done my job.

Alternative Medicine in Hospitals

Here is a documentary no one should miss. Skeptics especially should take careful note of the information contained in this mini special that outlines the usefulness of alternative and complementary approaches to health care, even in the emergency ward.