FATE-CRY

Subject: "Fate" Replies to Electronic Publishing of Klass' "Crybaby"


               Editorial In the May, 1992 "Fate" Magazine, p.12-18



             In  the  past several years microcomputers,  also  known  as
        personal  computers  or  PCs, have become  wildly  popular.  Many
        have  them at home and use them     for such purposes as  keeping
        records,  educating children, typing letters and  playing  games.
        FATE  itself is produced almost     entirely on  Apple  Macintosh
        PCs.     One of the uses of PCs is to     communicate with  other
        PC users     in a place they call "cyberspace" (a     name  taken
        from  a science fiction novel). Actually, cyberspace is  a  place
        where  electronic communication takes place - it has no  physical
        existence.  The  linking  of PC users, done with the  help  of  a
        computer  device  called a "modem", takes place  on  a  "bulletin
        Board System," or "BBS." There are thousands of BBSes around  the
        U.S.A.
             The  people  who  use  BBSes communicate  on  a  variety  of
        subjects,  including  the  paranormal.  Skeptics  participate  on
        BBSes, too.
             Recently, an article written over a decade ago has begun  to
        appear  on the BBSes. It was written by Philip J. Klass,  one  of
        the   primary  members  of  the  Committee  for  the   Scientific
        Investigation  of  Claims  of the  Paranormal  (CSICOP).  We  are
        mentioning this because the article is an attack both on FATE and
        an  article we published. As we do not have our own BBS,  we  are
        responding here.
             In 1981 we published an article entitled sTARBABY by  Dennis
        Rawlins, a former member of CSICOP. In it he revealed that CSICOP
        faked  information on research into one aspect of  astrology  and
        then  committed a coverup of what they did. The result  was  that
        CSICOP  lost  many members and, contrary to its name,  no  longer
        will  sponsor any investigations. They have never apologized  for
        what  they did, although they have admitted that  "mistakes  were
        made."
             sTARBABY  was published only after the most intensive  study
        of  the  documentation  by  Rawlins  that  FATE  ever  performed.
        According to Jerome Clark, FATE was supplied hundreds of pages of
        documentation along with tape recordings of telephone calls.  Due
        to the severity of the charges in that article, we ran it by  our
        lawyers  before publishing it. There are strong charges made.  We
        have  no doubt that lawsuits would have been filed if there  were
        any errors in that story. No such suits were ever filed.
             Mr.  Klass  did,  however, send  us  a  rambling,  logicless
        article  he  entitled "Crybaby". It refuted  almost  nothing  but
        attempted  to  show that Mr. Rawlins was a  troublemaker.  It  is
        Crybaby that is making the rounds via BBSes. We remind you,  once
        again,  of  Cicero's  advice ["if you have  no  case,  abuse  the
        plaintiff"]. It would seem that Mr. Klass has followed it to  the
        long-winded letter.
             The  version  of  Crybaby  making  the  rounds  now  has  an
        introduction  that  has some misleading  information.  They  say,
        "FATE  adamantly refused to publish this article."  According  to
        Clark, he wanted to publish it because its poor quality would  be
        more  of  an  embarrassment to Klass than a  true  refutation  of
        sTARBABY.  He  was  overruled in this as FATE  did  not  want  to
        include the poor writing.
             According  to  Clark, FATE requested an article  that  dealt
        with  the  issues  of sTARBABY rather  than  the  poorly  written
        Crybaby. Ten years later we have received nothing.
             There is a new addendum to Klass's article. The addition was
        written by Robert Sheaffer in November 1991. It has nothing to do
        with sTARBABY, but continues the attack on Rawlins. The  subject?
        Whether Admiral Peary actually reached the North Pole!
             The truth of the matter is this:
             1)  After  a  decade,  CSICOP is  still  smarting  from  the
        drubbing  it  took  as a result of its  actions  as  revealed  in
        sTARBABY. It is still affecting the group and its membership.
             2)  In  spite  of its name, CSICOP  no  longer  investigates
        anything, nor does it sponsor research.
             3)  CSICOP members have learned how to apply the  advice  of
        Cicero.
             It  would  seem that the term "crybaby" actually  should  be
        applied to Klass and CSICOP.



                  My comments on the above editorial from FATE:

        It  strains  credibility to claim that an article  written  by  a
        professional  journalist of over thirty years' standing  who  has
        won numerous awards for his excellence in writing, is unpublisha-
        ble  because  it is "logicless" and of its  "poor  quality".  For
        example,  in  1973 Klass was named a fellow in the  Institute  of
        Electrical  and Electronic Engineers for his  accomplishments  in
        technical  writing,  and in 1989 the Aviation and  Space  Writers
        Association  awarded Klass its most prestigious Lauren  D.  Lyman
        Award. A much more credible reason is: FATE had long been seeking
        about  for  a convenient mallet to use for  bashing  CSICOP,  and
        decided that Rawlins' "sTARBABY" would serve nicely,   regardless
        of  whether  or not Rawlins' charges were  well-grounded;  hence,
        they did not want the weaknesses in Rawlins' case to be known  to
        their  readers.  Jerome Clark, who was then associate  editor  of
        Fate (and is currently the editor of the CUFOS Bulletin), is  the
        one  who claimed that the "poor quality" of Klass' article  would
        have been an embarrassment to all parties involved. For those who
        have  not  read it, I attach Klass' "Crybaby" below; you  be  the
        judge of whether or not Jerome Clark was lying about its  obvious
        "poor quality". In any case, Klass still has a letter dated  Dec.
        1,  1981  from Mary Margaret Fuller (then Editor of  Fate)  which
        gives as the excuse for not publishing "Crybaby" that "nothing in
        your  manuscript refutes [Rawlins'] allegations." Again,  re-read
        Klass' article, then you may be the judge of whether or not  THIS
        particular excuse for refusing to publishing it is valid.

        As for the postscript I added about Rawlins and his harsh charges
        about  the  supposed conspiracy and coverup  of  Admiral  Peary's
        alleged  failure to reach the North Pole, that, too, is  attached
        below. Fate wants you to think it was absurdly irrelevant for  me
        to  bring this up, but clearly it is not, as it reveals  Rawlins'
        propensity for making reckless accusations. It lays bare Rawlins'
        _modus  operandi_  to  those who know him  only  for  "sTARBABY."
        Rawlins' recklessness in charging the National Geographic Society
        with   a  coverup  and conspiracy is  truly  appalling,  and  his
        insistence  on maintaining these same bizarre charges even  after
        they  were  definitively  refuted  demonstrates  his  visions  of
        "conspiracies" to be utterly devoid of any connection to reality.

        Finally,  lest  Fate  get too smug complimenting  itself  in  its
        supposed  success in causing CSICOP to "lose  members",  consider
        this:  In 1981, when Rawlins' "sTARBABY" was published,  CSICOP's
        quarterly  journal "The Skeptical Inquirer" had a circulation  of
        approximately 8,000. At present, its circulation is approximately
        35,000.
                                          - Robert Sheaffer



                            "CRYBABY"

                       By Philip J. Klass



Philip J.  Klass is a member of the Executive Council,  Committee
for  the  Scientific  Investigation of Claims of  the  Paranormal
(CSICOP).


     [Note:  This  article,  written in 1981,  was submitted  for
     publication  to  FATE Magazine,  in reply to Dennis Rawlins'
     accusations against   CSICOP in his Oct.,  1981 FATE article
     "sTARBABY".  FATE adamantly refused to publish this article.
     Meanwhile,  Rawlins  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 "Mars Effect" in the Winter,  1979-80 issue  (p.26).  To
     this  day,  supporters of the paranormal still charge CSICOP
     with  perpetrating  a  "coverup"  on  this  matter.  Only  a
     relatively  few people ever saw Klass' "CRYBABY",  the  long
     and detailed answer to Rawlins' "sTARBABY" charges. Now that
     you  have the opportunity to read Klass' rebuttal,  you  can
     make up your own mind.

     Klass'  original text has been reproduced below,  exactly as
     typed,   with   the  author's   permission.   Spelling   and
     punctuation have not been changed.  Text that was underlined
     in the original appears in capital letters.
             -  Robert Sheaffer, Bay Area Skeptics, 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.]




     "They  call  themselves  the Committee  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
FATE  magazine,  which  a a press release  headlined:  "SCIENTIST
BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON PARANORMAL COVERUP."

     Since CSICOP 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,  UFOs,  and similar subjects and it has
been criticized sharply by FATE whose articles generally cater to
those who are eager to believe.  However,  this FATE article  was
written  by skeptic Dennis Rawlins,  who was one of the  original
Fellows  in CSICOP and for nearly four years had been a member of
its  Executive  Council.  This  would seem to  give  credence  to
Rawlins'  charges  -- except  to  those  of  us  with  first-hand
experience  in trying to work with him and who are familiar  with
his modus-operandi.

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

     The  FATE  article,  entitled  "sTARBABY"  prompted  my  own
investigation  into  Rawlins' charges.  But unlike  Rawlins,  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 Rawlins  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 -- Dennis  Rawlins,  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!

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

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

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

     The  first  of  the  two tests was  performed  by  Gauquelin
himself, with results that generally  were supportive of the Mars
effect hypothesis by eliminating a possible objection that  first
had been raised by others, i,e, not CSICOP. The only way in which
CSICOP,  or  persons  affiliated  with it,  could  be  guilty  of
Rawlins'  charges  would  be  if  they  had  refused  to  publish
Gauquelin's  results or had intentionally altered the data in his
report.  NEITHER OCCURRED. Nor did Gauquelin accuse CSICOP 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.

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

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

     According  to "sTARBABY," CSICOP Chairman Prof.  Paul  Kurtz
was  the  principal architect of the  alleged  cover-up.  Yet  in
reality  it  was  Kurtz,  then editor of  THE  HUMANIST  magazine
(published  by  the  American  Humanist Assn.)  who  printed  the
lengthy  paper by Gauquelin 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 Rawlins and FATE charge
that  Kurtz's  decision to publish test results favorable  to  an
"adversary"  represents a "cover-up"?  Rawlins might better  have
waited until "l984" to resort to such "double-speak" accusations.

     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  Mars  effect
test,  which is at the root of the Rawlins/FATE charges,  and the
second tests performed using data for outstanding U.S.  athletes.
Based  on  calculations performed by Rawlins  himself,  the  U.S.
champions  test showed a very UNFAVORABLE result for the  claimed
Mars  effect,  which  Rawlins confirms in "sTARBABY."  And  these
Rawlins-computed  results  were  published,  without  change,  by
CSICOP.

      The Sept/Oct. l975 issue of THE HUMANIST carried an article
by  L.E.  Jerome that was critical of astrology in general and of
the  Mars  effect  in  particular.   When  Gauquelin  sought   an
opportunity for rebuttal, Kurtz 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
Mars  effect  had  been confirmed by Belgian  Committee  for  the
Scientific Investigation of Alleged Paranormal Phenomena (created
some  25 years earlier),  that group also was invited by Kurtz to
submit an article for publication.  Belgian Comite Para, 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.

      This  seemed  important because the Mars effect  hypothesis
holds  that persons born during an approximately two-hour  period
just  after Mars has "risen" or during a comparable period  after
Mars 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 Mars is in one of these two "key
sectors." (Because of combined orbital motions of Earth and Mars,
the percentage of the day in which Mars is in two key sectors  is
approximately  l7%.  But  Gauquelin  reported that  22%  European
champions in his data base had been born when Mars was in the two
key sectors, significantly higher than the l7% "benchmark."

      Because  of  the  issue  raised  by  Comite'  Para,   Kurtz
consulted statistics professor Marvin Zelen who in turn proposed a
control  test that could resolve the statistical issue raised  by
Comite'  Para.  This Zelen proposed test,  also published in  the
same  (Jan./Feb.  1976)  issue of THE  HUMANIST,  suggested  that
Gauquelin  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 Mars effect.

     If  only 17% of these NON-champions were born when Mars  was
in  the  two  key sectors,  this would void the issue  raised  by
Comite  Para.  But if roughly 22% of the NON-champions also  were
born  when Mars was in the two key sectors,  this would  undercut
the  Mars 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
Belgian  Comite Para." If Gauquelin's sample of "champions"  data
was "biased," as Rawlins first suspected, this could not possibly
be detected by the Zelen-proposed test.

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

     However,  Abell 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 the United 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
Zelen  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 (Zelen) test  was
proposed, CSICOP did not yet exist. Several months later, when it
was formed (initially under the auspices of the American Humanist
Assn.),  Kurtz  became  its co-chairman and later  its  chairman.
Zelen and Abell were named Fellows, but not to CSICOP's Executive
Council.  In  l980,  Abell was elected to replace Rawlins on  the
Council.

     The results of this first (Zelen) test were published in the
Nov./Dec.,  l977 issue of THE HUMANIST, where the issue first was
raised,  although  by this time CSICOP had its  own  publication.
Gauquelin and his wife Francoise were given nearly six large-size
magazine  pages  to  present their findings  without  censorship.
Gauquelin 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 France  and  Belgium,  The  Gauquelins
reported  that  these  data  showed that only  l7%  of  the  non-
champions  had  been born when Mars was in the two sectors  which
seemed  to resolve the issue earlier raised by  Belgium's  Comite
Para in favor of the Mars effect.

     The  same issue of THE HUMANIST carried an  article  jointly
authored  by Zelen,  Kurtz,  and Abell,  that began:  "Is there a
'Mars  Effect'?  The preceding article by  Michel  and  Francoise
Gauquelin  discusses the experiment proposed by Marvin Zelen  and
its  subsequent outcome.  Their conclusions come out in favor  of
the existence of a 'Mars 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 'Mars effect.'"

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

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

     In  the same issue of THE HUMANIST,  in a brief introduction
written by Kurtz, the first "linkage" with CSICOP occurred. Kurtz
wrote:  "Thus,  members of CSICP involved in this inquiry believe
that  the claim that there is a statistical relationship  between
the position of Mars 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  Gauquelin)  to  make an independent  test  of  the
alleged Mars effect by a study of sports champions in the  United
States."

     In "sTARBABY," Rawlins charges that the U. S, champions test
was a "diversion." Clearly the Gauquelins 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."

     On March 28,  1978,  SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE
FIRST TEST WERE PUBLISHED,  Rawlins sent Kurtz 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
Comite  Para,  which  prompted Rawlins 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 Mars often was in one of the two key
sectors.  In this analysis,  Rawlins concluded that Gauquelin had
"made fair allowance for the effect."

     But  Rawlins  had  not written this  three-page  memo  until
several  month  AFTER  the Zelen test had been  proposed  in  THE
HUMANIST.  Shortly after preparing the analysis, Rawlins had sent
a  copy  to  Prof.  Marcello  Truzzi,  then  editor  of  CSICOP's
publication. Truzzi had decided not to publish it but sent a copy
to Gauquelin. IF the Rawlins 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.

     When  Rawlins finally got around to sending this analysis to
Kurtz  on  March  28,  1978,  his letter of  that  date  did  NOT
criticize  Truzzi or CSICOP for not having published it  earlier.
Rather,  Rawlins 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 Kurtz no
longer was its editor.  More important,  the results of the first
(Zelen) test already had been published several months earlier.

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

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

     It  was  at about this time that CSICOP came under fire  for
Rawlins'  actions  in  another matter.  In the  summer  of  1977,
Rawlins and Abell had been invited to be panelists in a symposium
on  astrology  to  be held March 18,  1978 at the  University  of
Toronto at which Gauquelin,  among others, would participate. The
invitation  came from Dr.  Howard Eisenberg on the stationary  of
the University's School of Continuing Studies.  Both Rawlins  and
Abel  had accepted.  Then,  in late  September,  1977,  Eisenberg
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.

     On  Feb.  6,  1978,  Rawlins 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
Rawlins 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..." Rawlins sent a copy of his letter
to another university official.

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

     Rawlins'  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 Bob Garrison was awakened by  a
phone  call.  The  caller identified himself as a member  of  the
Committee  for  the  Scientific Investigation of  Claims  of  the
Paranormal,  and according to Garrison, he spent the best part of
the  next hour urging the U of T scientist not to participate  in
the  conference  on  astrology...Dennis  Rawlins,   a  California
astronomer  and  science writer and a member  of  the  Committee,
acknowledged in an interview that he made the call, but denied he
was    trying   to   talk   Garrison   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  ASTROLOGY WERE ENGAGED IN A CAMPAIGN  TO  SUPPRESS
FREEDOM OF SPEECH." (Emphasis added.)

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

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

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

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

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

     Relations  between  Rawlins and Gauquelin had been  strained
since   CSICOP  published  a  long,   rambling   Rawlins   attack
(Fall/Winter  1977) in which he accused Gauquelin of "misgraphing
the results of the Belgian Comite Para check on his Mars-athletes
link..." Gauquelin had responded with the charge that Rawlins 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 Rawlins.

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

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

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

     In "sTARBABY," Rawlins claims that Abell had been invited to
speak  because "Kurtz was trying to suppress my dissenting report
(of Sept. 18, 1978) and (by not paying my travel fare) to keep me
from the December Council meeting while inviting to Washington as
a prominent CSICOP authority the very person whose appointed task
I HAD MYSELF PERFORMED" (his italics,  p.  81). In reality, there
was no question that Rawlins' 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
Gauquelin.

     It was not until approximately one year AFTER the results of
the Zelen test were published in THE HUMANIST that Rawlins  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 Zelen,  with a copy to  Kurtz.  BUT
RAWLINS  STILL DID NOT CHARGE THAT THIS AMOUNTED TO A "COVER-UP,"
OR  THAT CSICOP WAS INVOLVED.  Quite the opposite.  A  few  weeks
later  when  the Winter 1978 issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER  was
published, there was a Rawlins response which said: "It SHOULD BE
CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT CSICP AS A BODY NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO  DO
WITH  THE HUMANIST ZELEN TEST 'CHALLENGE'...PUBLISHED BEFORE  THE
COMMITTEE WAS FOUNDED"(Emphasis added.)

     Like  most members of CSICOP's Executive Council who had not
been involved either in the first (Zelen) 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
Council  meeting  in Washington in  early  December,  1978,  when
Rawlins  unleashed  a rambling harrangue.  Understandably  I  was
confused by Rawlins' charge that CSICOP somehow was involved in a
Zelen  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 Zelen test was NOT a
CSICOP-sponsored effort.

     Despite  my efforts to understand Rawlins'  allegations,  it
was not clear to me (and to many other Council members) just what
it was that he now was claiming had been"covered-up." After three
years of working with Rawlins 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 Council members who disagreed with his proposals for
intemperate actions against "the believers." For example, Rawlins
had charged that Truzzi was involved with the "Church of Satan."

Beyond  having  difficulty  in  understanding  the  specifics  of
Rawlins'  charges,  I  failed to grasp what he thought should  be
done to correct the alleged problem. Because the hour was getting
late and Council members had to leave to catch flights back home,
I  suggested to Rawlins that he write a memorandum  that  clearly
and  concisely  set forth the basic issues and that he  recommend
appropriate corrective action.  In this way Council members could
better  comprehend the matter and consider corrective  action  if
such were justified.  Rawlins 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 CSICOP OR REQUIRED COUNCIL  MEMBERS'
ATTENTION.

     Rawlins was the last one to leave my apartment (where we had
been  meeting that night) and he continued his earlier  harrangue
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 Council members  by  preparing  a
memorandum.  I assured Rawlins that since I had not been involved
in  either  of  the two tests and since  he  had  recommended  my
election to Council, he could expect me to be at least neutral if
not sympathetic.

     Rawlins never responded to my request. About six weeks later
(Jan. 17,  1979),  he  did circulate a five-page memo  to  CSICOP
Fellows and Council members. It was a "baby sTARBABY" which cited
a  number  of  ALLEGED  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."

     Rawlins never responded to this request. Today, following my
recent investigation,  I know why.  There was no cover-up, except
in Rawlins' troubled mind, fed by the fires of a wounded ego and,
perhaps,  by  embarassment over his unauthorized intervention  in
the  University  of  Toronto symposium.  Rawlins  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 Rawlins to be the CSICOP  speaker  on
astrology  in  Washington  and to replace Abell  in  writing  the
report on the results of the U.S. champions test.

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

     "sTARBABY"  reveals that Rawlins 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 Gauquelin test  at  the
1978  Council meeting.  His article implies that Council meetings
are  characterized by attempts to suppress dissenting  views.  In
reality  one usually hears almost as many different viewpoints as
there  are  Council  members  present.  And  Kurtz  is  the  most
unconstraining  group  chairman I have ever known  in  the  many
organizations of which I have been a member.

     Even  on easily ascertainable matters,  Rawlins  chooses  to
rely  on his vivid imagination or recollections rather than  take
time  to check the facts.  For example,  in  "sTARBABY,"  Rawlins
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].  Rawlins 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 masthead,  where its editorial staff is listed. Had
Rawlins done so he would not have made this spurious claim.

     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." Rawlins' letter  of  Sept.  21,
1981, explained that at a Council meeting HELD FOUR YEARS EARLIER
he remembers that "Kurtz called all Ed.  Board members 'Associate
Editors'...I adopted to save syllables." Rawlins tries to justify
his misstatement of fact on the grounds that he was able to  save
approximately 42 characters in his 75,000-character-long article!

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

     In the previously cited Rawlins memorandum of Jan. 17, 1979,
following  the Washington meeting,  he wrote that he  planned  to
reduce  his involvement with CSICOP.  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 Rawlins already  had  taken  such
steps  at  the December Council meeting whose press  seminar  was
attended  by  an experienced journalist with a known empathy  for
some  paranormal claims.  During the early afternoon Rawlins  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 Rawlins' charges as did Council members.

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

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

     Returning,  chronologically, to the fall of 1979, CSICOP was
preparing  to publish the results of the U.S.  champions test  in
the  Winter  1979-80  issue of THE  SKEPTICAL  INQUIRER.  Rawlins
demanded  the right to revise and expand his original  Sept,  18,
1978,   paper,  and  was  given  that  opportunity.  Furthermore,
according to "sTARBABY," Rawlins informed Ken Frazier,  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.)

     Frazier  (who  had  been  recommended for  the  position  by
Rawlins  himself),  acting  on the recommendation  of  Prof.  Ray
Hyman,  a  Council member who reviewed the Rawlins 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.  Frazier also opted to delete  another
sentence  that  read:  "In this connection I must also say  that,
given   the   self  piekill  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 ZKA (Zelen,
Kurtz,  Abell)  are  the  main commentators on this test  in  THE
SKEPTICAL   INQUIRER."  Once  again  Rawlins'   wounded-ego   had
manifested itself.

     On Nov, 6, 1979, Rawlins 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)." Frazier had proposed an alternative  sentence,  which
was  published  at  the  end of the  Rawlins  paper,  that  read:
"Further  commentary  on the issues raised in this paper  and  in
these notes is available from the author." Rawlins' address  also
was published.

     This is the basis for Rawlins' harsh charges of "censorship"
against Frazier, the man whom he had so highly recommended for the
position.  If  Rawlins' 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 Rawlins' charges, Frazier wrote to
members  of  the Editorial Board explaining what had  transpired.
Frazier noted,  "Dennis 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
Rawlins   was  not  given  privileged   treatment,   he   charges
"censorship."

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

     Two months later,  Rawlins wrote to Frazier 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  Rawlins 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.)

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

     The  foregoing  highlights the key issues and  actions  that
prompted  FATE and Rawlins to charge that CSICOP  "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  Pravda  account
explaining  that the Soviets moved into Afghanistan to  help  the
Afghans  prevent  an invasion by the  U.S.  Central  Intelligence
Agency.)

     Were it possible to turn back the clock,  undoubtedly Kurtz,
Zelen  and  Abell 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 CSICOP Council members and Fellows have other
full-time professions that seriously constrain time available for
CSICOP efforts.

Were it possible to turn back the clock,  the Council should have
insisted  in  the  spring of 1978 that  Rawlins  issue  a  public
statement  that he had erred in using CSICOP's name in support of
his  personal actions connected with the University 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  Council  should  have developed a policy  statement,  as  it
recently  did,  that  more  clearly  delineates  activities  that
members perform officially in behalf of CSICOP and those  carried
out as private individuals.

     When  a small group of persons met in Buffalo in May,  1976,
to create CSICOP, their motivation was a concern over the growing
public acceptance of claims of the paranormal. CSICOP was created
to  provide a counter-balance to those who espouse a  variety  of
claims,  ranging  from  UFOs  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 Council.  Rawlins was at the "hit-'em-hard" extreme, while
Truzzi  was  at  the opposite pole and resigned  after  a  couple
years,  partially  as  a result of behind-the scenes plotting  by
Rawlins  which he admits in "sTARBABY." Now Rawlins has  departed
and, in my view, CSICOP is much the better for it.

     CSICOP  never has tried to destroy those organizations  that
promote  belief in paranormal causes.  But individuals  in  these
organization have tried to discredit CSICOP, even going so far in
one instance as to circulate a forged letter.

     FATE   magazine  made  wide  distribution  of  the   Rawlins
"sTARBABY"  article  in reprint form,  together  with  its  press
release. Prof. R.A. McConnell, University of Pittsburgh, founding
President of the Parapsychological Association,  also distributed
copies  to CSICOP Fellows and Council members,  among others.  In
his accompanying letter,  McConnell said he believed the "Rawlins
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 "Rawlins has uncovered the  biggest
scandal  in the history of rationalism." McConnell  characterized
CSICOP as "an intellectually dishonest enterprise."

     FATE  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  EVENTS
WITHOUT  RIGOROUS  INVESTIGATION.   Neither  FATE  nor  McConnell
contacted  CSICOP officials to check out Rawlins'  charges.  This
demonstrates why CSICOP is so sorely needed.

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

    If  the  Mars  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 CSICOP could ever hope to suppress such evidence. Nor
have  I  found  any  CSICOP Council member or Fellow  who  is  so
foolish as to try.

                              (end)

     [In the years following "sTARBABY", Rawlins 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 Peary never actually  reached
     the  North  Pole during his famous expedition in  1909,  but
     instead  fabricated  his  navigational records  to  make  it
     appear as if he had. A New York Times article of October 13,
     1988 carries the headline:  "Peary's Notes Said to Imply  He
     Fell  Short  of  Pole." It begins:  "New evidence  based  on
     navigational  notes by Robert E.  Peary indicates  that  the
     Arctic  explorer  fell  short of his goal  and  deliberately
     faked  his  claim in 1909 that he was the  first  person  to
     reach  the  North  Pole,  according  to  an  analysis  by  a
     Baltimore  astronomer and historian ...  Dennis Rawlins,  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  Peary knew that he had  come  no
     closer  than  121  miles from the Pole."  Officials  of  the
     National  Geographic  Society promised to  examine  Rawlins'
     data,  but added "We believe Mr.  Rawlins has been too quick
     to cry fake."

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

     Finally,  in December,  1989, a 230-page report commissioned
     by the National Geographic Society was released,  concluding
     that  Peary  actually did reach the Pole.  As reported in  a
     story on p.1 of the New York 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 Pole. "The report said, there was no evidence
     of  fraud and deception in the explorer's records.  But  one
     critic,   Dennis   Rawlins,   a  Baltimore  astronomer   and
     historian,  said  he  remained convinced,  despite  the  new
     study,  that  Admiral  Peary did not reach his goal and  had
     faked his claim."

                   Robert Sheaffer, Nov., 1991 ]