· 8 years ago · Nov 23, 2017, 06:18 AM
1
2Subject: "Fate" Replies to Electronic Publishing of Klass' "Crybaby"
3
4
5 Editorial In the May, 1992 "Fate" Magazine, p.12-18
6
7
8
9 In the past several years microcomputers, also known as
10 personal computers or PCs, have become wildly popular. Many
11 have them at home and use them for such purposes as keeping
12 records, educating children, typing letters and playing games.
13 FATE itself is produced almost entirely on Apple Macintosh
14 PCs. One of the uses of PCs is to communicate with other
15 PC users in a place they call "cyberspace" (a name taken
16 from a science fiction novel). Actually, cyberspace is a place
17 where electronic communication takes place - it has no physical
18 existence. The linking of PC users, done with the help of a
19 computer device called a "modem", takes place on a "bulletin
20 Board System," or "BBS." There are thousands of BBSes around the
21 U.S.A.
22 The people who use BBSes communicate on a variety of
23 subjects, including the paranormal. Skeptics participate on
24 BBSes, too.
25 Recently, an article written over a decade ago has begun to
26 appear on the BBSes. It was written by Philip J. Klass, one of
27 the primary members of the Committee for the Scientific
28 Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). We are
29 mentioning this because the article is an attack both on FATE and
30 an article we published. As we do not have our own BBS, we are
31 responding here.
32 In 1981 we published an article entitled sTARBABY by Dennis
33 Rawlins, a former member of CSICOP. In it he revealed that CSICOP
34 faked information on research into one aspect of astrology and
35 then committed a coverup of what they did. The result was that
36 CSICOP lost many members and, contrary to its name, no longer
37 will sponsor any investigations. They have never apologized for
38 what they did, although they have admitted that "mistakes were
39 made."
40 sTARBABY was published only after the most intensive study
41 of the documentation by Rawlins that FATE ever performed.
42 According to Jerome Clark, FATE was supplied hundreds of pages of
43 documentation along with tape recordings of telephone calls. Due
44 to the severity of the charges in that article, we ran it by our
45 lawyers before publishing it. There are strong charges made. We
46 have no doubt that lawsuits would have been filed if there were
47 any errors in that story. No such suits were ever filed.
48 Mr. Klass did, however, send us a rambling, logicless
49 article he entitled "Crybaby". It refuted almost nothing but
50 attempted to show that Mr. Rawlins was a troublemaker. It is
51 Crybaby that is making the rounds via BBSes. We remind you, once
52 again, of Cicero's advice ["if you have no case, abuse the
53 plaintiff"]. It would seem that Mr. Klass has followed it to the
54 long-winded letter.
55 The version of Crybaby making the rounds now has an
56 introduction that has some misleading information. They say,
57 "FATE adamantly refused to publish this article." According to
58 Clark, he wanted to publish it because its poor quality would be
59 more of an embarrassment to Klass than a true refutation of
60 sTARBABY. He was overruled in this as FATE did not want to
61 include the poor writing.
62 According to Clark, FATE requested an article that dealt
63 with the issues of sTARBABY rather than the poorly written
64 Crybaby. Ten years later we have received nothing.
65 There is a new addendum to Klass's article. The addition was
66 written by Robert Sheaffer in November 1991. It has nothing to do
67 with sTARBABY, but continues the attack on Rawlins. The subject?
68 Whether Admiral Peary actually reached the North Pole!
69 The truth of the matter is this:
70 1) After a decade, CSICOP is still smarting from the
71 drubbing it took as a result of its actions as revealed in
72 sTARBABY. It is still affecting the group and its membership.
73 2) In spite of its name, CSICOP no longer investigates
74 anything, nor does it sponsor research.
75 3) CSICOP members have learned how to apply the advice of
76 Cicero.
77 It would seem that the term "crybaby" actually should be
78 applied to Klass and CSICOP.
79
80
81
82 My comments on the above editorial from FATE:
83
84 It strains credibility to claim that an article written by a
85 professional journalist of over thirty years' standing who has
86 won numerous awards for his excellence in writing, is unpublisha-
87 ble because it is "logicless" and of its "poor quality". For
88 example, in 1973 Klass was named a fellow in the Institute of
89 Electrical and Electronic Engineers for his accomplishments in
90 technical writing, and in 1989 the Aviation and Space Writers
91 Association awarded Klass its most prestigious Lauren D. Lyman
92 Award. A much more credible reason is: FATE had long been seeking
93 about for a convenient mallet to use for bashing CSICOP, and
94 decided that Rawlins' "sTARBABY" would serve nicely, regardless
95 of whether or not Rawlins' charges were well-grounded; hence,
96 they did not want the weaknesses in Rawlins' case to be known to
97 their readers. Jerome Clark, who was then associate editor of
98 Fate (and is currently the editor of the CUFOS Bulletin), is the
99 one who claimed that the "poor quality" of Klass' article would
100 have been an embarrassment to all parties involved. For those who
101 have not read it, I attach Klass' "Crybaby" below; you be the
102 judge of whether or not Jerome Clark was lying about its obvious
103 "poor quality". In any case, Klass still has a letter dated Dec.
104 1, 1981 from Mary Margaret Fuller (then Editor of Fate) which
105 gives as the excuse for not publishing "Crybaby" that "nothing in
106 your manuscript refutes [Rawlins'] allegations." Again, re-read
107 Klass' article, then you may be the judge of whether or not THIS
108 particular excuse for refusing to publishing it is valid.
109
110 As for the postscript I added about Rawlins and his harsh charges
111 about the supposed conspiracy and coverup of Admiral Peary's
112 alleged failure to reach the North Pole, that, too, is attached
113 below. Fate wants you to think it was absurdly irrelevant for me
114 to bring this up, but clearly it is not, as it reveals Rawlins'
115 propensity for making reckless accusations. It lays bare Rawlins'
116 _modus operandi_ to those who know him only for "sTARBABY."
117 Rawlins' recklessness in charging the National Geographic Society
118 with a coverup and conspiracy is truly appalling, and his
119 insistence on maintaining these same bizarre charges even after
120 they were definitively refuted demonstrates his visions of
121 "conspiracies" to be utterly devoid of any connection to reality.
122
123 Finally, lest Fate get too smug complimenting itself in its
124 supposed success in causing CSICOP to "lose members", consider
125 this: In 1981, when Rawlins' "sTARBABY" was published, CSICOP's
126 quarterly journal "The Skeptical Inquirer" had a circulation of
127 approximately 8,000. At present, its circulation is approximately
128 35,000.
129 - Robert Sheaffer
130
131
132
133 "CRYBABY"
134
135 By Philip J. Klass
136
137
138
139Philip J. Klass is a member of the Executive Council, Committee
140for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
141(CSICOP).
142
143
144 [Note: This article, written in 1981, was submitted for
145 publication to FATE Magazine, in reply to Dennis Rawlins'
146 accusations against CSICOP in his Oct., 1981 FATE article
147 "sTARBABY". FATE adamantly refused to publish this article.
148 Meanwhile, Rawlins was given the opportunity to make a
149 rambling, six-page statement in the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER
150 (Winter, 1981-82, p.58), which was published exactly as
151 received, presenting his accusations of a "coverup." This
152 was in addition to the 5 1/2 page article he earlier had on
153 the "Mars Effect" in the Winter, 1979-80 issue (p.26). To
154 this day, supporters of the paranormal still charge CSICOP
155 with perpetrating a "coverup" on this matter. Only a
156 relatively few people ever saw Klass' "CRYBABY", the long
157 and detailed answer to Rawlins' "sTARBABY" charges. Now that
158 you have the opportunity to read Klass' rebuttal, you can
159 make up your own mind.
160
161 Klass' original text has been reproduced below, exactly as
162 typed, with the author's permission. Spelling and
163 punctuation have not been changed. Text that was underlined
164 in the original appears in capital letters.
165 - Robert Sheaffer, Bay Area Skeptics, 1991.
166 This article is brought to you courtesy of the Bay
167 Area Skeptics' BBS, 415-648-8944, from which it is
168 available for downloading, although not via FTP.]
169
170
171
172
173 "They call themselves the Committee for the Scientific
174Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. In fact, they are a
175group of would-be-debunkers who bungled their major
176investigation, falsified the results , covered up their errors
177and gave the boot to a colleague who threatened to tell the
178truth." Thus began a 32-Page article in the October 1981 issue of
179FATE magazine, which a a press release headlined: "SCIENTIST
180BLOWS THE WHISTLE ON PARANORMAL COVERUP."
181
182 Since CSICOP was formed in the spring of 1976, it has been a
183thorn in the side of those who promote belief in "psychic
184phenomena," in astrology, UFOs, and similar subjects and it has
185been criticized sharply by FATE whose articles generally cater to
186those who are eager to believe. However, this FATE article was
187written by skeptic Dennis Rawlins, who was one of the original
188Fellows in CSICOP and for nearly four years had been a member of
189its Executive Council. This would seem to give credence to
190Rawlins' charges -- except to those of us with first-hand
191experience in trying to work with him and who are familiar with
192his modus-operandi.
193
194 Because Rawlins proposed my election to CSICOP's Executive
195Council I cannot be charged with animosity toward him, except
196what he later engendered by his actions. And in a recent letter
197to me, Rawlins volunteered that I "was less involved than any
198other active Councillor" in the alleged misdeeds.
199
200 The FATE article, entitled "sTARBABY" prompted my own
201investigation into Rawlins' charges. But unlike Rawlins, who
202relies heavily on his recollection of conversations several years
203earlier, I chose to use hard evidence - published articles,
204memoranda and letters, some of which Rawlins cites in his
205article. When I requested copies of these letters and memoranda
206from the several principals involved, all of them responded
207promptly and fully except for one -- Dennis Rawlins, who had
208accused the others of "cover-up" and "censorship." RAWLINS
209REFUSED MY REPEATED REQUESTS TO SUPPLY HARD DATA THAT MIGHT
210CONFIRM HIS CHARGES, AND WHICH ALSO COULD DENY THEM!
211
212 The results of my investigation, based on hard data,
213prompted me to conclude that the Rawlins article should have been
214entitled "CRYBABY," and that an appropriate subtitle would have
215been: "A wounded ego is the root of much evil."
216
217 If the editors of FATE had spent only a few hours reading
218published articles cited in the Rawlins article they could not in
219good conscience have accused CSICOP of "cover-up" or of having
220"falsified the results." Instead, FATE chose to ignore the
221traditional journalistic practice of investigating both sides of
222a controversial issue and publishing both sides, as those accused
223by Rawlins had done.
224
225 Rawlins' charges result from two tests intended to assess
226whether the position of the planet Mars at the time of a person's
227birth has a significant influence on whether he/she becomes a
228"sports champion." This "Mars effect" hypothesis was first
229proposed by France's Michel Gauquelin, who directs the laboratory
230for the Study of Relations between Cosmic and Psychophysiological
231Rhythms, based on a study of European champions.
232
233 The first of the two tests was performed by Gauquelin
234himself, with results that generally were supportive of the Mars
235effect hypothesis by eliminating a possible objection that first
236had been raised by others, i,e, not CSICOP. The only way in which
237CSICOP, or persons affiliated with it, could be guilty of
238Rawlins' charges would be if they had refused to publish
239Gauquelin's results or had intentionally altered the data in his
240report. NEITHER OCCURRED. Nor did Gauquelin accuse CSICOP or its
241members of trying to "cover-up" his results or altering the data
242of this first test whose calculations he himself performed,
243although there were some differences of interpretation of the
244implication of these results.
245
246 HOWEVER, GAUQUELIN DID PUBLICLY ACCUSE RAWLINS OF DISTORTION
247AND MISREPRESENTATION, with implied criticism of CSICOP because
248Rawlins then was a member of its Executive Council. There would
249be other occasions when CSICOP would be criticized because of
250Rawlins' intemperate statements and actions.
251
252 This criticism was published by CSICOP in the Winter l978
253issue of its publication, THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER (p. 80). In it
254Gauquelin wrote: "How, in spite of all this data could one
255distort and misrepresent the effect in question and sow doubts on
256the subject? Dennis Rawlins, a member of CSICP ... has done just
257this in a polemic which appeared in the Fall-Winter 1977 issue of
258that (CSICOP's) journal." In "sTARBABY," Rawlins tries to shift
259the blame for his transgressions to CSICOP.
260
261 According to "sTARBABY," CSICOP Chairman Prof. Paul Kurtz
262was the principal architect of the alleged cover-up. Yet in
263reality it was Kurtz, then editor of THE HUMANIST magazine
264(published by the American Humanist Assn.) who printed the
265lengthy paper by Gauquelin describing the seemingly favorable-
266for-him results of the first test in the Nov/Dec,l977 issue (p.
26730). What kind of doubletalk is this when Rawlins and FATE charge
268that Kurtz's decision to publish test results favorable to an
269"adversary" represents a "cover-up"? Rawlins might better have
270waited until "l984" to resort to such "double-speak" accusations.
271
272 Because the issues are complex and because two different
273publications and organizations were involved, it is useful to
274recount briefly the events that led to the first Mars effect
275test, which is at the root of the Rawlins/FATE charges, and the
276second tests performed using data for outstanding U.S. athletes.
277Based on calculations performed by Rawlins himself, the U.S.
278champions test showed a very UNFAVORABLE result for the claimed
279Mars effect, which Rawlins confirms in "sTARBABY." And these
280Rawlins-computed results were published, without change, by
281CSICOP.
282
283 The Sept/Oct. l975 issue of THE HUMANIST carried an article
284by L.E. Jerome that was critical of astrology in general and of
285the Mars effect in particular. When Gauquelin sought an
286opportunity for rebuttal, Kurtz provided it in the Jan./Feb. 1976
287issue of THE HUMANIST, which also carried several other articles
288on astrology. Because Gauquelin's article claimed that the
289Mars effect had been confirmed by Belgian Committee for the
290Scientific Investigation of Alleged Paranormal Phenomena (created
291some 25 years earlier), that group also was invited by Kurtz to
292submit an article for publication. Belgian Comite Para, as it is
293called, confirmed Gauquelin's calculations. But it questioned his
294statistical assumption "that the frequency distribution of the
295hours of birth during the day (the nych-themeral curve) is a
296constant distribution...", i.e. that there is an equal
297probability of a person being born during any hour of the day.
298
299 This seemed important because the Mars effect hypothesis
300holds that persons born during an approximately two-hour period
301just after Mars has "risen" or during a comparable period after
302Mars is at upper culmination (zenith), are more likely to become
303sports champions than persons born during other hours of the day.
304If there is an equal probability of a person being born in any
305one of the 24 hours, then 4/24, or l6.7%,of the general
306population should be born when Mars is in one of these two "key
307sectors." (Because of combined orbital motions of Earth and Mars,
308the percentage of the day in which Mars is in two key sectors is
309approximately l7%. But Gauquelin reported that 22% European
310champions in his data base had been born when Mars was in the two
311key sectors, significantly higher than the l7% "benchmark."
312
313 Because of the issue raised by Comite' Para, Kurtz
314consulted statistics professor Marvin Zelen who in turn proposed a
315control test that could resolve the statistical issue raised by
316Comite' Para. This Zelen proposed test, also published in the
317same (Jan./Feb. 1976) issue of THE HUMANIST, suggested that
318Gauquelin should gather birth data for "non-champions" who had
319been born in the same local areas and within three days of a
320RANDOMLY SELECTED sub-sample of Gauquelin's "champions" who
321seemed to show the Mars effect.
322
323 If only 17% of these NON-champions were born when Mars was
324in the two key sectors, this would void the issue raised by
325Comite Para. But if roughly 22% of the NON-champions also were
326born when Mars was in the two key sectors, this would undercut
327the Mars effect hypothesis. Zelen's article concluded that the
328proposed test offered "an objective way for unambiguous
329corroboration or dis-confirmation." In retrospect it would have
330been more precise had he added: "...of the issue raised by
331Belgian Comite Para." If Gauquelin's sample of "champions" data
332was "biased," as Rawlins first suspected, this could not possibly
333be detected by the Zelen-proposed test.
334
335 The same issue of The Humanist carried another article, by
336astronomy professor George O. Abell, which was very skeptical of
337astrology in general. But unlike Rawlins who dismissed the Mars
338effect out-of-hand and "didn't believe that it merited serious
339investigation yet" (FATE: p. 74), Abell wrote that if Gauquelin's
340findings were correct, they were "extremely interesting."
341
342 However, Abell included the following note of caution: "If
343all of Gauquelin's work is re-checked, and his results hold up,
344then it is necessary to repeat the experiment with a new sample,
345say in the United States. If that sample should give the same
346result, then further verification is in order, until it is
347absolutely certain that the effects are real and reproducible.
348That is the way science works; reproducibility of results is
349necessary before fundamental new laws can be inferred." This sage
350advice clearly indicated the limits of what conclusions could be
351drawn, and could not be drawn, from the results of the upcoming
352Zelen test, and even from a complete re-check of Gauquelin's
353original data on European champions, which was not attempted. It
354should be stressed that at the time this first (Zelen) test was
355proposed, CSICOP did not yet exist. Several months later, when it
356was formed (initially under the auspices of the American Humanist
357Assn.), Kurtz became its co-chairman and later its chairman.
358Zelen and Abell were named Fellows, but not to CSICOP's Executive
359Council. In l980, Abell was elected to replace Rawlins on the
360Council.
361
362 The results of this first (Zelen) test were published in the
363Nov./Dec., l977 issue of THE HUMANIST, where the issue first was
364raised, although by this time CSICOP had its own publication.
365Gauquelin and his wife Francoise were given nearly six large-size
366magazine pages to present their findings without censorship.
367Gauquelin reported having difficulties in obtaining data for non-
368champions born within several days of champions in small towns,
369so he said that non-champions birth data had been obtained only
370from the large cities in France and Belgium, The Gauquelins
371reported that these data showed that only l7% of the non-
372champions had been born when Mars was in the two sectors which
373seemed to resolve the issue earlier raised by Belgium's Comite
374Para in favor of the Mars effect.
375
376 The same issue of THE HUMANIST carried an article jointly
377authored by Zelen, Kurtz, and Abell, that began: "Is there a
378'Mars Effect'? The preceding article by Michel and Francoise
379Gauquelin discusses the experiment proposed by Marvin Zelen and
380its subsequent outcome. Their conclusions come out in favor of
381the existence of a 'Mars effect' related to sports champions. It
382is the purpose of this article to discuss the analysis of the
383data and to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the
384evidence in favor of the 'Mars effect.'"
385
386 The Zelen/Kurtz/Abell article raised some questions about
387the results. For example, that "the 'Mars effect' only appears in
388Paris, not in Belgium or in the rest of France." The article
389concluded: "lf one had a high prior 'belief' that there is a Mars
390effect, then the Gauquelin data would serve confirm this prior
391belief. In the other hand, if the prior belief in the existence
392of a Mars effect was low, then this data may raise the posterior
393belief, but not enough to accept the existence of the Mars
394effect."
395
396 Rawlins charges that publication of this article, following
397the uncensored Gauquelin paper,"commited CSICOP to a cover-up."
398(FATE: p.76) Yet is characteristic of scientific controversy for
399one party to question or challenge another's interpretation of
400the data. And Gauquelin would do so following the second test
401without being accused of a "cover-up" in "sTARBABY."
402
403 In the same issue of THE HUMANIST, in a brief introduction
404written by Kurtz, the first "linkage" with CSICOP occurred. Kurtz
405wrote: "Thus, members of CSICP involved in this inquiry believe
406that the claim that there is a statistical relationship between
407the position of Mars at the time of birth of individuals and the
408incidence of sports champions among them has not been established
409... to further the cause of scientific inquiry, the committee has
410agreed (with Gauquelin) to make an independent test of the
411alleged Mars effect by a study of sports champions in the United
412States."
413
414 In "sTARBABY," Rawlins charges that the U. S, champions test
415was a "diversion." Clearly the Gauquelins themselves did not view
416it in this light, judging from the concluding statement in their
417article which said: "Let us hope that these positive results may
418induce other scientists to study whether this effect, discovered
419with the European data, appears also with the U.S. data."
420
421 On March 28, 1978, SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE RESULTS OF THE
422FIRST TEST WERE PUBLISHED, Rawlins sent Kurtz a copy of a three-
423page memorandum he had prepared a year earlier (March 29, 1977).
424It contained a very technical analysis of the issue raised by
425Comite Para, which prompted Rawlins to conclude that the 22%
426figure reported for European champions was not the result of a
427disproportionate share of births of the general population during
428the early morning hours when Mars often was in one of the two key
429sectors. In this analysis, Rawlins concluded that Gauquelin had
430"made fair allowance for the effect."
431
432 But Rawlins had not written this three-page memo until
433several month AFTER the Zelen test had been proposed in THE
434HUMANIST. Shortly after preparing the analysis, Rawlins had sent
435a copy to Prof. Marcello Truzzi, then editor of CSICOP's
436publication. Truzzi had decided not to publish it but sent a copy
437to Gauquelin. IF the Rawlins analysis of 1977 took account of all
438possible demographic factors -- and there is some disagreement on
439this question -- it was much too technical to be understood by
440persons without expertise in statistics and celestial mechanics.
441
442 When Rawlins finally got around to sending this analysis to
443Kurtz on March 28, 1978, his letter of that date did NOT
444criticize Truzzi or CSICOP for not having published it earlier.
445Rather, Rawlins admitted, "I should not have kept my (Mar. 19,
4461977) memo..private after all." He did suggest that perhaps it
447might now be published in THE HUMANIST. But by this time Kurtz no
448longer was its editor. More important, the results of the first
449(Zelen) test already had been published several months earlier.
450
451If, as Rawlins would later charge in"sTARBABY," the
452Zelen/Kurtz/Abell article published several months earlier in THE
453HUMANIST amounted to a "cover- up," Rawlins did not make such an
454accusation to Kurtz when he wrote him April 6, 1978. Instead,
455Rawlins wrote; "I think our best bets now are 1. The main
456European investigation might seek to discover how the Eur. samp
457(of Gauquelin) was (hypothetically) fudged -- check orig. records
458microscopically for some sort of Soal trick. 2. Proceed with the
459U.S, test, where we know we have a clean (unbiased) sample."
460
461 This April 6, 1978, letter clearly shows that while Rawlins
462suspected that Gauquelin had manipulated his European champions
463data ("Soal trick") he found no evidence of wrong-doing by
464Zelen/Kurtz/Abell. On April 26, 1978, in another letter to Kurtz,
465following his visit with Rawlins in San Diego, Rawlins wrote that
466he "was certain" that Gauquelin's original data "was biased, but
467not sure how." Rawlins concluded this letter on a cordial note:
468"Now, wasn't it great visiting sunny, funny, California -- and
469getting to see a real live nut religion launch itself in San
470Diego? ... hope you'll get back this way soon again."
471
472 It was at about this time that CSICOP came under fire for
473Rawlins' actions in another matter. In the summer of 1977,
474Rawlins and Abell had been invited to be panelists in a symposium
475on astrology to be held March 18, 1978 at the University of
476Toronto at which Gauquelin, among others, would participate. The
477invitation came from Dr. Howard Eisenberg on the stationary of
478the University's School of Continuing Studies. Both Rawlins and
479Abel had accepted. Then, in late September, 1977, Eisenberg
480withdrew the invitations on the grounds that "the response from
481potential speakers...has yielded an incredible acceptance rate of
482100%. This places us in the embarassing position of not being
483able to sponsor all of you," i.e. pay travel expenses and allow
484formal presentations.
485
486 On Feb. 6, 1978, Rawlins wrote to the president of the
487University of Toronto, protesting what he said were "a number of
488oddities" associated with the symposium, including an imbalance
489between the number of astrology supporters and skeptics. The
490Rawlins letter charged that "this conference looks to be a pretty
491phoney confrontation, which will therefore give the irrational
492pseudo-science of astrology an evidentially-unmerited 'academic'
493boost in public credibility..." Rawlins sent a copy of his letter
494to another university official.
495
496 Rawlins' suspicion of a loaded panel may have been
497justified. But the letter of protest was written on CSICOP
498stationery and signed "Dennis Rawlins, Executive Council,
499CSICOP." Another regretable action was a Rawlins telephone call
500late at night to a university astronomy professor, Robert
501Garrison, which gave the impression that Rawlins was speaking in
502behalf of CSICOP. In fact, Rawlins had taken these actions
503without consulting other Council members and without official
504approval to use CSICOP's name. In early April 1978, a copy of the
505Rawlins letter had reached Truzzi, who also had been invited and
506dis-invited to participate in the conference. The Rawlins letter
507claimed that Truzzi had co-authored "an astrology-supporting
508paper...and so rates as a strange sort of skeptic." Truzzi sent
509Kurtz a copy of this Rawlins letter with a note that said: "Since
510Dennis' letter is on Committee stationery, would appear he is
511writing on behalf of the Committee, I trust that will not happen
512again."
513
514 Rawlins' actions were reported in the Canadian magazine
515SCIENCE FORUM July/August 1978, in an article written by Lydia
516Dotto. The article, entitled "Science Confronts 'Pseudo-
517Science'", began; "It was after midnight on a Saturday night when
518University of Toronto astronomer Bob Garrison was awakened by a
519phone call. The caller identified himself as a member of the
520Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
521Paranormal, and according to Garrison, he spent the best part of
522the next hour urging the U of T scientist not to participate in
523the conference on astrology...Dennis Rawlins, a California
524astronomer and science writer and a member of the Committee,
525acknowledged in an interview that he made the call, but denied he
526was trying to talk Garrison out of attending the
527conference...this and other incidents surrounding the conference
528have become something of a cause celebre, particularly since the
529event was cancelled shortly before it was to have taken place in
530mid-March. Predictably, ACCUSATIONS BEGAN TO FLY THAT SCIENTIFIC
531OPPONENTS OF ASTROLOGY WERE ENGAGED IN A CAMPAIGN TO SUPPRESS
532FREEDOM OF SPEECH." (Emphasis added.)
533
534 Indeed they did, much to CSICOP's embarassment. Britain's
535New Scientist magazine, in its June 29, 1978, issue, quoted the
536Canadian magazine in an article that began: "Earlier this year an
537astronomer at the University of Toronto, Dr. Bob Garrison, was
538awakened by a phone call from a member of Committee for the
539Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. The caller
540allegedly spent most of the next hour trying to dissuade Garrison
541from taking part in a conference on astrology."
542
543 This New Scientist account was picked up by FATE magazine,
544which in turn attributed the action to CSICOP rather than to one
545Council member. FATE commented: "If you have difficulty
546understanding their (CSICOP) motives, remember that here is a
547dedicated group of witch-hunters seeking to burn nonbelievers at
548the stake." (How ironic that FATE now is promoting the views of
549the same person whose intemperate earlier actions had provoked
550FATE's harsh criticism.) The same criticism of CSICOP, because of
551Rawlins' actions surfaced again in a feature article in THE
552WASHINGTON POST (Aug. 26, 1979). The article, syndicated and
553published elsewhere, was written by Ted Rockwell who was
554identified as a member of the Parapsychological Association.
555
556 When I learned of the Rawlins incident, I was shocked as
557were others on the Council. But all of us hoped that Council
558members had learned an important lesson from the incident and
559that it would have a maturing effect on Rawlins. Yet before
560another year had passed Rawlins would once again demonstrate his
561inability to distinguish between official CSICOP actions and
562those of its individual members.
563
564 Originally it was expected that the required calculations of
565Mars' position at the time of birth of U.S. champions (for the
566second test) would be performed by Prof. Owen Gingerich of
567Harvard University. But during the summer of 1978 the Harvard
568astronomer was on an extended leave so Kurtz asked Rawlins to
569perform the celestial mechanics computations. Rawlins did so and
570found in sharp contrast to Gauquelin's findings that 22% of the
571European champions were born when Mars was in the two key
572sectors, and compared to the "chance" benchmark figure of 17%,
573only 13.5% of the U.S. champions were born when Mars was in the
574two key sectors. Thus, Rawlins' calculations showed that if Mars
575had any effect on champions, it was a pronounced NEGATIVE effect
576for U.S. athletes.
577
578 On Sept, 18, 1978, Rawlins prepared a four-page report
579describing the procedures he had used in his calculations and a
580summary of the results. But Rawlins could not resist including
581some denigrating charges against Gauquelin. For example:
582"Gauquelin was well known in his teens for his casting of
583horoscopes (a practice he has since disowned)..." The comments
584were both gratuitous and inappropriate.
585
586 Relations between Rawlins and Gauquelin had been strained
587since CSICOP published a long, rambling Rawlins attack
588(Fall/Winter 1977) in which he accused Gauquelin of "misgraphing
589the results of the Belgian Comite Para check on his Mars-athletes
590link..." Gauquelin had responded with the charge that Rawlins had
591distorted and misrepresented the facts in a letter which then was
592scheduled to be published shortly in the Winter 1978 issue of THE
593SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. The same issue also would carry a sharp
594rejoinder from Rawlins.
595
596 Thus it is hardly surprising that Kurtz decided that it
597would be best if the upcoming summary report on the results of
598the U.S. champions test should be written by Zelen, Abell and
599himself -- especially since the three of them had jointly
600authored the earlier article and Abell had proposed the U.S.
601test. If Kurtz instead had suggested that the U.S. champions test
602report be jointly authored with Rawlins instead of Abell,
603"sTARBABY" might never have been published. This is evident from
604numerous Rawlins complaints in"sTARBABY." For example, Rawlins
605complains that the day after Kurtz received his Sept. 18, 1978,
606report (with the ad hominem attack on Gauquelin) "Kurtz wrote
607Abell to suggest KZA (Kurtz, Zelen and Abell) confer and prepare
608the test report for publication (EXCLUDING ME)." (Emphasis
609added.) (P.79.)
610
611 Rawlins also complains that Kurtz asked Zelen and Abell "to
612verify the work," i.e. Rawlins' calculations. (P.80.) Because of
613the importance of test, it was good scientific protocol to ask
614other specialists to at least spot-check Rawlins' computations.
615Then Rawlins reveals he was angered because "Abell asked
616countless questions about my academic training." (P. 8O.)
617Inasmuch as Rawlins lists his academic training as being in
618physics rather than astronomy, Abell's questions seem justified.
619
620 Further evidence of Rawlins' wounded ego is his complaint
621that "not only was Abell being invited to the press conference
622(at the upcoming Council in Washington, D.C.), he was to be the
623CSICOP spokesman on astrology in Washington." (P.81) Rawlins said
624he "strongly protested the high-handedness of the choice of Abell
625as the speaker at the annual meeting...I emphasized that CSICOP
626had plenty of astronomers associated with it (Carl Sagan, Bart
627Bok, Edwin Krupp and others), all of them nearer Washington than
628Abell who lived all the way across the country, in the Los
629Angeles area." (In fact, Krupp also lived in Southern California,
630Bok lived Arizona, and Sagan then was working in California on
631his "Cosmos" television series.)
632
633 In "sTARBABY," Rawlins claims that Abell had been invited to
634speak because "Kurtz was trying to suppress my dissenting report
635(of Sept. 18, 1978) and (by not paying my travel fare) to keep me
636from the December Council meeting while inviting to Washington as
637a prominent CSICOP authority the very person whose appointed task
638I HAD MYSELF PERFORMED" (his italics, p. 81). In reality, there
639was no question that Rawlins' Sept, 18, 1978, report, describing
640his analytical procedures, needed to be published. The only
641question was whether it should include the ad hominem attack on
642Gauquelin.
643
644 It was not until approximately one year AFTER the results of
645the Zelen test were published in THE HUMANIST that Rawlins first
646charged the use of "bait-and-switch" tactics--what he calls
647"BS"--had been employed. This allegation was contained in his
648letter of Nov. 2, 1978, to Zelen, with a copy to Kurtz. BUT
649RAWLINS STILL DID NOT CHARGE THAT THIS AMOUNTED TO A "COVER-UP,"
650OR THAT CSICOP WAS INVOLVED. Quite the opposite. A few weeks
651later when the Winter 1978 issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER was
652published, there was a Rawlins response which said: "It SHOULD BE
653CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT CSICP AS A BODY NEVER HAD ANYTHING TO DO
654WITH THE HUMANIST ZELEN TEST 'CHALLENGE'...PUBLISHED BEFORE THE
655COMMITTEE WAS FOUNDED"(Emphasis added.)
656
657 Like most members of CSICOP's Executive Council who had not
658been involved either in the first (Zelen) test or the subsequent
659U.S. champions test, and who were not sufficiently expert in
660celestial mechanics, statistics or astrology to take a prior
661interest, my first exposure to the controversy came during the
662Council meeting in Washington in early December, 1978, when
663Rawlins unleashed a rambling harrangue. Understandably I was
664confused by Rawlins' charge that CSICOP somehow was involved in a
665Zelen test-results cover-up that had occurred more than a year
666before which contradicted his just-published statement in THE
667SKEPTICAL INQUIRER stating that the original Zelen test was NOT a
668CSICOP-sponsored effort.
669
670 Despite my efforts to understand Rawlins' allegations, it
671was not clear to me (and to many other Council members) just what
672it was that he now was claiming had been"covered-up." After three
673years of working with Rawlins I was well aware of his proclivity
674for making harsh, exaggerated charges. Most often these were
675directed against supporters of the para-normal, but sometimes
676also against Council members who disagreed with his proposals for
677intemperate actions against "the believers." For example, Rawlins
678had charged that Truzzi was involved with the "Church of Satan."
679
680Beyond having difficulty in understanding the specifics of
681Rawlins' charges, I failed to grasp what he thought should be
682done to correct the alleged problem. Because the hour was getting
683late and Council members had to leave to catch flights back home,
684I suggested to Rawlins that he write a memorandum that clearly
685and concisely set forth the basic issues and that he recommend
686appropriate corrective action. In this way Council members could
687better comprehend the matter and consider corrective action if
688such were justified. Rawlins cites this in "sTARBABY" and claims
689he was the only party who had put the issues in writing. BUT HE
690DID NOT SEND COPIES OF SUCH MEMORANDA TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. ONE
691LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS IS THAT PREVIOUSLY HE DID NOT
692BELIEVE THE MATTER INVOLVED CSICOP OR REQUIRED COUNCIL MEMBERS'
693ATTENTION.
694
695 Rawlins was the last one to leave my apartment (where we had
696been meeting that night) and he continued his earlier harrangue
697but without clarifying the issues. Later, he called me from the
698airport to continue the discussion. Again I asked that he clarify
699the issues for me and other Council members by preparing a
700memorandum. I assured Rawlins that since I had not been involved
701in either of the two tests and since he had recommended my
702election to Council, he could expect me to be at least neutral if
703not sympathetic.
704
705 Rawlins never responded to my request. About six weeks later
706(Jan. 17, 1979), he did circulate a five-page memo to CSICOP
707Fellows and Council members. It was a "baby sTARBABY" which cited
708a number of ALLEGED mistakes that had been made by OTHERS
709involved in the tests and in CSICOP's operations. I replied on
710Jan. 31 saying that his memo was "for me an unintelligible
711jumble." I added: "without meaning to give offense to a friend, I
712once again urge you -- as I did at our meeting here -- to outline
713the problem...then outline your recommendations. And please do
714not assume, as you have done, that all of us follow the G-affair
715as closely as you have done." My letter concluded: "Skip the
716invective...outline the problem clearly, concisely, and offer
717your recommendations."
718
719 Rawlins never responded to this request. Today, following my
720recent investigation, I know why. There was no cover-up, except
721in Rawlins' troubled mind, fed by the fires of a wounded ego and,
722perhaps, by embarassment over his unauthorized intervention in
723the University of Toronto symposium. Rawlins was unable to
724recommend specific corrective action because nothing could have
725saved his wounded ego unless it were possible to turn back the
726clock and to have invited Rawlins to be the CSICOP speaker on
727astrology in Washington and to replace Abell in writing the
728report on the results of the U.S. champions test.
729
730 Readers of "sTARBABY" might easily conclude that Rawlins
731believes that Zelen/Kurtz/Abell, in the Nov/Dec. 1977 issue of
732THE HUMANIST, should have conceded "Gauquelin has won" and
733cancelled plans for the U.S. champions test. Yet had they done
734so, Rawlins would have been outraged because such a concession
735would imply that the Zelen test had proved the Mars effect beyond
736all doubt and this was not true. Had Zelen/Kurtz/Abell even
737contemplated such a concession, I am certain that Rawlins would
738have urged that they be ousted from CSICOP.
739
740 "sTARBABY" reveals that Rawlins imagines many things that
741simply are not true, such as his charge that I was involved in a
742plot to suppress his discussions of the Gauquelin test at the
7431978 Council meeting. His article implies that Council meetings
744are characterized by attempts to suppress dissenting views. In
745reality one usually hears almost as many different viewpoints as
746there are Council members present. And Kurtz is the most
747unconstraining group chairman I have ever known in the many
748organizations of which I have been a member.
749
750 Even on easily ascertainable matters, Rawlins chooses to
751rely on his vivid imagination or recollections rather than take
752time to check the facts. For example, in "sTARBABY," Rawlins
753claims that he was an "associate editor" of THE SKEPTICAL
754INQUIRER, as well as being a member of its editorial board --
755which he was [not]. Rawlins makes that claim in seven different
756places in his article. One would expect that a person who
757imagines himself to be an associate editor of a publication over
758a period of several years would at least once look at that
759publication's masthead, where its editorial staff is listed. Had
760Rawlins done so he would not have made this spurious claim.
761
762 This is not an error of great consequence. But when I
763pointed it out to him, his response was revealing, especially
764because he accuses others of being unwilling to admit to error
765and of resorting to "cover-up." Rawlins' letter of Sept. 21,
7661981, explained that at a Council meeting HELD FOUR YEARS EARLIER
767he remembers that "Kurtz called all Ed. Board members 'Associate
768Editors'...I adopted to save syllables." Rawlins tries to justify
769his misstatement of fact on the grounds that he was able to save
770approximately 42 characters in his 75,000-character-long article!
771
772 In "sTARBABY," Rawlins claims that the full-day meeting of
773the Council in Washington was held at the National Press Club
774because this was "the temple of CSICOP's faith." (P. 86.) Had
775Rawlins asked me, I would have informed him that I had selected
776the National Press Club because it was the lowest-cost facility
777in downtown Washington that I could find. But Rawlins decided he
778knew the answer without bothering to investigate. This is neither
779good science nor good journalism.
780
781 In the previously cited Rawlins memorandum of Jan. 17, 1979,
782following the Washington meeting, he wrote that he planned to
783reduce his involvement with CSICOP. He added that there was no
784reason to "hide" CSICOP's problems "from the public. So I may
785inform a neutral, responsible, unsensational member of the press
786re the foregoing." In reality Rawlins already had taken such
787steps at the December Council meeting whose press seminar was
788attended by an experienced journalist with a known empathy for
789some paranormal claims. During the early afternoon Rawlins and
790this journalist left the meeting together and returned together
791several hours later. But this journalist never published anything
792on the matter, possibly because he has as much difficulty in
793understanding Rawlins' charges as did Council members.
794
795 According to "sTARBABY," in mid-1979, Rawlins received a
796letter from Jerome Clark of FATE magazine, expressing an interest
797in learning more about Rawlins' complaints against CSICOP.
798Rawlins claims that shortly afterward "I told the Council I'd be
799open with FATE." I question the truthfulness of his statement
800because Rawlins did not bother to attend the next Council meeting
801in December, 1979, nor have I been able to locate any Rawlins
802letter or memorandum to substantiate this claim.
803
804 "sTARBABY" claims that "as the FATE-story realization set
805in, Council reacted like the White House when it learned that
806John Dean had sat down with the prosecution (during the Watergate
807scandal). (P.91) This claim I know to be false. The prospect of a
808Rawlins article in FATE was never discussed at the 1979 or 1980
809Council meetings, nor by memorandum during the two intervening
810years. Otherwise CSICOP would have prepared a response which it
811could have released immediately following publication of
812"sTARBABY," preventing Rawlins from boasting that failure of
813CSICOP to respond quickly to his many charges indicated an
814inability to do so.
815
816 Returning, chronologically, to the fall of 1979, CSICOP was
817preparing to publish the results of the U.S. champions test in
818the Winter 1979-80 issue of THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER. Rawlins
819demanded the right to revise and expand his original Sept, 18,
8201978, paper, and was given that opportunity. Furthermore,
821according to "sTARBABY," Rawlins informed Ken Frazier, editor of
822THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, "that if there were any alterations not
823cleared with me, I wanted a note printed with the paper stating
824that deletions had occurred over the author's protest and that
825the missing portions could be obtained directly from me." (P.
82692.)
827
828 Frazier (who had been recommended for the position by
829Rawlins himself), acting on the recommendation of Prof. Ray
830Hyman, a Council member who reviewed the Rawlins paper and the
831others, and on Frazier's own long editorial experience, decided
832to delete the sentence referring to Gauquelin's earlier interest
833in traditional astrology. Frazier also opted to delete another
834sentence that read: "In this connection I must also say that,
835given the self piekill upshot (sic) of their European
836(nonchampions) adventure plus their failure to perform
837independently the U.S. study's technical foundations (sector
838position, expectation curve), I find it amusing that ZKA (Zelen,
839Kurtz, Abell) are the main commentators on this test in THE
840SKEPTICAL INQUIRER." Once again Rawlins' wounded-ego had
841manifested itself.
842
843 On Nov, 6, 1979, Rawlins sent a memo to other members of the
844Editorial Board complaining that his article "has been neatly
845censored here and there, so I have asked to add a statement
846saying so and suggesting that readers who wish to consult the
847original version may do so by contacting me. This sentence has
848itself been bowdlerized (so that it reads as if no tampering
849occurred)." Frazier had proposed an alternative sentence, which
850was published at the end of the Rawlins paper, that read:
851"Further commentary on the issues raised in this paper and in
852these notes is available from the author." Rawlins' address also
853was published.
854
855 This is the basis for Rawlins' harsh charges of "censorship"
856against Frazier, the man whom he had so highly recommended for the
857position. If Rawlins' complaint were justified, every working
858journalist could make the same accusations regularly against
859those who edit his/her copy to assure clarity and good taste and
860to avoid libel. In response to Rawlins' charges, Frazier wrote to
861members of the Editorial Board explaining what had transpired.
862Frazier noted, "Dennis seems to believe his position as a member
863of the Editorial Board gives his writings special status exempt
864from normal editorial judgment. None of the rest of you has ever
865suggested this," i.e. demanded privileged treatment. So because
866Rawlins was not given privileged treatment, he charges
867"censorship."
868
869 In the same Nov. 6, 1979, letter charging censorship,
870Rawlins complained that he alone among Council members had not
871been reimbursed for his travel expenses of $230 to the previous
872Council meeting in Washington. Rawlins said that he would need
873$400.00 for travel to attend the upcoming Council meeting in New
874York and added "I won't do that unless all 63O dollars are here
875beforehand." Kurtz promptly sent Rawlins a check for $350 as a
876travel advance and assured him he would be reimbursed for
877previous travel expense as soon as he submitted an expense
878account--which Rawlins had never done (In "sTARBABY," Rawlins
879characterizes this as a "ridiculous excuse" for failure to
880reimburse him earlier.) Rawlins cashed the $350 check but did not
881attend the New York Council meeting, nor did he inform the
882Council that he would not attend. Rawlins never refunded the $120
883difference between $230 he claimed was due him and the $350 he
884received. Yet Rawlins professes to have been shocked and
885surprised when the Council voted unanimously not to reelect
886Rawlins at its New York meeting. (Since Rawlins seems so easily
887shocked and surprised, I suspect he was equally surprised at the
888resignation of Richard M. Nixon.)
889
890 Two months later, Rawlins wrote to Frazier saying he wished
891to resign from the Editorial Board. But he insisted that the
892resignation should not take effect until his statement
893complaining about not being reelected "in absentia" was
894published. This Rawlins statement claimed that he had not been
895reelected solely because he had criticized "CSICOP's conduct
896during ITS FOUR YEAR INVOLVEMENT in testing Gauquelin's neo-
897astrology..." (Emphasis added.)
898
899 Had Frazier opted to publish this grossly inaccurate
900statement, which he did not, readers might well have wondered if
901there were really two different Dennis Rawlins, recalling barely
902a year earlier when a Rawlins letter had been published which
903said: "It should be clearly understood that CSICOP as a body
904never had anything to do with the Humanist Zelen test
905'challenge'..." When Frazier accepted Rawlins' resignation, this
906prompted Rawlins to complain that he had been removed from the
907Editorial Board without "cause or written notice." Later,
908following a mail ballot of Council members, CSICOP dropped
909Rawlins from its list of Fellows. (The vote against Rawlins was
9106:1.)
911
912 The foregoing highlights the key issues and actions that
913prompted FATE and Rawlins to charge that CSICOP "bungled their
914major investigation, falsified the results, covered up their
915errors and gave the boot to a colleague who threatened to tell
916the truth." (After my investigation, a re-reading of "sTARBABY"
917gives me the feeling that I am reading a Pravda account
918explaining that the Soviets moved into Afghanistan to help the
919Afghans prevent an invasion by the U.S. Central Intelligence
920Agency.)
921
922 Were it possible to turn back the clock, undoubtedly Kurtz,
923Zelen and Abell would try to be more precise in defining test
924objectives and protocol and would do so in writing. And more time
925would be spent in more carefully phrasing articles dealing with
926such tests. But all CSICOP Council members and Fellows have other
927full-time professions that seriously constrain time available for
928CSICOP efforts.
929
930Were it possible to turn back the clock, the Council should have
931insisted in the spring of 1978 that Rawlins issue a public
932statement that he had erred in using CSICOP's name in support of
933his personal actions connected with the University of Toronto's
934planned astrology symposium. Failure to do this has resulted in
935an unjustified blot on CSICOP's modus-operandi. Also at that time
936the Council should have developed a policy statement, as it
937recently did, that more clearly delineates activities that
938members perform officially in behalf of CSICOP and those carried
939out as private individuals.
940
941 When a small group of persons met in Buffalo in May, 1976,
942to create CSICOP, their motivation was a concern over the growing
943public acceptance of claims of the paranormal. CSICOP was created
944to provide a counter-balance to those who espouse a variety of
945claims, ranging from UFOs to astrology, from the "Bermuda
946Triangle" to psychic phenomena. With the benefit of experience,
947it was apparent that there was an extreme spectrum of viewpoints
948on the Council. Rawlins was at the "hit-'em-hard" extreme, while
949Truzzi was at the opposite pole and resigned after a couple
950years, partially as a result of behind-the scenes plotting by
951Rawlins which he admits in "sTARBABY." Now Rawlins has departed
952and, in my view, CSICOP is much the better for it.
953
954 CSICOP never has tried to destroy those organizations that
955promote belief in paranormal causes. But individuals in these
956organization have tried to discredit CSICOP, even going so far in
957one instance as to circulate a forged letter.
958
959 FATE magazine made wide distribution of the Rawlins
960"sTARBABY" article in reprint form, together with its press
961release. Prof. R.A. McConnell, University of Pittsburgh, founding
962President of the Parapsychological Association, also distributed
963copies to CSICOP Fellows and Council members, among others. In
964his accompanying letter, McConnell said he believed the "Rawlins
965report is certainly true in broad outline and probably true in
966every detail...He has created a document of importance for the
967history and philosophy of science." McConnell quoted an "unnamed
968scientist" as claiming that "Rawlins has uncovered the biggest
969scandal in the history of rationalism." McConnell characterized
970CSICOP as "an intellectually dishonest enterprise."
971
972 FATE and McConnell have demonstrated the intrinsic flaw in
973the basic approach of those who promote claims of the paranormal
974-- THEIR EAGERNESS TO ACCEPT CLAIMS OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS
975WITHOUT RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION. Neither FATE nor McConnell
976contacted CSICOP officials to check out Rawlins' charges. This
977demonstrates why CSICOP is so sorely needed.
978
979 The late President Harry Truman phrased it well: "If you
980can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." CSICOP is "in the
981kitchen" by choice and intends to remain there despite the heat.
982The response of CSICOP's Council and its Fellows to recent events
983shows that the Committee is not an easy victim of heat-
984prostration.
985
986 If the Mars effect, or any other paranormal hypothesis,
987should ever be demonstrated using rigorous scientific procedures,
988there simply is no way in which the small group of individuals
989involved in CSICOP could ever hope to suppress such evidence. Nor
990have I found any CSICOP Council member or Fellow who is so
991foolish as to try.
992
993 (end)
994
995 [In the years following "sTARBABY", Rawlins has continued to
996 receive publicity by making sensational charges of
997 scientific coverup and fraud. In 1988 he made national
998 headlines by renewing an earlier charge he had made before
999 CSICOP's founding, this time supposedly supported by a new-
1000 found document: that Admiral Peary never actually reached
1001 the North Pole during his famous expedition in 1909, but
1002 instead fabricated his navigational records to make it
1003 appear as if he had. A New York Times article of October 13,
1004 1988 carries the headline: "Peary's Notes Said to Imply He
1005 Fell Short of Pole." It begins: "New evidence based on
1006 navigational notes by Robert E. Peary indicates that the
1007 Arctic explorer fell short of his goal and deliberately
1008 faked his claim in 1909 that he was the first person to
1009 reach the North Pole, according to an analysis by a
1010 Baltimore astronomer and historian ... Dennis Rawlins, an
1011 independent scholar who trained as an astronomer and who has
1012 a long-standing interest in Peary's expedition, said
1013 yesterday that his analysis of the navigational notes,
1014 mainly sextant readings of the sun to establish geographic
1015 position, indicated that Peary knew that he had come no
1016 closer than 121 miles from the Pole." Officials of the
1017 National Geographic Society promised to examine Rawlins'
1018 data, but added "We believe Mr. Rawlins has been too quick
1019 to cry fake."
1020
1021 After a three-month investigation of Rawlins' charges, a
1022 press conference was sponsored by The Navigation Foundation
1023 at which they dismissed his "sensational claims". As
1024 reported in a Baltimore Sun story syndicated Feb. 2, 1989,
1025 "Since October [Natl. Geographic] Society President Gilbert
1026 M. Grosvenor and others had quietly endured Rawlins' public
1027 calls for debate and unconditional surrender on the Peary
1028 issue." The Society was willing to take seriously an
1029 analysis by the British explorer Wally Herbert, based on
1030 other evidence, that a navigation error may have caused
1031 Peary to miss the pole by about 45 miles. "Suggesting that
1032 Peary might not have reached the Pole is one thing," said
1033 Grosvenor. "Declaring Peary a fraud is quite another."
1034 Rawlins held his own "informal press conference" afterwards,
1035 reports The Sun, in which Rawlins "admitted he had confused
1036 time readings for chronometer checks with altitudes of the
1037 sun and had mistaken serial numbers on the chronometers for
1038 navigational observations." Rawlins conceded, "My
1039 interpretation has some problems, and I acknowledge that.
1040 It's fair to say that, if I'm saying Peary was a fraud, I
1041 think I have not yet met the burden of proof."
1042
1043 Finally, in December, 1989, a 230-page report commissioned
1044 by the National Geographic Society was released, concluding
1045 that Peary actually did reach the Pole. As reported in a
1046 story on p.1 of the New York Times, Dec. 12, 1989, a new
1047 analysis of Peary's records by professional navigators
1048 concluded that Peary's final camp was not more than five
1049 miles from the Pole. "The report said, there was no evidence
1050 of fraud and deception in the explorer's records. But one
1051 critic, Dennis Rawlins, a Baltimore astronomer and
1052 historian, said he remained convinced, despite the new
1053 study, that Admiral Peary did not reach his goal and had
1054 faked his claim."
1055
1056 Robert Sheaffer, Nov., 1991 ]