News and Comment Court Awards CS1COP In a declaration filed with the court in Geller's lawsuit, CSICOP Executive Sanctions in Geller Suit Director Barry Karr stated, "I believe that CSICOP was made a defendant in this lawsuit solely for the purpose federal court has imposed of harassment and intimidation and in $106,433.97 in sanctions the hope that the lawsuit would A. against self-proclaimed psychic dissuade CSICOP from encouraging Uri Geller for his prosecution of a libel and providing a forum for . the suit against the Committee for the critical discussion and analysis of para- Scientific Investigation of Claims of normal claims, particularly those the Paranormal (CSICOP). asserted by Geller." In an order issued by Judge Stanley As was observed at the time of the S. Harris on March 16, the United earlier ruling, Judge Harris's imposi- States District Court for the District tion of sanctions against Geller was of Columbia granted CSICOP's made pursuant to a federal court rule request that the court impose the that mandates the award of sanctions sanctions, which represent the fees if litigation is "interposed for any and costs incurred by CSICOP in improper purpose, such as to harass defending the lawsuit through June or cause unnecessary delay or needless 30, 1992. The court also authorized increase in the cost of litigation," or CSICOP to request reimbursement of if papers filed with the court are not additional fees and costs incurred in "to the best of the signer's knowledge, defense of the litigation. information and belief formed after Geller initiated the $15-million reasonable inquiry . well grounded lawsuit in May 1991 against CSICOP in fact . and warranted by existing and James Randi, alleging that Geller law or a good-faith argument for the was defamed by Randi in statements extension, modification, or reversal of made to the International Herald existing law." Tribune. Last June, Judge Harris dis- Following notification of Judge missed the suit against CSICOP and Harris's order, CSICOP Chairman granted CSICOP's request for sanc- Paul Kurtz commented that this type tions (51, Fall 1992), but postponed a of libel suit, even if ultimately unsuc- ruling on the amount of the sanctions cessful, threatens to chill debate on until a later time. Geller then filed a scientific issues. "If such obstacles are motion with the court, asking for a placed, unchecked, in the way of reconsideration of its opinion. scientific research, and if one cannot In its recent order, the district court question extraordinary claims, then a rejected Geller's motion for recon- serious blow will be dealt to freedom sideration and imposed the sanctions. of expression and scientific inquiry. The amount was to be paid within 30 . We view this case as a serious days, Judge Harris said. challenge to our First Amendment Summer 1993 355 rights, and we are thankful that Judge the Scientific Investigation of Claims Harris chose to vindicate those of the Paranormal (CSICOP) chal- rights." In addition, Kurtz observed, lenged Paramount's claim that the film the judge's decision to impose sanc- is based on a "true story." In a tions against Geller "sends a stern statement, CSICOP Chairman Paul warning to those who would utilize Kurtz commented that "the film is libel suits as a weapon to harass: such largely fiction and ought to be labeled conduct can carry a heavy price." as such. The public is being deceived As of this writing, Geller has not by Paramount's promoting the film as a true story." paid the court-imposed sanctions, prompting CSICOP to file motions fire in the Sky is based on the claim asking the court to take actions it of Travis Walton, of Snowflake, deems necessary to enforce the order. Arizona, that in late 1975 he was Geller has also filed a new motion "zapped" and abducted by a UFO and asking the court to reconsider its held hostage for five days. earlier reconsideration. CSICOP will Philip J. Klass, the chairman of oppose this motion. • CSlCOP's UFO Subcommittee, who spent many months investigating the alleged incident shortly after it was reported, uncovered extensive evi- CSICOP Challenges dence to indicate the incident was 'Fire in the Sky' Film most likely a hoax. This evidence and a details of Klass's rigorous investiga- tion were reported in his book UFOs: en days before the Paramount The Public Deceived (Prometheus Pictures film Fire in the Sky opened Books, 1983). T on March 12, the Committee for Klass learned that shortly before Walton's alleged abduction he had told his mother that if he was ever abducted by a UFO she should not worry because he would be all right. Later, when Travis's mother was informed that her young son had allegedly been abducted by a UFO, she took the news calmly and re- sponded, "Well, that's the way these things happen," accord- ing to a law-enforcement officer who was present. During the several days that Travis was "missing" his older brother, Duane, was asked if he was concerned for Travis's well-being. Duane replied that Travis was "having the experi- ence of a lifetime. All I can say is that I wish I was with him." 356 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER, Vol. 17 Shortly after Travis reappeared, he was given a "lie detector" test, admin- Princeton Experiments in istered by Jack McCarthy, then one Remote Viewing Found of the most experienced and respected polygraph examiners in Arizona. Plagued with Defects After a lengthy test involving Wal- ton's claim of UFO-abduction, McCarthy reported: "Gross decep- or the past decade, the experi- tion." Further, McCarthy reported ments of Robert Jahn and his that Travis was holding his breath to F colleagues at the Princeton Engi- try to "beat the machine." neering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Kurtz said: "The public is being program have intrigued all those inundated by Hollywood films and interested in parapsychology. Jahn, a television programs claiming that former dean of engineering at Prince- thousands of Americans are being ton, had decided to devote consider- abducted by aliens. These programs able time and resources to a lengthy offer no credible scientific evidence or series of experiments, hoping to critical dissent. They seem to be overcome critical objections that have motivated solely by profits, and no plagued previous such efforts. Many matter how outrageous a claim there of these experiments involve attempts is always somebody willing to turn it to "psychically" influence random- into a 'true' movie." number generators; others involve "None of the cases," stated Klass, attempts to "remote-view" a distant "stand up under scrutiny. They can scene. be given natural, prosaic explanations In the remote-viewing work, a without postulating extraterrestrial percipient (receiver) attempts to visitation and kidnapping. But, of describe an unknown geographical course, Hollywood wouldn't be able to location where an agent (sender) is, turn that into a movie." has been, or will be at a specific time. "Many in the media release irre- PEAR didn't actively seek the lime- sponsible and sensationalistic reports light, but finally in 1986 and 1987 Jahn of abductions. There is a critical need and colleague Brenda Dunne pub- for balanced reporting and labeling," lished positive results about the said Kurtz. remote-viewing experiments in three The SKEPTICAL INQUIRER invited peer-refereed journals. The group's Paramount to comment on CSICOP's most recent report, "Precognitive criticisms, but received no response. Remote Perception III," b y B. J. Dunne, AP science reporter Lee Siegel, how- Y. H. Dobyns, and S. J. Intner, pub- ever, quoted Tracy Torme, the film's lished as Technical Note 83003 in screenwriter and co-producer: "There 1989, includes results of 336 formal is no substantial hard evidence beyond remote-viewing trials and is appar- polygraphs to show what happened. ently the single largest database of So while I believe he [Walton] is being remote viewing that has been truthful in relating what he remem- reported in some detail. In one mode bers, I will not say and cannot say what (211 trials) the agent was free to happened to him." choose the target; in the other mode Siegel's article, which focused on (125 trials) the target site was ran- CSICOP's criticisms and quoted Klass domly selected from a pool of potential in some detail, was published in targets. newspapers nationwide. • While some embraced the PEAR Summer 1993 357 remote-viewing work, most parapsy- Dunne et al. technical report contains chologists maintained their distance a number of invalid statistical argu- from it. Skeptical scholars cited many ments. For example, their analysis deficiencies, but little formal critical didn't take into consideration that examination of the remote-viewing targets were selected without replace- experimental program was published. ment, which has important conse- That situation has now changed. quences for statistical analysis. They Three investigators, George P. also say Dunne et al. failed to include Hansen, Jessica Utts, and Betty Mark- certain elements in their baseline wick, have published a devastating distribution, thus artifactually en- critique of the PEAR remote-viewing hancing significance levels. experiments in the Journal of Para- Hansen, Utts, and Markwick con- psychology (vol. 56, June 1992, issued clude their paper with this remarkably in February 1993). blunt assessment: They identify a variety of meth- The PEAR remote-viewing exper- odological and statistical problems iments depart from commonly with the work. They discovered accepted criteria for formal research specific problems in randomization, in science. In fact, they are undoubt- statistical baselines, application of edly some of the poorest quality ESP statistical models, agent coding of experiments published in many descriptor lists, feedback to percip- years.