On Monday afternoon, April 11, I appeared on Southern California Public Radio KPCC’s Patt Morrison show to briefly debate (dare I saw wrestle?) the former Navy Seal, Minnesota Governor, professional wrestler, television host, and author Jesse “The Body” Ventura, who was on a book tour swing through Los Angeles promoting his latest conspiracy fictions he believes are facts entitled The 63 Documents the Government Doesn’t Want You To Read. (The figure of 63 was chosen, Jesse says, because that was the year JFK was assassinated.) Presented in breathtaking revelatory tones that within lies the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, what the reader actually finds between the covers are documents obtained through standard Freedom of Information Act requests that can also be easily downloaded from the Internet.

No matter, with bigger-than-life Jesse Ventura at the conspiratorial helm everything is larger than it seems, especially when his unmistakable booming voice pronounces them as truths. I had only a few hours to read the book, but that turned out to be more than adequate since most of the documents are familiar to us conspiracy watchers and what little added commentary is provided to introduce them appears to be mostly written by Ventura’s co-author Dick Russell, the pen behind the mouth for many of Jesse’s books. (Since he is no longer wrestling perhaps he should change his moniker to Jesse “The Mouth” Ventura.)

Surprisingly, given his background in the military and government, Ventura seems surprised to learn that governments lie to their citizens. Shockingly true, yes, but just because politicians and their appointed cabinet assigns and their staffers sometimes lie (mostly in the interest of national security but occasionally to cover up their own incompetence and moral misdeeds), doesn’t mean that every pronouncement made in the name of a government action is a lie. After all, as in the old logical chestnut—“This statement is untrue” (if it’s true it’s untrue and vice versa)—if everything is a lie then nothing is a lie. Likewise, I noted up front on the show, if everything is a conspiracy then nothing is a conspiracy.

Given the helter skelter nature of talk radio and Jesse’s propensity to interrupt through his booming voice any dissenters from his POV, I tried to make just four points. Let’s call them Conspiracy Skeptical Principles.

Conspiracy Skeptical Principle #1: There must be some means of discriminating between true and false conspiracy theories. Lincoln was assassinated by a conspiracy; JFK was not. The Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a conspiracy of Serbian operatives that triggered the outbreak of the First World War; Princess Diana was not murdered by the Royal Family or any other secretive organization, but instead died by the most common form of death on a highway: speeding, drunk driving, and no seat belt.

Conspiracy Skeptical Principle #2: Cognitive Dissonance and the need to balance the size of the event with the size of the cause. Jesse Ventura said: “Do you mean to tell me that 19 guys with box cutters taking orders from a guy in a cave in Afghanistan brought down the most powerful nation on earth?” First of all, America is alive and well, thank you, even though Ventura has since moved to Mexico. But, yes, as a matter of fact, that is the only way such an event can happen: Sizable cohorts of operatives in prominent positions (Bush, Rumsfeld, Chaney, the CIA, the FBI, et al.) are too noticeable to get away with such a conspiracy. (By the way, 9/11 was a conspiracy: 19 members of Al Qaeda plotting to fly planes into buildings without telling us ahead of time constitutes a conspiracy.) It is the lone nuts living in the nooks and crannies of a free society (think Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinkley, etc.) who become invisible by blending into the background scenery.

Conspiracy Skeptical Principle #3: What else would have to be true if your conspiracy theory is true? Jesse proclaimed on the show that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. His proof? He interviewed a woman on his conspiracy TV show who said she worked inside the Pentagon and never saw a plane hit it. Well, first of all, earlier in the show when I brought up Jesse’s conspiracy television series he discounted it, saying “that’s pure entertainment.” But now he wants to use an interview from that same show not as entertainment but as proof. As well, hardly anyone working in the Pentagon that day saw anything happen because they were inside the five-sided building and the plane only hit on one side, and even there, presumably (hopefully), people are actually working and not just sitting there staring out the window all day. But to the skeptical principle: As I said on the show, “If a missile hit the Pentagon, Jesse, that means that a plane did not hit it. What happened to the American Airlines plane?” Jesse’s answer: “I don’t know.” Sorry Jesse, not good enough. It’s not enough to poke holes at the government explanation for 9/11 (a form of negative evidence); you must also present positive evidence for your theory. In this case, tell us what happened to the plane that didn’t hit the Pentagon because there are a lot of grieving families who would like to know what happened to their loved ones (as would several radar operators who tracked the plane from hijacking to suddenly disappearing off the screen in the same place as the Pentagon is located). Finally, I directed Jesse and our listeners to www.skeptic.com to view the photograph of the American Airlines plane debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, below. Are we to believe that the U.S. government timed the impact of a missile on the Pentagon with the hijackers who flew the plane into the Pentagon?

Conspiracy Skeptical Principle #4: Your conspiracy theory must be more consistent than the accepted explanation. Jesse says that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did not orchestrate 9/11, and instead it was done by the Bush administration (or, he says, at least by Chaney and his covert operatives). As evidence, Jesse wants to know why Osama bin Laden has not been indicted for murder by the United States government. As well, he says, why was no one fired for not acting on the famous memos of the summer of 2001 that warned our government that Al Qaeda was financing operatives in America in flight training schools and that Osama bin Laden would strike on U.S. soil. Hold on there Jesse—first you say that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are innocent of this crime, and then you present evidence in the form of documents that the U.S. government was forewarned that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda would attack us? Sorry sir, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t hold to two contradictory conspiracy theories at the same time and use evidence from each to support the other. (Well, you can, but that would be a splendid example of logic-tight compartments in your head keeping separate contradictory ideas.)

Finally, in frustration I presume, Jesse accused me of being a mouthpiece of the government, just parroting whatever my overlords command me to say to keep the truth hidden. That conspiracy theory happens to be true, except for the part about the mouthpiece, the government, the parrot, and the truth.

P.S. During my recent lecture tour swing through Wisconsin I was confronted at a restaurant by three 9/11 Truthers who were unable to attend my talk that night or even join the local skeptics group meeting that afternoon with me, and instead handed me a pile of literature and a DVD to watch touting the merits of the group known as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who appear to hold fast to the belief that the WTC buildings were intentionally demolished by explosive devices AND that the hijackers (whoever they really were) somehow managed to fly the planes into the WTC buildings at precisely where the demolition experts planted the explosive devices—at the exact correct floors, at the exact angle at which the wings were tilted, because that is where the collapse of both buildings began. Check it out yourself below, along with our issue of Skeptic on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which was being read in Wisconsin by the little Wombat given to me by my hosts at the University of Wisconsin.

A Review of Transcendent Man: A Film About the Life and Ideas of Ray Kurzweil. Produced by Barry Ptolemy, Music by Philip Glass, inspired by the book The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil. Digital release March 1, DVD release May 25. This review appeared in Science on April 1, 2011.

Beware the prophet who proclaims the end of the world, the apocalypse, doomsday, judgment day, the second coming, the resurrection, or the Biggest Thing to Happen to Humanity ever will happen in the prophet’s own lifetime. It is our natural inclination to assume that we are special and that our generation will witness the new dawn, but the Copernican Principle tells us that we are not special. Thus, the chances that even a science-based prophecy such as that proffered by the futurist, inventor, and scientistic visionary extraordinaire Ray Kurzweil—that by 2029 we will have the science and technology to live forever—is unlikely to be fulfilled.

Transcendent Man is Barry Ptolemy’s beautifully crafted and artfully edited documentary film about Kurzweil and his quest to save humanity. If you enjoy contemplating the Big Questions in Life from a scientific perspective, you will love this film. Accompanied by the eerily haunting music of Philip Glass who, appropriately enough, also scored Errol Morris’ film The Fog of War—about another bigger-than-life character who thought he could mold the world through data-driven decisions, Robert McNamara—Transcendent Man pulls viewers in through Kurzweil’s visage of a future in which we merge with our machines and vastly extend our longevity and intelligence to the point where even death will be defeated. This point is what Kurzweil calls the “singularity” (inspired by the physics term denoting the infinitely dense point at the center of a black hole), and he arrives at the 2029 date by extrapolating curves based on what he calls the “law of accelerating returns.” This is “Moore’s Law” (the doubling of computing power every year) on steroids, applied to every conceivable area of science, technology and economics.

Ptolemy’s portrayal of Kurzweil is unmistakably positive, but to his credit he includes several critics from both religion and science. From the former, a radio host named Chuck Missler, a born-again Christian who heads the Koinonia Institute (“dedicated to training and equipping the serious Christian to sojourn in today’s world”), proclaims: “We have a scenario laid out that the world is heading for an Armageddon and you and I are going to be the generation that’s alive that is going to see all this unfold.” He seems to be saying that Kurzweil is right about the second coming, but wrong about what it is that is coming. (Of course, Missler’s prognostication is the N+1 failed prophecy that began with Jesus himself, who told his followers (Mark 9:1): “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”) Another religiously-based admonition comes from the Stanford University neuroscientist William Huribut, who self-identifies as a “practicing Christian” who believes in immortality, but not in the way Kurzweil envisions it. “Death is conquered spiritually,” he pronounced.

On the science side of the ledger, Neil Gershenfeld, director of the Center for Bits and Atoms at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sagely notes: “What Ray does consistently is to take a whole bunch of steps that everybody agrees on and take principles for extrapolating that everybody agrees on and show they lead to things that nobody agrees on.” Likewise, the estimable futurist Kevin Kelly, whose 2010 book What Technology Wants paints a much more realistic portrait of what our futures may (or may not) hold, asks rhetorically “What happens in 40 years from now and Ray dies and doesn’t have his father back? What does all this mean? Was he wrong? Well, he was right about some things. But in my observation the precursors of those technologies that would have to exist simply are not here. Ray’s longing for this, his expectation, is heartwarming, but it isn’t going to happen.” Kelly agrees that Kurzweil’s exponential growth curves are accurate but that the conclusions and especially the inspiration drawn from them are not. “He seems to have no doubts about it and in this sense I think he is a prophetic type figure who is completely sure and nothing can waiver his absolute certainty about this. So I would say he is a modern day prophet…that’s wrong.”

Transcendent Man is clearly meant to be an uplifting film celebrating all the ways science and technology have and are going to enrich our lives. I don’t know if it is the music or the cinematography or the subject himself, but I found Transcendent Man to be a sad film about a genius who has been in agony since the premature death of his father at age 58. Fredric Kurzweil was a professional musician who Ray’s mother says on camera was never around while his charge was growing up. Like father like son—Kurzweil’s own workaholic tendencies in his creation of over a dozen companies starting when he was 17 meant he never really knew his father. As the film portrays the tormented inventor, Kurzweil’s mission in life seems more focused on resurrecting his patriarch than rescuing humanity.

An especially lachrymose moment is when Kurzweil is rifling through his father’s journals and documents in a storage room dedicated to preserving his memory until the day that all this “data” (including Ray’s own fading memories) can be reconfigured into an A.I. simulacrum so that father and son can be reunited. Through heavy sighs and wistful looks Kurzweil comes off not as a proselytizer on a mission but as a man tormented. It is, in fact, the film’s leitmotif. In one scene Kurzweil is shown wiping away a tear at his father’s gravesite, in another he pauses over photographs and looks longingly at mementos, and in another cut at the beach Kurzweil recalls the day his father “uncharacteristically” phoned him just days before his death, as if he’d had a premonition. Although Kurzweil says he is optimistic and cheery about life, he can’t seem to stop talking about death: “It’s such a profoundly sad, lonely feeling that I really can’t bear it,” he admits. “So I go back to thinking about how I’m not going to die.” One wonders how much of life he is missing by over thinking death, or how burdensome it must surely be to imbibe over 200 supplement tables a day and have your blood tested and cleansed every couple of months, all in an effort to reprogram the body’s biochemistry.

There is something almost religious about Kurzweil’s scientism, an observation he himself makes in the film, noting the similarities between his goals and that of the world’s religions: “the idea of a profound transformation in the future, eternal life, bringing back the dead—but the fact that we’re applying technology to achieve the goals that have been talked about in all human philosophies is not accidental because it does reflect the goal of humanity.” Although the film never discloses Kurzweil’s religious beliefs (he was raised by Jewish parents as a Unitarian Universalist), in a (presumably) unintentionally humorous moment that ends the film Kurzweil reflects on the God question and answers it himself: “Does God exist? I would say, ‘Not yet.’” Cheeky.

On Thursday, March 31, Deepak Chopra and I squared off for a second time in person in a public venue, this time accompanied by the physicist Leonard Mlodinow on my side and Stuart Hameroff on his side (along with other panelists). The question on the table was this:

“Is there an Ultimate Reality?” and if yes, “Can it be accounted for by science such as mathematics, biology and physics?”

My answers: YES and YES

I explained that I am a Materialist and a Monist. I do not believe that there is a body and a soul, there is just a body. There is no brain and mind, just brain. The mind is just a word we use to describe what the brain does. I said, “you know I’m right” (which got a surprising laugh from the audience) because of the evidence from strokes, tumors, brain damage, senility, dementia, and Alzheimer’s, all of which kill brain cells, and along with the loss of brain comes the loss of mind. I asked Deepak and Stuart where Aunt Millie’s mind goes when her brain slowly disappears from the effects of Alzheimer’s disease.

I noted that consciousness is just a word we use to describe our inner thoughts about the workings of the brain, and that our “soul” is just a pattern of information stored in our genes and our brains. Consciousness is just an emergent property of integrated brain modules and patterned firing of neural networks.

By contrast, I believe that Deepak’s use of the word “consciousness” is very anthropocentric, once again returning humans to a central place in the cosmos as the “observers” who, in quantum mechanics, brings things into existence. If Deepak is right then the moon doesn’t exist unless it is observed, and yet, quoting that great scientist Bill O’Reilly, “times come in, tides go out—never a missed communication—and they would do so whether or not humans, or any other conscious (or unconscious) being existed.

In fact, I said, Deepak’s quantum consciousness is not holistic but reductionistic in the extreme. We don’t need to go down that far. Quantum mechanics is not needed to explain brain functions: the neuron is the individual unit of thought, the “atom” of mind. I then worked in a little joke I wrote earlier in the day:

Quantum mechanics is spooky and weird.
Consciousness is spooky and weird.
So what? Charlie Sheen is spooky and weird, but we don’t need quantum mechanics to explain his behavior. His “tiger blood” theory works just fine.

Haha.

In Deepak’s worldview, everything is conscious, which means that there is no way to distinguish between consciousness and unconsciousness, which is how I often feel when I listen to Deepak.

Thought Experiment:

• If humans went extinct instead of Neanderthals, how does that effect the universe?
• What if the Earth were suddenly demolished by a rogue planet (as in 2012)? Would that mean the end of the universe because observers would disappear?
• Are whales, dolphins, gorillas and chimps conscious and therefore integral to the universe?
• What can it possibly mean to say that the universe is conscious? If you will pardon the nerd science pun, that is such a vacuous concept!

Before the debate Deepak asked me to read a paper by himself and Menas Kafatos and Rudolph Tanzi published in the Journal of Cosmology, entitled: “How Consciousness Becomes the Physical Universe.” Deepak asked me to comment on it, which I did in the second half of the debate. I noted that given the prominence of “consciousness” to the central theme of the paper that one might expect it to be defined with semantic precision. Nope. Here is what the authors write:

“We will sidestep any precise definition of consciousness, limiting ourselves for now to willful actions on the part of the observer.”

What can it possibly mean for the universe to be conscious in the sense of having willful actions? The universe behaves with willful action? The universe is an observer? As well, quantum mechanics only requires an observation of any kind: an electron microscope will do. Is an electron microscope willful? Does an electron microscope take action? The authors of this paper write:

Werner Heisenberg concluded that the atom “has no immediate and direct physical properties at all.” If the universe’s basic building block isn’t physical, then the same must hold true in some way for the whole. The universe was doing a vanishing act in Heisenberg’s day, and it certainly hasn’t become more solid since. And Heisenberg again: “The atoms or elementary particles themselves … form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”

No, sorry, these are different levels of analysis. To prove it I challenge Deepak to climb to the top of this building and jump off and see if the ground is a potentiality or a thing! They also write:

Heisenberg: “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” Reality, it seems, shifts according to the observer’s conscious intent.

Once again, NO! This would imply that anyone’s method of questioning is just as valid as anyone else’s, which would mean that the way astrologers question the universe is just as valid as that of astronomers. I concluded by saying that if you want to get a spacecraft to Mars the questions that astronomers ask are absolutely objectively really better than those of astrologers. Q.E.D.!

In Deepak’s rebuttal, in discussing quantum mechanics, he actually used the phrase “the womb of creation.” Nice. It’s that sort of precise language that makes people all gushy and mushy about science. I pressed him for a definition of consciousness, which he gave me as “consciousness is the ground of existence.” I replied that this sounded tautological to me: since reality needs consciousness to come into existence, this means that reality = consciousness = existence; or existence = existence. A is A. Very Aristotelian. But what does that really tell us?

In the end I pressed both Deepak and Stuart Hameroff for an answer as to where Aunt Millie’s mind goes during the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease. Stuart’s answer was so rapid fire and jargon laden (something about the collapse of the wave function inside the microtubules in the neurons inside Aunt Millie’s brain) that I couldn’t quite get an answer, so Deepak clarified it for me later: Aunt Millie’s mind is in the matrix. Okay, I asked, how does poor Aunt Millie access the matrix. “We’re working on that,” was the reply. Okay, fine, and if our memories really are stored somewhere outside of our brains, then that would indeed be one of the greatest discoveries ever made in the history of science: Nobel worthy. But, until that is proven, I remain … skeptical.

Post Script

I am often asked if I believe that Deepak believes what he says, with an underlying assumption behind the question that Deepak is knowingly selling snake oil and doesn’t really believe his public patter. Having gotten to know Deepak over the years I can assure you that he absolutely positively believes what he says, and that while he may make a lot of money in the process of writing books, giving lectures, hosting radio and television shows, and running his various business enterprises (but, hey, that’s not exactly something anathema in America), this fact is quite orthogonal to his deeper mission in life: to shift the Western worldview Eastward.

I had never met Stuart Hameroff before, but I liked him as well, sharing a beer after the debate while watching a Laker game and schmoozing about science. Although I do not accept his theory of consciousness (most neuroscientists are skeptical as well), it would be fun to engage him again in a spirited debate over the brain and the mind.

We are thrilled to announce that Skepticblog has added a new regular blogger, Dr. Donald Prothero, a world class geologist and paleontologist who teaches at both Occidental College and Caltech. Don is one of the most respected scientists in his field having won the award for the best geologist under 40 (the same award won by Stephen Jay Gould), and one of the most popular science writers today, having just penned the incredibly timely book Catastrophes: Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Tornadoes, and other Earth-Shattering Disasters, which found him on numerous television news shows the day after the Japanese disaster. Dr. Prothero is on the scientific board of advisors for the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, lectures regularly for the Skeptics Society’s Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, leads the society’s wildly popular field trips, and writes and reviews for Skeptic regularly as one of the world’s expert debunkers of creationism and Intelligent Design. Don’s bio is a stunning tribute to his erudition and productivity as a scientist and public intellectual. We are fortunate to have him in our pantheon.

READ Prothero’s first post on SkepticBlog.

Every week I receive invitations to speak at various venues around the world. On March 15, 2011, I received the following invitation to speak in London. As I was running out the door to go on my morning bike ride, I missed the obvious cues that this was a scam:

Dear Michael Shermer,

My Name is Prof. Peter Kopelman from the London Youth Community Here in London UK. We want you to be our guest speaker at this Year ST’ GEORGE UNIVERSITY , which will take place here in UK. We are writing to invite and confirm your booking to be our Guest Speaker at these year ST’ GEORGE UNIVERSITY Event.

The Venue as follows:
VENUE: St George’s University of London,
Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE.
Email:stgeorgeuniversityoflondon@gmail.com
Expected audience: 500 people
Duration of speech per speaker: 7PM-8PM
Name of Organization: ST’GEORGE UNIVERSITY
Topic:MEDICAL
Date: Wednesday 30 March 2011.

We came across your profile on http://www.amazingmeeting.com/speakers and we say it’s up to standard and we will be very glad to have such an outstanding personality in our mist for these overwhelming gathering. With your multi talented speech more lives will come close , Sorry about our late invitation it is due to the fact that our Speaker had back out because of her sudden illness.

Arrangements to welcome you here will be discussed as soon as you honor our invitation. If you have any more publicity material, please do not hesitate to contact me. A formal Letter of invitation would be sent to you as soon as you honor our invitation. We are taking care of your traveling and Hotel Accommodation expenses including your Speaking fees.

Remain Blessed
Prof. Peter Kopelman
stgeorgeuniversityoflondon@gmail.com
ST’GEORGE UNIVERSITY.
Ofice(+44) 702-401-8034

I responded that I wanted $5000 with partial payment up front and a first-class or business-class flight, plus hotel. Only later in the day did I look carefully at the email and notice this guy’s spelling and grammar was pretty bad for a university professor, plus the fact that his university uses a gmail account! His March 16 response to my request reads (and by “mist” does he mean the famous London fog?!):

Respected Michael Shermer,

Thanks for indicating your interest to be our Guest Speaker at this year ST’ GEORGE UNIVERSITY. We are  very excited and happy to have such a wonderful personality in our mist. We the event organizing committee had a meeting earlier today to deliberate on getting you available here within a short period of time. We believe we serve the lord of possibilities.Arrangements are stated below.

We have agreed to buy your flight ticket and to pay your Hotel accommodation expenses . Also your Speaking fee is amounted to $5,000(USD), Three Thousand (USD) deposit is to be paid as soon as you procure all relevant travel documents  so as to avoid any disappointment.You are informed to get across your CERTIFICATE to us so your deposit can be approved according to our mandated rules and regulation.

You are advised by the Event Organizing committee to immediately contact the BRITISH EMBASSY to procure your ANTI-TERRORIST CERTIFICATE as soon as possible

This will enable us to proceed with all arrangements to welcome you here in London. Contact the BRITISH EMBASSY information below.

BRITISH EMBASSY CONTACT
Name: Dr Alex Alfred
British Email: britishembassyservice@gmail.com

Please confirm to us the closest Airport to your location so we can start making arrangements to buy your flight tickets .Understand that you need to expedite action because of the short notice. Feel free to ask any question.

We have attached a formal Letter of Invitation  and contract agreement.Please reconfirm to us your office Address for our perusal and further action.Note you are meant to arrive a day before the commencement of the event.

Please return a signed copy of the contract agreement for proper documentation.

We await your earliest response

Remain Blessed
Prof. Peter Kopelman
stgeorgeuniversityoflondon@gmail.com
ST’ GEORGE UNIVERSITY.
+44 702 401 8034
Ofice(+44) 702-401-8034

Um, strange, “Alex” at the British Embassy also has a gmail account. And I wondered what this “anti-terrorism certificate” was all about, which I was quick to find out when I received this letter from the British Embassy Service:

ATTN CLIENT,

YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED BY THE UK BORDER AGENCY TO IMMEDIATELY OBTAIN AN ANTI-TERRORIST CERTIFICATE IN ORDER TO BE GIVEN THE PERMIT WITHOUT ANY DELAY.THESE VITAL DOCUMENT WILL ONLY COST YOU ONLY 1000POUNDS,YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY SEND THE MONEY TO THE UK BORDER AGENT IN CHARGE OF YOUR PROCUREMENT VIA THE INFORMATION BELOW THROUGH WESTERN UNION.

UK BORDER AGENCY.
NAME:MRS KELLY CONMAN
ADDRESS: 114 ROMFORD ROAD LONDON,UNITED KINGDOM.
POSTCODE E12 6PY

AS SOON AS I RECEIVE THE WESTERN UNION MONEY TRANSFER RECEIPT I WILL TAKE THE PAYMENT RECEIPT TO THE OFFICIAL AT THE AGENCY,SO SHE CAN PROCEED ON PROCURING THE ANTI TERRORIST CERTIFICATE WHICH IS VALID FOR 3YEARS.ATTACHED BELOW IS THE ANTI-TERRORSIT CERTIFICATE APPLICATION FORM PRINT AND FILL IN THE INFORMATION BLOCK,REATTACH AND RESEND IT TO ME ALONG SIDE WITH YOUR WESTERN UNION MONEY TRANSFER RECEIPT.

IN YOUR SERVICE,
DR ALEX ALFRED
BRITISH EMBASSY SERVICE.

So the British Embassy now sends letters out in ALL CAPS with no stationary? And “Mrs. Kelly Conman”? I think I know her husband, “Lefty Conman.” I replied:

Peter,

I just got an email from Alex at the British Embassy. I’m afraid that I cannot afford the 1,000 pounds. I do not have any money in my account as I have just paid my taxes. If you can wire transfer the U.S. $3000 advance per my instructions in the previous email then I can take care of this.

Michael

“Prof Peter” replied:

Let me know how much you can afford then we can add to you from the university. I will be waiting to hear from you .

Wow, so the British Embassy is willing to negotiate the price of this certificate, depending on how much someone can afford. I responded:

Peter,

As for what I can afford, as I said I have no money in the account I sent you as I just paid my taxes. So I will need you to wire transfer $3000, then I can pay the $1000 anti-terrorist certificate. I have alerted my bank to expect a wire transfer from you, and I gave them all your personal information, so they are expecting a wire transfer from you today. When that transaction is complete then I will take care of the anti-terrorist certificate.

Michael

“Prof Peter” then wrote:

This is the form for you to fill out for me so we can transfer you the deposit as soon as possible. I will be waiting to hear from you.

NAME ON THE CARD:
BILLING ADDRESS:
CARD NUMBER:
EXP DATE:
CCV:
CARD LIMIT:
AMOUNT OWING:
BANK NAME AND ADDRESS:
BANK TOLL FREE NUMBER:
DATE OF BIRTH:
MOTHER MAIDEN NAME:
SSN:
CELL PHONE NUMBER:
HOME PHONE:
DEBIT AND PREPAID CARD ARE NOT ACCEPTED

Um, credit card information? It was time to up the ante in this little game. So, I wrote:

Hello Peter,

I am very excited about coming to your university. And to tell you the truth I really need the money because, as I told you, I’m flat broke after paying my taxes. I gave you the information for transferring money into my account so when receipt of the $3000 is confirmed then I will follow the instructions from the British Embassy to send 1,000 pounds to them in order to get my anti-terrorist certificate. Otherwise I cannot pay the 1,000 pound fee and will not be able to come to London. That would be very sad.

In the meantime, I have a favor to ask of you. Would you please take a picture of yourself with a copy of my magazine, Skeptic magazine, in front of St. George University? I want to know what you look like so that when we meet in London I can find you at the airport.

Michael Shermer

The morning of March 17 I received the following email and photographs:

Dear Michael,

Good morning to your , have just got your mail and is nice hearing from you . Attach is the some of the photos of the university compound, the staff my photo of myself as well also the inside of the conference , am also standing in front of the university glass. Also as soon as you have procure the ANTI-TERRORIST CERTIFICATE, the hotel confirmation will be send to you as soon as possible.

Also get me aware as soon as you have send your payment to Dr Ales , so i can start up with the bookings of both the Flight and Hotel

I will be waiting to hear back from you as soon as possible ..

Remain Blessed,
Prof Peter

Golly, that photo of Prof Peter standing in the doorway is so real looking! Time to get crazy with this loon:

Dear Professor Peter,

Thank you ever so much for the confirmation letter and photographs. I was wondering if you know the woman in the photograph next to the university sign? She is beautiful. I was wondering if you could fix me up on a date with her when I get there. I am single and am looking for a wife and have always loved English women. I love their accents, don’t you? Can you tell me her name and give me her email address so that I may introduce myself?

I will print out the anti-terrorist certificate form today per your instructions and send it to the British Embassy. I lost the email that Alex sent me, but I have the address of the British Embassy and will send the form and money to them. When they send me back the certified form I will email it to you.

Thank you,
Michael

“Prof Peter” Replied:

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your mail , the woman you are talking about is one of the student and she is just 29 yrs old , there is no problem about that, I will hook you up with her when you get here . Also send your payment to Dr Alex to the address he gave to you , you can mail him if they can receive credit card.

I will be waiting for the signed copy of the contract agreement.

Remain blessed.

Well, if he’s willing to bless me and fix me up on a date with one of his students, how bad could this guy be? Let’s find out…

Dear Prof Peter:

My friend with money to lend me tells me that there are a lot of fraudsters out there and to be careful. If you or one of your associates or students will make a sign that says “I’m Skeptical” and stand in front of Buckingham Palace and take a picture of it and send it to me, I promise that I will send you the money. I need some sort of proof. Anyone could have pulled those photographs of St. George’s University off the web page. I need something personalized as proof, and the “I’m Skeptical” sign will do it. I promise.

Oh, also, my friend with the money wants to come with me. Will he need an anti-terrorist certificate as well? Is it the same price, or can we purchase two at the same time for a discounted price? Also, as I asked before, can we pay by credit card? I was wondering if we authorized $1500 for two certificates would that be acceptable? Please check with Alex at the British Embassy and let me know.

Michael

I then received this March 18 reply from Prof Peter:

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your mail , i did not have any prove after all you ask me to get a photographer of myself at the front of the university and
have done that , i  have show you some prove , i have never deal with such a speaker like you before you are making this issue long. Also
the woman you are talking about , i have see her yesterday and i have discuss with her , she can not also wait to see you.

Well i have conclude with the Committee organization and they have agree with you opinion , paying the 1500usd for both of you, and the
university has agreed to pay the remaining of the payment for the certificate .

As you can see that we did not have much time to waste on this , and again do not disappoint us , because the university can’t wait to have
you in our mist event the woman .

The name of the woman is MARIA BRETT, and you can get in touch with her on the following email address … mariabrett28@yahoo.com.

Make the payment to Dr Alex as soon as possible , then try and call me on +44 702 401 8034 as soon as you have send the payment to him , so i can start up with the Flight Booking and Hotel accommodation.

I will be waiting to hear back from you as soon as you receive my mail

Remain blessed.;
Prof Peter.

Time to get crazy with “Maria” (who, of course, is just this dude with a different email address):

Dear Maria,

My name is Michael. I believe that Professor Peter Kopelman from your school has mentioned me to you. I am coming to London on March 30 to speak at St. George’s University. Professor Peter sent me a picture of the school and I asked him about you as you are in the picture. I would like to meet you when I am in town and maybe go out on a date. Would you like to have tea with me? Isn’t that a very British thing to do? Please tell me a little more about you, plus send me some photographs of you. I very much want to see what you look like before we meet.

Blessed be to you,
Michael

Then I wrote to Peter:

Maria has written me back. I am even more excited about coming to London, now just 13 days away! We are going to go out on a date!!

I finally have the money together for the anti-terrorism certificate and will take care of that today. But FIRST, Peter, you must provide me with personalized PROOF that I am really dealing with you and not some scammer. I need you to get one of your students to hold up a sign that says in big letters “I’m Skeptical”. If you do not do this then I am not going to send the payment today. If you go do this right now then I will go straight away to the office and send Alex the money. I have $1500 to wire to him today. If you want the $1500 you will make me the proof sign. If you don’t make the sign, I will not send you the $1500.

Michael

Then, amazingly, “Maria” writes back:

Is not that i did not want to send it , but i want you to come to Uk first then we can meet ..And again , Prof Peter told me that you will be coming to UK  soon that you have not procure the certificate , make it as soon as possible so we can meet . I will be waiting to hear from you . Also i will be waiting to receive your lecture here in UK  as well .
  
Maria

I responded:

Dear Maria, 

I finally got the money today to get my anti-terrorism certificate. I am going to take care of that today, but I have asked Peter for proof that this is not some internet scam. You know you can’t be too careful these days. You never know who you are talking to online, right? That’s why I am asking you for a picture. I need proof that I am actually writing a real person, a woman named Maria. You could be anyone. 

So, please send me a picture of you holding a sign that says “I’m Skeptical” and then I will have proof and will send my money.

Michael

The reply from Prof Peter finally came:

Dear Michael,

Have just taken a photographer which you requested for we are trying to best just for you to know that this is a real event coming up. As soon as you have send the payment to Dr Alex, send me the copy of the certificate, also the signed copy of the contract am still expecting it .

I will be waiting to hear back from you as soon as possible, I will also love to have a coffee with you when you get here.

Remain blessed,
Prof Peter.

And from “Maria”:

Dear Michael,

You are right , but i will have to confused you that am also happy that this event is coming up and i will love if you can understand . I know how you feel but i also want to know you as well . See my photo and i hope you will like them those are my new photo . also send me yours as
well . And again , i will be waiting for you in UK to meet you first before anything .

Bye for now
Maria

Time to get tough with Prof Peter … I wrote:

That’s not what I requested. This is just a photoshopped picture. Obviously you are not serious. I have $1500 in my bank account and I was going to go down to the Western Union office and wire it to Alex today, but I see no need to continue to waste my time and money when you cannot agree to my requirements, goodbye.

Prof Peter decided to get tough back … He wrote:

Dear Michael,

We did not have time to waste and let me know if you are not interesting any more .

Bye.

Time to play my trump card—the “anti-terrorism” certificate, constructed for me by Pat Linse, the Art Director of Skeptic magazine!

Dear Professor Peter and Dr. Alex,

I have very good news! I decided to trust you and so this afternoon I went down to the British Counsulate-General in Los Angeles and I wire transferred $1500 from my bank account with Washington Mutual (account #666-42-1999) to the British Embassy through Western Union. Did you get it? They gave me a confirmation number to give you:

Western Union Wire Transfer Confirmation #419-2011-1984

They also gave me the Anti-Terrorist Certificate, which they signed and told me to scan and to send to you. I have attached it below. 

So, please, book my airline reservation and hotel and send me the confirmation numbers right away. I can’t wait to come to London and speak at your university. My friend with the money is coming with me. He will pay for his own flight and will book it himself once you tell me what flight you have booked me on. 

Blessed be to you,
Michael

I also wrote to Maria:

Maria,

I am writing to tell you the good news that this afternoon I went down to the British Counsulate-General in Los Angeles and I wire transferred $1500 from my bank account to the British Embassy through Western Union.

They gave me the Anti-Terrorist Certificate, which I have attached it below. 

So now I can come to London and we can go out on our date together. Where would you like to go? Do you think you can introduce me to Prince William? 

By the way, you look different in the photographs you sent me from that photograph in the university picture. You had much lighter skin in that photograph but darker skin now. Have you been out in the sun getting a tan?

Please send me some more photographs of yourself, and make me the “I’m Skeptical” sign.

Michael

Finally, on Sunday March 20, Prof Peter wrote back:

Dear Michael,

I did not understand you at all , and again i did not know what you mean about the confirmation you are talking about and again you hav
procure a wrong certificate this is not the certificate we issue and you are not to procure Los Aneles but UK certificate. i will advise
you to go back to them and collet your money back that you did not need that certificate again , then you send the payment to the address
Dr Alex gave you .

I will be wating to hear back from you as soon as you have receive my mail .

Remain Blessed,
Prof Peter.

I didn’t respond for awhile, so Prof Peter wrote me with more “proof”:

Dear Michael,

Maria brought this photo to me on my office and told me that this is what you have been requesting for , i hope you are satisfy now .

I will be waiting to hear back from you .

Warm Regards.

Okay, now it’s time to get really crazy! So I wrote back:

Prof. Peter and Dr. Alex,

I’m shocked and very upset. Do you mean to tell me that I wasted $1500? Someone scammed me. I am going back down to that Los Angeles office and demand my money back tomorrow. I will keep you informed.

In the meantime, I have a wealthy donor who wants me to put together a scholarly book and he’s willing to pay $20,000 for a book about why the last four American presidents have been in reality alien beings from another planet. Do you know anyone interested in contributing such a book, maybe some of the professors at your university? A sample article would need to be provided since this donor is very demanding – he is an eccentric Buddhist nudist who believes that public nudism is not only healthy but essential to world peace. Do you know any nudist professors in need of $20,000? I can bring the money with me next week when I come to London. Are travelers’ checks ok? 

My wealthy donor sent me the picture below as proof of President Bush as an alien, and the alien who converted him.

Michael

Surely now the spam scammers will realize that they are being scammed! Apparently not, as this came in a day later:

Dear Michael ,

I got your mail and i was so sad because if you have listen to me this will not have happen and is because you did not following my word
and all you think is maybe we are trying to scam you . Well as you have stated in the mail , go back to them and collect your money back
, then send it to Dr Alex. As soon as you have send the payment to Dr Alex get back to me so i can start up with the Flight booking and
Hotel reservation and again the payment you are paying to Dr Alex will be payed back to you as soon as you come to London .

We can not wait to have you in our mist, also to have a coffee with you also Maria can not wait to go with a date with you .

I will be waiting to hear back from you as soon as you have read my mail.

As soon as you have get the payment back send it to Dr Alex , then when you get here we will talk about the Donor together with the staff here in the university.

I will be waiting to hear back from you .

Warm Regards
Prof Peter.

That brings us up to date to the present moment. I think I’ll pull the plug on this silliness now and get back to work, but at least I wasted this guy’s time and distracted him from possibly duping someone into actually sending in money. Oh, by the way, when I noticed that he said he got my name from The Amazing Meeting list of speakers, I queried the other speakers at TAM and, sure enough, they all received the same invitation to speak!

So much for scamming the spam scam scammers. It was worth a few laughs.