Prof Roy's Best cases offered by M Keen to Randi

[SteveGrenard]

Prof. Roy's Best Cases Offered to Randi by M. Keen

Anyone wishing to contribute a case would be most welcome. I will tackle Runki's Missing Leg case next. George Pellew and Mrs Piper will be copied here.



Index Post:

1. The Watseka Wonder, 1887. Stevens, E.W. 1887 The Watseka Wonder, Chicago; Religio-philosophical Publishing House, and Hodgson R., Religio-Philosophical Journal Dec. 20th, 1890, investigated by Dr. Hodgson.

2. Uttara Huddar and Sharada. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, 1980. A preliminary report on an unusual case of the reincarnation type with Xenoglossy. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 74, 331-348; and Akolkar V.V. Search for Sharada: Report of a case and its investigation. Journal of the American SPR 86,209-247.

3. Sumitra and Shiva-Tripathy. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, and McLean-Rice, N 1989. A Case of the Possession Type in India with evidence of Paranormal Knowledge. Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration 3, 81-101.

4. Jasbir Lal Jat. Stevenson, I, 1974. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (2nd edition) Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

5. The Thompson/Gifford case. Hyslop, J.H. 1909. A Case of Veridical Hallucinations Proceedings, American SPR 3, 1-469.

6. Past-life regression. Tarazi, L. 1990. An Unusual Case of Hypnotic Regression with some Unexplained Contents. Journal of the American SPR, 84, 309-344.

7. Cross-correspondence communications. Balfour J. (Countess of) 1958-60 The Palm Sunday Case: New Light On an Old Love Story. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 52, 79-267.

8. Book and Newspaper Tests. Thomas, C.D. 1935. A Proxy Case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs Osborne Leonard. Proceedings SPR 43, 439-519.

9. "Bim's" book-test. Lady Glenconnor. 1921. The Earthen Vessel, London, John Lane.

10. The Harry Stockbridge communicator. Gauld, A. 1966-72. A Series of Drop-in Communicators. PSPR 55, 273-340.

11. The Bobby Newlove case. Thomas, C. D. 1935. A proxy case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs. Osborne Leonard. PSPR 43, 439-519.

12. The Runki missing leg case. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Runolfur Runolfsson. JASPR 69. 33-59.

13. The Beidermann drop-in case. Gauld, A. 1966-72. A Series of Drop-in Communicators. PSPR 55, 273-340.

14. The death of Gudmundur Magnusson. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Gudni Magnusson, JASPR 69, 245-261.

15. Identification of deceased officer. Lodge, O. 1916. Raymond, or Life and Death. London. Methuen & Co. Ltd.16. Mediumistic evidence of the Vandy death. Gay, K. 1957. The Case of Edgar Vandy, JSPR 39, 1-64; Mackenzie, A. 1971. An Edgar Vandy Proxy Sitting. JSPR 46, 166-173; Keen, M. 2002. The case of Edgar Vandy: Defending the Evidence, JSPR 64.3 247-259; Letters, 2003, JSPR 67.3. 221-224.

17. Mrs Leonore Piper and the George "Pelham" communicator. Hodgson, R. 1897-8. A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance. PSPR, 13, 284-582.

18. Messages from "Mrs. Willett" to her sons. Cummins, G. 1965. Swan on a Black Sea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

19. Ghostly aeroplane phenomena. Fuller, J.G. 1981 The Airmen Who Would Not Die, Souvenir Press, London.

20. Intelligent responses via two mediums: the Lethe case. Piddington, J.G. 1910. Three incidents from the Sittings. Proc. SPR 24, 86-143; Lodge, O. 1911. Evidence of Classical Scholarship and of Cross-Correspondence in some New Automatic Writing. Proc. 25, 129-142,

[SteveGrenard]

This case involves Mrs.L. Piper and George Pellew (not "Pelham" ). Pellew was a friend of Piper's highly skeptical investigator, Hodgson. Five years earlier he attended a session with Piper but did so under an assumed name. Pellew never had any further contact with her after that until he died, that is, when he suddenly appeared, identified by his correct iniitals (G.P.) (by Piper). and in all other respects fitting Pellew's personage.

This was in Cambridge, England where Piper was brought by Hodgson from the U.S. Piper had no knowledge of or familiarity with any of the people she was confronted with as sitters by her investigators. In fact they all were introduced under assumed names to insure she had learned nothing about their backgrounds.

So one of this first bunch was George Pellew (G.P.)., who after his death attached himself to Piper and ostensibly became her control or guide, replacing Phinuit and others who came before him.

Hodgson now wanted to test Piper and her G.P communicator so he arranged for a further onslaught of 150 anonymous sitters, 30 of whom knew Pellew when he was alive. Out of these 30, 29 were correctly acknowledged by the spirit Pellew. The 30th was not since he knew her as a child and she was now a grown woman and he did not recognize her. It is believed that these 29 recognitions, as well as the lack of recognition of the 30th and the reason why, finally led to Hodgson's acceptance of the survival hypothesis and in the veridicality of Piper's communicators and ability to "hear" them.

[Ed]

I am not sure how one could respond to this. These are the "best" cases you say?

2 prior to 1900
4 in the first quarter of the last century
2 in the second quarter
7 in the third
5 in the 4th (if my addition is correct)

You can surely see how this "best" list impeaches general claims for the paranormal off the bat, right? This is embaressing, right?

And what is one supposed to do with these cases, specifically? I would bet that fully half of the principles are dead themselves and that the majority of the remainder are in their dotage.

This is the best, you say?

If this is the kind of thinking that Keen has put into the problem, or worse yet has formed his opinions on I fear for his sanity.

Do you see the silliness of this, Steve?

[NoZed Avenger]

Yet another new thread?

You were doing so well ignoring the points in the other thread about Mr. Keen, why a second one?

[SteveGrenard]

ED: These are the "best" cases you say?


Why do you insist on misattributing statements of others to me? I said these were best cases put forth by Professor Archie Roy, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
ED: These are the "best" cases you say?


Why do you insist on misattributing statements of others to me? I said these were best cases put forth by Professor Archie Roy, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh.

Because, you dingbat, if you put forward something like this with no comment it appears that you are of a mind, that's why. So what DO you think? Are these the best cases? And BTW, those titles mean squat in this context.

[SteveGrenard]

Case #14

Title: Case of Runki's Missing Leg

Medium: Hafsteinin Bjornsson (1914-1977)

Investigators: E. Haraldsson, M.D. (Univ Iceland) and I. Stevenson, M.D. (Univ of Virginia)

Type: Drop-In Communicator

The case began in the fall of 1937 at a series of seances conducted by Bjornsson at the home of E.H. Kvaran of Reykavik.

An unknown drop-in spirit communicator giving first what would be a false name was asked by a sitter what it was he wanted. He replied that "I am looking for my leg." He said it was lost at sea or in the sea. ? as to exact frame of ref.

For 1 year this communicator appeared and continued to ask for his leg. No sitter(s) or the medium knew who he was or why he was missing his leg. In January, 1939 a new sitter joined the group: Ludvik Gudmundsson who lived in the capital but had a second home in the village of Sandgerdi where he also owned a fish processing business.
Hafsteinin had never met this new sitter before. On the addition of Ludvik to the group the communicator with the missing leg became brusque and rude but still would not give his name until Ludvik and Niels said they would not help him unless he told who he was. In late winter, early spring 1939 the communicator revealed he was Runolfur Runolfsson (nic: Runki), was 52 when he died and lived with his wife near Sandgerdi. One night in October, 1879, Runk said he was walking home drunk, fell into the sea and drowned. The following January his body, sans a leg, was discovered washed ashore. He said it was torn to pieces by dogs and ravens. His remains were buried but the leg was not found so he went to his grave without it. Sometime later (exact date unknown; 1920s or 40+ yrs later) a thigh bone washed up on shore, was recovered and passed around until it wound up in the hands of a carpenter who buried it in the wall of the house that Ludvik had now occupied. With the help of a fish factory employee, Ludvik tore down a wall in his house believed to be the one the carpenter had hid it within and found the bone. It was subsequently buried. Runki returned and expressed gratitude for his help. in getting his bone back.


Stevenson & Haraldsson et al verified the account and timing of Runki's death but not the missing leg bone. When he and Haraldsson wanted to disinter Runki's remains to see if it was missing the thigh bone they could not be sure of the exact location of his grave as the gravesites were very close together, unmarked and one atop another so there was no way they would know where to look.

However, this case was meticulously documented by Harladsson and colleagues at the Univ of Iceland as well as by Haraldsson and Stevenson; all reports appeared in the J of the ASPR.

Although the case dates from a death in 1879, it came to fruition in 1937-39 and was subsequently investigated and then published in 1975 by researchers who are still alive today (Haraldsson and Stevenson).

It spanned, from date of death to date of seance, some 60 years. It involved a spirit communicator looking for a missing leg which was subsequently found to be hidden in a house owned by a new member of the seance table attended by this communicator.

[TLN]

Asked direct questions, you just cut and paste some more.

Give it up Steve.

Steve, Professor Farnsworth would like a word with you...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27705

[SteveGrenard]

Find where I cut and pasted this from and I will push a peanut naked across Times Square .... no wait a minute, Randi already offered to do that. Ill think of something else. But please back up your claim I cut and pasted this. You can't because I didn't.

PS If you mean I cut and pasted he Piper account from another thread I wrote it in, you are correct but also being nit picky absurd. LOL......

The subject matter deserves its own thread.

[TLN]

"Bring me a bag full of Bigfoot's droppings or shut up!"

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Find where I cut and pasted this from and I will push a peanut naked across Times Square .... no wait a minute, Randi already offered to do that. Ill think of something else. But please back up your claim I cut and pasted this. You can't because I didn't.

PS If you mean I cut and pasted he Piper account from another thread I wrote it in, you are correct but also being nit picky absurd. LOL......

The subject matter deserves its own thread.

Oh, you wrote it yourself?

[Ed]

How is one supposed to comment on events that occured that long ago. I, for one cannot. I could speculate, I suppose but that might indicate that I take the case or the question seriously. What does a lack of comment mean? This is a fools errand.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Find where I cut and pasted this from and I will push a peanut naked across Times Square .... no wait a minute, Randi already offered to do that. Ill think of something else. But please back up your claim I cut and pasted this. You can't because I didn't.

PS If you mean I cut and pasted he Piper account from another thread I wrote it in, you are correct but also being nit picky absurd. LOL......

The subject matter deserves its own thread.

The "Runki's Missing Leg" case you no doubt copied or summarised from the The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
As to your opening post did you cut and paste from Victor Zammit (http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/ultimatepsychiccon.html)?
(half way down page)

PS Any update for this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28161&perpage=40&highlight=therapeutic%20touch&pagenumber=4) yet?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
"Bring me a bag full of Bigfoot's droppings or shut up!"

I can manage that..very easily.. if you'd like.

Upon further analysis though, it might be shown that the "Bigfoot" ate some spicy Mexican food with corn in it.

[Martin]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I said these were best cases put forth by Professor Archie Roy, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at the University of EdinburghGlasgow, not Edinburgh.

[SteveGrenard]

Actually the list of Roy's Best Cases were in the SPR and I said so. This is the index page. It was not cut and pasted however. It was sent to me by Keen as he offered these to Randi. Piper/GP and Runki's missing leg I wrote up using the following three references:

Immortal Remains: Evidence for Life After Death by Stephen E. Braude (2003)

Mediumship and Survival - A Century of Investigations by Alan Gauld. 1982.


Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death by F.W.H. Meyers w/ new forword by Aldous Huxley and interpretive introduction by Jeffrey Mishlove (2001).

Open minded investigators seeking information on the research and cases involving the survival hypothesis would do well to study these three books. Randi, no doubt, has all three in his library.

Inso far as your last question dragon, I have no intention of wasting my time wading through 454 references (their location on MedLine was given) for a bunch of closed minded cynics in a subject area I am not the least bit interested in. I was (but no longer) interested in trying to demonstrate the close mindedness of some of the posters in that discussion and have proved my case beyond any doubt to some folks looking on who didn't think I could do it. Thanks for helping out.
Thats ditto and double ditto for homeopathy which I do not believe works and for which I have no interest in its claims.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Martin
Glasgow, not Edinburgh.

I stand corrected. Yes, he is Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow University.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Actually the list of Roy's Best Cases were in the SPR and I said so. This is the index page. It was not cut and pasted however. It was sent to me by Keen as he offered these to Randi. Piper/GP and Runki's missing leg I wrote up using the following three references:

Immortal Remains: Evidence for Life After Death by Stephen E. Braude (2003)

Mediumship and Survival - A Century of Investigations by Alan Gauld. 1982.


Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death by F.W.H. Meyers w/ new forword by Aldous Huxley and interpretive introduction by Jeffrey Mishlove (2001).

Open minded investigators seeking information on the research and cases involving the survival hypothesis would do well to study these three books. Randi, no doubt, has all three in his library.

Inso far as your last question dragon, I have no intention of wasting my time wading through 454 references (their location on MedLine was given) for a bunch of closed minded cynics in a subject area I am not the least bit interested in. I was (but no longer) interested in trying to demonstrate the close mindedness of some of the posters in that discussion and have proved my case beyond any doubt to some folks looking on who didn't think I could do it. Thanks for helping out.
Thats ditto and double ditto for homeopathy which I do not believe works and for which I have no interest in its claims.
OK, clear enough. I'll not flog the dead horse anymore.
btw I think that there is a sense in which homeopathy, TT etc "work", but that's for another thread.

Edited for surplus thinking

[apoger]

>The case began in the fall of 1937 at a series of seances conducted by Bjornsson at the home of E.H. Kvaran of Reykavik.


This went on for 63 years and in all that time was any of this subjected to controlled conditions or replictation by another party? (didn't think so...)

So now that the 63 year long series of events is long over and is nothing more than a story, it's offered as evidence.

As has been explained to you (often) this is merely an anecdote.
Anecdotal evidence may offer us insight into what may be profitable to investigate, but by itself merits little weight.

If anyone associated with this case, or any case, can come forward and provide credible evidence of the paranormal they can become rich and famous while ushering in a new era of discovery for all mankind to enjoy.

However if you are going to spend your time telling ghost stories... you aren't going to garner much respect.

[apoger]

Pardon me, it seems Hafsteinin Bjornsson is what lasted 63 years.
The events in question only lasted 2 years, 66 years ago.

It's still an anecdote. ;)

[Garrette]

Steve Grenard

Immortal Remains: Evidence for Life After Death by Stephen E. Braude (2003)

Mediumship and Survival - A Century of Investigations by Alan Gauld. 1982.


Human Personality and Its Survival of Bodily Death by F.W.H. Meyers w/ new forword by Aldous Huxley and interpretive introduction by Jeffrey Mishlove (2001).

Open minded investigators seeking information on the research and cases involving the survival hypothesis would do well to study these three books. Randi, no doubt, has all three in his library.





I don't know about Randi's library, but I have the Gault and Meyers books.

The Gault book is a joke. He admits blatantly, early, and often that he is not trying to prove survival or even show evidence for survival. He is assuming survival is a fact and attempting to show that communication with surviving spirits is the mechanism by which mediums achieve their hits as opposed to telepathy.

If you believe the Gault book shows anything regarding evidence of survival, then you have no critical thinking skills at all.

It's been a while since I've read the Meyers book so can't comment specifically on it, other than to say that it was also unimpressive regarding any evidentiary value.

[SteveGrenard]

Garrette writes:

I don't know about Randi's library, but I have the Gault and Meyers books.

The Gault book is a joke. He admits blatantly, early, and often that he is not trying to prove survival or even show evidence for survival. He is assuming survival is a fact and attempting to show that communication with surviving spirits is the mechanism by which mediums achieve their hits as opposed to telepathy.

If you believe the Gault book shows anything regarding evidence of survival, then you have no critical thinking skills at all.


It's been a while since I've read the Meyers book so can't comment specifically on it, other than to say that it was also unimpressive regarding any evidentiary value.




If you have the "Gault" book, the author of which you misspelled several times in your post, then you would also know his name is Gauld, not Gault. So much for details. Easy mistake. I misspelled Meyer's name, which is Myers.

What does your ad hominem about critical thinking skills have to do with sourcing the 20 Archie Roy best cases?

This is just more character assasination. It runs rampant here. It is a symptom of a bankrupt attempt to denigrate individuals instead of the subject matter. It just never ends. There is no way any fence sitter looking on cannot see this tactic in its purest form of action here. You all are a case study in this type of behavioral response.

The paucity of your arguments is noted.

[CFLarsen]

20 cases, none are verifiable. Nice work, Steve. Is this the best you got? What about Schwartz' abominations in Arizona? What about your own work (which you continuously promise to show us, but never do)?

There are two articles about Stevenson here:

Book Review: Ian Stevenson: "Children Who Remember Previous Lives, A Question of Reincarnation" (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-book.htm)
By Richard Rockley
This often-referenced book on reincarnation gets the skeptic treatment with interesting results.


The Apparent Belief System of Ian Stevenson (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/stevenson-belief.htm)
By Richard Rockley
This is a follow-up to the book review of Ian Stevenson's book "Children Who Remember Previous Lives, A Question of Reincarnation".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If you have the "Gault" book, the author of which you misspelled several times in your post, then you would also know his name is Gauld, not Gault. Meyers name is Myers BTW also. So much for details.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I said these were best cases put forth by Professor Archie Roy, Emeritus Professor of Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh

Originally posted by Martin
Glasgow, not Edinburgh.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I stand corrected. Yes, he is Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow University.

:rolleyes:

[Garrette]

Steve Grenard:

If you have the "Gault" book, the author of which you misspelled several times in your post, then you would also know his name is Gauld, not Gault. So much for details. Easy mistake. I misspelled Meyer's name, which is Myers.

Heck, I can do better than that. Sometimes I forget how old my kids are; sometimes I screw up my own signature. Sorry for misspelling Gauld. I have the book; both of them. I even have them here in Iraq. Care to question me on them to prove it?


What does your ad hominem about critical thinking skills have to do with sourcing the 20 Archie Roy best cases?

First, it's an assessment, not an ad hom. If someone said they consider Jack Chick's comics as proof of christianity, I would say they have no critical thinking skills. If you consider GAULD'S book as evidence of survival, then...well, you know what I said...

Second, I was responding to your suggestion that open minded investigators should have these books, not to the books as sourcing.

Third, if you want me to address these books as source material, I will, for Gauld at least. It's not source material. It's not even second-hand. It's not even a detailed summary. Gauld glosses over the cases he mentions without giving detailed description of readings or investigations.

In effect, he says "Piper did convincing stuff. She was investigated by smart people. They found nothing."

He continues by saying "Now that survival is proven, let's determine if ADC or telepathy explains what Piper did."

Howzzat?

[SteveGrenard]

The book is such garbage it was on your list to take to Iraq and is actually there with you? That's very funny. What else did you bring?

[Garrette]

The books (these two copies, anyway) were gifts as I was being deployed. I brought them as reading material. I re-read Gauld while here. I have not re-read Myers (Meyers?).'

I also have lots of writing paper, some DVDs (including seasons 1 & 3 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer which were also mailed as gifts; I'm waiting on season 2).

I also have the material for Phase 3 of the Command and General Staff Course.

Lots of CDs (I'm partial to classical, bluegrass, Irish folk, and some country along with some classic rock).

A rotating library of novels.

Some cards. A few packet tricks.

Whole bunches of military stuff because, hey, it could come in handy over here; ya never know.

Lots of lotion due to the dry weather.

Surprisingly little sunscreen.

A little pillow.

There's more, but you're probably bored by now.

[SteveGrenard]

A friend told me her daughter wasn't able to get hot meals so she shipped her a microwave oven. Now that's what I call a practical idea!

Anyway, attacking the authors, the original investigators and even the messenger (me) is really an impoverished form of debate. Everybody is a woo-wo, a whacko and creduloid incapable of critical thought. Now think real hard about what I am saying here....

[Garrette]

I don't recall attacking the authors. I said the books are useless as evidence for survival.

I said nothing derogatory about any initial investigators; I merely paraphrased Gauld. Don't misstate my posts and don't put on your thin skin.

I also said that if you view them as evidence for survival then you have no critical thinking skills.

1. I stand by my assessment that they have no evidentiary value. If you disagree, please point to anything within either book (though I would prefer Gauld since I've read that recently) that you think disproves my point.

2. Are you ever anything besides a messenger? You constantly post links and articles and quotations and e-mails and when questioned on them state that you weren't agreeing or disagreeing. Have you an opinion on anything?

In another thread I wrote a post about you and speculate on the reason you post in the manner in which you do. Your current stance as only a messenger leads me to believe even more strongly that I was right.

I'll sum up: you post other people's works and other people's opinions. You agree with their positions but do not state so openly on this forum. The reason that you do not state your agreement is that when the works you cite are debunked you will not have to admit that your own position was debunked.

It's a pro-active defense mechanism.

I could be wrong though.

Do you think the Gauld book presents any evidence for survival?

[SteveGrenard]

Gauld does what you accuse me of (ad hominem) and debates both side of the argument in a fair and open minded manner. This is what you don't get.......
this is what I get when knee jerkers respond with single word epithets or ad homs. I guess in the case of some who pick up and read his book, he is just talking to himself. I think he comes down undecided but feels he has given both sides a decent airing. The new Braude book is similar but more decisive. Braude feels that the evidence supports survival and ADC as well as super psi in some instances.

.

I did not originate any of these accounts, obviously, so all I or anyone can do is post them for discussion. I am interested in differing opinions. All we seem to get here is the aforementioned ad hominem attacks and character assasination. It is, as I said before, an impoverished tactic that has no true value.


It is pathetic really. I know from the views column that more people read than post here and hopefully this silent majority, if they won't chime in, at least will consider the evidence fairly without resorting to attacking personages.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Prof. Roy's Best Cases Offered to Randi by M. Keen

Anyone wishing to contribute a case would be most welcome. I will tackle Runki's Missing Leg case next. George Pellew and Mrs Piper will be copied here.



Index Post:

1. The Watseka Wonder, 1887. Stevens, E.W. 1887 The Watseka Wonder, Chicago; Religio-philosophical Publishing House, and Hodgson R., Religio-Philosophical Journal Dec. 20th, 1890, investigated by Dr. Hodgson.

........snip.........



Hey, they missed out the Cottingley Fairies! Proof positive that magical beings exist. Even had photographs to prove it. A relatively recent case too, 1911 I think.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Darat]

Steve - I am probably being very dense, but what is the context for this thread?

[Lothian]

Steve,

These cases can be believed or disbelieved. I think it is fair to say however that they provide the same evidence of the paranormal as the detailed account in the bible of the parting of the red sea.

However to reach agreement I propose the following statement which we may be able to agree.

“In the past people had super duper psychic abilities that allowed many fantastic things to happen which can not be explained by, indeed contradicts the principles and laws of science as we know them.
Evolution however has chosen not to pass on this ability (presumably because it is of no real use). As such these powers no longer exist and currently no-one can replicate any of these feats in proper tests.”

[Zep]

Steve,

Notwithstanding that the story of the Scandinavian ghost-who-doesn't-walk is thin, thin, thin, transparently thin anecdote, let's assume for sake of argument that it is just so...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you had an "apparition" of an old sailor who kept reappearing and asking for his missing leg. Somehow it is found, buried with him, and the ghost is thankful. How nice.

But let's look at a quote from your "story":Sometime later (exact date unknown; 1920s or 40+ yrs later) a thigh bone washed up on shore, was recovered and passed around until it wound up in the hands of a carpenter who buried it in the wall of the house that Ludvik had now occupied. With the help of a fish factory employee, Ludvik tore down a wall in his house believed to be the one the carpenter had hid it within and found the bone. It was subsequently buried.So it would appear that everyone in the village, if not the whole surrounding district, would have KNOWN PREVIOUSLY FOR A LONG TIME where the "missing bone" actually was! I'll bet the carpenter never told ANYBODY! :rolleyes: So "finding" it later would hardly have required anything in the way of supernatural feats in the slightest. They just had to ask somebody, or even just eavesdrop on a conversation in the pub.

Ka-ching! Case closed - it's a load of hooey, nothing to it at all. In fact, VERY unimpressive for an opening fairy tale, Steve. So can I suggest that unless you and/or Keen have any better shots in your locker that you pack it up now before it becomes even more embarrassing??

[Garrette]

Steve Grenard:

Gauld does what you accuse me of (ad hominem) and debates both side of the argument in a fair and open minded manner. This is what you don't get.......

I accused you of lacking critical thinking skills. I did not accuse Gauld of anything; I summarized his thesis.

Yes, he argues both sides of the argument, one might even say he does it fairly. My point is twofold:

1) The argument he is debating is not the one you are implying.
-He admits up front that he is not arguing about whether or
not survival is a fact.
-He argues instead whether mediums get their information
through ADC as opposed to telepathy.

2) The argument he is debating is a false one because he has an unproven assumption.

-Since survival is not proven, the debate about ADC versus
telepathy is a meaningless one.


This is not me interpreting Gauld. Gauld says this himself in the book. Up front. More than once. (Okay, he doesn't say the part about it being a meaningless debate, but he says the rest).

Based on your objections, I'm led to conclude that either you have not actually read the book or you are demonstrating, again, a lack of critical thinking skills.

Is that ad hom? I don't think so. In the very book you are touting, the author makes it clear that he is not trying to prove that survival is a fact. The book is not source material for any of the cases you list; it does not discuss any of them in depth.

I did not originate any of these accounts, obviously, so all I or anyone can do is post them for discussion. I am interested in differing opinions.

Excellent. You have mine now.

What's yours?

[The Mighty Thor]

It is pathetic really. I know from the views column that more people read than post here and hopefully this silent majority, if they won't chime in, at least will consider the evidence fairly without resorting to attacking personages.

Well, Steve, I'll chime in to say that I, for one, admire the patience and tenacity of those who you say attack you.

If you feel it is a personal attack on you to have the silly notions you post about criticised, then you are wrong.

If you would just read what CF Larsen and others post, without going into paroxysms of persecution, you would see that it is very frustrating for those who use rational debate to find that here, and in other threads, you:

Never answer a straight question, but either veer off to accuse others of attacking you, when they are only attacking your (implied by your posts) beliefs, or, just go quiet and start another thread, leaving questions posed to you completely unanswered.

Never tell us what YOU think about these notions you post about.

Never come up with any evidence to support the notions you post about, but provide anecdotal reports that you seem to think are evidence.

So, please answer (just for me ;) ):

1. Do you believe there is any credible evidence for the paranormal?

2. If so, what is that evidence?

Then, for goodness sake, ANSWER LARSEN'S QUESTIONS.

I hope others will indeed 'chime in' with their views.

[SteveGrenard]

I am sorry but Larsen is on permanent, irrevocable ignore. I do not take tests here and Larsen seems to want to give nothing but questions, most of which are rhetorical and contribute nothing. He also lies about me lying, he misattributes, misquotes, selectively misquotes, and makes believe he is stupid. He also harasses and insults myself and others. Therefore, he has no access to me for the purpose of answering his inane questions.

On the other matter, I believe there is credible evidence. Read the literature, not only reports in the peer reviewed parapsychology journals (SPR, JASPR, Parapsychology) but in books which review that literature , the most recent of which is by Stephen Braude, Chair of the Dept of Philosophy at the University of Maryland. Do I also have personal evidence of this? Yes but I will not risk any more ad hom ridicule or scorn (which is IMHO all that Larsen is really capable of) when that is discussed.
I have taken this evidence private as it involves others as well.

I personally would like to hear more from the silent majority ... many are intimidated and do not wish to be heard because they know the ridicule factors here run high and are dominated by a coterie of individuals who are not sanctioned by the moderators for harassing or rude behaviors.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I personally would like to hear more from the silent majority ... many are intimidated and do not wish to be heard because they know the ridicule factors here run high and are dominated by a coterie of individuals who are not sanctioned by the moderators for harassing or rude behaviors.



Well it could be worse. The moderators could simply ban those with views they don't agree with.

Two more questions for you.

Is it true that you ran the Survival Science board?

Is is true that those with skeptical leanings were very often banned from that board?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
All we seem to get here is the aforementioned ad hominem attacks and character assasination. It is, as I said before, an impoverished tactic that has no true value.


So earlier in this thread when you insinuated that Garrette was a liar when he said that he found the Gauld book less than impressive, that would be an impoverished tactic without any value, right?

Likewise, in the previous thread about Keen - the one you've abandoned to begin this one - your claim that my first message in that thread labeled your message "defensive" or later, "derisive" was an impoverished tactic without any value, right?

- Especially since you have been completely unable to back up that accusation. That would make it -especially- lacking in value, wouldn't it?

Likewise, your comments in that same thread that the people disagreeing with you were engaging in a "three stooges routine," that kind of comment would be out of place and improper, right?

[Garrette]

Steve,

I will ask once more and then, if I still receive no reply, not ask again. Instead I will simply consider this thread as support for my conclusion about the reason you will not voice an opinion.

What is your opinion of the Gauld book? Specifically, do you think it has evidentiary value regarding the survival of consciousness after death?

---

For Ron Sceptic:

Steve was the moderator of Survival Science. He did wholesale ban some people for voicing dissenting views and sometimes merely for being members of JREF.

In his (at least partial) defense, though. He never banned me. I posted there briefly fairly frequently and usually as a dissenter. I even engaged in some direct debates with Steve himself. At the time, I was registered at JREF. I did not advertise this fact, but I did not attempt to hide it, either. I used the same username on both boards.

For some reason, I was not banned. There was at least one other. Dogwood was his username there.

[voidx]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...snip...

I personally would like to hear more from the silent majority ... many are intimidated and do not wish to be heard because they know the ridicule factors here run high and are dominated by a coterie of individuals who are not sanctioned by the moderators for harassing or rude behaviors.
Silent majority? You imply that there is a silent majority of people that hold similiar beliefs as you on this board and do not post due to fear of ridicule. Do you know any of these people too intimidated to post? Do you have a list? Do you have any names? Any examples that would support your silent majority comment? I'm sorry, this seems overly ridiculous to me.

And even if it were so I wouldn't put much stock in their opinions, or have much sympathy for them. If you believe strongly in your beliefs, then you should be willing to debate them, and not intimidated by some heated debate (or ridicule).

[CFLarsen]

Ah, the "silent majority" card. Now, Steve wants us to believe that the skeptics here are actually a minority.

But the accusations that the skeptics silence others continue....

Steve, I find it hard to believe that you have me on ignore, since you frequently refer to what I post. So, why not address some of the questions? Or at least back up what you accuse me of?

[DaChew]

As the Official Spokesman for the vast Silent Majority here, I would just like to point out that WE ARE NOT INTIMIDATED.

We're just lazy.

[apoger]

>I believe there is credible evidence.

Excellent! Now we are cooking with fire.


>Read the literature, not only reports in the peer reviewed parapsychology journals (SPR, JASPR, Parapsychology) but in books which review that literature

However this is not acceptable.

The whole point of skepticism is to ask for evidence when encountering an extraordinary claim. You are making the claim, it is not our job to go out and research the evidence for you. If you want us to accept the paranormal, you must provide reasons why we should accept it.

Make a claim and cite evidence. Then we will have something to talk about.

Until then please stop throwing out evidence without making a claim, and making claims without citing evidence. C'mon Steve, sit down and come up with your very best claim/evidence and put it out there. It would only take one good instance to rock the world. Give it your best shot!



>I will not risk any more ad hom ridicule or scorn

No risk, no gain.


>I have taken this evidence private as it involves others as well.

Private evidence? Is your evidence really so feeble that it can't survive scrutiny?


>I personally would like to hear more from the silent majority ...

If only those silent readers would just log in and agree with you... then you'd be right. An appeal to popularity? You can do better than that Steve.

If the whole world agreed with you it wouldn't make you right. Evidence is what counts.


>many are intimidated and do not wish to be heard because they know the ridicule factors here run high and are dominated by a coterie of individuals who are not sanctioned by the moderators for harassing or rude behaviors.

Spout nonsense and you will garner little respect.
Offer a claim and back it up with credible evidence and we will shower you with accolades.

Everyone here is held to the same standards. We are not singling you out for ridicule. You are creating this circumstance by presenting garbage. If you want the respect of the forum members, then make a good case, or stop posting. However if you insist on continuing to post nonsense then you will continue to reap our derision. Straight up, that's the way it works.

[Quasi]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Case #14

Title: Case of Runki's Missing Leg



Steve- isn't it just possible here that the medium lied like crazy, dug up a leg bone from the grave yard, then later have his own employee plant the leg in the hole in the wall? Isn't it convenient that the medium is dead, and they cannot find either the sailors body or the "found" leg bone? Or how about the total failure of any medium and psychic today to prove beyond cold reading? This old sailor story smacks of the Bible- we can never know if Jesus did anything printed there, and we will not until we die- or so they claim. It just happens to also be convenient that no one has ever come back from total brain death, and time travel is impossible. In essence you are rationalizing yourself into a corner which you cannot excape, and we cannot challenge the data because there is none to examine. This unfortunately makes any debate pointless and the missing leg investigation entirely worthless. As for the journal articles, paranormal and complementary and alternative medical research is always shoddy, does not control for either cheating or self deception and does not base its conclusions on the data. So why do you base your beliefs on such flimsy nonsense?

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Lothian

“In the past people had super duper psychic abilities that allowed many fantastic things to happen which can not be explained by, indeed contradicts the principles and laws of science as we know them.
Evolution however has chosen not to pass on this ability (presumably because it is of no real use). As such these powers no longer exist and currently no-one can replicate any of these feats in proper tests.”

That was a good one - but I much prefer this one - courtesy of Montague Keen,

“We are dealing with a mysterious faculty that does not subscribe to the normal rules governing the senses, cannot be turned on and off to order, and which manifests itself in all manner of odd ways and unpredictable occasions.”

Hey Steve,

Care to respond to ANY of my posts in the other thread?

Barkhorn.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am sorry but Larsen is on permanent, irrevocable ignore. I do not take tests here and Larsen seems to want to give nothing but questions, most of which are rhetorical and contribute nothing. He also lies about me lying, he misattributes, misquotes, selectively misquotes, and makes believe he is stupid. He also harasses and insults myself and others. Therefore, he has no access to me for the purpose of answering his inane questions.

On the other matter, I believe there is credible evidence. Read the literature, not only reports in the peer reviewed parapsychology journals (SPR, JASPR, Parapsychology) but in books which review that literature , the most recent of which is by Stephen Braude, Chair of the Dept of Philosophy at the University of Maryland. Do I also have personal evidence of this? Yes but I will not risk any more ad hom ridicule or scorn (which is IMHO all that Larsen is really capable of) when that is discussed.
I have taken this evidence private as it involves others as well.

I personally would like to hear more from the silent majority ... many are intimidated and do not wish to be heard because they know the ridicule factors here run high and are dominated by a coterie of individuals who are not sanctioned by the moderators for harassing or rude behaviors.

Well, thank you, Steve, for answering my questions. That lets me know where you stand generally. Although I'm a newbie, I have read most of the threads where you have opined, and I was not fully aware of the personal nature of your relationship with some other posters. I did, however, see an implication you made about Mr Larsen that, given the current 'no smoke without fire' attitude of many zealots and witchhunters today, I thought was pretty despicable, and way below-the-belt. That did not endear me to your debating techniques.

I also note that you tend to assign to your critics traits that you often display -- evasiveness, ad hominems, lack of clarity and reason, failure to answer 'hard' questions. This is like 'transference', but I guess you know that.

I can tell you that I have a great deal of respect for Prof. Archie Roy as an astronomer. I also read one of his sci-fi books set on the Isle of Arran which is one of my favourite places. However, I am suspicious about his motives for being involved in paranormal research and of his occassional appearances on psuedo-science TV programmes. I think he may have a case of the "Conan Doyle's" or just enjoys being a bit controversial -- the 'eccentric scientist' image, sort of thing. Of course, I could be wrong.

Certainly, I see nothing in the reports you have posted in this thread so far that can be considered as hard evidence for survival after death. I hope you will keep posting the 'cases' so as we can see Prof. Roy's best cases presented in one place.

I have to tell you that I thought the 'dead sailor with the missing leg' was a joke at first. If you will pardon the pun, it was a pretty lame anecdote. Surely you do not think that any of the anecdotes you have posted so far provide evidence for anything but creative storytelling?

It would certainly be helpful if you could point me in the direction of specific cases you think are genuine, rather than say 'read the literature'. I hope I will be able to read up on this subject, but 'Life is short and the art is long.'

In the meantime, could you possibly post here what you think is the most convincing case to you of evidence of survival. That would give me one concrete example to assess, and I'm sure the forum would debate it fairly.

I would love to experience that 'wow' moment in reading a case of paranormal activity, but so far, nothing has done it for me.

I have to say, however, that if you are afraid of ridicule for presenting your case, are you really as convinced as your answer to me suggests? A lot of people have been willing to be tortured and martyred for their beliefs. Ridicule can be countered if your case is reasoned and backed by credible evidence. You know that -- so why be so coy?

Thanks for the reply, anyway. I hope you will present your case and continue to post Archie Roy's best cases.

malc

[Stumpy]

Steve Grenard wrote:

I am interested in differing opinions.

I think we all are Steve. Which cases, in your opinion, offer the best evidence for survival after death?

Stumpy

[Loki]

I know Steve's gonna go ape about me bring this up, but the "best case for proving After Death Communications" would seem to me to be Steve's own encounter with the 60 year old pyschic woman from New York a few years ago. This woman got 195 individual pieces of information correct about Steve in a hour long reading. He assures us that he was completely anonymous to this woman prior to the reading starting, and that he offered no information to her.

Why do I think this is "the best case"? Well, I'm being tongue in cheek slightly! - *if* the woman would agree to some simple tests, and she's *that good*, then the question will be laid to rest quickly. Unfortunately, this *isn't* "the best case" because the woman refuses to be tested. Her choice of course, but damn I hate to see such a golden opportunity for the paranormalists to make their case go to waste.

Why do only the ambiguous hack mediums agree to be tested? Why do all the 100% correct mediums refuse? Any idea Steve?

[Zep]

Hmmm... 195 "facts" right in 60 minutes. That's an average of one every 20 seconds or so. And so many... Was Steve ticking them off a list or something? Keeping count on his fingers? Recording it?

You know, my first question would be: Did he make a booking in advance with the woman? Think about it...

Or perhaps accidentally bumping into an African-American basketballer in the street counts for three hits - "You will meet a tall, dark stranger...!" :)

[apoger]

>I know Steve's gonna go ape about me bring this up,


It's somehow fitting, as Steve is so often the voice for others.


>This woman got 195 individual pieces of information correct about Steve in a hour long reading.


That's over three per minute. Not bad!
I'd be hard pressed to spout off 195 different non-general pieces of info about me.

One major question would be, how specific was the info?
Are we talking;

"Your parents loved you dearly even though they found you frustrating at times"

or are we talking;

"You grew up at 33-20 6th Avenue in apartment 33B. You had a dog named Pepper and two cats, James and Leopold.


Beyond that, how would he know it was 195. That's a pretty big number. Is it an estimate? Was he writing the hits down? Is there a record?


>He assures us that he was completely anonymous to this woman prior to the reading starting,

Possible, but hard to verify.

>and that he offered no information to her.

You mean like looking at him?
Plenty of info can be gleaned by appearance and expression.


>the woman refuses to be tested.

Has she been asked or is this an assumption?

[Loki]

Zep,

Steve has in the past gotten pretty angry with me for "badgering" him about this reading, so I think I'll leave it up to him to take it any further if he wishes (I'd be surprised, he continues to say - and it's his right to do so I guess - that this was a private experience that he doesn't wish to discuss publicly).

You know, my first question would be: Did he make a booking in advance with the woman? Think about it..
I asked him a few questions about this - he booked a few weeks in advance over the phone, from an "untraceable" phone line (something to do with calling from a hospital where the exchange lines aren't outside traceable or something?), didn't give his name, and paid in cash (so no credit card tracing). In short, unless Steve is overlooking or incorrectly remembering some detail, no obvious weak link.

He walked in, showed the medium a photo of three men, and the medium went into a trance, pointed to one of the men and said "that's me". Then proceeded to offer the other 194 correct items. One of the items was the medium/spirit said "thanks for the pin". Steve had, just the night before, attached a lapel pin to a photo of the dead man at his office. The medium also got grandparents names, and even offered the name of a dog that Steve didn't know, but which he later confirmed with a relative.

As far as I know (Steve is a little touchy about the details), the medium *didn't* offer up things like the name of the dead man, or his birth or death dates - you know, really obvious things that you'd hope for. Despite this, the story Steve tells is of an overwhemling body of clear and unambiguous evidence, offered via a trance, and during which he simply sat and wrote notes.

If this woman is this good, and would agree to even a few simple tests, the issue would be over by now. But she's 60, and excercising her right to refuse to answer critics. Oh well...

[Loki]

apoger,

Has she been asked or is this an assumption?
Good point! Last time I was discussing this with Steve I was sort of trying to get him (since he lives in the same city and has already seen the woman) to find out what testing has/can be done. I must admit I can't remember his exact replies, but he certainly left me in no doubt that he knows/believes she would refuse to be tested.

Any New York based skeptic who'd be willing to try and set up an initial test procedure? Steve's given the woman's name, so she's contactable.

(Edited to add) : Hey, I just noticed your location, apoger! Feel like jumping into the murky world of paranormal investigation?

[apoger]

>he booked a few weeks in advance over the phone, from an "untraceable" phone line (sonehting to do with calling from a hospital where the exchange lines aren't outside traceable or something?),


Calling a medium from a hospital? Did someone die that day?
That could be an easy connection for a cheater to trace.

Just a thought.


> "that's me".
>The medium also got grandparents names, and even offered the name of a dog that Steve didn't know, but which he later confirmed with a relative.

So was able to name grandparents and a dog... but not himself?
Odd.


>If this woman is this good, and would agree to even a few simple tests, the issue would be over by now. But she's 60, and excercising her right to refuse to answer critics. Oh well...

Tell you what. I'll take a bullet for the sake of inquiry.

It just so happens that I live in NYC. If Steve will pay for a reading, or if the medium will do it free, I'd be delighted to sit down and let her try to discern my past. I'd also be delighted to report on my opinion of the experience. ;)

What do you think Steve?

[Loki]

apoger,

It just so happens that I live in NYC. If Steve will pay for a reading, or if the medium will do it free, I'd be delighted to sit down and let her try to discern my past. I'd also be delighted to report on my opinion of the experience.
If you're prepared to give up some time, I'll chip in a few bucks if necessary.

[apoger]

Originally posted by Loki
If you're prepared to give up some time, I'll chip in a few bucks if necessary.

I'd be happy to donate the time.
The money issue is one of principle. I hate the notion of lining the pockets of a person that makes a living as a con artist.

[Garrette]

Steve called from a hospital because he works in a hospital, so no information could be gleaned from death records or the like.

However, Steve has made one error (as reported by Loki) regarding the phone lines.

Most of my recent civilian life has been as security director for hospitals. Having had to deal with phoned in threats and such, I became fairly familiar with the phone and trunking systems, though I must also add I am most definitely not an expert on them.

In the hospitals in which I have specifically researched this (five: two in Kentucky and three in Colorado), and in the dozens of hospitals I queried my professional colleagues about, the systems were similar.

Outgoing calls could be 'traced' or identified via caller id unless the specific instrument had the feature blocking caller id activated on it; most hospital phones do not offer that option. Alternatively, Steve could have called the operator and asked the operator to dial the outside line, in which case caller id at the recipient's end would have shown the hospital trunk line and not Steve's individual number. It's possible he did this, but it would be frowned upon. All hospitals with which I have been associated try to track at least to some degree the outgoing calls to prevent abuses. If this were along distance call, it would attract attention.

It is incoming calls that are difficult or impossible to trace, not outgoing. If the incoming call is received at the trunk by the operator, then the call can be identified. If, instead, it is rolled through to an individual phone on someone's desk, caller id or a subsequent trace will only reveal it as coming from the hospital trunk.

So Steve has it reversed: his outgoing call could most probably (not certainly) have been identified by the recipient. If she were to call him from outside the hospital, he would likely not know it.

And to be absolutely clear: I do not think this is a case of Steve lying or intentionally misleading. It is a confusing issue and most people working in hospitals don't understand what can be identified and what cannot regarding phones.

But the point is that Steve's certainty about him calling from an untraceable phone is probably misplaced.

[Zep]

I asked him a few questions about this - he booked a few weeks in advance over the phone, from an "untraceable" phone line (something to do with calling from a hospital where the exchange lines aren't outside traceable or something?), didn't give his name, and paid in cash (so no credit card tracing). In short, unless Steve is overlooking or incorrectly remembering some detail, no obvious weak link. I wonder how these two points make sense together. Question: What's the point of booking ahead if you don't leave your name? What do you say? "This is Mr Anonymous making a booking for next Monday week at 2pm"?? What makes that sound like a dumb kid's prank and likely to be ignored?

No, I think there's some more to this than is being let on here...

[Loki]

Zep,

As I recall, Steve said he left his first name only.

[Darat]

Originally posted by apoger


I'd be happy to donate the time.
The money issue is one of principle. I hate the notion of lining the pockets of a person that makes a living as a con artist.

Can understand your reluctance to offer money to someone who could just be a fraud, but since this medium is reportedly so accurate I think it would be a worthwhile investment.

I'm also happy to make up the reading fee.

Steve - any chance you could provide apoger with the contact details for the medium? (No need to make it "public" if you think that would somehow be a problem - just PM him/her the details.)

[CFLarsen]

Whoa...wait a second.

A "Steve" calls from Staten Island University Hospital, wanting a psychic reading?

Let's do what Steve does best: Use Google. Let's search for "Steve" "Staten Island University Hospital".

We get lotsa hits.

Let's narrow it down. Let's search for "Steve" "Staten Island University Hospital" "paranormal".

Bingo:

Friends and Heroes (http://www.enformy.com/links.htm), Enformy.com, Don Watson's homepage

Listed here are:


Steve Grenard
Gary Schwartz
Laurie Campbell
Susy Smith
Roger Nelson
Dean Radin
Linda Russek

...to mention a few...

Now, go do a Google on "Steve Grenard". Easy peasy...

[Zep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Whoa...wait a second.

A "Steve" calls from Staten Island University Hospital, wanting a psychic reading?

Let's do what Steve does best: Use Google. Let's search for "Steve" "Staten Island University Hospital".

We get lotsa hits.

Let's narrow it down. Let's search for "Steve" "Staten Island University Hospital" "paranormal".

Bingo:

Friends and Heroes (http://www.enformy.com/links.htm), Enformy.com, Don Watson's homepage

Listed here are:


Steve Grenard
Gary Schwartz
Laurie Campbell
Susy Smith
Roger Nelson
Dean Radin
Linda Russek

...to mention a few...

Now, go do a Google on "Steve Grenard". Easy peasy... EXACTLY what I would have expected and what I was leading up to, CF. And if we can get that close and that much info in a few minutes, imagine what someone with a few days available to do detailed research can do.

No, sorry, Loki. Steve's description still seems to leave questions unanswered, possibilities not covered. So a much more viable, probable and therefore believable explanation is still readily available, compared to the use of "clairvoyance." William of Ockham, step this way please...

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Loki
Zep,

As I recall, Steve said he left his first name only.

I wonder how many "Steve's" work at that hospital. If only one, then there is a clear possibility of hot reading.

I know some people think that hot reading is a lot of trouble to go to. But how much does this lady charge for a reading? Then perhaps she employs a relative to do detective work? I think they could both make a living out of this.

I'm glad this case was revealed here. It puts Steve's 'believer' stance in a whole new light, and I can see how he might be convinced.

I hope Steve will provide more details. If he still has the 195 points that were written down at the time, it would be fascinating to analyse them. Was he grieving at the time and perhaps a little vulnerable? Were the 'hits' specific or vague?

I also hope the NY 'test' can be set up. And I'd love to know how much a renowned psychic charges.

Was Steve doing this to 'test' the psychic, or to confirm already deep-held beliefs?

There are so many questions.

This is turning out to be a most interesting thread. But I reserve the right to suspect there is more to all this than meets the eye

malc;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Zep
EXACTLY what I would have expected and what I was leading up to, CF. And if we can get that close and that much info in a few minutes, imagine what someone with a few days available to do detailed research can do.

No, sorry, Loki. Steve's description still seems to leave questions unanswered, possibilities not covered. So a much more viable, probable and therefore believable explanation is still readily available, compared to the use of "clairvoyance." William of Ockham, step this way please...

It seems to me there is a very simple way to verify this. If Steve provides apoger with the details of the medium, apoger has volunteered the time, Loki and I have offered to (help?) fund the reading. Can't see any reason why we can't get further collaboration, or not of this mediums ability.

Steve - are you up for running with this "experiment"?

Obviously we need to ensure that apoger isn't known to the medium beforehand etc. (I wouldn't be surprised if we couldn't prevail on the NY sceptics to provide a tape recorder that can be checked for tampering etc..)

[Ed]

I have read that "mediums" have an informal network to share information about marks. You give me the info that Claus got, combine that with info from other frauds in my circle, then pop over to Lexix-Nexis or better yet the NYT archives and find out the details of Steve's relative that met a "nefarious end" and bingo: Another Believer.

Sad, really, that a person finds what they want no matter how reality has to be twisted.

[The Mighty Thor]

I said 'This is turning out to be a most interesting thread. But I reserve the right to suspect there is more to all this than meets the eye '.

Then I read CF Larsen's post and followed the link. Seems to me that some of Steve's friends are very involved in the fictional novels they promote. There is obviously a weird agenda here, and I find it strangely disturbing.

More enlightenment requested -- please!

Maybe Steve will come to regret asking the 'silent majority' to opine.

malc

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
and bingo: Another Believer.

No, it's far worse: Another Believer who mingles with people who publish books, who go on lectures, who go on TV and radio, claiming that there is real evidence of mediumship.

It would be a very smart move to do a far better research on someone like Steve than with your average joe. As we have seen, JE milked his dealings with Schwartz for what it was worth: His believers have pointed to JE being tested by a real scientist! Golly! It works! Even Science Says So!

Who ever heard of this medium of Steve's? Nobody. But...hey, here comes Steve Grenard....hoooboy. "Future meal ticket, baby!"


malcolmdl,

You will be amazed at how easy it is to find information about people online. Here is an article about John Edward and LexisNexis... (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jespecialhits.htm)

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ed
I have read that "mediums" have an informal network to share information about marks.

I heard about 'blue books' that were shared by psychics before the internet became popular.

The net must be a godsend for them.

It is worrying that this may not just be fraud, but a conspiracy to defraud as well. If Steve is unbiased, I'd expect him to be angry if he found out that he had been cheated. Maybe he'd want to revise his circle of friends who must see him as being very gullible.

Why are the authorities not concerned about this kind of psychic 'crime ring'? They must make a fortune out of scamming vulnerable people.

malc

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, it's far worse: Another Believer who mingles with people who publish books, who go on lectures, who go on TV and radio, claiming that there is real evidence of mediumship.

It would be a very smart move to do a far better research on someone like Steve than with your average joe. As we have seen, JE milked his dealings with Schwartz for what it was worth: His believers have pointed to JE being tested by a real scientist! Golly! It works! Even Science Says So!

Who ever heard of this medium of Steve's? Nobody. But...hey, here comes Steve Grenard....hoooboy. "Future meal ticket, baby!"


malcolmdl,

You will be amazed at how easy it is to find information about people online. Here is an article about John Edward and LexisNexis... (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/jespecialhits.htm)

Blimey! How can these people do that with a straight face? I thought they might be self-deluded and that they really believed that cold reading seemed to confirm to them that they were psychic.

But, if hot reading could be proven, there is no self-delusion, just out and out cheating and lying.

I'm really astounded by all this.

I hope Steve isn't going to go in a huff and fail to comment on our concerns.

malc

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Blimey! How can these people do that with a straight face? I thought they might be self-deluded and that they really believed that cold reading seemed to confirm to them that they were psychic.

Some are. The longer you stay in the trade, the less likely it is that you are deluding yourself.

Read about what the owner of a large chain of psychic stores thinks. (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/psychiceye.htm)

Originally posted by malcolmdl
But, if hot reading could be proven, there is no self-delusion, just out and out cheating and lying.

Doesn't make any difference to their believers.

Read this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26642&highlight=pagano) to learn how people simply ignore the fact that JE has been caught hot-reading. Look for "Tony Pagano".

Originally posted by malcolmdl
I'm really astounded by all this.

You have only begun to scratch the surface.

Originally posted by malcolmdl
I hope Steve isn't going to go in a huff and fail to comment on our concerns.

You might be disappointed.

Notice how differently skeptics and believers approach claims? Skeptics provide evidence, believers tell to you go look for it yourself.

Blimey, indeed... ;)

[Ed]

I might just shake my patootie and demonstrate to Steve how much one can find out about him. I wonder how he would justify that?

Just to demonstrate how evolved information sharing is on the net, I offer this link.

http://forum.carderplanet.com/

It is, evidentially a Russian based clearing house for how to commit credit card fraud. Russian readers might wish to peruse it and report back but there is enough in english to give you chills.

Your life is an open book, Steve, when there is money involved.

You think that you met the real deal?

You hold yourself in too high regard.

Could you face the truth?

BTW, this link came from a medieval coin group that I belong to, I did not find it on my own.:D

[Skeptical Greg]

I hope this is not off topic, but it has just come to mind and seems to be related.. It may turn out to be more entertaining than informative, but I will await your perusal..


An acquaintance was telling me about a friend of hers who regularly employed the services of an Astrologer / Psychic..

She offered the following story as proof of this persons abilities..

Just as her friend was leaving a ' counseling ' session, the psychic threw out......

" Oh, by the way ... You do have your Drivers License and ' Proof of Insurance ' card with you today ?"

The friend replied " Sure, why do you ask ? "

The psychic replied something to the effect of .. " Oh, I just have a feeling.. "


Well, would you believe?!!! On the way home, the ' friend ' was stopped by a patrolman, who when asked, just said they were making some routine stops, checking for drivers under the influence....


Now, my acquaintance was convinced this was proof of ' psychic ' ability...


I was astounded that the obvious answer wasn't as apparent to her, as it was to me...

[hgc]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I hope this is not off topic, but it has just come to mind and seems to be related.. It may turn out to be more entertaining than informative, but I will await your perusal..


An acquaintance was telling me about a friend of hers who regularly employed the services of an Astrologer / Psychic..

She offered the following story as proof of this persons abilities..

Just as her friend was leaving a ' counseling ' session, the psychic threw out......

" Oh, by the way ... You do have your Drivers License and ' Proof of Insurance ' card with you today ?"

The friend replied " Sure, why do you ask ? "

The psychic replied something to the effect of .. " Oh, I just have a feeling.. "


Well, would you believe?!!! On the way home, the ' friend ' was stopped by a patrolman, who when asked, just said they were making some routine stops, checking for drivers under the influence....


Now, my acquaintance was convinced this was proof of ' psychic ' ability...


I was astounded that the obvious answer wasn't as apparent to her, as it was to me... The obvious answer is that the psychic did not just have a feeling, but astrally projected back in time to her memory of driving to work at her small criminal enterprise that morning. And driving past the roadblock.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I hope this is not off topic, but it has just come to mind and seems to be related.. It may turn out to be more entertaining than informative, but I will await your perusal..




I was astounded that the obvious answer wasn't as apparent to her, as it was to me...

If it wasn't a next door neighbor, this is a safe guess. The problem with woos is selective memory, they'll remember this guess but will forget the misses.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by hgc
The obvious answer is that the psychic did not just have a feeling, but astrally projected back in time to her memory of driving to work at her small criminal enterprise that morning. And driving past the roadblock.

Good guess, but not what I suspected..

I suspected an ' anonymous tip to the police '... Something that could be exploited time and again, with different clients..

[The Mighty Thor]

Thanks Ed, CFL, Diogenes, Garrette et al. for the very enlightening posts. I'm glad I didn't waste any money buying the books that Mr Grenard recommended. When it comes to fairytales I like mine Grimm:)

I've been debating with religionists for some time and I suppose it should come as no surprise to find that believers in the paranormal use the same annoying and dishonest debating techniques.

I noticed somewhere that Steve talked about some 'private circle' and his desire to prove to them that via his postings, skeptics 'can be beaten'.

I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder.

But enlightenment sure takes its toll on one's belief in the essential honesty and goodness of human behaviour. Yet history seems to prove that, as a race, we are very ambivalent and selective in our moral codes.

I suppose that magical thinking allows some to put the burden for 'evil' on to someone, or something else.

It's all really quite depressing.

malc

:hb:

[Ed]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Thanks Ed, CFL, Diogenes, Garrette et al. for the very enlightening posts. I'm glad I didn't waste any money buying the books that Mr Grenard recommended. When it comes to fairytales I like mine Grimm:)

It's all really quite depressing.

malc

:hb:

You must understand that believers are believers because they want to be.

I recall a David Blane TV special where he did various slight of hand close up magic. On two or three occasions his audience (of one or two) said something like "do you have powers" one said "are you a swami(!) or something". These poor fools wanted to believe and the right patter from Blane could have hooked them. Look at the Swami Shri Rashmesh. This guy had a whole town of believers. Look at any cult leader.

The problem with the paranormal is that there is no "cult leader" therefore there is no specific person to "defrock". The belief system is like one of those odd fungi whose root system can cover acres and cannot be killed by destroying it piecemeal. Couple that with the psychological needs of the adherents and you have a true assult on rational thought.

Do you want to bet that if we reproduced everything that Steve heard from his "real deal" medium, he would still hold on to his beliefs? You bet he would. We would hear one justification after another ("She might have used the internet BUT...") in yet another recapitulation of denial.

It is depressing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
You must understand that believers are believers because they want to be.

Case in point:

During the recent Danish TV-series "A Sense of Deceit", where psychics, clairvoyants, astrologers etc. were debunked, the Danish magician Niels Krøjgaard posed as a psychic to two groups of people.

Each group (of two women) were seated in a dark, dungeon-like room in Copenhagen, with candlelights, to create a mystical atmosphere. Niels then asked the women to grab hands, and relax. He then held a light bulb up and asked the spirits to give a sign.

Deep concentration.

Then, the bulb exploded. The women gasped and stared at Niels. When asked, they were convinced that Niels had real psychic powers.

When told that he is really a magician and that they had been fooled, you know what they answers were?

They didn't stop believing that he had real psychic powers.

We see the same with the believers here: Even when faced with evidence of trickery, they don't abandon their beliefs, but instead hold on to it, even stronger.

It may be depressing, but it certainly is amazing, this will - need - to believe.

[apoger]

> I suspected an ' anonymous tip to the police '... Something that could be exploited time and again, with different clients..

It doesn't even need to be that active.
Could be as simple as:

The psychic went shopping earlier that day and saw the police at work.

Another client mentioned being stopped.

The cops do these stops on a schedule, say third Friday every month.

[Ed]

One more point.

Who do the Casinos love the most? Answer: Those with a system who know how to win.

Why do the Uber Woos love Steve? Because he is far to smart to be taken in. You see, he has a high estimation of his own intellegence and knows about not identifying himself and such. Therefore anything he sees under his "control" conditions must be true. He simply does not realize that he is not as clever as he thinks and no where near as clever as a professional fraud. But since his psychological needs were met by the results, he will never, ever admit the truth.

Ed'd Law #2:

Every Woo thinks that they are transcendentally clever.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
But since his psychological needs were met by the results, he will never, ever admit the truth.

Not to others, no. However, Steve is intelligent enough to know when he's been had. He will never, ever let it be known, though.

Problem is, Steve is deliberately dishonest. He lies, he cheats, he misrepresents willfully, he threatens with lawsuits, he stabs people in the back who help him, he poses as an expert in fields he has absolutely no knowledge of...the list is all too long.

Strangely enough, he has written books on reptiles, and I have not been able to find any sign of trickery there. Apparently, it started when Steve entered the realms of the paranormal.

No way that Steve is just a poor deluded sod in need of something to believe in. Steve is on a mission: He needs to prove that there is an afterlife, all else be damned.

He has gone, in the words of Bob Park, from "foolishness to fraud".

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not to others, no. However, Steve is intelligent enough to know when he's been had. He will never, ever let it be known, though.

Problem is, Steve is deliberately dishonest. He lies, he cheats, he misrepresents willfully, he threatens with lawsuits, he stabs people in the back who help him, he poses as an expert in fields he has absolutely no knowledge of...the list is all too long.

Strangely enough, he has written books on reptiles, and I have not been able to find any sign of trickery there. Apparently, it started when Steve entered the realms of the paranormal.

No way that Steve is just a poor deluded sod in need of something to believe in. Steve is on a mission: He needs to prove that there is an afterlife, all else be damned.

He has gone, in the words of Bob Park, from "foolishness to fraud".

Phew, nice meltdown, Claus.

Anyone (and there are plenty reading who would not dare submit themselves to the sort of personal attacks dealt out here by the True Unbelieving Zealots (Claus, Ed blah blah)) with any sense, logic and skeptical analytical ability can find plenty of evidence which proves the existence of the effects being discussed. Some of you guys (Claus, Ed etc ) aren't skeptics at all, you appear to be in clinical denial. That's not a personal attack BTW.

[xouper]

Lucianarchy: Some of you guys (Claus, Ed etc ) aren't skeptics at all, you appear to be in clinical denial.I nominate this for the October Irony Award.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Please answer the questions in the thread "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

That's not a personal attack BTW.

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Long time reader, almost first time poster here (I had a different account in the past, but it was so long ago since I last posted I couldn’t remember the name). Steve, I’m part of that vast silent majority you think is too intimidated to speak out. This sort of sums up what I think, and though it isn’t pretty, it ain’t all bad for a first draft, and besides, I just couldn’t resist.

Sung to the tune of “Where Do We Go From Here?” from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode “Once More With Feeling”:

What Do They Have to Fear?

What do woo-woos have to fear?
Has Steve decided to just disappear?
The fight is on, but now Steve is gone,
Maybe he’ll turn-up again next year.
What do they have to fear?

Why are the dead so unclear?
Why do psychics always blear?
Find us a psychic who we can test
And we’ll announce the results here
(Tell me)
What do they have to fear?

Is the end even near?
Let’s debate free and clear
No fraud or lies, just the truth for once
That’s what woo-woos can stand to hear
(So)
What do they have to fear?
What do they have to fear?
What do they have to fear?

----

Apologies to all Buffy fans

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Phew, nice meltdown, Claus.

Anyone (and there are plenty reading who would not dare submit themselves to the sort of personal attacks dealt out here by the True Unbelieving Zealots (Claus, Ed blah blah)) with any sense, logic and skeptical analytical ability can find plenty of evidence which proves the existence of the effects being discussed. Some of you guys (Claus, Ed etc ) aren't skeptics at all, you appear to be in clinical denial. That's not a personal attack BTW.

Ummmm.....has your psychic lottery scheme paid out yet.

For all of our amusement, why don't you tell us how to compute probabilities?

You are a credulous fool and you may take that personally or any other way you wish.

[Loki]

Zep,

No, sorry, Loki. Steve's description still seems to leave questions unanswered, possibilities not covered. So a much more viable, probable and therefore believable explanation is still readily available, compared to the use of "clairvoyance." William of Ockham, step this way please...
Just to be clear, I *don't* think Steve's psychic is real.

This idea is founded upon Steve's assertion that this psychic was *amazingly* accurate. Not JE style, or JVP style, but basically "never wrong". Can even pick dead people out of group photos. That makes her *very* testable. Seems to me there's 3 explanations :

1. Steve's telling the truth about the reading, and she's the real deal;
2. Steve's telling the truth about the reading, but she's pulled the wool over his eyes;
3. Steve's lying (to himself, or to us) about the reading.

Now, I'd take #2 or #3 for now, thanks - I need a little more than just Steve's opinion before I can accept #1. The question then becomes "how to get that 'little more'"? Apoger has offered to see if we can take a step towards that 'little more'. What do I think will happen? Apoger would go, and come back either with a "load of bollocks" report, or perhaps with an "interesting, but not convincing" report. Things only start to get interesting if he comes back and reports "Amazing - just like Steve said!"

The reason I brought this up is that unlike "Rundi's leg", or most of Steve's "Prof Roy's best cases", this reading of Steve's is (a)recent, (b) from a currently active psychic, and (c) of a [reported] quality that is far beyond most psychic readings. Seems to me that if I was Roy, or Keen, or Steve, then this psychic is the "smoking gun" they are looking for. Pity the woman has so little interest in establishing the validity of her 'gift'.

[Loki]

Okay, here's Steve's original account of the reading

From :this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23922&perpage=40&highlight=new%20york%20steve&pagenumber=10)
Reply: To my knowledge this has never been tried before in a research setting nor in any setting up front. I agree the odds were low. The pictures were all of same gender ..... the deceased and his cousin almost look like twins. The third party bore a slight resemblance and was a friend of the deceased. He didn't acknowledge him. I was anonymous to the medium. The medium did not know who I was trying to contact but may've surmised that after seeing the photos. I didn' t have enough similar line up photos of different people to use so I was stuck with what I could get. I wasn't really interested in seeing if the medium could guess the person, I was more interested in gauging the
reaction (in first person: "That's me" as opposed to "that's him").
I was also interested in confirming the identity of the spirit I wanted to contact and having received that confirmation, I had no reason to assume there would be any misses whatsoever. There weren't any. I will not disclose everything he talked about through this trance but it was specific things about the house, about the dogs, he identified my father who died before he was born as being with him, other deceased family members, some of whom died a long time ago including a great grandmother in 1938. He did identify these by name. He talked also about his pets, all accurate as to their name (e.g. Rambo is here....Rambo was his black lab who died a year after he did, probably of melancholia) and so forth. It was mostly about meeting dead relatives, many of whom he never knew in life. It was fascinating
and accurate. He called these by their first names and their relationships such as Grandma Sophie (died in 1938). He called my wifes father "Big Daddy" which was his nick-name. He died when he was only 15 so knew this nick-name.

The medium did not know me from Adam. I paid cash. Used a untraceable trunk line at my institution to make the appointment
and gave only my first name. He told me where his RayBans were hidden (they were where he said they would be). And what blew me away was he said "Thank's for the pin" The night before I came home with some Flag lapel pins given out at work. I stuck one in his picture frame.

I did not say a word. Just took notes, pages of them and never looked up or even nodded. The medium appeared to be asleep while talking and had her eyes closed but, of course, could have peeked (Randi's favoirite hypothesis: peeking).
And I understand Steve's sensitivity about this issue - the spirit he is seeking is his own son.

[Garrette]

Just trying to reconcile these bits:

Steve Grenard as quoted by Loki:

I did not say a word. Just took notes, pages of them and never looked up or even nodded.

The medium appeared to be asleep while talking and had her eyes closed

If the first is true, then how does he know the second?

[Zep]

Loki, I agree with your comments, and so I suppose my remarks were really addressed to Steve but VIA you.

I would VERY MUCH subscribe to the second notion - that she pulled the wool over Steve's eyes completely. It makes by far the most compelling and believable case given the situation as stated in Steve's own telling. Our own quick examination revealed many avenues of data collection that she COULD have used.

But I'm 50/50 as to whether Steve is aware he has been deceived or not. If he IS aware then he is not being entirely honest in revealing that here. If he is NOT aware, perhaps he should do some back-research right now...

I also agree that the proposed test could go a long way to clarifying the issues, but the woman's refusal to be tested "scientifically" would suggest (NOT prove) that she has a gizmo or two up her sleeve and is not the real deal. But really, it's up to her to prove us wrong if that's her claim.

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry I have not been available to respond to the remarks made in this thread so far but I thought I would let it run a course and then respond en-masse.

Insofar as the offer by a Queens resident to seek a session with the medium I refer to here, he or she has abused any notion I might have had to do that. SO I will not be a party to facilitating it and I certainly would not pay for the privilege, especially since payment was demanded based on the notion that this person doesn't want to pay their own money (which is not a heck of a lot by the way) to be conned.
In theory I could be the one conned. He could take the money and never go and then report back here anything he wants. There would be no more control over this than you have for my account which I offer as anecdotal for your purposes although personal for my own.

I have facilitated sessions for three persons who post on this board by simply providing her unlisted and unadvertised phone number. I do not know what happened with these. This medium does not have a website, does not advertise and her number is unlisted so she can only be found through word of mouth. At present it takes from 8 months to a year to get an appointment (I was told this by a colleague who recently tried to get an appointment and is scheduled for next June) as the medium referred to here spends most of her time quietly and without publicity working with the families of 9-11 victims and does so at no cost to them. The area I live in has a proprionately higher number of 9-11 victims families than any other in the region. One 9-11 family who knew a reporter on our local paper told him about her so he decided to go out and debunk her and did a story on her. He got quotes from Randi and from Jeff Corey. He also spoke to the Head of our psychiatry department . I was referred to him as was Gary Schwartz. It was a fairly well balanced article, most of which covered the 9-11 family's experience with her. She did not allow her contact info to be included in the story and relcutantly agreed to even talk to the reporter. Most of it was put together from sources other than the medium herself.

On the subject of prior research. Even if she knew who I was, the information she provided is not avilable publicly nor was it known to any third party who could have told it to her in advance.
Although my interests and career is easily researchable on the web, the information she provided via the communicator who spoke in the first person through her was not. Nothing that was publicly available was even mentioned. In fact the communicator did not identify himself by name (he identified his own photo in the lst person thru the medium) nor did he mention any of the things we see bandied about by JE or other mediums who work in public. By comparison, I NOW feel what we see JE provide is rubbish and cold reading. I now agree JE has the advantage of some short term prior research on major publicly available data as well as the advantage of asking questions. He asks questions even though he protests not to give him any info (e.g. the last LKL performance) which has really turned him off for me. This medium asks no questions and spoke non-stop for nearly 2 hrs (not 1 hr) which resulted in the 195 lines of information I hand recorded. By the way I am able to roll my eyes upward while keeping my head down so anytime I did this she had her eyes shut. I ruled out her reading body language for this reason as well as the fact that I did my best not to convey any body language.
She never said "they or he is telling me this or that." Any reference to my past was not direct but involved the communicator referring to others who died, some as long as 40 years ago including a deceased dog from 1965, the dog's brother (whose name was given but I did not know and had to research afterwards) and my dad who died in 1964. There is no way she could have found out this information as I was not living where I am now and none of it is recorded in any public database or on the net.
Ditto for such mundane but valid remarks as reference to the pin and the location of the sunglasses. There was a great deal of similar items. He mentioned a friend of his by first name and said to tell him not to go to California. I did not know he was going to California. The next day I called him and found out he was MOVING to California! I gave him the message. I am sorry but you cannot make this stuff up. Take it or leave it. One person here going to see this medium is not very scientific and I never claimed it was. I was asked if there was credible evidence. Case histories from the historical record by reputable investigators (and I referred people to sources of these including Gauld, Myers and most recently Braude) as well as my personal experience. This was credible for me. I appreciate it cannot be credible for others.

Fortunately there are other no name mediums who are cooperating with researchers right now even though I have never broached this subject with this medium as she is so involved with her 9-11 work I know she will not want to divert any of her time from that.

On the subject of the appt. telephone call: at the time I made this appointment, any call coming from my hospital came up as Not Available on both caller I.D. and by dialing *69. Last year, when call blocking of call blocked numbers came into being (as a defense against telemarketers), we arranged for our main number to come up on caller I.D. as we were having problems getting through to people via the phone for a myriad of official reasons and emergency calls. The institution has a block of 9,999 numbers with a single suffix. At least 5K of these are in use: in departments, hallways, nursing stations, patient rooms and elsewhere.
including off-site clinics and other facilities. I am satisified I was completey un-traceable at that time. Today, only the fact that the call came from the hospital would be discernible. I think we have something like 5,400 employees. I used only my first name. I paid cash after the session. I was asked for a phone number in case they had to cancel for any reason. I gave a friend's number in Florida. I saw her the end of October 2001 and have had no further personal contact with her since then. but have been keeping track of her activtiies through occasional conversations with people who have gone to her (after the fact).

Thank you Loki for providing information
on this from my prior posts. I consider the matter finished and do not need to respond any further on this matter unless anyone has a highly specific question they would like to ask and has not been covered already. I will try and answer it when I can.

Edited to add: I notice at least one or two posters who state ("claim") this medium somehow "pulled the wool over my eyes." I would be delighted to entertain any explanations they have for this claim, especially with respect to the three mundane and personal bits of information I revealed above. Please don't give me "wild guessing." Thank you.

[apoger]

>Insofar as the offer by a Queens resident to seek a session with the medium I refer to here, he or she has abused any notion I might have had to do that.

That's a shame, however I'm not at all surprised that you aren't interested in letting a skeptical mind anywhere near the situation.


>SO I will not be a party to facilitating it and I certainly would not pay for the privilege, especially since payment was demanded based on the notion that this person doesn't want to pay their own money (which is not a heck of a lot by the way) to be conned.

A> You are the one with something to prove, why shouldn't you pay the costs?

B> If it is "not a heck of a lot by the way" then what's your issue? If the amount is trivial to me, then it should be trivial to you. Take care with your arguments Steve, or they come back to bite you.



>In theory I could be the one conned. He could take the money and never go and then report back here anything he wants.

Is this really why you are killing the idea? I think you are using it as an excuse.

Tell you what... I'll pay.

Now what's your excuse?



>At present it takes from 8 months to a year to get an appointment

While the medium does research? <Bleh>



>as the medium referred to here spends most of her time quietly and without publicity working with the families of 9-11 victims and does so at no cost to them.

I'd bet my left leg that there is money involved at some point.

Please don't give me this load of crap that she is holding back one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind because she is busy 24/7 doing free readings.



>Any reference to my past was not direct but involved the communicator referring to others who died, some as long as 40 years ago including a deceased dog from 1965, the doig's brother (whose name was given but I did not know and had to research afterwards)

<snip - anecdote of reading information>

Perhaps she did her research "before" instead of afterward.

Your entire anecdote hinges on your perception that she could not have done research before the reading, nor could she have gotten the quality of information that was provided.

This presents us with two options:

A> She is a proffesional con artist that is more resourceful that her victims anticipate.

B> She is in contact with dead people.


One option is mundane and common, the other a breaktrough that would change all of mankind's perception of reality.

Unless credible evidence is produced, we must assume the mundane rather than the fantastic.




>I consider the matter finished

Of course you do.

[SteveGrenard]

What you don't know apoger is that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who can do what this medium does. There are at least 40 of them working with a team of researchers in Scotland (Robertson and Roy), others working with a team at U Kans in Lawrence, others who work with Braude at the Univ of MD in Baltimore, another dozen or so working with a post doc at the Univ of Arizona and more. Therefore what this medium does or did in my case is not particularly earth shaking, is not the sole source of the world's greatest and most earth shaking discovery etc and all the rest of your blah blah hyperbole and b.s. which others have tried to pin on individual situations in the past. I have given up counting all the times close minded cynics have used this ploy to make a pointless point.

Your continued penchant for heaping ridicule on this simply reinforces the notion that you are NOT seriously interested in the subject. And no, its not a matter of the hundred bucks it would cost you, me or anyone to see her for 1 to 2 hours. In case you missed that, the remarks you made in reference to this were merely more evidence of your attitude problems.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What you don't know apoger is that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who can do what this medium does. However due to their charity commitments none are, or will in the foreseeable future be able to submit themselves for proper testing.

[NoZed Avenger]

Since the topic has apparently changed, I am guessing that the chance of having earlier questions from this and the other thread on the same (original) subject has been reduced to nil.

[c0rbin]

From the Simpsons episode "22 Short Films About Springfield"

Pulled from the site The Simpsons Archive (http://www.snpp.com).



Skinner: [faking a yawn] Well, that was wonderful. Good time was had by all. I'm pooped.

Chalmers: Yes, I guess I should be -- [notes entire kitchen is on fire]. Good Lord, what is happening in there?

Skinner: Aurora Borealis?

Chalmers: Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?

Skinner: Yes.

Chalmers: May I see it?

Skinner: Oh, erm... No.

[SteveGrenard]

Lothian: However due to their charity commitments none are, or will in the foreseeable future be able to submit themselves for proper testing.

The mediums referenced are being tested in a variety of formats. I am amazed you feel that giving somebody named apoger a hundred dolars and a phone number is tantamount to proper testing. I prefer to leave that to academicians to do. My experience nor the one proposed by apoger would be "proper testing." Of course this does not stop anyone here from researching it themselves. Larsen, posting under the psuedonym Cantata, on TVTalkShows was given such an offer and fiercely rebuked it. He was to be provided with a free ticket to L.A. and the fee money to see Brian Hurst His excuse was that he would have to fly NYC to L.A. under his real name (which everyone knew anyway). Still can't figure out what his problem was as nobody was suggesting he fly under a fake name (which would be impossible anyway since picture ID such as a passport or D.L. is required at check-in even on domestic flights now). In short this is symptomatic of ostrich-like behavior. Keep your head well below the sand. So to apoger and any others who feel they can do "proper testing" by allowing themselves to be subjects in their own experiments, I say go for it.
I just won't hold my breath.

[Lothian]

Sorry Steve I was actually referring to a million dollar test. However it is not that well known so I suspect not many of these psychics have heard about it.

[apoger]

>So to apoger and any others who feel they can do "proper testing"

Neither I nor anyone else ever said that my going down to check out the medium and report my experience was "proper testing".

The medium or any other of the "thousands" are free to get tested under controlled circumstances at any time. If such testing provides credible evidence of contact with the dead, I will be dancing for joy with the rest of you.

However until such evidence exists, I and other skeptics will withhold our judgement.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The mediums referenced are being tested in a variety of formats. I am amazed you feel that giving somebody named apoger a hundred dolars and a phone number is tantamount to proper testing.

Why not? Did you not take precautions not to have your identity revealed, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I prefer to leave that to academicians to do.

Yeah. Better not do it yourself, after your own botched experiments. Has Schwartz discovered that you don't hold a Ph.D.?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Larsen, posting under the psuedonym Cantata, on TVTalkShows was given such an offer and fiercely rebuked it. He was to be provided with a free ticket to L.A. and the fee money to see Brian Hurst His excuse was that he would have to fly NYC to L.A. under his real name (which everyone knew anyway). Still can't figure out what his problem was as nobody was suggesting he fly under a fake name (which would be impossible anyway since picture ID such as a passport or D.L. is required at check-in even on domestic flights now).

The problem was that it wasn't just my real name, but home address, too. Do you see at problem with that?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In short this is symptomatic of ostrich-like behavior. Keep your head well below the sand. So to apoger and any others who feel they can do "proper testing" by allowing themselves to be subjects in their own experiments, I say go for it.
I just won't hold my breath.

Ostrich-like behavior, that's good. Considering that you are the one who consistently denies any skeptic to come closer to what you really experienced when you visited Camille Walsh, the "voice box" for your son.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What you don't know apoger is that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who can do what this medium does. There are at least 40 of them working with a team of researchers in Scotland (Robertson and Roy), others working with a team at U Kans in Lawrence, others who work with Braude at the Univ of MD in Baltimore, another dozen or so working with a post doc at the Univ of Arizona and more. Therefore what this medium does or did in my case is not particularly earth shaking, is not the sole source of the world's greatest and most earth shaking discovery etc and all the rest of your blah blah hyperbole and b.s. which others have tried to pin on individual situations in the past. I have given up counting all the times close minded cynics have used this ploy to make a pointless point.


Hundreds if not thousands, huh? So where are these people and why are they so anonymous? Why is it that all we get to see and hear about are the likes of JE, SB and JVP (even you agree they are "rubbish")?

Why aren't these people helping us find serial killers - and actually doing it!?! Why aren't these people fabulously wealthy and on the cover of Time and Newsweek? Why aren't these people helping us to unravel the mysteries of the ages? Prevent acts of terrorism? Warn us - accurately - of coming natural disasters?

Why indeed???

My pointless point, you credulous twit, is that instead of reeling off 195 specific facts the best these people can do - in a controlled environment - is identify a friggin' star from a box or a wavy line within 0.0001% of random chance. This FACT renders their "astounding" gift pretty much worthless to anyone who can think rationally.

Jeez. :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope: :nope:

Barkhorn

[SteveGrenard]

Ah, the million dollar test. Yes. I think everyone has already agreed it is not scientific either. This challenge suffers from quite a bit of critcism, especially by persons who have been duped or tricked by Randi. Like it or not, he has a lot of negative publicity attached to his offer out there. Therefore even if it is well known or has been suggested to some mediums, we don't know if they have applied and have been turned down (remember Randi does not publish these stats). Others may simply be dissauded from applying after they read all the negative criticism that's out there on this. Remember both Randi and the challenger have to agree and if the challenger is unhappy about the terms, Randi can turn them down.
Randi also designs experiments like doing telephone calls with 9 non-sitters and 1 real sitter and establishs statistical requirements. I think this confuses a lot of mediums. The medium, in my case, does not work like this and it is not her claim.


We truly don't know how often that happens. We know Randi makes a high profile spectacle of ridiculing high profile mediums such as JE or SB because this gets him the most pubicity. This also probably justifies their lack of interest in wanting to engage him.

Personally after some exposure to SB and a reconsideration of JE, neither are on the up and up in my book either.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ah, the million dollar test. Yes. I think everyone has already agreed it is not scientific either. This challenge suffers from quite a bit of critcism, especially by persons who have been duped or tricked by Randi. Like it or not, he has a lot of negative publicity attached to his offer out there. Therefore even if it is well known or has been suggested to some mediums, we don't know if they have applied and have been turned down (remember Randi does not publish these stats). Others may simply be dissauded from applying after they read all the negative criticism that's out there on this. Remember both Randi and the challenger have to agree and if the challenger is unhappy about the terms, Randi can turn them down.
Randi also designs experiments like doing telephone calls with 9 non-sitters and 1 real sitter and establishs statistical requirements. I think this confuses a lot of mediums. The medium, in my case, does not work like this and it is not her claim.


We truly don't know how often that happens. We know Randi makes a high profile spectacle of ridiculing high profile mediums such as JE or SB because this gets him the most pubicity. This also probably justifies their lack of interest in wanting to engage him.

Personally after some exposure to SB and a reconsideration of JE, neither are on the up and up in my book either.

Steve, you have time and again made these accusations about the Randi Challenge. Nobody has ever seen anything to verify them.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
[BThis challenge suffers from quite a bit of critcism, especially by persons who have been duped or tricked by Randi. Duped or tricked ? Do you mean those who have failed to do what they said they could? Have you a list, of these poor unfortunates?. Therefore even if it is well known or has been suggested to some mediums, we don't know if they have applied and have been turned down (remember Randi does not publish these stats). I am sure that anyone who has had their application rejected would not make a big deal out of it. Others may simply be dissauded from applying after they read all the negative criticism that's out there on this. All of them (remember there are 1000's of them. Not one is willing to find out themselves Remember both Randi and the challenger have to agree and if the challenger is unhappy about the terms, Randi can turn them down. And he magically makes them forget applying so they never tell anyone about it.
Randi also designs experiments like doing telephone calls with 9 non-sitters and 1 real sitter and establishs statistical requirements. I think this confuses a lot of mediums. Have any of them been to school ? We know Randi makes a high profile spectacle of ridiculing high profile mediums such as JE or SB because this gets him the most pubicity. This also probably justifies their lack of interest in wanting to engage him. Well I wouldn't want to be ridiculed. I can see that...but if I was psychic I could prove it and who would look silly then.

[NoZed Avenger]

Since the topic has apparently changed, I am guessing that the chance of having earlier questions from this and the other thread on the same (original) subject has been reduced to nil.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ah, the million dollar test. Yes. I think everyone has already agreed it is not scientific either.
I didn't.
Part of the scientific method is careful, controlled observation. Another is casting a claim in falsifiable terms.
The case of the "blindfolded" Russian girl involved both of these aspects of rudimentary scientific investigation.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

I didn't.
Part of the scientific method is careful, controlled observation. Another is casting a claim in falsifiable terms.
The case of the "blindfolded" Russian girl involved both of these aspects of rudimentary scientific investigation.

Ah, the case of the “Blindfolded” Russian girl. She could read the NYT, a book, or tell what color paper you were holding up – just as long as these were only about 6 inches away and at an angle.

This one gets to what, to me, is the heart of the matter when it comes to paranormal abilities – what practical use do these abilities have? The answer is – to date – ZERO!!! (unless you count the fleecing of the credulous).

Let’s look at some other “abilities";
Remote viewing – works fine, except when the object to be viewed is in a dark locker or under a blue tent.
Contacting the dead – coming through A-OK, except if you want to contact historical figures or want VERY specific information.
Clairvoyance – yes there will be an earthquake in India this year, but no inkling of 9/11, or the death of Princess Di, or JFK, Jr., etc.
Astrology – I don’t even have to comment on how stupid this one is.

These “abilities” have existed for thousands of years, right? But none of the practitioners seem to get past a very “basic” level – one would expect a “Super User” or two by now.

Ah, but I hear the credophiles saying, “We are dealing with a mysterious faculty that does not subscribe to the normal rules governing the senses, cannot be turned on and off to order, and which manifests itself in all manner of odd ways and unpredictable occasions.”

Yea, sure we are.

Barkhorn.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Case in point:

During the recent Danish TV-series "A Sense of Deceit", where psychics, clairvoyants, astrologers etc. were debunked, the Danish magician Niels Krøjgaard posed as a psychic to two groups of people.

Each group (of two women) were seated in a dark, dungeon-like room in Copenhagen, with candlelights, to create a mystical atmosphere. Niels then asked the women to grab hands, and relax. He then held a light bulb up and asked the spirits to give a sign.

Deep concentration.

Then, the bulb exploded. The women gasped and stared at Niels. When asked, they were convinced that Niels had real psychic powers.

When told that he is really a magician and that they had been fooled, you know what they answers were?

They didn't stop believing that he had real psychic powers.

We see the same with the believers here: Even when faced with evidence of trickery, they don't abandon their beliefs, but instead hold on to it, even stronger.

It may be depressing, but it certainly is amazing, this will - need - to believe.

The propensity to believe in magic does indeed seem to be deep rooted in the human psyche. To be honest, as long as people don't hurt others, I don't care what they believe. But I see erroneous beliefs behind so much of the trouble in the world.

What amazes me is how most 'believers' fail to follow their belief system through to its logical conclusion. The 'spectral evidence' allowed in the Salem trials is just one horrific example. Belief in 'the Rapture' at a time when nuclear weapons are available is truly frightening.

I mean, what if GWB, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al believed in that stuff. The results could be devastating for the whole human race.

Steve's thereputic touch theories are genuinely worrying since it seems so many 'trained' nurses are involved.

Maybe more exposés of magician/psuedo-psychic techniques would help. I actually own the little mechanism that makes bulbs explode in your hand. I've never used it because I thought the glass shards would be dangerous.

Any magician will show you how apparent miracles can be performed with IT or a TT. But what you are saying is that even if these techniques are revealed, believers just ignore the revelation and continue to believe.

That is truly sad.

Where has Steve gone?

malc

[SteveGrenard]

M: Steve's thereputic touch theories are genuinely worrying since it seems so many 'trained' nurses are involved.

Reply: Er, I have no theories re TT and never advanced any. I did state that the following facts regarding this subject:

1. There are 454 citations in MedLine for this subject.
2. Some of these are studies which came out against the subject.
3. Some were studies that came out in favor of it.
4. In the US some, yes, some 50K nurses are said to practice this. No doubt a few M.D.s as well for what its worth.
5. As a complementary procedure, integrated into conventional medicine, it is not harmful; if it has either a psychological or physical effect for wellbeing on the part of the patient it can be beneficial. I suppose if I had a theory this would be it. Be careful
before you jump on me for this. Remember, before you selectively quote me out of context, do not forget that I said "complementary" and "integrated." When I brought up how complementary and integrateds fit with this, to Rolfe's attention he decided not to pursue this anymore. Will you do the same?
You have to agree that harmless interventions such as TT can be
complementary and integrated without causing any harm and possibly eliciting a positive sense of well being by the sufferer.

M: Maybe more exposés of magician/psuedo-psychic techniques would help. I actually own the little mechanism that makes bulbs explode in your hand. I've never used it because I thought the glass shards would be dangerous.

Reply: Making light bulbs explode doesn't work for me. I have seen almost every so-called "magic trick" at one time or another.

M: Any magician will show you how apparent miracles can be performed with IT or a TT. But what you are saying is that even if these techniques are revealed, believers just ignore the revelation and continue to believe.

Reply: If you call the exploding light bulb trick some kind of miracle, as perceived by others, I think they to need to be
made to understand this is fake. This was a ridiculous example.
There are so many better fake miracles. This is the best they could come up with? Are you saying this person actually did this on TV and found somebody to believe it was a miracle? Oh well. That is truly funny, not necessarily "sad." Do we need magiciansa to do this? Oh I know, a magician decided to make this a source of income instead of really working at his craft on stage 6 nights a week with a matinee on Saturday.



M: Where has Steve gone?

To the bathroom, to the store, to work, to dinner, to walk the dog. Is there some reason you are tracking my wherabouts? I could ask where you went also...you would be just as put off by the nerve I have in asking such a question. I don't even know you.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Remember, before you selectively quote me out of context, do not forget that I said "complementary" and "integrated." When I brought up how complementary and integrateds fit with this, to Rolfe's attention he decided not to pursue this anymore.
Rolfe is sick and tired repeating the same thing and being ignored. Rolfe has decided that until a straight answer is forthcoming to the question "who should pay for the FDA-approval trials on homoeopathic medicines?", Steve is on ignore.

But for the record, my last comment on "complementary" still stands.
I do know what complementary medicine is. In the UK it is woo-woos trying to get paid by the NHS. In general it's people with useless remedies which wouldn't fly for a second on their own, who think they can get away with marketing the stuff as an add-on. At its best it keeps the patient entertained while the real medicine does the business (or not, but it sure don't change that part). But mostly it's just a way of transferring money to the bank accounts of the woo-woos.
It wasn't me who decided not to pursue that aspect any more, it just didn't come up. If you look at the whole thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870140954#post1870140954), especially the end, you'll see that what I say is true. I asked the "who should pay?" question about six times, including the very last post on the thread, never got an answer.

But since Steve's decided that he now agrees that homoeopathy is so much woo-woo, then I have no objection to considering the subject closed.

I do, however, have strong objections to being mis-represented. So quit it.

Rolfe.

[The Mighty Thor]

Steve Grenard said:

Edited to add: I notice at least one or two posters who state ("claim") this medium somehow "pulled the wool over my eyes." I would be delighted to entertain any explanations they have for this claim, especially with respect to the three mundane and personal bits of information I revealed above. Please don't give me "wild guessing." Thank you.

Thank you, Steve, for explaining to the newbies here how this very personal case affected you. I am sorry about the tragic circumstances that brought you to seek out the medium.

I said previously that I'd be pleased to experience that 'wow' moment regarding survival. Had I been given the reading you say you did, I think I'd certainly have gotten a chill down my spine.

However, I'd also be very suspicious of fraud, and would want to do my utmost to prove that fraud could be ruled out.

Even if you were identified by this medium beforehand, I fail to see how research could get the details you say she (or the spirit) managed to get.

Yet, I have seen people embellish on an account to make it look less like they had been duped. PT Barnum knew of this effect and used it. Most folk don't like to admit they were hoodwinked. Fishermen are infamous for making the catch that bit bigger than it was. :)

There is also the possibilty (and it cannot be ignored) that you are acting as a publicist for this medium, or have some other vested interest in promoting mediumship -- like you have a book coming out on the subject. That might seem harsh, but I don't know you from Adam, so it remains possible.

If I were to get such an 'accurate' reading, I don't know if I could sit writing calmly for two hours, and I'd certainly want to ask questions of the spirit to get more indisputable evidence of who it was/is.

For 100 dollars, if that is what you paid, it seems that an incredible amount of research would have to have been done to get details of dog names, nicknames, etc.

I'd like to hear more, and certainly some more of the 195 hits might make the case more convincing. I think you really need to get this out of your system. Either you were cheated, or you met someone who could talk to the dead. There is little point of debating this with other believers -- preaching to the converted, sort of thing.

But if you could convince this forum, I think you would have a lot to boast about.

malc

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
1. There are 454 citations in MedLine for this subject.

Steve,

Since you bring up the 454 citations again, let me remind you of your post:

The issue to disprove or prove, falsify or not, is whether these persons can meet the burden of their claim which is that they effect relief in a subject by touching them. There are 454 citations in Medline so it will take me a week to study each of the abstracts carefully. So far I have found studies which falsify TT as well as validate it. I am discarding rhetorical responses, opinion pieces and articles which are not controled studies. We are back to the same you said-she said-they said argument we had over homeopathy. There are both pro and con studies.

Source: Therapeutic Touch ~ evidence for effectiveness? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?s=&threadid=28161&perpage=157)

You made that post on 10-05-2003 02:34 PM. That was 17 days ago, far more than a week's worth of studying.

Edited to add:

Give me a week and I will select out of the 454 citations both pro and con studies to back up the fact that TT, true TT therapeutic + touch, is still not a complete fraud.

Same thread, from 10-05-2003 03:17 PM.

17 days ago. A little bit more than a week, I'd say....



Don't tell me that this is just another of your promises you cannot live up to.

And don't make me make a list of those failed promises, Steve....it will be detrimental to your already tainted rep....

[The Mighty Thor]

Steve Grenard said:

To the bathroom, to the store, to work, to dinner, to walk the dog. Is there some reason you are tracking my wherabouts? I could ask where you went also...you would be just as put off by the nerve I have in asking such a question. I don't even know you

Ouch! you really are touchy, aren't you. I guess I was being cheeky there right enough -- mea culpa!

But this thread is like reading a detective novel -- one wants to know what is going to happen next. As a newbie, I have read thread after thread going as far back as the forum allows. Reading them this way, I have noticed a tendency among believers:

When the going gets tough, they refuse to answer specific questions, they push people into ad homs and then use that as an excuse to derail the thread, or they simply go quiet only to pop up in another thread with the same stuff or similar.

I suppose I'll have to be more patient -- I have a lot of time on my hands and forget that others 'have a life.' :)

If you are saying that Thereputic Touch and similar complementary therapies have a placebo effect, then I can hardly disagree. But that is not in any way paranormal. Can complementary medicine do harm? Of course it can. In the hands of charlatans it can rob people of their savings. I do note that you make a distinction between placebo therapies and magic. But are you saying that proponents of TT believe that the placebo effect is the only effect that takes place? I thought that they believed that they could affect auras. We are not talking about masseurs here, but people who believe they can heal others by moving their hands over them without touching their bodies.

Like psychic mediums many practitioners of complementary techniques say they do not charge money in some cases. But they usually make it clear that they rely on 'donations', and tend to get these from the faithful.

And where does one draw the line? Is Benny Hinn a 'no harm, placebo' guy? Is Geller? Or the Psychic Doctor who has no qualifications but gets to 'treat' young, vulnerable females for a fee?

Anyway, chill out, Steve. Have you tried meditation for your irascible moments?

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Ouch! you really are touchy, aren't you. I guess I was being cheeky there right enough -- mea culpa!

Ans: Back from lunch.

But this thread is like reading a detective novel -- one wants to know what is going to happen next. As a newbie, I have read thread after thread going as far back as the forum allows. Reading them this way, I have noticed a tendency among believers:

When the going gets tough, they refuse to answer specific questions, they push people into ad homs and then use that as an excuse to derail the thread, or they simply go quiet only to pop up in another thread with the same stuff or similar.

Ans: Sometimes. Not always. Depends on the quyestions. Many are rhetorical and facetious, especially from certain parties.

I suppose I'll have to be more patient -- I have a lot of time on my hands and forget that others 'have a life.'

Ans: Patience is a virtue. My patients can't wait while I answer people here.

If you are saying that Thereputic Touch and similar complementary therapies have a placebo effect, then I can hardly disagree. But that is not in any way paranormal. Can complementary medicine do harm? Of course it can. In the hands of charlatans it can rob people of their savings. I do note that you make a distinction between placebo therapies and magic. But are you saying that proponents of TT believe that the placebo effect is the only effect that takes place? I thought that they believed that they could affect auras. We are not talking about masseurs here, but people who believe they can heal others by moving their hands over them without touching their bodies.

Ans: The definition of complementary and integrated is precisely that. They occur in conjunction with conventional treatment, not in place of it and not to take away any time or resources from it.

Like psychic mediums many practitioners of complementary techniques say they do not charge money in some cases. But they usually make it clear that they rely on 'donations', and tend to get these from the faithful.

Ans: In hospitals there is capitation which means if it is done, its an included service. Our staff cannot accept money from patients. They will be fired if they get caught. That includes fees, donations or tips. I am not familiar with such practices everywhere, however.

And where does one draw the line? Is Benny Hinn a 'no harm, placebo' guy? Is Geller? Or the Psychic Doctor who has no qualifications but gets to 'treat' young, vulnerable females for a fee?

Ans: If there is anybody you want to characterize as a whacko its Hinn. I draw the line on him. He is even rejected by his own evangelical and fundamentalist movements. He says he has talked to ghosts of people like E.Semple McPherson and even once said Jesus was going to appear with him on stage. Unfortunately for him Jesus had another engagement so couldn't make it. There are many evangelical fundamentalists who follow him. They shouldn't. I don't know any psychic doctors; I assume you mean psychic surgeons. Dont know any of those either but they are not working as a complement to conventional medicine so they have no sway with me. I didn't know Geller practices psychic medicine except in complement and integrated with conventional medicine. He has discussed this publicly. I could be wrong but a case he once discussed on LKL was exactly that. Prayer healing, etc in conjunction with conventional treatment. In fact pray for your doctors and surgeons as well.

[Loki]

Steve,

Thanks for not giving me too much grief about bringing this up again. Just a few quick points.

1. The idea of Apoger paying a visit to the psychic is not "testing", it's (attempting) to verify that there's some substance to your story.

2. You obviously believe the psychic would not agree to be tested - but it also seems you haven't asked. Why not? Since you obviously have a firm belief in the ability being shown here, why aren't *you* trying to connect this psychic to Roy, Keen, Schwarz, or anyone else that you believe would be interested? It seems that you're trying to say "well, there's plenty just like her, and some of them are already being tested." Perhaps - but I must say that your anecdote seems to be stronger than most reports. The psychic's unwillingness to be tested, and/or your willingness to let this ride, seems at odds with your apparent enthusiasm for the subject.

[SteveGrenard]

There are already 3 people here that have appointments with this medium who are going into this with an open mind (e.g. I am not paying because I don't want to give money to a con artist). These appointments range from approx 6 to as long as 9 months from now insofar as I am aware. I dont know the exact times or dates involved. Mr./Ms. Apoger impeached himself. I made myself clear on this.

I dont see the point in getting started with a fourth person who eschews the process and is clearly, by his own statements, out to impeach rather than to verify mediumship. I am not interested in verification of my own experience. I already said it was anecodotal, take it or leave it. Again, it was brought up originally and again (by you in fact) because it represents my personal experience which leads me to accept the possibility of the survival hypothesis and that some persons are capable of obtaining communication, in this case through trance or temporary posession .. but still a form of telepathy, with the whatever it is that survives in such communicators. It is obviously beyond the current status of science to understand how let alone why this occurs.

The reply regarding other mediums Loki was directed at the stupid remarks that this is so earth shaking, blah, blah and more blah. It is neither earth shaking nor miraculous. It is routine. There are people who can do this and many are working with R&R and others already.

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you, Steve, for explaining to the newbies here how this very personal case affected you. I am sorry about the tragic circumstances that brought you to seek out the medium.

Ans: Thank you.

I said previously that I'd be pleased to experience that 'wow' moment regarding survival. Had I been given the reading you say you did, I think I'd certainly have gotten a chill down my spine.

Ans: Yes, I definitely had that chill and more. I was reeling when I left there.
I had my notes and poured over them in the car for an hour before I left to go home. I wanted to make sure I left nothing out.


However, I'd also be very suspicious of fraud, and would want to do my utmost to prove that fraud could be ruled out.

Ans: I felt I did everything to prevent her from knowing who I was, where I was coming from or anything about me. The information that is publicly available on the net and elsewhere was not even mentioned. Only names and relationships out of my distant past, things I didnt know but verified later with my mother (who is 80 but pretty sharp) and so on.


Even if you were identified by this medium beforehand, I fail to see how research could get the details you say she (or the spirit) managed to get.

Ans: Yes, I see no way this kind of mundane, trivial information is available anywhere to be researched. Dogs and their names from 35 years ago are not in any databases unless they were champions that won medals etc. Not my dog. LOL.

Yet, I have seen people embellish on an account to make it look less like they had been duped. PT Barnum knew of this effect and used it. Most folk don't like to admit they were hoodwinked. Fishermen are infamous for making the catch that bit bigger than it was.

Ans: These were straight forward informational statements. I dont think I needed to stretch any facts to make them fit. There was no initials, no name game, no M or J sounding name crap.
No causes of death and no dark area in the chest or other nonesense. The only death related thing was that the communicator said "(Dad's name) was sorry he wasn't home when he died."
He was at a medical convention in Miami when he had a fatal heart attack. My mothe, sister and I were not with him. Clear, unambiguous, The statement fit the facts without any doubt. And absolutely no questions to me from the medium.

There is also the possibilty (and it cannot be ignored) that you are acting as a publicist for this medium, or have some other vested interest in promoting mediumship -- like you have a book coming out on the subject. That might seem harsh, but I don't know you from Adam, so it remains possible.

Ans: Yes, you dont know me from Adam. I am in a way a publicist for her because of my experience with her. But I have had no contact with her since 10/01
I am not writing a book (I sorta doubt she is either). She doesnt advertise, I dont give her name or phone number out willy nilly (have done so only 5 times in 2 years, 3 to members of this Board)
If I was really her publicist I'd quit my job and begin prepping her for the million dollar challenge, a world tour and a book deal. She sure as heck would have a website as well. Actually I am not doing any of those things and insofar as I am aware neither is she. I never spoke to her again but did speak with people who went to her subsequent to my session.


If I were to get such an 'accurate' reading, I don't know if I could sit writing calmly for two hours, and I'd certainly want to ask questions of the spirit to get more indisputable evidence of who it was/is.

Ans: It was not easy. I just got myself into a writing mode. I was told she preferred not to be recorded although I could've done so secretly. This was not exactly a high tech studio. And I signed no agreements, etc. It was small office and desk in her finished basement in a small private house in a working class neighborhood. I just didnt want to do anything to screw this up in any way.

She never asked me if I wanted to ask any questions. In theory it was not her talking, it was the communicator using her and he never asked me either. I was too polite to interrupt nor did I want to. And I was scared if I did she would lose him. I didnt know what to think. Frankly I had a million questions and I had none. I dont even know what I would ask at that point.



For 100 dollars, if that is what you paid, it seems that an incredible amount of research would have to have been done to get details of dog names, nicknames, etc.

Ans: I paid $70. two years ago. I heard from a recent person making an appointment she charges $100.00 now. I had a dog (name given by communicator) as a child. The dog died in 1965, a year after my father died.
The communicator named the dog, my father and said he was with them all the time. Then he said "Buster was here also." I didnt know who this was. I asked my mother and she remembered (she wasn't told I went to a medium). She said Buster was my dog's brother's name. Buster was adopted by a friend of my dad's who lived in another state so I never had any contact with the dog or those people so didn't remember who Buster was. But Mom did. There was no way on earth this woman could have researched this information. Until I mentioned this here this information was nowhere except in the mind of my 80-year old mom who has been too sick for years to even leave my sister's house (save to go to the doctor) where she lives. My sister didn't know who Buster was. I asked her first, then mom.

There was no way on earth she could've seen into my living room the night before and see me place a flag pin on the picture frame. Yet the first thing the comunicator said to me through the medium after identifying his own picture (which is also nowhere in a public place)
was "Thanks for the pin."

I'd like to hear more, and certainly some more of the 195 hits might make the case more convincing. I think you really need to get this out of your system. Either you were cheated, or you met someone who could talk to the dead. There is little point of debating this with other believers -- preaching to the converted, sort of thing.

Ans: I agree. I dont go to paranormal boards and dont discuss this with other so-called believers. I have discussed it with some people at the SPR, however.
These researchers can decide to contact and investigate her if they wish. I am not directly in that business myself nor would I be qualified given my experience with her. I would be labeled as biased. I have never asked her... this is true.

But if you could convince this forum, I think you would have a lot to boast about.

Ans: I am frankly not into boasting nor am I interested in convincing this forum per se. Again, the only reason this was brought up was that some people have a hard time understanding why I am so open minded (they are afraid my brains have spilled out but I told them not worry, it doesnt work like that) about this subject and other subjects where there are pros and cons which are undecided.

edited to add: I have consulted two other mediums in person and have talked to and had sessions with more than twenty via the internet. Only two or three of these were any good; the balance were either outright wrong about everything or were attempting to cold read on a variety of levels: name game, above/below game, casting a wide net, asking too many questions, etc.

[Zep]

I suppose you don't have private detectives in the USA, Steve? You know, with cameras and bugging devices and stuff? Stuff you can buy in any electronics store these days? PIs often get employed to surreptitiously follow people about to where they would rather people didn't see them go, listen to them say stuff they would rather people didn't hear, and film them doing stuff they would rather people didn't know... But you know this, I'm sure, so do I have to join the dots for you?

Sorry, I don't buy the bit about this seer person working charitably to help the families of 9/11 and similar. I can't help but feel there is money involved, and that it is moving from the victims wallet to her pocket. Cruel thoughts, I know, but there are such people in this world and that's how they work - almost always preying on the highly vulnerable people only (that is, NOT skeptics - they're too tough a nut to crack).

Call me cynical if you wish, but you don't have to be a dope to be duped.

[SteveGrenard]

Yup, for a seventy dollars, this woman had private detectives bug my house with listening devices and hidden cameras .
Right. And she did it for years, thirty five in fact, long before I even knew I would one day go to see her so she could find out information about my past which is not in any public record and play it back for me during the session. Thanks for this anyway.

Any other explanatins?

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Since the topic has apparently changed, I am guessing that the chance of having earlier questions from this and the other thread on the same (original) subject has been reduced to nil.

Good call.

I'd say we'll never find out what statement from Randi supposedly caused Keen to believe that he said the he could debunk 100 year old anecdotes, why Mr. Grenard stated that you first post in the 'Keen' thread labeled his defensive (then derisive) without ever admitting that he made a mistake (most generous reading). We'll also never find out why he insinuated that Garette was a liar regarding the books he read, or see an apology for it.

Time for a new thread.

[SteveGrenard]

Ah NoZed, quoting yourself I see. Yes, we did get side tracked but not by me.... by Loki and a few others. Here is the complete article by Keen leading up to the challenge to Randi to explain the 20 cases, two of which I attempted to summarize above.

This has appeared on several websites but I have M.Keen's permission to reprint it. It is not the entire piece which now includes follow-ups as well but they are not directly relevant to these 20 cases which you seem to be inetrested in. This follows in next post.

Sorry to keep you waiting. Please read it carefully, even study it, before responding so that your sharp legal mind can have a full appreciation of Keen's position vis a vis Randi's claims. Your fair and unbiased judgement is awaited.

[SteveGrenard]

Unethical treatment

A PRELIMINARY comment on Mr. Randi's ethics — and those of Fulcrum TV's producers: When he practices as a stage illusionist, the audience know they are being entertained and deceived: they suspend their disbelief and enjoy the show. To pretend to be a genuine psychic, and to connive with the TV staff without the knowledge or consent of the victims to garner details about members of the audience, their friends and their sitting positions, with a view to misleading them — even though the ruse is later acknowledged — is to employ deception in what was claimed to be a serious programme about a very serious subject.

Three Randiesque escapes

I should first note that Mr. Randi may consider himself fortunate on at least three counts: 1. The edited version omitted his first futile but extended attempts at cold reading which was so unsuccessful that the embarrassed floor manager had to announce a technical fault and stop the show. 2. The editing omitted what was probably the single most impressive piece of evidence, told to me beforehand in the Green Room and later to the audience, of an anonymous and untraceable booking made by a grieving father for a private reading with Keith Charles, the medium, who described to him the detailed contents and design of a sealed letter that had been placed, unbeknown to the father, in the coffin of his daughter by her sister. When Mr Randi asserted what he has since reiterated on his website, that all such messages could be attributable to cold reading as evidenced in Ian Rowland's instruction book, it was lucky for him that no-one had an opportunity to challenge this insult to our credulity. Even with hot reading prior research at his disposal, a stage illusionist could not have struck oil this rich. Charles himself, exceptionally restrained, was shut up, doubtless because of the severe time overrun. Finally, 3., it was lucky for Mr. Randi that Charles was given no opportunity to say why the $1m challenge was both misleading and worthless, an omission I hope to remedy below.

I need hardly say that the excision of the very brief comment I was allowed to make, explaining that serious scientists had long been fully aware of the cold and hot reading techniques, and had safeguarded against them by single or double-blind or proxy sittings, constituted a serious breach of trust by the producers, as well as letting Mr. Randi off the hook. Some idea of the sort of evidence Mr. Randi escaped answering is contained in a letter [click here] to the Glasgow Herald from one of the principal experimenters in a major investigation into the authenticity of mediumship.

A fraudulent insult

The "very obese" and "unattractive" Mrs Veronica Keen. Photograph taken one day after the show.

(As an aside, and to illustrate Mr. Randi's dedication to objectivity, I must also provide a more accurate account of the incident to which he devotes so much spleen on his website: his encounter in the exit corridor with a "very obese, unattractive woman" and his reaction to her "direct affront, a rude insult and an uncalled-for accusation" who "stabbed her finger at me, her face red and contorted with hatred" who called him a fake and a fraud, to which he calmly retorted in his best Churchillian manner, "Madam, you are ugly, but I can reform."

I am sure this is how Mr. Randi would like to remember the episode, but since I was alongside the lady at the time, and observed what went on, as did Dr. Parker and Dr. Puhle who were immediately in front of me, I should say that she takes (USA) size 10 clothes at Macy's, which is way down the obesity scale, is regarded as attractive for her age, smiled at Mr. Randi and said quite politely but firmly, with no finger stabbing, and to his obvious astonishment, "Mr. Randi you're a fraud", whereupon he staggered back and stammered, "And you, you, you, you're ugly," to which the lady responded as he disappeared backwards through the double doors, "But at least I'm honest". There was no Churchillian suffix. The classic Churchillian riposte, by the way, occurred when Mrs Bessie Braddock, a Labour MP of vast dimensions, accused him of being drunk; to which Churchill responded, "Yes, Madam, and you're ugly, but I shall be sober in the morning." This sets the standard for Mr. Randi's dedication to factual reality.)

That $1million offer

Now for the more serious bit: first, the $1million prize. Loyd Auerbach, a leading USA psychologist and President of the Psychic Entertainers Association (some 80% of the members of his Association believe in the paranormal, according to Dr. Adrian Parker, who was on the programme, but given no opportunity to reveal this) exposed some of the deficiencies in this challenge in an article in Fate magazine.

Under Article 3, the applicant allows all his test data to be used by the Foundation in any way Mr. Randi may choose. That means that Mr. Randi can pick and chose the data at will and decide what to do with it and what verdict to pronounce on it. Under Article 7, the applicant surrenders all rights to legal action against the Foundation, or Mr. Randi, no matter what emotional, professional or financial injury he may consider he has sustained. Thus even if Mr. Randi comes to a conclusion different from that reached by his judges and publicly denounces the test, the applicant would have no redress. The Foundation and Mr. Randi own all the data. Mr. Randi can claim that the judges were fooled. The implicit accusation of fraud would leave the challenger devoid of remedy.

These rules, be it noted, are in stark contrast to Mr. Randi's frequent public assertions that he wanted demonstrable proof of psychic powers. First, his rules are confined to a single, live applicant. No matter how potent the published evidence, how incontestable the facts or rigorous the precautions against fraud, the number, qualifications or expertise of the witnesses and investigators, the duration, thoroughness and frequency of their tests or (where statistical evaluation is possible) the astronomical odds against a chance explanation: all must be ignored. Mr. Randi thrusts every case into the bin labelled 'anecdotal' (which means not written down), and thereby believes he may safely avoid any invitation to account for them.

Likewise, the production of a spanner bent by a force considerably in excess of the capacity of the strongest man, created at the request and in the presence of a group of mechanics gathered round a racing car at a pit stop by Mr. Randi's long-time enemy, Uri Geller, would run foul of the small print, which requires a certificate of a successful preliminary demonstration before troubling Mr. Randi himself. A pity, because scientists at Imperial College have tested the spanner, which its current possessor, the researcher and author Guy Lyon Playfair, not unnaturally regards as a permanent paranormal object, and there is a standing challenge to skeptics to explain its appearance.

The Randi/Schwartz episode

That these doubts about the genuineness of Mr. Randi's dedication to objective research are far from theoretical may be concluded from the efforts made by Professor Gary Schwartz of Arizona University in designing his multi-centre, double-blind procedure for testing mediums. Schwartz was not interested in the prize money: he merely sought to obtain Mr. Randi's approval for his protocol for testing mediums — and he duly modified it to met Mr. Randi's suggestions. Having falsely declared that the eminent parapsychologist Professor Stanley Krippner had agreed to serve on his referee panel, Mr. Randi ensured that the other judges would be his skeptical friends Drs Minsky, Sherman and Hyman, all well-known and dedicated opponents of anything allegedly paranormal.

As the ensuing Randi/Schwartz correspondence (which Mr. Randi declined to print on his website) makes clear, when the outcome of the experiment proved an overwhelming success, Mr. Randi subsequently confused a binary (yes/no) analysis with the statistical method required to score for accuracy each statement made by a medium, and falsely accused Dr Schwartz and his colleagues of selecting only half the data for analysis. He then derided the publication of Professor Schwartz's findings in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the world's oldest scientific peer-reviewed publication devoted to the paranormal, and in which Mr. Randi himself has published contributions. He criticised the fact that the Schwartz findings appeared in neither Nature nor Science, although he must have been aware of the long-standing refusal of these two leading scientific journals to publish anything touching on the paranormal. He then reported that one of the gifted mediums, John Edward, could have seen the sitter through a 2" curtain gap, regardless of the facts that the crack was about quarter of an inch, was subsequently sealed from ceiling to floor, and that readings were later done long distance. Mr. Randi declined an invitation to see all the raw footage for himself, while protesting that he would never [be allowed to] see it. Yet all the media representatives who visited the Arizona laboratory saw the raw footage, as did magicians and visiting scientists. Mr Randi specifically declined an invitation to be videoed viewing the data and commenting on it.

Equally, despite his confident assertions that cold reading can produce results as impressive as any from a platform medium, he declined an offer to prove it by comparing his performance with that of a genuine medium, surely a crucial test. Similarly, Mr. Randi accused the experimenters of "blatant data searching", i.e. remembering the hits and forgetting the misses. This was false, and could readily have been shown to be so. He thereafter publicly declined to read any of Professor Schwartz's emails, having confined himself to deriding the Professor for believing in the tooth fairy, making wild claims and being a "doctor who embraces bump-in-the-night theories without a trace of shame". Further, that he had been a colleague at Harvard of Dr John Mack, "the man who has never met anyone who hasn't been abducted by aliens", and similar abuse. This is the language and conduct of the gutter, not of an honest difference of opinion expressed in civilized and restrained terms about scientific issues.

Mr. Randi notoriously failed to fulfil his boast to be able to replicate Ted Serios' "thoughtography" tests (as described by his investigator, Dr Jule Eisenbud in The World of Ted Serios, Jonathan Cape, 1968) and has consistently ignored efforts by Mr. Maurice Grosse, the principal investigator of Britain's most famous recent poltergeist event, the Enfield Case (See Guy Lyon Playfair's book This House is Haunted, Souvenir Press, 1980), to examine the recorded visual and aural evidence to support a claim of paranormality and apparent veridical messages from a discarnate entity.

Worse still are the multiple errors of fact, admixed with derision, abuse and misrepresentation, which Mr. Randi makes in his book Flim-Flam (1980) about a number of distinguished scientists, notably Russell Targ, Harold Puthoff and Charles Tart and their roles in the remote viewing experiments with Ingo Swann and the clairvoyant claims of Uri Geller. That Randi's denunciations turned out to be mainly a tissue of lies is apparent from the penetrating account given by parapsychologist D. Scott Rogo in Psychic Breakthroughs Today (Aquarian Press, 1987, pp.216-226), and devastatingly amplified in a recent website publication by Michael Prescott (http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm)

The challenge to Mr. Randi and friends

I am not applying for Mr. Randi's $1 million but only for some evidence that his challenge is genuine. I give underneath my comments on the television programme a list of some of the classical cases of paranormality with most or all of which Mr. Randi will be familiar. I know he will be because he has been studying the subject for half a century, he tells us. And just as I would not pretend to authority and expertise in conjuring unless I could perform some party tricks to bedazzle a troop of intelligent ten year olds, or apply for an assistant professorship in physics while admitting I had never heard of Boyle's Law or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, nor seek admission to the bar without first having some familiarity with the leading cases, so I would not imply that Mr. Randi is ignorant of these cases, many of which have long awaited the advent of a critic who could discover flaws in the paranormality claims. For me to suggest this would imply the grossest hypocrisy on Mr. Randi's part. But to refresh his memory, and help him along, and despite the refusal of some of his colleagues like Professor Kurtz, Professor Hyman and Dr. Susan Blackmore to meet the challenge, I list the requisite references. They are based on (although not identical to) a list of twenty cases suggestive of survival prepared by Professor Archie Roy and published some years ago in the SPR's magazine, The Paranormal Review as an invitation or challenge to skeptics to demonstrate how any of these cases could be explained by "normal" i.e. non-paranormal, means. Thus far there have been no takers. It is now Mr. Randi's chance to vindicate his claims.

___________________________________

And here are the cases from which Mr. Randi may wish to select a handful to answer:

1. The Watseka Wonder, 1887. Stevens, E.W. 1887. The Watseka Wonder, Chicago; Religio-philosophical Publishing House, and Hodgson R., Religio-Philosophical Journal Dec. 20th, 1890, investigated by Dr. Hodgson.

2. Uttara Huddar and Sharada. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, 1980. 'A preliminary report on an unusual case of the reincarnation type with Xenoglossy'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 74, 331-348; and Akolkar V.V. 'Search for Sharada: Report of a case and its investigation'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 86, 209-247.

3. Sumitra and Shiva-Tripathy. Stevenson I. and Pasricha S, and McLean-Rice, N 1989. 'A Case of the Possession Type in India with evidence of Paranormal Knowledge'. Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration 3, 81-101.

4. Jasbir Lal Jat. Stevenson, I, 1974. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (2nd edition) Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

5. The Thompson/Gifford case. Hyslop, J.H. 1909. A Case of Veridical Hallucinations, Proceedings American Society for Psychical Research 3, 1-469.

6. Past-life regression. Tarazi, L. 1990. 'An Unusual Case of Hypnotic Regression with some Unexplained Contents'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 84, 309-344.

7. Cross-correspondence communications. Balfour J. (Countess of) 1958-60. 'The Palm Sunday Case: New Light On an Old Love Story'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 52, 79-267.

8. Book and Newspaper Tests. Thomas, C.D. 1935. 'A Proxy Case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs Osborne Leonard'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 43, 439-519.

9. "Bim's" book-test. Lady Glenconnor. 1921. The Earthen Vessel, London, John Lane.

10. The Harry Stockbridge communicator. Gauld, A. 1966-72. 'A Series of Drop-in Communicators'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 55, 273-340.

11. The Bobby Newlove case. Thomas, C. D. 1935. 'A proxy case extending over Eleven Sittings with Mrs. Osborne Leonard'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 43, 439-519.

12. The Runki missing leg case. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. 'A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Runolfur Runolfsson'. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69. 33-59.

13. The Beidermann drop-in case. Gauld, A. 1966-72. 'A Series of Drop-in Communicators'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 55, 273-340.

14. The death of Gudmundur Magnusson. Haraldsson E. and Stevenson, I, 1975. 'A Communicator of the Drop-in Type in Iceland: the case of Gudni Magnusson', Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 69, 245-261.

15. Identification of deceased officer. Lodge, O. 1916. Raymond, or Life and Death. London. Methuen & Co. Ltd.

16. Mediumistic evidence of the Vandy death. Gay, K. 1957. 'The Case of Edgar Vandy', Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 39, 1-64; Mackenzie, A. 1971. 'An Edgar Vandy Proxy Sitting'. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 46, 166-173; Keen, M. 2002. 'The case of Edgar Vandy: Defending the Evidence', Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 64.3 247-259; 'Letters', 2003, Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 67.3. 221-224.

17. Mrs Leonore Piper and the George "Pelham" communicator. Hodgson, R. 1897-8. 'A Further Record of Observations of Certain Phenomena of Trance'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 13, 284-582.

18. Messages from "Mrs. Willett" to her sons. Cummins, G. 1965. Swan on a Black Sea. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

19. Ghostly aeroplane phenomena. Fuller, J.G. 1981 The Airmen Who Would Not Die, Souvenir Press, London.

20. Intelligent responses via two mediums: the Lethe case. Piddington, J. G. 1910. 'Three incidents from the Sittings'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 24, 86-143; Lodge, O. 1911. 'Evidence of Classical Scholarship and of Cross-Correspondence in some New Automatic Writing'. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research 25, 129-142.

[apoger]

>I dont see the point in getting started with a fourth person who eschews the process and is clearly, by his own statements, out to impeach rather than to verify mediumship.

"Enschews the process"? What process would that be?

The process I had in mind was notihng more than going down and seeing what there was to see.

What statements did I make that were a claim that I was "out to impeach rather than to verify"?

As has often been the case, you are reading far more into things than were actually there.

[SteveGrenard]

A: Enschews the process"? What process would that be?

Ans: I said "eschews" which means to avoid, disdain, flee from and detest .....
the process is mediumship; your attitude regarding payment, for example, as giving money to a con artist (your words) is evidence enough of this.
You honestly believe you can come to a forum, post anonymously and ask people to give you hundred dolllar bills
in payment for doing something I nor anyone here have any way of confirming you have really done. ANd you call yourself a skeptic? Geez. You really think everyone is an idiot don't you? You even have others willing to
help you out. Its too funny. You must be enjoying this.....

A: The process I had in mind was notihng more than going down and seeing what there was to see.

Ans: Then go right ahead, but not at my
expense. I have no influence with this medium. It will take you a year to get to see her.


A: What statements did I make that were a claim that I was "out to impeach rather than to verify"?

Ans: See above plus other comments you made of a derogatory nature. You don' have to say something outright to evidence your attitude or position. Haven't you learned that yet? I guess not.

A: As has often been the case, you are reading far more into things than were actually there.

Ans: There is no sincerity on your part and there is nothing you can say or do now to salvage your position as originally stated at the outset of this aspect of the conversation. Three persons who post to this forum are already scheduled to see her at heir cnsiderable expense as two must fly to NY from other locations. It will be some time before they can report given her waiting list and other comittments.
I am content to wait for those. You are, of course, free to do whatever you wish.

[apoger]

>There was no way on earth this woman could have researched this information.

You seem to be making a really big deal out of the hit on the dogs name, daring us to come up with an explanation.

You good at your job? So are these people. They are professionals at gathering information. You seem oblivious to the fact that there are a multitude of ways to get facts about people.

You want a mundane explanation for the dog name? I am not sure how she got it, or even if she did, however I can easily come up with an ordinary explanation;

We know that she had Steve's first name, likely the hospital name (from caller ID), and a telephone number to an old contact in Florida.

As has been show earlier, a google search for Steve-Hospital Name-Paranormal will get Steve's full name and plenty of other info and leads. Another way to do it would be to get the name associated with the phone number and search for Steve-paranormal associations with that name. What I'm saying is that getting Steve's full name was demonstrably easy.

Armed with Steve's name the medium could dig into extensive internet records and can also access any records that are public. They don't need to hire detectives, this sort of simple inquiry is their bread and butter. I suspect that they could teach many detectives a thing or two.

Getting the names of Steve's family from such resources is a simple matter. Simple research into their records provides even more info and leads.

About fifteen years ago I did a few years work as a telephone survey agent. I called up people off lists and asked all sorts of personal questions, usually about specific things, but sometimes the topics were pretty broad. I mention this to show that I have some sincere experience with drawing information from people over the phone.

How hard would it be for the medium to call up a relative or two of Steve's and ask a few simple questions?

"Good afternoon sir, I'm calling on behalf of the Friends of Starving Puppies Foundation. We are doing a survey of some people in the neighborhood so we can better help pets and pet owners. Could you spend two or three minutes answering a few simple questions. It would be a big help.... Thanks!"

<blah blah blah>

"Do you own any cats or dogs?"
"How many dogs have you owned?"
"What breeds?"
"Wow! A ! I had a [breed name] when I was a kid, her name was Lady Penelope. I loved her so much, but she died a few years ago. What was your [breed name's] name."
"Buster? Oh what a cute name".

[B]---> JACKPOT <---


Again, I don't know if that's what happened, but your insistence that you can't even imagine how it could be possible... well now you know. It's not just possible, it's easy.

These people are pro's, getting into your private life is their business.

[apoger]

This is my last post in response to Steve's silly attemts at fact manipulation and character assassination, and unlike Steve who claimed to be done... I mean it. It's becoming painfully obvious that Steve is irrational and has no intention beyond fact twisting and then projecting his own closed-mindedness on others.


>Ans: I said "eschews" which means to avoid, disdain, flee from and detest .....

I know what enschew means. At no point did I enschew this process of inquiry. You are the one that is dismissing me.

That you are trying to pass off the closing of inquiry as something being done too you rather than by you, is mighty disingenuous.



>You honestly believe you can come to a forum, post anonymously and ask people to give you hundred dolllar bills
in payment for doing something I nor anyone here have any way of confirming you have really done.

I offered to pay. You ignored it.


>ANd you call yourself a skeptic?

Yes.



>You really think everyone is an idiot don't you?

Only some people.


>You even have others willing to help you out.

Makes you wonder why they'd be willing to help me while doubting you. Perhaps it's a conspiracy.



>A: The process I had in mind was notihng more than going down and seeing what there was to see.

>Ans: Then go right ahead, but not at my
expense.


Again, I offered to pay. Pretending like I didn't is pretty lame.



>You don' have to say something outright to evidence your attitude or position.

Sure I do. My position is one of skepticism. I will judge the situation when I have evidence. This has always been my attitude/position.

[Zep]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yup, for a seventy dollars, this woman had private detectives bug my house with listening devices and hidden cameras .
Right. And she did it for years, thirty five in fact, long before I even knew I would one day go to see her so she could find out information about my past which is not in any public record and play it back for me during the session. Thanks for this anyway.

Any other explanatins? *sigh*

Obfuscate the point with inane trivia and a slippery-slope argument to its illogical conclusion, why don't you...

I was NOT trying to posit an explanation of EXACTLY what method may or may not have been used IN YOUR CASE. However you do have to admit that what I suggested is actually POSSIBLE. Not only POSSIBLE, but RATIONAL, REASONABLE, FEASIBLE and LOGICAL. And it could be one of MANY possible similar explanations that do not require any supernatural functionality.

In which case I have to repeat that assertion that has been made umpteen times before in this and other threads, and is the basis of the Randi challenge - it is up to the proponent of this capability to prove her case for supernatural capabilities positively under properly controlled conditions. If she chooses not to for any reason then so be it, but meanwhile, your continued long posts of ramble here are NOT changing MY mind in any way.

[Zep]

By the way, folks, Steve quite possibly obtained that "response" from Keen about Randi from here (http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/montague.html), the website of one of our more "distinguished" woo-woo friends! :)

[athon]

I'm not sure if this post belongs here in this thread, but much of what is written here has inspired me to voice this opinion, so while I might give it its own post at a later date, I'll say it now anyway.

As a child, I loved anything that concerned ghosts, afterlife, ESP and UFO's. If it was unusual, I had a book on it.

Conventional science offered me similar feelings of discovery. The strange thing was, as I grew, the rules that governed science bled over into my interests of the paranormal. I not only wanted the paranormal to be a tangible, reproducable reality, I needed it to be. The statistics supporting such things might be interesting to look at, but I hungered for the next step.

Two things happened with the things I was interested in. Some theories and discoveries gathered evidence - experiments were reproduced, problems negotiated, apparent dead ends reworked. Others stopped at being just anecdotes and statistical anomalies. Nothing reproduced, no more ground covered.

Some conventional 'science' was shot down - aquatic ape theory, chelate therapies etc. Some 'nonconventional science' gained credibility - ghosts possibly being subsonics, witchcraft to a fungus and psychology gave credence to many superstitions. But what I noticed was that the interesting paranormal events could be explained by some things better than others.

I did not like the answers, but figured that science did not always provide me with answers I liked. I had to learn humility, to admit that things I once believed in were not real.

So whenever I am told I don't want to believe, the hair on my neck raises and I feel like growling.

When ESP, ghosts and the afterlife can be qualified in conjunction with non-subjective science, when it can be incorporated into robust theories, when it is no longer just an interesting bump on a graph, I will again change my views - and quite happily. How cool would that be! Until then...

Athon

[The Mighty Thor]

Is this guy Zammit for real? I mean, is he who he says he is?

malc

[Garrette]

Steve, as you have described this encounter it is certainly intriguing and would make me sit up and pursue an investigation.

But there are other possible explanations, which can be neither proved nor disproved on this board.

1. You are misremembering
2. You are lying.
3. She did do research on you.
4. She knew more about you than you realized.
5. You are stretching for hits.

Earlier, you said that as her number is unlisted and she doesn't advertise, appointments can be had only through word of mouth or recommendation.

I take it that she was recommended to you. I take it further that the person who recommended her was someone who knew you fairly well, else why bother giving you a guarded phone number.

So this medium already had lengthy contact (one presumes at least one session which may or may not have included more feedback than you indicate you gave during yours) with at least one person who knew you. She had this contact prior to your session.

When you made the appointment, did she ask how you had gotten her name and number?

---

My previous question still stands, too?

If you never looked up from your notes, how do you know the medium was in a trance with her eyes closed the whole time?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Garrette
Steve, as you have described this encounter it is certainly intriguing and would make me sit up and pursue an investigation.

But there are other possible explanations, which can be neither proved nor disproved on this board.

1. You are misremembering
2. You are lying.
3. She did do research on you.
4. She knew more about you than you realized.
5. You are stretching for hits

....snip...

I have seen mediums recommended by people who made claims like Steve that the medium was, to paraphrase, "100% accurate".

Yet when I visited these same mediums and was read I did not receive “100% accurate" reading, I was given many generalisations that if they had been a "hit" would have seemed to be very "specific". So the evidence I have is that even when people claim "high accuracy" for mediums on further investigation this accuracy plummets.

This is why I would be willing to contribute to funding a verification of Steve's claim.

Steve would you mind asking the (3) people who post here that you have put in touch with your "accurate" medium if they would mind identifying themselves and be willing to share their experiences once they have visited. Could I also ask why you didn't take a tape recorder with you?

(As for the dog name, (and I suspect certain people won't believe this) but I asked my mother about dogs that she and the family owned when she was younger and surprise surprise the family had two dogs, one called Buster and one called Patch when she was a teenager - I knew about "Patch" because I'd seen photos with him in it but hadn't known about "Buster". I suspect "Buster" is not an uncommon dog name, and if you can stretch the pool of accepted “hits” to a family pet's "brothers" then the chance of a "hit" with that name must become even more likely.)

[Zep]

Originally posted by malcolmdl
Is this guy Zammit for real? I mean, is he who he says he is?

malc Oh yeah! He is one of the golden woo-woo kings, almost completely out of his tree with it. Any further and he will need SERIOUS therapy...in a coat with extra-long sleeves.

As soon as you see Victor actively posting stuff for a woo-woo commentator or "researcher" you know that they have found no other forum, sensible or otherwise, that will host them. In other words, it's the pits.

I have had personal email exchanges with Victor, and while he is polite enough when he has calmed down a bit, it is clear he is only tangentially impinging on reality. Or his foil hat is on far too tight! :D

[Zep]

Originally posted by Darat
[snippety]

(As for the dog name, (and I suspect certain people won't believe this) but I asked my mother about dogs that she and the family owned when she was younger and surprise surprise the family had two dogs, one called Buster and one called Patch when she was a teenager - I knew about "Patch" because I'd seen photos with him in it but hadn't known about "Buster". I suspect "Buster" is not an uncommon dog name, and if you can stretch the pool of accepted “hits” to a family pet's "brothers" then the chance of a "hit" with that name must become even more likely.) The dog owned by the people living over the road from us is called "BUSTER". He's a miniature dachshund, actually! :) Coincidence? YOU be the judge!

[SteveGrenard]

By the way, folks, Steve quite possibly obtained that "response" from Keen about Randi from here, the website of one of our more "distinguished" woo-woo friends!


Thank you for all the input so far which I will review as soon as I can. As to the above, this document is on a number of sites, not just Zammit's.

Try www.survivalafterdeath.org, go to articles, go to Keen. It was also sent out by private distrbution. It is written by Keen and I have his permission to reprint or use if nec. but of course, verbatim.

Now its on this site.

To to let mcdld and others know, I will be AFK most of the day and will see you after dinner.

[Ed]

I'll pay for anyone that wants to go (and REALLY can't afford it:D ). I'll also set it up so that it is completely anonomous.

There are a couple of provisos which I will share with sitter(s).

I'd rather not see any discussion on this board.. If you are interested, please pm me.

[Rolfe]

Just a quick digression into "complementary therapy / integrated medicine", as we're a bit quiet here.

Mostly, as I said, this is designed as a way for woo-woo treatments which have no intrinsic effect to become respectable by selling them as an add-on. This has a dual purpose - it allows the woo-woos to claim some sort of scientific acceptability, and it may allow them access to public healthcare funds or health insurance funds. They are allowed to get away with it partly because many medics are just too tired to argue, and partly because the perception of an "ethnic" basis for some techniques makes people wary of criticising for fear of being accused of racism.

Arguably, some good may be being done. Cancer treatment for example is stressful and worrying, and having a warm and sympathetic person pay one-to-one attention to the patient undoubtedly makes them feel less anxious. (There's actually no evidence that it makes any difference to the final outcome, but it must be pleasanter to go through the experience feeling cared-for than having a nervous breakdown.)

However, does this have to be achieved at the expense of lying to the patient that aromatherapy, reflexology or therapeutic touch or whatever has some para-normal medical effect? Couldn't it just be presented as a good way to relax and feel pampered?

I'm genuinely concerned about the possible consequences when sensible patients realise that these "magical" modalities are in fact no more than pleasant relaxing experiences. If they've been led to believe, by hospital personnel, that there is a medical reason for doing these things, then they realise they've been scammed, is it possible they may begin to doubt the other things that are being told to them? If they've been told reflexology has medical benefit, and they've been told chemotherapy or radiotherapy have medical benefit, how do they know one statement is more true than the other?

I'm much more impressed by the work which is being done on things like specially-designed computer games to improve patients' psychological mood. For example, a game based in a world of snow and ice has been shown to dramatically reduce the percentage of time severe burns patients spend thinking about their pain. And the great thing is that the patients know it's a game, and they're not being lied to.

Obviously a computer game isn't human contact, but can't we come up with a way of looking after the psychological needs of chronically sick and hospitalised patients without scamming them with woo-woo?

Yes, I know this is a digression, but Steve brought this up, with my name attached, so I'm just shoving it in for the record.

Rolfe.

[The Mighty Thor]

Steve Grenard
This was not a controlled experiment. Athough I knew I was anonymous to the medium and more than half of the facts were un-findable in any public database and I knew she asked no questions, just fell asleep and talked in the first person for 2 hours

Since we don't have all of your 195 facts it is hard to assess the information. From the above, I assume that many were 'findable' in public databases, and you have checked this out.

Since you admit that you were given this lady's number, the person who gave you it knowing both you and the psychic leaves your anonimity claim open to further question:

Person to psychic: "You will probably be getting a call from a guy named Steve Grenard. He'll likely just give his first name because he's a bit of a sceptic. Actually, he'll be hoping for contact with his dead son.'

Medium: "Oh, I must fit him in. He sounds like an interesting person."

Person: "Oh, yes. I know Steve through his dad (name) . . . etc."

Medium: "Would you like another cup of tea, dear. I find our little chats so interesting."

This is speculation, but you can see how it could be done.

I don't suppose this person was the one who gave you the lapel pin -- and maybe one 'for your son'??? That would be very telling.

You leave us guessing.

You failed to tell us who the 'others' were at your reading, too.

Was Buster a Kennel Club registered pedigree pooch?

BTW

A search on 'Grenard' in Ancestry.com brings up:

Family Trees has 403 matches for:
Grenard and:

173 1930 U.S. Federal Census
72 1880 U.S. Federal Census
53 Social Security Death Index (SSDI)
403 Family Trees
34 Phone & Address Directory

The membership is quite expensive and I'm not a member, so can search no further. No doubt there are other sites out there like that one.

Does any of this give you pause for thought, Steve? I'm really sorry that this has to be so personal for you, Steve. I think all the sceptics here would certainly have been impressed initially by the reading you got. But we must look for alternative explanations since your claim is so incredible. That is the nature of scepticism.

Keep searching for the truth.

malc

[Lothian]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

. There was no initials, no name game, no M or J sounding name crap. ........




The communicator..... said "Buster was here also."


I didnt know who this was.
I asked my mother and she remembered . She said Buster was my dog's brother's name.
Buster was adopted by a friend of my dad's who lived in another state so I never had any contact with the dog or those people so didn't remember who Buster was. But Mom did.

There was no way on earth this woman could have researched this information.
Steve she gave no information other than 'Buster.' Your mom made the link. The communicator did not say there is a dog called buster. Did not say a relation of your dog. etc....

The communicator played the name game.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Sorry to keep you waiting. Please read it carefully, even study it, before responding so that your sharp legal mind can have a full appreciation of Keen's position vis a vis Randi's claims. Your fair and unbiased judgement is awaited.


My sharp, legal mind only says "objection, nonresponsive."

That is, the material you place here from Keen does not deal with the matters inquired about. Arguably, some of it -might- be stretched to some kind of relationship with the quote from Randi where he supposedly claims that he can debunbk anything, no matter how old, but not even that is actually contained in that material. In fact, the closest that it comes is the complaint that Randi does -not- make such a claim as part of his challenge, but (in Keen's opinion) -should-.

I have asked you to back up your statement that my original message labeled your posts as defensive or derisive now somewhere around 4 times. It seems obvious that you have no answer and no plans to answer.

I have asked twice now you to either back up or retract what appears to be a serious insinuation that Garette is lying about how important or authoritative some of the books that he has read on the subject were. It seems obvious that you have no plans to answer that, either.

Before moving on to yet another new discussion, I'd like to have a firm foundation under my feet. If points are continually dropped with no resolution and no closure, then everyone is simply spinning their wheels.

[SteveGrenard]

On the subjects of books, I recognize the right of anyone to be a positive or a negative critic of same. It is hardly possible for you or anyone else to render an opinion regarding ones opinion of one or more particular titles without reading them oneself. And even if you agreed say, w/ Garette regarding these titles, please don't think that gives you the right to stifle a dissenting opinion. Even the Supreme court publishes its dissenting opinions. which are embraced by many constitutents.

Re Randi's three decade's long record of claiming that much of what you consider paranormal and/or supernatural does not exist and that he can debunk and disprove any efforts to the contrary, it is also a matter of opinion as to how you, as one person, interprets his record in that regard.
Most people take him at its word. Keen does.


I once again, wish to also to thank those who have applied their considerable and collective analytical skills to my mediumistic experience. I will consider them carefully as well as make more information available in specific response to those after dinner....thanks again.

[apoger]

>Re Randi's three decade's long record of claiming that much of what you consider paranormal and/or supernatural does not exist and that he can debunk and disprove any efforts to the contrary

Except you stated that the "debunk and disprove " was not something he said but rather was implicit in Randi's mehods. That's a far cry from a "three decade's long record of claiming " which you just stated.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you restort to poor arguments from earlier in the very same thread?



>Most people take him at its word. Keen does.

Which word? You are implying that Keen takes him on the three decade claim, however that is not Randi's word at all but rather nothing more than a claimed implication made by you.


I hope your arguments get better after dinner....

[Loki]

Darat,

have seen mediums recommended by people who made claims like Steve that the medium was, to paraphrase, "100% accurate".

Yet when I visited these same mediums and was read I did not receive “100% accurate" reading, I was given many generalisations that if they had been a "hit" would have seemed to be very "specific".
This mirrors my own experience, except it was an "aura reader" rather than a medium. Several friends were urging me to take this woman seriously, I was dubious. So they paid for a session with the woman - since it was already paid for, I felt I owed it to my friends to go and see what transpired. The session was taped, the woman asked no questions, and spoke for over an hour. I've replayed the tape several times. She spoke in general terms mostly, was wrong (wildly wrong) on many things, yet produced 3 very strong hits - one was amazingly accurate, and could have been "researched" only by the most extreme investigation!!

To be honest, when I left the psychic's office to head home I was a little shaken - the "hits" had been far more specific than I'd expected. It's only after examining the tape, and working through the barrage of "wrong" or "ambiguous" comments that the pattern became clear - she had no idea most of the time! I now suspect that at least 2 of the 3 best hits may have been due to "leakage" from my friends, who booked the appointment for me. They deny it, but I suspect they said a few "casual, forgettable" comments that the psychic was able to feed off. The last hit still seems amazing, and is so accurate it defies simple explanation. Pure dumb luck is my best answer.

The psychic also made several predictions for my immediate future, which are clear and unambiguous. She stated that these things "will" happen, without any doubt. She has 6 more months before her self imposed deadline runs out. Neither prediction has come to pass (yet).

[SteveGrenard]

I wish to emphasize that this medium did not predict anything for my future, did not tell me anything about me, or my past, nor did she seemingly make any generalizations. She did not speak in the third person either. She was, what I have read about, a trance medium. The communicator spoke through her, as if she was possessed, and she spoke entirely in the first person. The communicator conversed normally as he might've had he been alive, sitting there, across the desk from me... chatting. As for the potential for so-called generalizations, they were no more or no less than such generalizations occurred in our physical chats when the communicator was alive. There was no
expressions of love and light, no non-specific remarks and everything made perfect sense for the communicator and were things he would have said had he been alive.
And this is based on some three decades of close contact with the deceased. This medium did not work like JE or any medium we see working on TV who assumes the so-called role of interpreter, using their own frame(s) of reference, spouting platitudes to fill in the pauses. There was none of that. Nor was there any symbology mumbo-jumbo. No pink roses, no white roses. No "they're showing me Aunt Rose" nonesnse or a particular film or TV program reference either.

The communicator referenced people in my family who were also deceased as having met them or as being present with him but he did all the talking. The names and relationships were accurate.

He referenced friends of his whom I did not know well, at all or who I knew only by name. One such friend was the one who I later found out was moving to California as the communicator warned against. He addressed me in the same familiar name he used for me when he was alive.

In reference to the issue of Buster. Be advised if anyone recalls my original recounting of this, the communicator said he "had Pinky and Sly" here. Pinky was my dog's name. Sly was his dog's name who died a year before he did. In this context he said Buster was also here as if I was supposed to know who it was. I figured it was a dog but I knew no dog named Buster and made the discovery of Buster's identity afterwards. Three dog's names, two of which died in the mid 1960s (Pinky and her brother Buster) was far too evidential to chalk up to wild guesses at multiple dogs' names. And such dog's identities and names are not in any Social Security database either. Nor are they on Lexsus Nexus or whatever.
Sly was a mutt and not registered. Pinky and Buster were AKC registered. Pinky was neutered so had no progeny. I do not know Buster's status in that regard.

And for seventy dollars, I'd hardy expect this medium to do that kind of research.
The location of a missing pair of Ray Bans is not in any database. They were discovered, after the reading where indicated. The American Flag lapel pins were handed out by our administration the first week of October, 2001 and I glommed an extra one which nobody noticed which I put on the picture frame. The person who gave me the medium's phone number was not aware of this. She was a neighbor and in fact never saw me in my suit jacket where one of these pins was in my lapel. She was never in my house the night before the reading when I stuck the other one in the soft wooded picture frame.

[The Mighty Thor]

Steve Grenard said:
I don't know any psychic doctors; I assume you mean psychic surgeons.

Sorry, I didn't know these guys 'specialised' :)

I'm surprised that with your UK contacts and your interest in 'complementary' medicine you have not heard of Roy Brown, Spirit Surgeon. There was a mockumentary about him on UK TV some time ago.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/colinfry/

Under 'Roy Brown':

Ray Brown
Spirit Surgeon

On a June evening in 2002 at the Lancaster school in Southend, Ray Brown produced a fine demonstration of spirit surgery

Under the bright lights and camera gaze of a Courtney-Hunt Productions video crew Ray, controlled by his spirit guide Paul, enthralled a 130 strong audience, who witnessed what has now become an all too rare public appearance by this charismatic and somewhat enigmatic worker for Spirit
Paul

Paul, through the mind and physical body of Ray, administered to members of the audience, as one by one they placed their trust in him and attended the examination table on stage.

What was so noticeable about these people was the failings of conventional medicine to facilitate or complete a cure. Indeed, with some, mainstream medicine had given up altogether.

There was a migraine, a painful hip replacement, a painful pre-hip replacement, an arthritic toe, a neck that had pulled to the left for the last two years, a stomach pain, shoulder problems, a hiatus hernia, a bent arm condition and a hangover headache from the morning’s England match! I jest a little but this is how Paul’s personality comes through, light-hearted and jovial but sometimes serious and sensitive as the situation dictates.
The latter proved to be the case with the last lady to receive Paul’s help, who is living with cancer

Julie’s toe responded very well to Paul’s attentions and she left the stage free of pain. Peter underwent a spirit operation on his hiatus hernia and Ray’s wife Gillian was called on to give help in guiding the direction of the energy to the correct spot.
Paul described how the energy was manipulated to bring relief to the condition, although Peter was advised to attend Ray’s surgery in Hainault for more treatment
Fraud

Notice the phrase: 'Indeed, with some, mainstream medicine had given up altogether.'

Very worrying stuff.

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Mal, I object to you selectively quoting me. It is dishonest in the extreme. Are you learning this from others here who are prone to this sort of thing?

Complementary and integrated medicine is practiced in a medical environment, not in front of an audience or as a television stunt. Sorry. You still don't get it. At least Rolfe does. The person to whom you refer is IMHO a charlatan. And no, never heard of him.

(I live in NY and maintain a home in the UK BTW.)

[The Mighty Thor]

Lothian said
Steve she gave no information other than 'Buster.' Your mom made the link. The communicator did not say there is a dog called buster. Did not say a relation of your dog. etc....

Excellent point! It could have been Buster Keaton, or any Buster known to Steve or any of his family.

Buster: Noun

An informal form of address for a man

A robust child

A person who breaks horses

A person (or thing) that breaks up or overpowers something

A person born in the generation following the baby boom when the birth rate fell dramatically

Dunno about 'Rambo', the black Labrador, though.

Tragi-Comic aside: I had two King Charles Spaniels, one called Kingsley, the other (much younger) Charlie. Charlie is still alive. I was considering getting a new KC puppy to 'replace' Kingsley who died of old age.

My niece (13) said maybe we shouldn't do that because Charlie might think Kingsley had 'come back'. I said, I suppose so, but wouldn't Charlie notice that Kingsley had been rejuvinated and had gotten back HIS MISSING EYE!
:)

I still miss the wee fella, too:( tears in my eyes just thinking about him.
malc

[SteveGrenard]

The reference to Buster followed the references to Sly and Pinky. So it was in the context of the two other dogs that Buster was mentioned. As someone else said Buster is a common enough dog's name. So I suppose Rambo, the Black Lab, who died after the communicator did, is as well. This is why I guess I figured Buster was a dog. I did not know any humans named Buster and Keaton did not come to mind but of course I have seen his silent films a long, long time ago but not in recent decades. I sorta doubt it was Buster Keaton he was talking about. And yes, as often happens, it takes a third party to make the information valid as was the case here. I did not ask "who's Buster? " In fact I was silent throughout the nearly two hours this ocurred. Maybe I should have asked but I didn't.

There are more dogs as well. Between the UK and the U.S., we have had as many as 5 at a time.

Cavaliers are beautiful and endearing animals as well so I understand your sadness at losing Kingsley.

[Loki]

Steve,

the communicator said he "had Pinky and Sly" here. Pinky was my dog's name. Sly was his dog's name who died a year before he did. In this context he said Buster was also here as if I was supposed to know who it was. I figured it was a dog but I knew no dog named Buster and made the discovery of Buster's identity afterwards. Three dog's names, two of which died in the mid 1960s (Pinky and her brother Buster) was far too evidential to chalk up to wild guesses at multiple dogs' names.
I'd agree that, if the information was delivered in the context that you've described here, that this could not be cold reading or luck. The only explanations that make sense here would be :
(a) You're mistaken about the context - you remember it happening like this, but it didn't actually. For now, lets assume your memory is fine.
(b) You're lying. Again, not much point assuming this, since it effectively ends the conversation.
(c) She cheated (hot reading)
(d) She's genuine.

Damn, I wish she'd agree to be tested!

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
On the subjects of books, I recognize the right of anyone to be a positive or a negative critic of same. It is hardly possible for you or anyone else to render an opinion regarding ones opinion of one or more particular titles without reading them oneself. And even if you agreed say, w/ Garette regarding these titles, please don't think that gives you the right to stifle a dissenting opinion. Even the Supreme court publishes its dissenting opinions. which are embraced by many constitutents.

This has nothing to do with Garrette's criticism of a book -- and I cannot believe that you seem to be saying it is -- or that my question -- asking you to retract a bald insinuation that Garrette was lying about his opinion -- is some kind of attempt to "stifle a dissenting opinion."

Not only do you not retract your uncalled-for insinuation regarding Garrette, but now you add a second completely unfounded accusation -- again by insinuation -- against me for calling on you to either back up your comments or withdraw them regarding Garrette's honesty.

You have had multiple occasions to deal with this squarely but have failed or refused to do so. I hope that the silent majority has taken notice.


Re Randi's three decade's long record of claiming that much of what you consider paranormal and/or supernatural does not exist and that he can debunk and disprove any efforts to the contrary, it is also a matter of opinion as to how you, as one person, interprets his record in that regard.
Most people take him at its word. Keen does.

And yet neither he nor you can point out those words, despite many requests for them. Keen states that his "challenge" is in response to a claim by Randi -- if you cannot point out where that claim is supposed to be (apart from vague hand-waving going back thrity years), then so be it.


I once again, wish to also to thank those who have applied their considerable and collective analytical skills to my mediumistic experience. I will consider them carefully as well as make more information available in specific response to those after dinner....thanks again.

Will your response include an explanation regarding your claim that my first message in the Keen post labeled yours 'defensive' -- and then later, 'derisive'? Or will you ignore opne more opportunity of just admitting that you misread the message?

Again, I only hope that your failure or refusal to give a simple answer to this -- an item that could have been cleared up in one sentence if you'd simply admitted a small error -- is being noted by the silent majority that you rely on.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Mal, I object to you selectively quoting me. It is dishonest in the extreme. Are you learning this from others here who are prone to this sort of thing?

Complementary and integrated medicine is practiced in a medical environment, not in front of an audience or as a television stunt. Sorry. You still don't get it. At least Rolfe does. The person to whom you refer is IMHO a charlatan. And no, never heard of him.

(I live in NY and maintain a home in the UK BTW.)

You may object all you like Steve, but I object strongly to you calling me 'dishonest'. So there:p

I have indeed learned from the others here. I have also seen how you use such ad hominems to provoke people into an angry response so you can pretent to put them on ignore and can then avoid addressing the questions you do not want to address.

Another thread is still waiting for you to post the references on THEREPUTIC TOUCH.

I see NO DIFFERENCE between Roy Brown and nurses or doctors who use dishonest, untested, psuedo-medicinal techniques on patients. Remuneration or no remuneration, that is just a matter of degree of egregiousness. Health care professionals are paid to be just that -- professional. TLC is one thing -- dishonest misrepresentation by paid professionals is quite another. It degrades all those involved and erodes public confidence.

Rolfe gives a few good reasons why this type of practice is objectionable. And you choose to cite him in support of your case. (Dishonest, or what?) It is a slippery slope into medieval magical thinking that can only damage peoples' opinion of best practice.

What's next -- doctors dressed as African witchdoctors, rattling beads and bones in the wards? Come off it, man! It's you who doesn't get it!

Where is all your support from the 'silent' majority here? Non-existent, isn't it! Just like the ethereal spirit world that you propose to exist.

[Rejoinder Mode:OFF]

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Thank you for posting my response in toto regarding the environment in which complementary, integrated medicine occurs.

Tonight, in the U.S., on Discovery, we saw Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon and inventor of artificial hearts (at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in NYC) discuss the value of complementary therapies as integrated into conventional medicine. He referred to studies which indicate better outcomes when both were employed: conventional and complementary therapy. He doesn't care what the mechanism is. Just the outcome for his patients. I frankly have to go along with him. I am sorry if you don't.

Insofar as the TT thread is concerned, I am not sure how many times I need to address this but will do so for one last time: there are 454 TT references in MedLine which, in case you are not aware of it, is the National (USA) Library of Medicine's database of medical journal articles worldwide. Some report findings that reject the value of TT, others in favor of it. I have no intention of wading through those since frankly I am not interested in the subject specifically. I am only interested in demonstrating to the closed minded cynics that it pays to be more open minded and consider such divergence of findings. It is fine to be skeptical but you have to be skeptical of both pro and con findings unless you are inherently biased which many here seem to be. Therefore I will not be responding to the yahoos on that thread and perform a meta analysis for them. They know where they can go. They are beyond redemption if they cannot comprehend these simple exhortations to be more cognizant of the evidence which they are free to review for themselves. Enter MedLine in Yahoo or Google. Enter "Therapeutic Touch" in the MedLine search box.
Have a nice evening ....................

[The Mighty Thor]

Steve Grenard
Three dog's names, two of which died in the mid 1960s (Pinky and her brother Buster) was far too evidential to chalk up to wild guesses at multiple dogs' names.

I agree. But I still think there must be another, more mundane explanation than spirit communication.

malc

[The Mighty Thor]

He referred to studies which indicate better outcomes when both were employed: conventional and complementary therapy.

I have to smile at a doctor called 'Oz' and think of the excellent anti-superstition movie ZARDOZ :)

But, what studies?

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Malcolm: But, what studies?

Unfortunately he didn't say or if he did, it was subject to the the vagaries of editing.

[The Mighty Thor]

Steve Grenard
Therefore I will not be responding to the yahoos on that thread and perform a meta analysis for them

Looks like a copout to me.

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Here is Dr. Oz's website. Your spoof of him leads me to believe you don't think he's real:

http://www.columbiasurgery.org/divisions/cardiac/staff_oz.html


Here's a brief snippet from the website:

Mehmet C. Oz, MD, FACS


Professor of Surgery
Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons
Director, Cardiovascular Institute
Vice Chairman for Cardiovascular Services of the Department of Surgery
College of Physicians & Surgeons
Associate Professor of Surgery
Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons
Attending Surgeon
Columbia Presbyterian Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Director, Cardiac Assist Device Program
Co-founder, Integrative Medicine Program

Cardiopulmonary bypass physiology, minimally-invasive cardiac surgery, complementary medicine, healthcare outcomes analysis


I finally got the link to take here. I am sorry about the formatting problem initially.



PS: Darn right its a cop-out! So what? I see it all the time when the cynics run out of answers. I gave my answer. Go for it.

[The Mighty Thor]

He walked in, showed the medium a photo of three men, and the medium went into a trance, pointed to one of the men and said "that's me".

I think this was someone else's summary, but it accords with the description by Steve.

Did the medium go into the trance and close her eyes before picking the photo? In which case she pointed to the photo with her eyes closed.

Or did the trance come after "that's me"?

"Curioser and curioser."

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Dear Mr. NoZed Avenger:

Garette and I have been corresponding and debating for some two years now.
He is presently unable to always respond because of limited net access due to his current situation.

I have no intention of debating or discussing any real or imagined problem you have interjected yourself in. Are you his lawyer? Are you representing him? Or is this just something you decided to do?

I am always more than happy to talk directly to Garette but unlike a lot of people here, I am not in the habit of talking about or getting involved in conversations about third parties without their presence. You have decided I owe him an apology. If he has decided that, when he gets the chance, he is welcome to state his rationale.
I am afraid I do not accept it from you whoever you are or claim to be.

Thank you for your understanding. I voted for Planet X. It was tough deciding between the planet and Luci.

[SteveGrenard]

That's a good question Malc. Her eyes were open when I laid the pictures down on the desk and she did not apparently go into a trance at that time. So I am sure she saw them as herself. She made no representations regarding the photos.
She did not handle them either. She didn't ask for the photos and didnt instruct me as to what to do with them. When we went in I just pulled them out and spread them out on the desk. I wasn't sure if this was something I was supposed to do or not. She didn't say anything. Just nodded and asked me to sit. I did. Then she did.



She then took her seat, nodded off and
yes with her eyes closed, pointed to the
third picture on her right and said "That's me." They were sufficiently placed apart as to make her identification unambiguous. It was correct.

[The Mighty Thor]

I see it all the time when the cynics run out of answers.

When was that, then?

Oh no, I didn't doubt the existence of the doctor. Hence the smiley. I thought it was kinda 'psironic', you know!

malc

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Dear Mr. NoZed Avenger:

Garette and I have been corresponding and debating for some two years now.
He is presently unable to always respond because of limited net access due to his current situation.

I have no intention of debating or discussing any real or imagined problem you have interjected yourself in. Are you his lawyer? Are you representing him? Or is this just something you decided to do?

Must I be his lawyer to ask if you really intended to insinuate he was a liar and ask that you either clarify or retract it?

Is there a waiver form I need to sign, as well?

I note you once again "forget" the other points being discussed.


I am always more than happy to talk directly to Garette but unlike a lot of people here, I am not in the habit of talking about or getting involved in conversations about third parties without their presence.

Like conversations about Keen? Or Roy? Isn't just about every thread you begin actually either from or about someone else without their presence? Isn't that the very reason you can't "answer for Keen" when the initial post is questioned?


You have decided I owe him an apology. If he has decided that, when he gets the chance, he is welcome to state his rationale.
I am afraid I do not accept it from you whoever you are or claim to be.

I thought it would be proper to either clarify that you did not intend to call him a liar or apologize for the sloppy wording. I am sorry that you feel it is acceptable to leave that insinuation out there because he cannot be present and therefore cannot defend himself. I am pleased that you at least deigned to notice the question.

Unlike the on regarding my own post. I also thought it would be proper for you to admit your mistake regarding my post -- I -am- allowed to ask about my own posts, aren't I? ( its unclear since the rules keep changing). Six or seven opportunities to respond.

And again the 'anonymous' thing that seems to bug you -- except for Lucianarchy, whom you thank for agreeing with you. It seems so-called anonymity only troubles you if the poster doesn't agree with you.


Thank you for your understanding.

You have that one right. I do understand you.

N/A

[Garrette]

Steve and NoZed:

I'll try to keep this simple because it is in reality, but when I think how to word it, it gets complicated and convoluted.

NoZed, thank you for pointing out what you saw as an undeserved slight from Steve regarding me. I agree that Steve was trying to imply I had lied.

Steve, I will not ask you for an apology for two reasons:

1) It simply isn't my style to do that as my skin is rather thick and callous; I am no stranger to insults, slights, provocations, or any such uncivil behavior of far worse nature than your words in this thread.

2) I generally trust to others to draw their own conclusions at times, as NoZed has done here.

---

One final thing, Steve: On several posts in this thread you have misspelled my user name (It is "Garrette" as opposed to "Garette" which you have been posting).

Should I assume from this repeated error that you have not read my posts?

Since you still won't answer my question about how you knew the medium had her eyes closed, it might be a safe assumption on my part.

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Insofar as the TT thread is concerned, I am not sure how many times I need to address this but will do so for one last time: there are 454 TT references in MedLine which, in case you are not aware of it, is the National (USA) Library of Medicine's database of medical journal articles worldwide. Some report findings that reject the value of TT, others in favor of it. I have no intention of wading through those since frankly I am not interested in the subject specifically. I am only interested in demonstrating to the closed minded cynics that it pays to be more open minded and consider such divergence of findings. It is fine to be skeptical but you have to be skeptical of both pro and con findings unless you are inherently biased which many here seem to be. Therefore I will not be responding to the yahoos on that thread and perform a meta analysis for them. They know where they can go. They are beyond redemption if they cannot comprehend these simple exhortations to be more cognizant of the evidence which they are free to review for themselves. Enter MedLine in Yahoo or Google. Enter "Therapeutic Touch" in the MedLine search box.
Have a nice evening ....................


Claus addressed this before, but in case you missed it

In this thread, http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?s=&threadid=28161&perpage=157

on 10/5 Steve Grenard posted

The issue to disprove or prove, falsify or not, is whether these persons can meet the burden of their claim which is that they effect relief in a subject by touching them. There are 454 citations in Medline so it will take me a week to study each of the abstracts carefully. So far I have found studies which falsify TT as well as validate it. I am discarding rhetorical responses, opinion pieces and articles which are not controled studies. We are back to the same you said-she said-they said argument we had over homeopathy. There are both pro and con studies.

and, later, on the same day

Give me a week and I will select out of the 454 citations both pro and con studies to back up the fact that TT, true TT therapeutic + touch, is still not a complete fraud.

This is now the second time you bring the 454 Medline posts, on this, new thread. Do you plan select the pro and con studies out of the 454 citations, or have you decided against it?

[SteveGrenard]

My dear Renata:

I offered to do that. I was hastily and nastily attacked, character wise.

Claus Larseny is one of the worst ad hominem attackers and character assasins on this board is on permanent and irrecvocable ignore with me and a lot of other people. Therefore bringing up anything he says to me is meaningless. And eminenty ignorable. Larseni and his cronies typify what is the worst element of legitimate skepticsm and debate.

Now anybody interested can research these refs themselves. I am not here as your friggin servant. Is that clear enough for you renata? Does it answer this question?? Yes, actually for the third time I answered this. It will be the last.

I will cut and paste this reply from hereon to the a-holes who still dont get it

[SteveGrenard]

G: Since you still won't answer my question about how you knew the medium had her eyes closed, it might be a safe assumption on my part.

I answered the question. Did you miss it? Very simply because I had my eyes open. I was sitting about 24 inches away from her at a desk. I was writing down everything she said but I could look up randomly (without lifting my head - try it sometime) to see her eyes were shut.

Could I guarantee she did not on occasion peek -- Randi's delicious hypothesis to explain everything (peeking -- he must have loved peek a boo as a baby) no. Never said so either.

Since I answered this question already, I do actually consider your repreated asking of it somewhat in the nature of badgering but I will let it go.

[Garrette]

Thanks for letting it go. Thanks for answering. Sorry if I missed the answer already. I don't intentionally badger unless there's a reason; I hadn't noticed an answer til now.

Glad you admit she could peek.

BTW: peeking is hardly Randi's answer to everything. It's just easier and more common than most people give it credit for.

And, since it requires no special training and is available at nearly all times to most people, it must always be considered.

Unless you're suggesting that because something is so simple it obviously isn't the explanation.

[SteveGrenard]

The fact is peeking does not account for the information she gave. Remember she was not asking me any questions so cold reading, e.g. the game of 20 questions and the name game was effectively ruled out. This leaves warm reading which means that everyone of her 100% accurate answers was based on an assesment of my body language . If she was speaking in the second or third person and groping for info as we see mediums such as JE do I would agree. This was not the case here.

After my experience with her I developed serious reservations about how mediums such as JE work. They ask questions and this alone taints their validity.

[Ed]

Originally posted by malcolmdl


When was that, then?

Oh no, I didn't doubt the existence of the doctor. Hence the smiley. I thought it was kinda 'psironic', you know!

malc

Funny you post that. I saw a treatment for a TV show somewhere wherein the tag line for one character was " It's Psironic". It was highly amusing but was largely ignored. If I were the author I'd be pretty bitter but, fortunately, I had nothing to do with it.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by apoger



Again, I don't know if that's what happened, but your insistence that you can't even imagine how it could be possible... well now you know. It's not just possible, it's easy.



Evidently, it is not only not easy, by lack of replication it indicates a mundane possibility as being extraordinarily unlikely. The evidence for this is the inability of 'cheats/magicians/CR/HR's' etc to meet the challenge and replicate this under the same conditions as the 'medium/psychic'. No takers for the Arizona Uni Research Chair Challenge, no takers for the Scole group, etc, etc, just claims, obfustication and gum-flapping flim-flam.

It is laughable that the pseudo-skeptic has to rely on vast conspiracies which would require phenomenal amounts of 'peeking' and 'cheating' or 'delusion' for each and every case on record! When none is found, the PS falls back on the supposition that 'it must be cheating', which is as stupid as saying that it all really done by little men eminating from Uranus!

No, using a proper skeptical analysis, the simplest explanation is that each and every record in the whole experience of mankind could not be wrong. The simplest explanation is that the vast majority of people are right; consciousness survies death and consciousness acts at a local and non-local point.

[Hannibal]

Steve, we have never had the pleasure before...hello to you.

There is one thing that is puzzling me slightly, and I apologise in advance if I have missed the answer in the acres of text that inhabit this board;

If you had never met or seen Buster, why did he turn up to give you a spiritual lick? (or leg hump - he may have been an affectionate dog)

Also, do you have a transcript in any form of the interview(audio otherwise)? If so can it be made available? If not why not?

Bahala Na!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Evidently, it is not only not easy, by lack of replication it indicates a mundane possibility as being extraordinarily unlikely. The evidence for this is the inability of 'cheats/magicians/CR/HR's' etc to meet the challenge and replicate this under the same conditions as the 'medium/psychic'. No takers for the Arizona Uni Research Chair Challenge, no takers for the Scole group, etc, etc, just claims, obfustication and gum-flapping flim-flam.

It is laughable that the pseudo-skeptic has to rely on vast conspiracies which would require phenomenal amounts of 'peeking' and 'cheating' or 'delusion' for each and every case on record! When none is found, the PS falls back on the supposition that 'it must be cheating', which is as stupid as saying that it all really done by little men eminating from Uranus!

No, using a proper skeptical analysis, the simplest explanation is that each and every record in the whole experience of mankind could not be wrong. The simplest explanation is that the vast majority of people are right; consciousness survies death and consciousness acts at a local and non-local point.

Luci, Luci. How is your lottery get rich quick scheme coming? Have you mastered the computation of probabilities yet?

The above blatherings (yours, not mine) are silly.

[Hannibal]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No, using a proper skeptical analysis, the simplest explanation is that each and every record in the whole experience of mankind could not be wrong.

Not necessarily so. Not every record of such instances agree. In these circumstances it therefore follows that some of them are fake/misunderstood/crap. If that follows then it must be possible to fake/decieve yourself or others in relation to the phenomena for the records of the fake ones to exist. That also shows that if it can be faked once then the "genuine" ones are open to the posssibilty of being fakes as well.

Remember most people thought the earth was flat and there were countless records of great sea dragons eating mariners who floated off the edge.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The evidence for this is the inability of 'cheats/magicians/CR/HR's' etc to meet the challenge and replicate this under the same conditions as the 'medium/psychic'. Luci,

I trust you have been watching psychic secrets revealed series (last one on Channel 5 tonight). You should particularly like the bits where they show Alistair Cook cheating in the exact same way under the same conditions as Uri Geller. I assume you have already added such an expose to your Uri Q&A.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Hannibal


Remember most people thought the earth was flat and there were countless records of great sea dragons eating mariners who floated off the edge.

Was it really necessary to bring that up?:eek:

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
My dear Renata:

I offered to do that. I was hastily and nastily attacked, character wise.

Claus Larseny is one of the worst ad hominem attackers and character assasins on this board is on permanent and irrecvocable ignore with me and a lot of other people. Therefore bringing up anything he says to me is meaningless. And eminenty ignorable. Larseni and his cronies typify what is the worst element of legitimate skepticsm and debate.

Now anybody interested can research these refs themselves. I am not here as your friggin servant. Is that clear enough for you renata? Does it answer this question?? Yes, actually for the third time I answered this. It will be the last.

I will cut and paste this reply from hereon to the a-holes who still dont get it

My Dear Steve

I guess I missed your prior announcement that you went back on this promise, but if you say you did, I will take your word for it. Do please keep this message for future reference, because I suspect there are people that keep hoping you provide them with evidence you stated you would- instead you just bring up the 454 Medline references wholesale. And now back to your scheduled programming.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Hannibal


That also shows that if it can be faked once then the "genuine" ones are open to the posssibilty of being fakes as well.



Possibly, but given (even after of years of asking and waiting for it from the pseudo-skeptic) the lack of supposition confirming evidence that would replicate what the Scole group / HESL / Dr Grenard's example etc ) do, under the same conditions and controls, and when set against the overall body of positive evidence from the 'genuine ones', it remains, in terms of Occam, unlikely.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Lothian
Luci,

I trust you have been watching psychic secrets revealed series (last one on Channel 5 tonight). You should particularly like the bits where they show Alistair Cook cheating in the exact same way under the same conditions as Uri Geller. I assume you have already added such an expose to your Uri Q&A.

Straw spoon.

Where are the cold/hot readers stepping up to replicate under the same conditions and controls for Arizona Uni., the Scole group etc,? :confused: :confused: :confused: Or, for that matter, even my 'Ladybrook' example. Lots of obfustication, no replication.

[Hannibal]

Was it really necessary to bring that up?

Smite me not oh mighty Ed!

I suppose not. What I was trying to do was show that popular opinion is not always the same as fact. I should have used the "Titanic being considered unsinkable analogy" instead!;)

Mind you I confidently expect a link from Luci showing me the world is flat any second now:)

Hello again Luci...:rub:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Straw spoon.

Where are the cold/hot readers stepping up to replicate under the same conditions and controls for Arizona Uni., the Scole group etc,? :confused: :confused: :confused:


Arizona? Arizona? Schwartz????? Haaahahahahahahahahaha Oh My Hahahahahahaahhaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Goodness, so much laughter so early in the day... let me read on ...

SCOLE??????? oh, no, stop it Luci, you are killing me. Scole ........

Tell you what Luci, why don't you explain the significance of either of these. Can you or are you just parroting words? Can you even debate? Or are we supposed to understand your position telepathically?

Now, that's Psironic.:D

Scole, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaaa

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Straw spoon.

Where are the cold/hot readers stepping up to replicate under the same conditions and controls for Arizona Uni., the Scole group etc,? :confused: :confused: :confused: Or, for that matter, even my 'Ladybrook' example. Lots of obfustication, no replication. [Standard woo woo response number 37]

Luci, That’s the trouble with you skeptics. You ask us to repeat an Psychic event and we do so. You then move the boundaries and ask us to repeat a new one and so on and so on. Every time we do it you change the test. There is no point in repeating flawed experiments because you will just ask us to pass another one.

[/Standard woo woo response number 37]

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Mr Ed, The Talking Ass



Arizona? Arizona? Schwartz????? Haaahahahahahahahahaha Oh My Hahahahahahaahhaahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


Should be a piece of piss to do then, right? Where's your candidate to take 'The Challenge' then?:confused:

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Straw spoon.

Where are the cold/hot readers stepping up to replicate under the same conditions and controls for Arizona Uni., the Scole group etc,? :confused: :confused: :confused: Or, for that matter, even my 'Ladybrook' example. Lots of obfustication, no replication.

Dolt. Even you can't replicate your 'Ladybrook' example, such as it was.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Should be a piece of piss to do then, right? Where's your candidate to take 'The Challenge' then?:confused:


Do you know anything about the "work" Schwartzie did? What do you mean "a piece of piss"? Does that mean easy? If so, yes, I can do shiity research easily.

My candidate for the challenge is your lottery get rich quick scheme.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by alfaniner


Dolt. Even you can't replicate your 'Ladybrook' example, such as it was.

Many 'psi' effects are (evidently) not often 'reliable and on demand'. I have explained this in many times, and the literature confirms the unreliability of such occurances.

You, otoh, presumably subscribe to the pseudo-skeptic supposition of 100% mundane, reliable and reproduceable by the sort of thing you find on the back of a matchbox. So where is this person who is able to take The Challenge under the very same conditions and controls as the 'genuine ones'?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ed.


[...] I can do shiity research easily.



Evidently. Otherwise you'd know what I was referring to when I mentioned the Research Chair Challenge. I just assumed you knew what you were laughing about. Who can you nominate to replicate the same results with Dr S, under the same conditions and controls as the mediumi.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Evidently. Otherwise you'd know what I was referring to when I mentioned the Research Chair Challenge. I just assumed you knew what you were laughing about. Who can you nominate to replicate the same results with Dr S, under the same conditions and controls as the mediumi.

Generally, around here, "The Challenge" refers to JREF.

I can nominate me. Just give me my buddies to be respondents, a fraud like JE and we are set to go.

About your lottery scheme, how is it going?

[apoger]

>Evidently, it is not only not easy, by lack of replication it indicates a mundane possibility as being extraordinarily unlikely.

"Evidently"? I find it hard to believe that a person who has spent so much time on this forum can have such a poor understanding of evidence.


>The evidence for this is the inability of 'cheats/magicians/CR/HR's' etc to meet the challenge and replicate this under the same conditions as the 'medium/psychic'.

No one has yet to prove that I can't leap tall buildings in a single bound. By your standards it must be true since others haven't debunked me.

Sorry. Lack of refutation is not proper evidence for a claim.
Testing under controlled circumstances is the way to go.

As you and every other credulous person on this board have been told numerous times, it is up to the party making the positive claim to offer evidence of their validity.




>It is laughable that the pseudo-skeptic has to rely on vast conspiracies which would require phenomenal amounts of 'peeking' and 'cheating' or 'delusion' for each and every case on record! When none is found, the PS falls back on the supposition that 'it must be cheating', which is as stupid as saying that it all really done by little men eminating from Uranus!


We do not say "It must be cheating".
We say " It might be cheating".
Hence the need for proper testing.



>No, using a proper skeptical analysis, the simplest explanation is that each and every record in the whole experience of mankind could not be wrong.

"Every record in the whole experience of mankind"?
Do you think that this may be a slight exaggeration?

How much respect do you think you will get when making such silly statements?


>The simplest explanation is that the vast majority of people are right;

An appeal to popularity is a classic logical fallacy.


>consciousness survies death and consciousness acts at a local and non-local point.

Can you cite any strong credible evidence for this?
If every record in the whole experience of mankind backs you up then it should be easy to offer up ONE good credible piece of evidence.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Many 'psi' effects are (evidently) not often 'reliable and on demand'. I have explained this in many times, and the literature confirms the unreliability of such occurances.




That literature contributes to the miasma of lies that surround this so called "research".

Not on demand, not reliable, not when the wrong "vibes" are present, not in light. A ready made set of rules that are a get out of jail free card. The woos, then, have license to declare that they have results when, in fact, there are none.

Where are the benchmark effects? There are none.

This is a killer of a critisism, Luci. Let me repeat it: Where are the benchmark effects?

You are dealing, with the paranormal, with random events coupled with human greed, credulity, and wishful thinking in equal parts. The proponents rely on excuses, arcane statistics and lies when they should simply be able to point to a crystelline clear example and say "there it is". When pressed, they come up with Scole or Schwarz or PEAR or 100 year old stories.

So sad.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Possibly, but given (even after of years of asking and waiting for it from the pseudo-skeptic) the lack of supposition confirming evidence that would replicate what the Scole group / HESL / Dr Grenard's example etc ) do, under the same conditions and controls, and when set against the overall body of positive evidence from the 'genuine ones', it remains, in terms of Occam, unlikely.


Whoa. Who the hell is Dr. Grenard?

[Starrman]

Many 'psi' effects are (evidently) not often 'reliable and on demand'. I have explained this in many times, and the literature confirms the unreliability of such occurances.


So in the Scole and Arizona experiments it was reliable, and we should step up to the plate to replicate. But when you do it, it is not reliable and not replicable and we should leave you alone.

Make up your mind already.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Many 'psi' effects are (evidently) not often 'reliable and on demand'. I have explained this in many times, and the literature confirms the unreliability of such occurances.
Yes I recall that although your psirony does not work every time it works way above the number of times expected by chance alone.

Remember that time when you said that you correctly knew the numbers on a die that was thrown 2 times in 12 attempts the chance of which is only 1 in 43800

2 dice / 12 throws multiplied by 1 day/365 days (because you only threw on one day) times 1 / 20 (because you live in one of 20 counties.)

Please correct me if I got the logic of your patented probability calculation wrong.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Many 'psi' effects are (evidently) not often 'reliable and on demand'. I have explained this in many times, and the literature confirms the unreliability of such occurances.

Dude,

Montague Keen said the same thing with much more eloquence;
“We are dealing with a mysterious faculty that does not subscribe to the normal rules governing the senses, cannot be turned on and off to order, and which manifests itself in all manner of odd ways and unpredictable occasions.”

His statement and yours are contradictory nonsense nonetheless, as you want so desperately to believe that these phenomenons are real, yet you are not troubled at all by the inability of practitioners to perform above the level of random chance in any PROPERLY designed test.

You are a kind of a joke on these forums as you continue to actually believe that a guy like Uri Geller can perform paranormal feats. He is little more than a carnival trickster who has been shown to be a fraud time and time again, yet you rail at the closed-minded “psuedo-skeptic”.

The mind boggles.

Barkhorn.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Starrman


So in the Scole and Arizona experiments it was reliable, and we should step up to the plate to replicate. But when you do it, it is not reliable and not replicable and we should leave you alone.

Make up your mind already.


That's kind of it all the way through: The NY psychic mentioned above is 100% reliable and finding one that good is terribly, terribly common -- a big yawn to find one that good, we are assured.

Yet the first "best" case thrown out for a challenge is a medium from 120 years ago whose control was a french doctor who could not really speak French and who did not undertsand medical terms.

??????

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Ed
Whoa. Who the hell is Dr. Grenard?
Hey, you stole my question! Better watch it, Luci - Steve was calling me "Dr." Rolfe in what sounded like a real derisory tone (so far as you can tell from typing). Might be he doesn't think that's a compliment.

Rolfe.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Ed
Whoa. Who the hell is Dr. Grenard?
A pseudoskeptic could have made the assumption that a person who works at a hospital, refers to "my patients" and is on first name term with Dr. Gary Schwartz was a doctor, of sorts.
A miss, consistent with the Ladybrook miss.

[SteveGrenard]

I am a doctor of sorts but not for humans so I would prefer if this title was never used as it is confusing. But yes, I do have patients whom I test for sleep disorders; I have worked in critical resp care for over 30 years and yes, frequently get called doctor in this sense. My prior academic work was done in herpetology and herpetological toxinology so is only related to human medicine on the very narrow involving such toxins in human envenomations or as possible pharmacological products.

People in white coats get called doctor all day long. There was a housekeeper (retired) who worked in the O.R who walked around in scrubs and a white coat. Everybody in the hospital called him doctor for 20+ years including doctors, nurses, everyone. Nobody even knew what he did when he went through the OR doors save for the OR staff.

In short this practice is not uncommon and you dont have to be a pseudoskeptic or endure any other label to engage in this error.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am a doctor of sorts but not for humans so I would prefer if this title was never used as it is confusing.

People in white coats get called doctor all day long. There is a housekeeper who works in the O.R who walks around in scrubs and a white coat. Everybody in the hospital calls him doctor now for 20+ years including other doctors, nurses, everyone. Nobody even knows what he does when he goes through the OR doors save for the OR staff.

Ummmm ... Dr. means Ph.D, D.Sc. MD or related from an accredited university.

I am a Dr. of sorts myself, DD from World Christianship Ministeries class of '88. Is that what it is?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am a doctor of sorts but not for humans so I would prefer if this title was never used as it is confusing. But yes, I do have patients whom I test for sleep disorders; I have worked in critical resp care for over 30 years and yes, frequently get called doctor in this sense. My prior academic work was done in herpetology and herpetological toxinology so is only related to human medicine on the very narrow involving such toxins in human envenomations or as possible pharmacological products.

People in white coats get called doctor all day long. There was a housekeeper (retired) who worked in the O.R who walked around in scrubs and a white coat. Everybody in the hospital called him doctor for 20+ years including doctors, nurses, everyone. Nobody even knew what he did when he went through the OR doors save for the OR staff.

In short this practice is not uncommon and you dont have to be a pseudoskeptic or endure any other label to engage in this error.

Problem is that your good buddy, Gary Schwartz refers to you as "Dr."

How can he make that kind of mistake, Steve? Embellishing the records again, eh?

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Problem is that your good buddy, Gary Schwartz refers to you as "Dr."

How can he make that kind of mistake, Steve? Embellishing the records again, eh?

Luci, too. How Psironic.

[SteveGrenard]

Ed you force me to read Larsen's pablum when you reprint his quotes. I dont know how psironic it is but my academic background has nothing to do with paranormality or supernatural phenomena. It is a hobby! Posting here and getting your goat is a pasttime for me and helps me relax. Thanks for helping me fill in my spare time. For me it is an exercise. Debating always involves two sides and I usually prefer the counter argument., the one that defies conventional beliefs. Otherwise it is really not a challenge.,

PS: Schwartz knows who I am as we have mutual friends in Arizona where there is a drama unfolding with respect to rattlesnake venom profiles .... which is definitely not paranormal either.

:cool:

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


PS: Schwartz knows who I am as we have mutual friends in Arizona where there is a drama unfolding with respect to rattlesnake venom profiles .... which is definitely not paranormal either.

:cool:

Only if the snakes died in Iceland and their vestigal foot was entombed in a wall.

You should post some of the reptile/venom stuff over on Sci.

[SteveGrenard]

Iceland is a not a herpetologists dream. There are no snakes, no lizards, no frogs. In fact, there are no reptiles or amphibians of any kind on Iceland. But what they lack in fauna they make up with volcanos, hot springs, an amazing landscape and extremely nice people. Iceland is well worth a visit.

Henrik Lundstrom, 1998


Arizona, on the other hand, has more species of rattlesnakes alone compared to any other political subdivision in the U.S.

You may be interested to know that Boids ... the boas and pythons do have vestigial feet referred to as spurs which they use to copulate with.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ed you force me to read Larsen's pablum when you reprint his quotes.

Awww, poor baybeh...... http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/crybaby.gif

I noticed that you did nothing to explain why Schwartz endows you - falsely - with an academic title you don't have and are not fit to have, anyway.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard



Arizona, on the other hand, has more species of rattlesnakes alone compared to any other political subdivision in the U.S.

You may be interested to know that Boids ... the boas and pythons do have vestigial feet referred to as spurs which they use to copulate with.

Of course I knew that, every schoolchild does.

Didn't St. Patrick cast the snakes out of Iceland?

[SteveGrenard]

Didn't St. Patrick cast the snakes out of Iceland?


No, I think it was the weather. There is one species of venomous snake, however, that is found just inside the arctic circle in some parts of the world.

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Didn't St. Patrick cast the snakes out of Iceland?


No, I think it was the weather. There is one species of venomous snake, however, that is found just inside the arctic circle in some parts of the world.

I know it well, it is the dreaded Tundra Serpent(tm) which has a symbiotic relationship with the mighty Tundra Mammoth(tm).

Claus will probably deny their existance too.

[Jeff Corey]

Gary Schwartz's Final Test of John Edward.
Edward: Bite me!
Sidewinder: OK.
And by the way, that was Ireland, not Iceland;)
Who ever heard of an Icish pub?

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Ed


Of course I knew that, every schoolchild does.

Didn't St. Patrick cast the snakes out of Iceland?

ED said: Didn't St. Patrick cast the snakes out of Iceland?

Geez, I thought Ed knew something we didn't about Patrick visiting Iceland and doing his magic there as well.

I personally don't think Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland. They were going anyway. Here's a snippet from the BBC's theory on this:

St Patrick is also credited with driving snakes from Ireland. Again this is probably not the case.

It is true there are no snakes in Ireland. But chances are there haven't been any since the end of the ice age when the country was separated from the rest of Europe.

Snakes were often seen as a pagan symbol and it is more likely that driving snakes from Ireland was symbolic of St Patrick putting a stop to pagan practice.


Patrick is specifically credited with driving the snakes out of Ireland. I didn't know he had a car back in the fifth century to do this.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Gary Schwartz's Final Test of John Edward.
Edward: Bite me!
Sidewinder: OK.
And by the way, that was Ireland, not Iceland;)
Who ever heard of an Icish pub?

Umm, Jeff, that was sorta a joke, you know playing off of the assumed lack og geographic knowledge of americans? Sorta playing off the "no serpents" thingie?

Joke.

Oy vay

[Jeff Corey]

Ed,
How many times have you ever seen me use ;) ?
I assumed that was a signal for a nod, nod, wink, wink, say she goes, say she goes?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Ed,
How many times have you ever seen me use ;) ?
I assumed that was a signal for a nod, nod, wink, wink, say she goes, say she goes?

Whoopsie, my bad.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am a doctor of sorts but not for humans so I would prefer if this title was never used ....
Eh?

I only know two "sorts" of doctors. Real doctors, that is people who hold degrees with the word "doctor" in the title, and courtesy-doctors, the medical type (whose first degree, at least here, doesn't have the word "doctor" in the title"). In some parts of the world, dentists and vets get muscled in on the latter category too.

Two slightly-suspect subsets of the first sort exist - those who have been awarded honorary doctorates, who do not by convention claim the title "Dr.", and those who have bought doctorates from non-accredited diploma mills, who do tend to claim the title "Dr.", but who also tend to find that denied to them by anyone who realises what they're up to.

"Not for humans" tends to suggest a vet. I hereby solemnly swear that I will personally eat this computer I'm typing on if Steve is a qualified vet.

So, do we get to find out which "sort" of doctor Steve is? Working in a hospital and wearing a white coat while doing so doesn't count, sorry. Even having people you refer to as "patients" doesn't count either.

Rolfe.

[SteveGrenard]

Wrong on all counts. My undergrad and graduate work was in zoology, specifically herpetology. My CV is not up for grabs and is not posted anywhere, nor are the folks I consult for. I dont know anything about Larsen's specifics, nor Ed's, Pyrrhos or yours for that matter so don't expect to get any details from me. I am responding with more than I should be.

I also have national boards and a NYSED license as a respiratory care practitioner and worked in critical care most of life. My interests in herpetology extends mostly in matters concerning venom, venom properties, snake bite and its treatment, snake venom toxinology to be precise so there is a link. Ten years ago I became interested in venom neurotoxins and electroneurodiagnostic procedures (while researching a book*) and its use in sleep and other types of testing. I recently got my national boards in this. Been there ever since ...and will retire there in a few years. When people asked me where I was going I told them "I was going to Sleep." I and others have come to appreciate that OSA is a vastly underrated problem not only in adults but children as well. The American Academy of Pediatrics now agrees with this.

Hope the above helps to quell your speculations. I know you were dying to do that for a few days now.

*PS: I have authored/co-authored 13 mainstream medical books and 10 books on herpetological subjects. Forty years of work. This information is all readily available on the web.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Wrong on all counts. My undergrad and graduate work was in zoology, specifically herpetology. My CV is not up for grabs and is not posted anywhere, nor are the folks I consult for. I dont know anything about Larsen's specifics

Well, it's nice to know that you have taken me off ignore... :)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
nor Ed's, Pyrrhos or yours for that matter so don't expect to get any details from me. I am responding with more than I should be.

Yeah, you got that right....posting as a "doctor", even of "sorts", is not good for your credibility, Steve. It's probably not even legal....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I also have national boards and a NYSED license as a respiratory care practitioner and worked in critical care most of life. My interests in herpetology extends mostly in matters concerning venom, venom properties, snake bite and its treatment, snake venom toxinology to be precise so there is a link. Ten years ago I became interested in venom neurotoxins and electroneurodiagnostic procedures (while researching a book) and its use in sleep and other types of testing. I recently got my national boards in this. Been there ever since ...and will retire there in a few years. When people asked me where I was going I told them "I was going to Sleep." I and others have come to appreciate that OSA is a vastly underrated problem not only in adults but children as well. The American Academy of Pediatrics now agrees with this.

Hope the above helps to quell your speculations.

Not really. Why are you a "doctor of sorts"? Are you qualified as a doctor of any "sort", Steve?

[SteveGrenard]

Tell you what. You post your C.V. here and Names, places, dates. Nothing left out.

Ill post mine.

I am responding to unsupported speculation by you and hence my temporary retreat from keeping you on ignore.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Tell you what. You post your C.V. here and Names, places, dates. Nothing left out.

Ill post mine.

You first. After all, the question is about your credentials, not mine, not anyone elses.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am responding to unsupported speculation by you and hence my temporary retreat from keeping you on ignore.

Unsupported? Steve, you made the claim, so if there is anything "unsupported", it comes from your own posts.

In what way are you qualified as a doctor?

[SteveGrenard]

I will give you until Monday at 12 Noon EST to post your CV, in exchange for which I will post mine.

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

Tell you what. You post your C.V. here and Names, places, dates. Nothing left out.
Steve,

You really are an incurable optimist, aren't you? lol.

I think if Claus is too...um...worried...um to even disclose his correct birthday here (rofl), the chances of him giving you any of the above are, well, absolutely zero ! :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will give you until Monday at 12 Noon EST to post your CV, in exchange for which I will post mine.

You don't make the rules here, Steve. The issue is not my credentials, but yours.

You claimed to be a "doctor of sorts". You offered to present your CV.

Now, do it. Let's see what "sort" of "doctor" you are.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Steve,

You really are an incurable optimist, aren't you? lol.

I think if Claus is too...um...worried...um to even disclose his correct birthday here (rofl), the chances of him giving you any of the above are, well, absolutely zero ! :)

Nice to see you are following me around, Clancie. Nice to see you are blind to the real issue here: Steve misrepresenting himself in a major way.

[Rolfe]

Never mind CVs. I just want to know what "sort" of a doctor Steve is, by academic qualification. Doctorate (subject would be nice to know, but not essential), if so is it real, honorary or diploma-mill; or qualified medic, dentist or vet. That's the only categories there are.

I could easily say in which categories my qualifications come, without giving away either who I am, or the titles of the scientific papers and books I have had published.

Rolfe.

[CFLarsen]

Rolfe,

Correct. Let's cut to the bone of the issue:

Does Steve Grenard hold a doctorate?
If so, does that doctorate come from a diploma mill?
Or is that doctorate honorary?
Is Steve Grenard a qualified medic?
Is Steve Grenard a qualified dentist?
Is Steve Grenard a qualified vet?

[Clancie]

Steve,

I don't know what you meant by a "sort" of doctor (nor do I know if you're claiming expertise related to this discussion based on that which would be a different issue), but apart from that--I admit that I'm very impressed by all the books you've had published (see Amazon, see b&n).

Getting books published is da*ned difficult, as we all know, and you have a bunch of them (and Howell House is a decent publisher, too, now part of John Wiley & Sons).

(And I'm not a big fan of reptiles, personally, but skimming the summaries of your books almost made me want to go get a Bearded Dragon of my own, lol!)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Clancie
Getting books published is da*ned difficult,
No it isn't!

But that's not what this is about. Respect where respect's due, and Steve's herpetology may well be worthy of respect.

This, however, is about the justification for his claim to be a "sort" of doctor, a completely different question, and a very specific one.

Rolfe.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Whether Steve has published books on reptiles is completely beside the point: Does Steve have a right to call himself a doctor or not?

I have rarely seen a more blatant appeal to authority here, and one that is completely irrelevant, too. You are mixing two issues.

I don't know why you do this. But I have a hunch...

[Jeff Corey]

It would me interesting to see what doctoral degrees people have on this forum.
Me, I got a DDT (Double Doctorate of Theology) from the Baby Jeebus Theological Seminary, PO box 666, Ender's Gap, WV.
It was hard work, copying all the test answers out of the Good Book and sending them in to be graded.
It was the hardest 90 minutes of academic effort I ever spent. But it was well worth the $999 + shipping and handling,

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
But it was well worth the $999 + shipping and handling,

You sure it wasn't $666? :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
It would me interesting to see what doctoral degrees people have on this forum.
Me, I got a DDT (Double Doctorate of Theology) from the Baby Jeebus Theological Seminary, PO box 666, Ender's Gap, WV.
It was hard work, copying all the test answers out of the Good Book and sending them in to be graded.
It was the hardest 90 minutes of academic effort I ever spent. But it was well worth the $999 + shipping and handling,

Jeff,

I thought you were a smart guy. I got my DD and Ordination from United Christianship Ministeries in '88 for $5.00, American. Present from my wife:D

[SteveGrenard]

Clancie: I don't know what you meant by a "sort" of doctor (nor do I know if you're claiming expertise related to this discussion based on that which would be a different issue), but apart from that--I admit that I'm very impressed by all the books you've had published (see Amazon, see b&n).

I have a doctorate but in zoology and specifically herpetology. It is an earned degree. I have never ever claimed my academic background, which goes back over 40 years now, has anything whatsoever to do with parapsychology. I, in fact, said it was a hobby! Just as I suspect it is for you and a lot of others here. Because I work in a medical environment I am very careful not to use my credential as I specifically do not wish to mislead people into thinking I am an M.D., I am not. and it would be illegal for me to do so as I am not licensed as such. However I work closely with M.Ds., have a therapist license from the state of NY and from the Florida Board of Medical Examiners (inactive/non-resident) and even teach new interns and residents.

re books. There are a lot of OP titles as well and a lot of articles and jounal papers. Chapters in Medical and Veterinary textbooks also. If Larsen publishes his CV here by Monday at noon EST , I will do the same, complete with a list of professional publications.

Australian Beardies are great. They are the Lizard of Oz! I had one for ten years. They are amazing lizards. They
have this endearing habit if you go past their enclosure of lifting a front limb and
hand (claws) and waving at you in circular motion.

[Clancie]

Steve,

Someone with a Ph.D in zoology is definitely entitled to use the term "Doctor" if he chooses (although I agree it might be counterproductive to make restaurant reservations that way, just in case someone has a medical emergency). If only all disputes here could be so easily resolved! :)

[SteveGrenard]

Its not a phD, its a DSc (zoology) MSc in Microbiology (parasitology). But more importantly, I have also been characterized as a pencil pushing administrator by Larsen which is a complete and utter lie. I do do a fair amount of writing but its with a pen and its in a patient progress notes as a part of the medical record. As I indicated above, I am licensed as a Respiratory Therapist in the State of New York and in Florida and have reciprocity in other states as well. A RT Technician does not need a college degree, a therapist does.

Just to let readers here know what this category of medical worker does, I have excerpted the first few paragraphs of the NYS Resp Care Act, as much for Larsen's benefit as well as anyone who believes what he says:

S 8500. Introduction. This article applies to the practice of
respiratory therapy and provides for the licensing of respiratory
therapists and respiratory therapy technicians. The general provisions
for all professions contained in article one hundred thirty of this
title shall apply to this article.

S 8501. Definition of the practice of respiratory therapy. The
practice of the profession of respiratory therapy, which shall be
undertaken pursuant to the direction of a duly licensed physician, is
defined as the performance of cardiopulmonary evaluation, respiratory
therapy treatment techniques, and education of the patient, family and
public.
Evaluation shall include the acquisition, analysis and interpretation
of data obtained from physiological specimens, performing diagnostic
tests, studies and research of the cardiopulmonary system and
neurophysiological studies related to respiratory care.
Therapy shall include the application and monitoring of medical gases
(excluding anesthetic gases) and environmental control systems,
mechanical ventilatory support, artificial airway care, bronchopulmonary
hygiene, pharmacologic agents related to respiratory care procedures,
and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation related and limited to respiratory
care.

S 8502. Practice of respiratory therapy and use of the title
"respiratory therapist". 1. Only a person licensed or exempt under this
article shall practice respiratory therapy or use the title "respiratory
therapist".
2. A licensed respiratory therapist may supervise respiratory therapy
technicians in the practice of their profession in such capacities as
are prescribed by law and as from time to time may be set by the
commissioner.
-------------------------------------------------

So a respiratory therapist performs many delicate and critical procedures. Although not mentioned specifically above, this includes inserting as well as removing endotracheal tubes and tracheostomy tubes as well as puncturing arteries to obtain arterial blood and performing blood gas analysis on such specimens. RTs are
allowed to give drugs related to the respiratory system such as bronchodilators (epinephrine, beta agonists). If it can be given as a nebulized spray an RT is licensed to give it. They set-up and manage critical equipment such as ventilators and make changes in response to blood gas values. They also set up, manage and administer medical gases: oxygen at requsitie concentrations including techniques to dilute down 100% O2,
helium/oxygen and carbon dioxide/oxygen. They do pulmonary function tests and administer other specialized gases including in very low concs, carbon monoxide to determine diffusing capacity; and they perform neuophysiological testsing which is what I have been up to for nearly the past decade: this includes EEG, EMG (legs and chin) nasal airflow/pressures, pulse oximetry, capnography in order to diagnose central, obstructive or mixed apnea and other types of sleep disordered breathing. After making the diagnosis, in response to established protocols, they titrate continuous nasal positive airway pressure (CPAP) to alleviate the problem and prevent people from ceasing to breathe when they go to sleep, some for the last time.

[The Mighty Thor]

I don't know what it is like in the States, but in the UK most of the Ph.D.s that I have come across tend to play down the 'Dr' title except in a formal academic environment. I am an undergraduate, and when I write to my Tutor, I address her as 'Dr.' But on the phone or face-to-face she likes to be called by her first name.

Outwith this environment, I think there is a tendency to leave the title for M.D.s because, to the general public, 'Dr' tends to be thought of as M.D.s, or holders of similar medical degrees.

Then consultants, I think, (is it surgeons?) get 'promoted' to 'Mr.' Very weird.

Although there is a long history of M.D.s going off the rails -- from Dr. Crippen(?) to Dr. Harold Shipman -- the title still seems to engender trust, confidence, and respect from the public. However, as in all other areas, there is a growing trend of disrespect toward authority figures. I'm not sure if this is a good thing, but there have been so many scandals involving high-profile professions, I can understand it.

I have a Ph.D. friend who admits he sometimes uses the 'Dr' title when booking posh restaurants, hotels, or flights -- he says there's a better chance of getting 'upgraded' if there is space in First Class.

But imagine his fear of that intercom call: 'Is there a doctor aboard this plane?'

'Erm, yes. Does someone want to discuss David Hume's Enquiries back there?' (ouch)

Of course, there will be unscupulous individuals who use their qualifications to try to elicit respect in all sorts of areas of their lives absolutely unrelated to their speciality. Even worse, there are outright frauds.

Wasn't there a case in the UK not so long ago of a guy who pretended to be a medical doctor at a large hospital and managed to fool people for weeks, even doing some stitches in A&E. That was where a nurse noticed that he was 'slow' and began to suspect him.

There was certainly a film about this staring one of the McGann bros.

I'd be a hopeless conman. I imagine that pro's will have their own 'language' and attitudes that would take a good actor to effect. A medic will tend to say that a patient first 'presented', for example. Civil Servants have their own patter, and Post Office and Railway staff shared another meaning for 'F.O.B.' rather than the supposed 'Free on Board.' The second word is 'old', if that helps, and the other two are banned, methinks :)

As an ex Civil Servant, I used to get on well with VAT or Tax Inspectors who audited my business because I knew about the Codes and the general 'lingo'.
Don't suppose they ever did me any favours, mind you :(

And then there are the Masons, ha ha! (No offense to any fellow Brethren in this Worshipful Lod . . . OOPS, I mean forum. :)

What was the idea (was it a joke?) for some who used -- B.A. Ox. (failed) or similar? Is that just a tall tale?

One thing I do hate is the attitude 'How dare you question me? Don't you know I'm a PROFESSIONAL?' That stinks!

Any grammarians here: Does a rhetorical question get a question mark at the end? Seriously?

malc (Dip.Eur.Hum, Open) :) :) :)

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

Its not a phD, its a DSc (zoology)....But more importantly, I have also been characterized as a pencil pushing administrator by Larsen which is a complete and utter lie
Thanks for the correction. :)

However, for the point Rolfe was asking about, I think your doctorate is far more important than whatever your daily job entails. You've earned a doctorate, and that entitles you to the title of "Doctor" by custom in the US, if you choose to use it.

Apparently you don't, to avoid confusion with an MD, which is why you said "sort of a doctor" in answer to his question. Nevertheless, I think the important point is that you were not lying and have the requisite degree and title, if you chose to use it. (In other words...not a lying...not dissembling...not puffing your reputation up falsely...or all the many negative character traits that you are so often accused of by Claus).

[SteveGrenard]

The title of Mister for surgeons in the Britain, like everything else in the U.K, is rooted in historical tradition. Surgeons originally were not doctors but barbers. Hence they were called Mister as opposed to Doctor and still are. Surgery was considered an art and not a science and to some extent this remains true. The Royal College of Surgeons thus continues to adopt this distinction even to the present day. Not only human surgeons but veterinary surgeons and dental surgeons are also called Mister.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Its not a phD, its a DSc (zoology) MSc in Microbiology (parasitology). But more importantly, I have also been characterized as a pencil pushing administrator by Larsen which is a complete and utter lie. I do do a fair amount of writing but its with a pen and its in a patient progress notes as a part of the medical record. As I indicated above, I am licensed as a Respiratory Therapist in the State of New York and in Florida and have reciprocity in other states as well. A RT Technician does not need a college degree, a therapist does.

Just to let readers here know what this category of medical worker does, I have excerpted the first few paragraphs of the NYS Resp Care Act, as much for Larsen's benefit as well as anyone who believes what he says:

S 8500. Introduction. This article applies to the practice of
respiratory therapy and provides for the licensing of respiratory
therapists and respiratory therapy technicians. The general provisions
for all professions contained in article one hundred thirty of this
title shall apply to this article.

S 8501. Definition of the practice of respiratory therapy. The
practice of the profession of respiratory therapy, which shall be
undertaken pursuant to the direction of a duly licensed physician, is
defined as the performance of cardiopulmonary evaluation, respiratory
therapy treatment techniques, and education of the patient, family and
public.
Evaluation shall include the acquisition, analysis and interpretation
of data obtained from physiological specimens, performing diagnostic
tests, studies and research of the cardiopulmonary system and
neurophysiological studies related to respiratory care.
Therapy shall include the application and monitoring of medical gases
(excluding anesthetic gases) and environmental control systems,
mechanical ventilatory support, artificial airway care, bronchopulmonary
hygiene, pharmacologic agents related to respiratory care procedures,
and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation related and limited to respiratory
care.

S 8502. Practice of respiratory therapy and use of the title
"respiratory therapist". 1. Only a person licensed or exempt under this
article shall practice respiratory therapy or use the title "respiratory
therapist".
2. A licensed respiratory therapist may supervise respiratory therapy
technicians in the practice of their profession in such capacities as
are prescribed by law and as from time to time may be set by the
commissioner.
-------------------------------------------------

So a respiratory therapist performs many delicate and critical procedures. Although not mentioned specifically above, this includes inserting as well as removing endotracheal tubes and tracheostomy tubes as well as puncturing arteries to obtain arterial blood and performing blood gas analysis on such specimens. RTs are
allowed to give drugs related to the respiratory system such as bronchodilators (epinephrine, beta agonists). If it can be given as a nebulized spray an RT is licensed to give it. They set-up and manage critical equipment such as ventilators and make changes in response to blood gas values.



. . . research of the cardiopulmonary system and
neurophysiological studies related to respiratory care.
Therapy shall include the application and monitoring of medical gases
(excluding anesthetic gases) and environmental control systems,
mechanical ventilatory support, artificial airway care, bronchopulmonary
hygiene, pharmacologic agents related to respiratory care procedures,
and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation related and limited to respiratory
care. Finally, the Faculty asks that such practitioners shall refrain from waving their hands over patients to adjust their aura. This, we believe, would bring the profession into disrepute. :)

ONLY KIDDING, STEVE :)

malc

[SteveGrenard]

Clancie: (although I agree it might be counterproductive to make restaurant reservations that way, just in case someone has a medical emergency). If only all disputes here could be so easily resolved!

One of my advisors, Dr. James A. Oliver, former Curator of Reptiles at the Bronx Zoo and eventually Director of the park told us that he always used his title when he was checking into hotels until one night came a knocking on his door asking for help to deliver a baby down the hall.
He immediately put a stop to using his title after that. This story has always stuck with me.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The title of Mister for surgeons in the Britain, like everything else in the U.K, is rooted in historical tradition. Surgeons originally were not doctors but barbers. Hence they were called Mister as opposed to Doctor and still are. Surgery was considered an art and not a science and to some extent this remains true. The Royal College of Surgeons thus continues to adopt this distinction even to the present day. Not only human surgeons but veterinary surgeons and dental surgeons are also called Mister.

Thanks for the info. Very interesting. I knew about the barber/surgeon bit, with the red and white pole thingy, but didn't know that's how the 'Mr' came about. I still get the willies seeing those old surgeon's tools. (And I know that some have remained pretty much of the same design going back to Roman times, which says something about the genius of the classical age). And that Frontispiece of Vesalius' De humani corporis was it? With the dissection?

One of the gripes I have with religion is how the Judeo-Christian-Moslem trinity held back medical progress with the anathema on dissection. But that's a whole nuther story . . .:)

Ta!
[edited to say 'some' surgeons' tools]
malc

[SteveGrenard]

Here are a few snippets from the RCS website at: www.rcseng.ac.uk/

<deleted introductory material>

The origins of the College lie in the union of the surgeons and barbers by Henry VIII in 1540 to form the Company of Barber-Surgeons. They maintained a somewhat uneasy partnership in the 16th and 17th centuries when the degree of surgical intervention was limited. The 18th century, however, saw the rise of private anatomy schools and the development of an academic basis for surgical practice through the teaching and publications of the leading European surgeons. As a consequence, the numbers and importance of surgeons increased, along with a firm desire for independent professional recognition.

In 1745, the surgeons broke away from the barbers to form a separate Company of Surgeons with its own hall close to the Old Bailey and Newgate Prison. In 1797, the surgeons moved away from the City to property purchased in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. This coincided with the government placing into the care of the College the writings and specimen collection of John Hunter (1728-1793), a surgeon regarded as one of the most distinguished scientists of his day.

In 1800, the Company of Surgeons was granted a Royal Charter to become The Royal College of Surgeons in London, later of England. A new College building was built to provide lecture theatres, meeting rooms and accommodation for the Hunterian Collection. Although the buildings have been replaced, the College occupies the same site today.

<snipped>

You can find a copy of Vesalius' frontispiece at:

http://lane.stanford.edu/about/specialcollections/vesaliustpfull.html

Yes, it is a very public human dissection. It shows Vesalius himself, bearded to the right of the corpse, dissecting the hand.
While Vesalius’s teaching efforts were focused towards the medical students the presence of other men in this scene should not be ignored. These men were representatives of the nobility, church, city and university.

Dissections for large groups of people marked the beginning of the public’s curiosity about the human body. An increased awareness of human anatomy was beneficial for both the doctor and the patient. Now that patients were gaining knowledge about their bodies, they could aid their doctors in diagnosing themselves. Vesalius showed the importance of medical students working alongside their patients to help treat disease according to Cunningham.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Clancie: I don't know what you meant by a "sort" of doctor (nor do I know if you're claiming expertise related to this discussion based on that which would be a different issue), but apart from that--I admit that I'm very impressed by all the books you've had published (see Amazon, see b&n).

I have a doctorate but in zoology and specifically herpetology. It is an earned degree. I have never ever claimed my academic background, which goes back over 40 years now, has anything whatsoever to do with parapsychology. I, in fact, said it was a hobby! Just as I suspect it is for you and a lot of others here. Because I work in a medical environment I am very careful not to use my credential as I specifically do not wish to mislead people into thinking I am an M.D., I am not. and it would be illegal for me to do so as I am not licensed as such. However I work closely with M.Ds., have a therapist license from the state of NY and from the Florida Board of Medical Examiners (inactive/non-resident) and even teach new interns and residents.

re books. There are a lot of OP titles as well and a lot of articles and jounal papers. Chapters in Medical and Veterinary textbooks also. If Larsen publishes his CV here by Monday at noon EST , I will do the same, complete with a list of professional publications.

Australian Beardies are great. They are the Lizard of Oz! I had one for ten years. They are amazing lizards. They
have this endearing habit if you go past their enclosure of lifting a front limb and
hand (claws) and waving at you in circular motion.


Steve,

I have found some articles you have written on herpetology or where people mention you and checked how you sign or how they refer to you:

Herp and Green Iguana Information Collection
Rattlesnake Roundups (http://www.anapsid.org/grenard.html)

Steve Grenard
Herpmed.com
Author, Medical Herpetology
Listowner, VENOM-L


Herper.com
A Review of Electric Shock Treatment for Snakebites (http://www.herper.com/venom/electro.html)

Steve Grenard, moderator for the Venom-L listserver

This article Snakebite! (http://www.progressivefarmer.com/farmer/magazine/article/0,14730,489973,00.html) even mentions your daytime job at the hospital:

"And carry a cell phone, says dual-career herpetologist and critical-care specialist Steve Grenard."

Snakes Don't Kill Too Many People These Days, But They're Still A Hassle Worth Avoiding. (http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/07-30-98/outthere.htm)
Most of the information below comes from a fabulous website (www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed) administered by Steve Grenard, a respiratory therapist on the critical care staff of Staten Island University. Grenard has combined his medical and herpetology backgrounds to become one of the country's leading experts on poisonous snake bites, and their medical treatment.

Not even your article on the American Museum of Natural History website carries any mention of your doctorate in herpetology:

Is Rattlesnake Venom Evolving? (http://www.amnh.org/naturalhistory/features/0700_feature.html)

Not a single mention of your doctorate in herpetology. :confused:




On the various herpetology boards where you write:

People Helping One Another Know Stuff (http://www.phoaks.com/phoaks2/newsgroups/sci/bio/herp/resources0.html)
Yahoo (groups.yahoo.com/group/)

Not a single mention of your doctorate in herpetology. :confused:





On your own site: http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/

Not a single mention of your doctorate in herpetology. :confused:




I have also checked the books you have written (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Grenard%2C%20Steve/104-2981234-0799961):


The Bearded Dragon : An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet
Frogs and Toads : An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet
Handbook of Alligators and Crocodiles
Amphibians: Their Care and Keeping
Medical Herpetology
Lizards: An Owner's Guide to a Happy, Healthy Pet (Owner's Guide to a Happy, Healthy Pet)
The Essential Turtle

Not a single mention of your doctorate in herpetology. :confused:




What is interesting is that on your xmission-site, you sometimes use your work email, even though you make a point out of separating your health care profession and your reptilian profession.

What is downright hilarious is that on some of your books, there is a "Copyrighted material" line - hilarious, because you have a very lax attitude about copyright yourself.



An interesting paragraph from the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (http://www.ssarherps.org/pages/career.html):
The specific training required for a career in herpetology varies according to one's goals. In virtually all cases a bachelor of arts or a bachelor of science degree with a major in biology is required. Courses in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry and biochemistry, calculus, physics and/or earth science should be taken. Statistics is now a necessary tool in biological studies and courses in this area are essential. A great deal of herpetological research is conducted in other countries and facility in one or more foreign languages allows one to follow such activities in other nations. As in other branches of science, computer literacy is indispensable and students should enroll in courses that provide training in computer use.


You have no idea about the most basic concepts of science, be it chemistry (the atomic model) or otherwise.
You have a rudimentary grasp of statistics.
You think that data stored on an optical disc cannot be extracted.

It doesn't look as if you fulfill the most basic requirements to become a herpetologist.

You can call yourself a "herpetologist" if you have a master's degree or a doctorate. Now, I find it very odd that e.g. National Geographic herpetologist Brady Barr has a "Dr." in front of him. He got his doctorate in 1997.

But not you.

Not once do you sign with "Dr.", Steve. Not once, in the very field you claim to have your doctorate. Nobody mentions it, not even once.

After 40 years in the field of herpetology, with many books and articles behind you? Not once?

Why not?

[Rolfe]

If Steve has a DSc, then he is entitled to use the term "Dr." if he chooses. He has also given a perfectly reasonable explanation of why he may choose not to.

I for one propose to believe him unless I'm shown incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, just as I'd hope people here would believe me if I were to list the degrees I have.

I just don't quite see why he couldn't have given this sensible explanation a bit earlier in the discussion.

Rolfe.

[CFLarsen]

rolfe,

Here is what Steve has said about his doctorate and why he doesn't use his title.

I am a doctor of sorts but not for humans...
...
I dont know how psironic it is but my academic background has nothing to do with paranormality or supernatural phenomena. It is a hobby!
...
My undergrad and graduate work was in zoology, specifically herpetology.
...
My interests in herpetology extends mostly in matters concerning venom, venom properties, snake bite and its treatment, snake venom toxinology to be precise so there is a link. Ten years ago I became interested in venom neurotoxins and electroneurodiagnostic procedures (while researching a book*) and its use in sleep and other types of testing. I recently got my national boards in this.
...
I have a doctorate but in zoology and specifically herpetology. It is an earned degree. I have never ever claimed my academic background, which goes back over 40 years now, has anything whatsoever to do with parapsychology. I, in fact, said it was a hobby!
...
Because I work in a medical environment I am very careful not to use my credential as I specifically do not wish to mislead people into thinking I am an M.D., I am not. and it would be illegal for me to do so as I am not licensed as such.
...
Its not a phD, its a DSc (zoology) MSc in Microbiology (parasitology).
...
One of my advisors, Dr. James A. Oliver, former Curator of Reptiles at the Bronx Zoo and eventually Director of the park told us that he always used his title when he was checking into hotels until one night came a knocking on his door asking for help to deliver a baby down the hall.
He immediately put a stop to using his title after that. This story has always stuck with me.

He specifically mentions the hospital where he is working as a reason not to use the doctoral title - which is fine.

But I cannot understand why he doesn't use the "Doctor" title when he writes books and articles (even for the American Museum of Natural History, for chrissakes!).

Here, it would be most appropriate, even required. Ever heard of a doctor who didn't use it in his written work?

Steve does not.

Occam's Razor.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Occam's Razor.

...says that the most likely explanation is that you have acute obsessive compulsive disorder.

Psi exists. Deal with it and get well.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...says that the most likely explanation is that you have acute obsessive compulsive disorder.

No, it does not. However, I am not at all surprised to see you misrepresent facts.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Psi exists. Deal with it and get well.

So glad you made this claim again.

Looking for psi.

WHAT are you actually looking for?
How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena?
HOW would you construct a set of coherent experiments that would show the existance/nonexistance of this?
WHO would you accept to perform these tests? What lab, group or organization?
It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a lab that could do these tests unbiased: That's how double-blind tests work. The ones who actually performs the experiment doesn't know what we are looking for.
WHY would a negative result not convince you?
Even PEAR and SRI come up with negative results sometimes, yet you don't weigh these as important as the positive ones.
Are the few experiments you constantly point to as proof of psi done from a positive theory or a negative theory?
Can you actually form a positive theory and construct an experiment that would prove the existence of psi, instead of relying on negative theories ("We found something, we don't know what it is, it can't be anything we know of today, so it must be psi!")?


Psi, general

Why is it so important to you to prove to this board that psi has been found?
Why can't you explain - in layman's terms - the abstract from Helmut Schmidt's "PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State" you posted? Is that too complicated for you or do you simply refuse?
Answer: Refused.
What does the hypothesis for "psi" state?
Which parapsychologists use this hypothesis in their work?
Is it the accepted all-round hypothesis for "psi", or are there others?
Could you, in your own words, describe what "psi" is? How to test for it, what protocols to use?
Do you consider paranormal research a victim of the suppression of mainstream science?
If yes, how do you reconcile this with the prominent exposure of paranormal issues in media, like spiritual shows, communicating-with-the-dead programs, paranormal stories, shows, etc.?

If no, why don't we see more mainstream science take paranormal issues seriously?
Why is it not a problem for you that we still don't see evidence of paranormal phenomena, if you claim the evidence exist, yet cannot show it?


The rest of the questions can be found here: "Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
rolfe,

Here is what Steve has said about his doctorate and why he doesn't use his title.



He specifically mentions the hospital where he is working as a reason not to use the doctoral title - which is fine.

But I cannot understand why he doesn't use the "Doctor" title when he writes books and articles (even for the American Museum of Natural History, for chrissakes!).

Here, it would be most appropriate, even required. Ever heard of a doctor who didn't use it in his written work?

Steve does not.

Occam's Razor.
Oh, I take your point perfectly. I can see that there is reason for doubt. I simply proposed (personally) to give Steve the benefit of that doubt.

We're not going to get further on that point, and it's difficult to prove a negative in any case, so off you go after Luci, I'm in the peanut gallery....

Rolfe.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


...says that the most likely explanation is that you have acute obsessive compulsive disorder.

Psi exists. Deal with it and get well.

IT'S PSIRONIC

[SteveGrenard]

If CFL posts is CV by 12 Noon tomorrow on this board, I will do likewise.

I can point you to literally 1000s of papers and magazine articles and books by zoologists /herpetologists where their phDs, MScs and DScs do not appear after their name on such documents. This is a convention. If such people are talked about in biographs or perhaps in some other formats this is different. Again, these folks are dealing strictly with matters of taxonomy, behavior, ecology and so forth and do not interrelate to medicine.
I do.

I also deal with venomous snakebite management in a dual herpetological/medical role and work with physicians and the mil. who do likewise so I will NOT misrepresent myself in common conversation or written coms. as "Dr."

I will now place CFL back on ignore.

edited to add:
I have over 300 herpetology books and monographs on my shelf. Here's one:
Biology of Amphibians by William Duellman and Linda Trueb. Now I know both Duellman and Trueb and they both have doctorate degrees. But search as I can, I find no evidence of that in the title of their book or anywhere, in fact, within it. Herpetologists are not M.D.s, trying to sell self-help books with their degrees emboldened on the cover and perhaps this is the thinking used by Larsen in drawing his comparisons and arguments. I am looking at other titles as well and while I know all these people and they all have one kind of doctorate or another, not a single mention in the title of any book. In fact most of them do not have biographs either where this would properly be mentioned. So Larsen would have me question now the degrees and qualifications of all these authors based on his faulty or un-informed and often twisted logic. Bettrer yet visit the Center for North American Herpetology's statement page. It mentions Joe Collins as its Director. I know Joe and his academic background. None of it mentioned on this public site

www.cnah.org/statement.asp

The only place you will find such academic credentials will be on faculty profiles when such workers are, in fact, faculty members.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If CFL posts is CV by 12 Noon tomorrow on this board, I will do likewise.

Stve, the issue is not CVs, but whether you have a doctorate or not. That is your claim. You provide evidence.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I can point you to literally 1000s of papers and magazine articles and books by zoologists /herpetologists where their phDs, MScs and DScs do not appear after their name on such documents. This is a convention. If such people are talked about in biographs or perhaps in some other formats this is different. Again, these folks are dealing strictly with matters of taxonomy, behavior, ecology and so forth and do not interrelate to medicine. I do.

I also deal with venomous snakebite management in a dual herpetological/medical role and work with physicians and the mil. who do likewise so I will NOT misrepresent myself in common conversation or written coms. as "Dr."

Steve, I have also read my share of scientific documents, and I cannot recall one case where this has happened. I am not saying that it never happens. I am just questioning why you don't put "Dr." in front of your name, when you write about herpetology without any medical roleplaying.

How can you misrepresent yourself by calling yourself a "Dr."? If you have the right to use the title, why don't you? It is not misrepresentation. Unless you don't have a doctorate in the first place, of course...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I will now place CFL back on ignore.

Conveniently dropping out of the discussion without providing any evidence of any kind...yet again....

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...says that the most likely explanation is that you have acute obsessive compulsive disorder.

Psi exists. Deal with it and get well.
Where did you receive your certification in psychology?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh, I take your point perfectly. I can see that there is reason for doubt. I simply proposed (personally) to give Steve the benefit of that doubt.

Which is you and I part company. You see, Steve has a long history of deceit, so I don't trust anything he says. :)

Originally posted by Rolfe
We're not going to get further on that point, and it's difficult to prove a negative in any case, so off you go after Luci, I'm in the peanut gallery....

Of course we are going to get to the bottom of this. Steve pulls out, what do you think the reason is?

Luci, however, will ignore the questions again.